Stirling Chinese 当前在线人数:   轉換為繁體中文


【首页】→ 【学习交流】→ 主题:双语阅读:为什么英国媒体对政治家的影响如此之大?
字体:    回复
summ(2012/5/3 22:22:48)  点击:14635  回复:0  
WHEN Britain’s biggest tabloid claimed credit for a Conservative general election victory with the front-page headline “It’s the Sun wot won it”, its proprietor, Rupert Murdoch, was not pleased. Giving evidence on April 25th to a public inquiry on press ethics, Mr Murdoch explained that he had administered “a terrible bollocking” to the Sun’s then editor, Kelvin MacKenzie. A “tasteless” claim, he said. “We don’t have that sort of power.”

英国销路最广的小开本报纸曾声称保守党在大选中的胜利是它的功劳。它在头版大标题中写道:“这是《太阳报》拿下的胜利。”但该报的所有者鲁珀特•默多克(Rupert Murdoch)并不欣赏这句话。他在4月25日有关媒体道德的公开听证会上作证时解释道,他曾“狠狠地臭骂”了当时的《太阳报》编辑凯尔文•麦肯锡(Kelvin MacKenzie)一顿。他说这种说法粗俗不堪;“我们没那种能量,”他说。

The inquiry—chaired by Lord Justice Leveson, a judge—this week shone a light on ties between the media and politician. The most dangerous revelations were e-mails apparently detailing contacts between News Corporation, Mr Murdoch’s company, and David Cameron’s government during the firm’s abortive bid to buy BSkyB, a satellite-television outfit. The relationship was sometimes friendly, sometimes tense, but always close—and rarely craven on the part of the media firm.

由上诉法院法官列维森勋爵(Lord Justice Leveson)主持的听证会本周曝光了一些媒体与政治家之间的关系。其中最具杀伤力的是披露了一批电邮;它们清楚地叙述了默多克的新闻集团(News Corporation)在收购卫星电视公司天空(后来收购失败)时与卡梅伦政府的接触情况。它们的关系时而友好时而紧张,但总是很密切;而且媒体公司方面很少有怯懦的时候。

Another milestone in the Sun’s political coverage does not seem to have earned a proprietorial rebuke. It happened in 1992, on the night that Britain was forced out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. The prime minister of the day, John Major, telephoned Mr MacKenzie to ask how the Sun would be covering the story. “Actually,” Mr MacKenzie replied, “I have a bucket of shit on my desk, prime minister, and I’m going to pour it all over you.” Asked if this tale was true during his own appearance at the Leveson Inquiry, Mr MacKenzie enthusiastically re-enacted it.


Mr Mackenzie’s cheerful thuggery is unusual, even in Fleet Street. But the fact that he talked to a prime minister that way and kept his job suggests that relations between the British press and politicians are pretty unusual. Does that mean that the press wields democracy-threatening power?


The answer is complicated by the oddity of Britain’s media market. In America, News Corporation is just one of five important media firms. In contrast, its British arm is a local titan. The Sun has 2.6m readers in a country of 60m people: scale that up, and an American equivalent would sell 13m copies a day. Seven British dailies have circulations larger than the biggest-selling French national newspaper.


That many titles have been out of control is not in dispute. Just ask Lord Justice Leveson, hearing allegations of illegal phone-hacking, bribery and paparazzi intruding on funerals. But press savagery towards the rich and powerful also taps into an ancient British tradition, that of instinctive derision for the strutting toff or politician, amid the battle-cry: “Who does he think he is?”


If prodded, politicians will insist (through gritted teeth) that press savagery is vital to democracy. They are more skittish about whether they think newspapers decide elections.


In his memoirs, Tony Blair—whose 1997 win was preceded by an endorsement by the Murdoch press—writes about a 1995 flight to address a News Corporation conference in Australia (a pilgrimage that outraged the left). Mr Blair explains himself with a rhetorical question. Murdoch newspapers had hitherto been “rancorous in their opposition to the Labour Party”. On being invited into the “lion’s den”, Mr Blair argues: “You go, don’t you?”


Addressing the Leveson inquiry, Mr Murdoch told how relations with Mr Blair’s successor, Gordon Brown, soured after his newspapers switched their support from Labour to Mr Cameron’s Conservatives. Once he and Mr Brown swapped tales of Scottish ancestors and their young children played together, he said. When his papers turned, Mr Murdoch claims that Mr Brown called to declare “war” on his companies. As for Mr Cameron, when the furore about press abuses took off in 2011, he declared that all party leaders had turned a blind eye to warning signs, because they were “so keen to win the support of newspapers”.


Newspaper campaigns clearly influence policy-making. Former Blair aides have credited Mr Murdoch, a tireless Eurosceptic, with helping to keep Britain out of the euro. But arguably their greatest day-to-day influence is indirect. British political leaders are drawn from an increasingly narrow, metropolitan pool. When tabloids bellow that they know the mind of the ordinary voter, it requires some self-confidence for an Oxbridge-educated, sushi-munching minister to ignore them.


Britain is an outlier in other ways. In lots of European countries politics encompasses angry extremes, with the hard-right and far-left attracting hefty votes. By contrast, newspapers in such countries are often small-circulation, centrist, and prim. Britain does things the other way round. Partly because of first-past-the-post voting, the big parties cluster at the political centre. The brass-band blare of dissent comes from a fiercely partisan press.


Call my diary secretary


Optimism may be hard this week. But the current stink could signal a general cleaning of the stables. Political leaders have already opened their diaries to disclose meetings with proprietors and editors. In parallel, fresh scandals over party fund-raising have revived efforts to reach a cross-party deal on donations, perhaps by capping the sums that individual donors can give.


Such reforms could help, says a senior politician. Donors, editors and proprietors have less influence than is commonly assumed. But they have enjoyed excessive access to party leaders, who for years devoted too much time to meeting them. Transparency over diaries should reduce such contacts. A cap on donations would do the same. If politicians meet media bosses and donors more sparingly and simply as professional contacts, that would be a good thing.


Such a change is overdue. Journalists and politicians can never be truly friends. Lowly reporters and MPs always knew this: given a big enough story, each will turn on the other. For too long, their respective bosses seemed to forget. Not any more.

 导航:[上一篇下一篇] - [返回]
[本主题共0回复 | 每页显示30回复]

按用户名:  按标题:   按内容:       包括所有回复
【首页】→ 【学习交流】→ 回复:双语阅读:为什么英国媒体对政治家的影响如此之大?


图示说明: 24小时新发主题  最近被编辑的主题  超过24小时普通主题

论坛版规 | 页面执行时间:921.875毫秒 | 当前论坛在线人数:272 今日访问人数:19308 论坛访问人数合计:47480284

英国斯特灵华人社区 (Stirling Chinese) 是在英国注册的非盈利性组织网站,注册号:SC375780

网站服务资质:英国大学和学院招生服务中心(UCAS)编号:68847     英国签证移民署(OISC)编号:F201300767

Stirling Chinese © 2006 - 2020. All rights reserved.     网站已经正常运行 5049 天 (已超过 14 年)    关于英国斯特灵华人社区     意见反馈


本站部分信息由互联网收集而来,版权归原创者所有,如果侵犯了你的权益,请通知我们,我们会及时删除侵权内容。  免责申明