Government communications

Lords communications committee

In evidence to the House of Lords communication committee this month, I suggested we – the regional media – were treated as “poor relations”, often “feeding on scraps” from the government’s information table.
I know what some of you are thinking: “Chippy northerner.” But consider my position. The pressure on the Manchester Evening News to break political exclusives is comparable to, say, the Evening Standard. I’d invite any national political journalist to try to match my output with the resources the government puts at my disposal.
The quantity of information has certainly increased since the Phillis review recommended we were given more priority in 2004. The quality, too often, has not.
What do we get? A spurious ‘regional’ spin on news that was on the front-page of a national newspaper that morning. A couple of rushed questions to a secretary of state on a visit – usually after a carefully-staged 30-minute photo opportunity. Figures that reflect a regional picture, which we are told cannot be broken down to a useable, local level – even though they were presumably aggregated from a local level in the first place. Should a government in touch with the nation really need reminding our readers have no particular interest what’s happening in Liverpool, Carlisle and Stoke-on-Trent?
The committee was shocked that such a “powerful” lobby as the regional press should feel so undervalued. Good, I said. We may not be shocked by our treatment any more – it’s been going on too long for that – but it remains mystifying and frustrating.
The regional press may indeed take pride in its reputation for being “honest, responsible and accurate” (Gordon Brown). That doesn’t mean we should be given, or accept, second-class treatment. If anything, it means we should get better treatment – in terms of interviews with senior politicians and civil servants, fast access to useful information, and briefings from people who are informed and confident enough to count. Yet it’s still the national press pack – Tony Blair’s “feral beasts” – who tend to land the big stories. And not just the scandals, but leaks of government policy announcements, too.
Why? If the Independent (circulation 220,957) can demand parity of treatment with the Daily Mail (circulation 2.2 million), then why not the Manchester Evening News (circulation 161,545)? Surely it isn’t the word ‘Manchester’ that explains the difference?
Why, if the government is serious about the region’s media, can’t we have a single cross-departmental communications chief based in the North-West, who understands the region and is both confident and informed enough to brief the local media?
The cabinet secretary, Sir Gus O’Donnell, told the same committee this week that the government intended to “engage more” with the regional media. But we don’t need more engagement. We need better engagement, and on our terms. We need what we’ve always needed: news.