Steve Richards: There's trouble when the spin doctor becomes part of the story
Coulson is the latest figure to be part of the mad interface between press and politics
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
It was only a matter of time before Andy Coulson became a news story. Coulson is David Cameron's Director of Communications or chief spin doctor. In Britain spin doctors tend to generate an irrationally intense interest, at least in the media.
The fascination is disproportionate. They are not as powerful as they seem. The elected politicians whom they serve can choose to get rid of them if they wish or ignore their advice. The journalists have the last word in an article or a broadcast and quite often those words are far removed from those that the spin doctor had hoped to read.
More precisely Coulson can offer advice, but it is up to Cameron whether or not to take it. This is why a lot of the obsession with "spin" and spin doctors has been way over the top for years. The BBC in particular became obsessed with Alastair Campbell in a way that bordered on the deranged, long before the row over the death of David Kelly.
But Campbell's authority was dependent on his relationship with an elected politician, Tony Blair. The degree to which Blair needed Campbell, or felt he needed him, is important. But Campbell did not act as a mighty freelance operator. Similarly Cameron, the elected leader, can decide hour by hour, day by day, to follow Coulson's view on what the message should be.
That is my view, but I am in a minority of about three people. Given the mythology associated with the mighty spin doctors the allegations of phone hacking at the News of the World, where Coulson was an editor, become a significant political story, and a dangerous one for Cameron.
Coulson is the latest figure to form part of that highly charged and slightly mad interface between politics and the media. To his credit Coulson has managed to operate behind the scenes without attracting much attention until now. He did not seem to want personal publicity. This has changed whether he wants publicity or not. He has been the central part of a lead story and will never be quite so discreetly anonymous in the future. At the very least he is in danger of becoming interesting.
Coulson's success at remaining uninteresting can be measured by this equivalent stage in the mid-1990s when the media had become gripped by Labour's "spin" operation and in Campbell in particular. During Labour's conference in 1996 an entire, tedious Panorama focused on Labour and spin, a few months before the general election.
Throughout the pre-election period more words were written about Campbell than any member of the Shadow Cabinet apart from Gordon Brown. On the whole Campbell fumed against what he regarded, rightly, as a disproportionate focus on his activities. But I suspect in the early years at least those involved in presenting new Labour's case were flattered at the suggestion they were mesmerising titans.
Coulson has a much easier task than Campbell because most newspapers are on the right and the BBC is terrified of appearing anti-Tory. Even so he has managed to combine an effective media operation without everyone talking about its effectiveness. When the media focuses on the presentation it defeats the purpose of the projection. The message gets lost in the fascination with the messenger. Once the media had hailed new Labour for its presentational skills it ceased to be any good at presentation.
In contrast the Tories have managed successfully to convey a modernising progressive tone while feeding some newspapers with more traditional stories about crime and immigration. How have they pulled it off? On the whole their media operation is much calmer and less fraught compared with New Labour's but there will be greater interest from now on in what Coulson does.
Another danger for Cameron is that some members of the Shadow Cabinet loathe Coulson. Here there are precise echoes with some of the internal jealousies in the early New Labour years, although on the whole Labour frontbenchers liked and admired Campbell even if they felt excluded from the media. Several members of Cameron's front bench team feel no such affection towards Coulson. They resent the way they are kept out of appearing on media outlets and being told what to say.
A few of them have been looking at ways of piling the pressure on Cameron to dump him. Now a way has arrived without them lifting a finger. I detect an assertive restlessness in some current Shadow Cabinet members that was never apparent under Blair when nearly all of them were pathetically grateful to be close to power. I spoke to two Shadow Cabinet members yesterday who told me, with a hint of relish, that they thought Cameron would need a replacement by the end of the summer.
I suspect also that some Conservative MPs who feel they were dealt with unfairly over the expenses saga will be watching what happens with interest. Cameron dismissed their pleas that they acted within the rules, insisting that was not good enough. Some feel that the Tory leader acted to protect his close political friends but targeted others. This is a view that will probably be reinforced as he stresses without any qualification his support for Coulson, who might or might not have acted within the rules but is now linked, as they were, to a damaging story.
The fact that Cameron offers his unqualified support suggests that he is wholly confident that no evidence will surface which will condemn Coulson. This is the big difference with the Damian McBride affair. McBride was foolish enough to write an email (we still do not know how others got hold of it, but he was stupid to write it). In McBride's case there was no get-out clause: The proof was in front of everyone's eyes. In the case of Coulson we have no direct evidence of guilt. If that remains the case he will survive, especially in the light of Cameron's endorsement.
But he will do so in a new context in which he is part of a running news story, now that the police and parliamentary committees have announced new investigations. Coulson's appearance in front of one of these committees will be a box office event. This is also a story in which a thousand different agendas spring in to life. It is a media story.
Murdoch haters sense their moment might have come. Alleged victims of the hacking feel vindicated for their wider loathing of the media. They will not keep quiet. Home affairs correspondents will be following the police side of the story. In the end there might not be very much to get worked up about, but the end will be some time coming.
The past activities of a spin doctor should not overwhelm other issues. They will not impact on our lives under a Conservative government and these non-elected figures do not tell us very much about the character of elected leaders beyond their understandable desire to attract a favourable media.
The Conservatives' approach to spending and public services matter much more than the ways in which Coulson seeks to present their policies or what he did at the News of the World. Even so Cameron has a big problem as the following question highlights. Who does he turn to for advice about how to handle the media's sudden interest in his Director of Communications?
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
This is why the public is increasingly turned off politics. Our rulers live in a fantasy world, and expect us to believe in fairy tales. Then they wonder why we don't believe them.
Yor short comment is balanced and true, which is more than can be said of Mr Richards and his article. "Coulson has a much easier task than Campbell because most newspapers are on the right and the BBC is terrified of appearing anti-Tory." 'BBC is terrified of appearing anti-Tory' is just one statement that is NOT balanced and true. The citizens of the this country are sick of the very partisan news media and political dishonesty. Plus they see no reason for optimism that either will get better in the future.
I've just finished reading Vince Cable's book "The Storm". It's obvious the man is on top of his brief and has plenty of practical experience of business from his time as chief economist at Shell. He would be an asset to any government. We need more people with experience of real life in politics, but unfortunately the Labour and Tory party machines don't want them.
I would like to see proportional representation which would give a better chance to outsiders to break in to the system. Then we'd see improvements. But yet again, the party machines are blocking that at present, so it's going to take some time to effect change.
It does appear that Mr Yates has shot the Guardian's fox. How awfully unsporting of him. In the bad old days this non-story might reasonably have been expected to run and run, as, for example, did the Damian Green affair.
Move along please, there's nothing to see.
To watch Andrew Neill on the news programmes talking about Coulson and particularly inferring that he found it odd that the editor did not know what was going on came very close to calling Coulson a liar.
I was very surprised at Cameron's choice of Coulson at the time, but Steve Richards is right when he says that Coulson has kept his head down, and actually made a positive contribution to re-branding the Tories. Compare that to Alistair Campbell, who also suddenly popped up on news programmes yesterday. I will not go into all that was wrong with the way Campbell behaved - it is well documented by now. Then we had Prestcott wheeled out and on Newsnight with the clear message being that Coulson had a lot to answer for.
Let us be clear Labour is very very scared now of Cameron. Get Coulson and you get Osborne was the thoughts being mooted yesterday; then that will leave Cameron exposed. I don't think so. This whole story stinks, starting with the Guardian. I hope it backfires spectaculalarly.
But lets give him the benefits of the doubt for the moment. Gordon Brown is in charge of Damian McBribe. Why doesnt Precott call old bill on his friend Gordon then?
By meaningful, I don't mean 'I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth...' etc. That means nothing in today's world.
I mean them losing something dear to their hearts if they lie, obfuscate or omit salient details. That's what 'the whole truth' means, isn't it?
So, Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg, our fine new squeaky clean upstanding leaders: tell us that you will not see your children one more time until the day that you die if your parties are spying on citizens without due cause. And that you will state, in full, including all third-party middlemen, from Constituency Chairmen to hired guns, how your operations work if you use them.
Now there's a challenge for the newly pure political elites, isn't there.
If you wish to consider me a material witness in all this, then that would be your right, Mr Richards......
The outrage expressed by all seemed rather too artificial, far too many sub plots as Steve outlines above but what made me roll up was Yates of the Yard and his quite unequivocal statement about no new evidence and therefore that the investigation would not be re-opened, his brilliant aside about there being no evidence that Prescott's phone had been bugged put the cap on it.
The queue of people who thought they were possibly in line for big payouts from News Corporation must be very disappointed - tough luck. I suspect that whilst the media will try and milk it, I don't think it has legs as a story.
I hope for the sake of the Guardian that their other evidence is better than that about the ex deputy PM. Yates already alluded to the fact that the numbers of 'victims' involved was less than intimated by the paper.
Still, the story will take the media's attention off the rants of our deranged Dear Leader for a while, so we must be thankful for small mercies.
Thus Mr Richards asserts: 'Some members of the Shadow Cabinet loathe Coulson.' Who are they? Name names. Thus we have: 'Several members of the front bench' feel no affection for him. Names, please.
Thus we have: 'A few of them' urging him to dump Coulson. Who are they? Some clues? Some context - is this anything more than the usual back-chat?
Journalists' willingness to abandon normal standards of proof, and pass off gossip and lies as political information has been right at the heart of the way New Labour has traduced our institutions. For god's sake Mr Richards, get a grip, grow a spine, and source your reports properly, or don't write them.
Remember, whatever spin doctor's crimes: You are the enabler.
We are also told by Mr Richards not only is Coulson disliked but that Campbell was liked. "although on the whole Labour frontbenchers liked and admired Campbell even if they felt excluded from the media", well I did not think the show 'The thick of it' was based on a fictional character. But in the 5th dimension Mr Richards lives in I expect the reality of our world is reversed.
So don't kid youirself, Steve. The BBC is institutionally Labour and has been for such a long time one wonders if there's any hope whatsoever of impartiality. It is one reason I think the Licence Fee money they get should be drastically curbed, the other being they overpay their execs and some so-called Stars so much that it's obscene and they seem indifferent to improving the current dire lack of decent TV output. Apart from a few programmes on BBC2 and 4, BBC TV is a desert of rehashed old series that never seem able to quite die, interminable reality-type docus (which Ch.4 are much better at) and nbot a single decent sitcom for years except the interminably over-extended and seriously fading - but still watchable compared to the rest of their output - Last of the Summer Wine. They do stuff like Wimbledon well as a rule, that's about it.
I don't know about Coulson! Cameron shouldn't sack him without proper proof. It sounds like there isn't any. I think this is another mucky Labour ploy to try to do down Cameron. Kick up a huge fuss and go for a Cameron ally. The police say there's nothing to investigate. But it's easy for anxious stars and lawyers to have a field day on this.
So bombing the tube stations is not an act of terrorism to you? What do you suggest the media should call it, hug a bomb friends of triffid?
Steve what is the spin doctor I have no idea as my English is like French and to me the spin is the one who goes on the dentist chairs and seats there the whole day taking 15 calls from all directions. Please exeplain I thank you so much. Dentist goes with the wife of this man and spins the town. I need help. p or not to p.
Firozali A.Mulla.