El periodismo por Tony Blair

Apenas cayeron las primeras bombas sobre Bagdad el 2003, los telespectadores estadounidenses –en realidad, un segmento importante- se concentraron en la señal de la BBC y no en la CNN. Esto a pesar que la primera estación era parte del Estado y la otra privada y supuestamente muy independiente. Años después, la torpe guerra de Bush y Blair, había afectado a ambas emisoras en su credibilidad, pero se sentía más fuerte en Londres. Para Tony Blair la prensa ha jugado un papel erróneo y sensacionalista. No sólo en su cobertura de la guerra, sino por la búsqueda permanente del "shock y la controversia". Esto fue parte de lo que dijo en su discurso en el Instituto para los Estudios del Periodismo de Reuters en Inglaterra, lugar en donde no tuvo pudor en llamar “fieras salvajes” a los periodistas, además de dejar sentada su principal preocupación: “Creo que la relación entre la vida pública y los medios está ahora dañada de una manera que requiere ser reparada”. Blair, como muchos mandatarios –incluido el ex Presidente Lagos- bailó al ritmo de los medios. En un comienzo, cuando su popularidad enmudecía a los conservadores, se dejó encantar por la televisión y los diarios. Sin embargo, cuando los errores de la guerra comenzaron a herir a Inglaterra y los ciudadanos dejaron de pensar como su Primer Ministro, las cosas cambiaron. Fueron los medios los responsables, incluso los blogs, a quienes Blair les dedica parte de sus comentarios. De todas maneras, el texto es una interesante reseña del periodismo visto desde el poder saliente y, hay que reconocer, que muchas de sus críticas también pueden ser hechas desde la tribuna.

Por Tony Blair
http://www.10downingstreet.gov.uk/output/Page11923.asp
Michael, thank you very much indeed. It is a very great pleasure to be back at Reuters and let me thank Reuters and the Reuters Institute for giving me the opportunity to say these words to you today. I liked that bit about the experience I have had over 10 years of managing the media - for better or for worse. I think it began as one, it slightly ended as the other, but nonetheless it is very good to come along and share these reflections with you today.
And the purpose of the series of speeches that I have given over the past year has been deliberately reflective, to get beyond the immediate headlines or issues of the day and contemplate in a broader perspective the effect of a changing world on the issues of the future. And this speech, which is on the challenge of the changing nature of communication on politics and the media, is from the same reflective perspective.

I should say some preliminaries at the outset. This is not my response to the latest whacking from bits of the media, it is not a whinge about how unfair it all is. As I always say, it is an immense privilege to do this job and if the worst that happens is harsh media coverage, it is a small price to pay. And anyway, like it or not - and some do and some don't - I have won three elections and I am still standing as I leave office. So this speech is not a complaint, it is an argument.

Also as a result of being at the top of the greasy pole for 13 years, 10 of them as Prime Minister, my life and my work as Prime Minister and its interaction with the world of communication I think gives me pretty deep experience, again for better or worse.
Let me also say categorically that a free media is a vital part of a free society. You only need to look at where such a free media is absent to know this truth.

But it is also part of freedom to be able to comment on the media. It has a complete right to be free, and I like anyone else have a complete right to speak. My principal reflection however is not about blaming anyone, it is that the relationship between politics, public life and the media is changing as a result of the changing context of communication in which we all operate. No-one is at fault. This change is a fact, but it is my view that the effect of this change is seriously adverse to the way public life is conducted and that we need at the least a proper and considered debate about how we manage the future in which it is in all our interests that the public is properly and accurately informed. They, after all, are the priority and they are not well served by the current state of affairs.In the analysis I am about to make I first acknowledge my own complicity. [Party political content].

It is also, incidentally, hard for the public to know the facts, even when they are subject to the most minute scrutiny if those facts arise out of issues of profound controversy, as the Hutton Inquiry showed. I would only point out that the Hutton Inquiry, along with 3 other inquiries, was a 6 month investigation in which I as Prime Minister and other senior Ministers and officials faced unprecedented public questioning and scrutiny. The verdict was disparaged because it wasn't the one the critics wanted, but it was an example of being held to account, not avoiding it. Anyway, leave that to one side.