Political reporting

Maybe it's just me being cynical, but it's quite illuminating to watch a political news story develop in the media.

I really don't get it with all the TV news crews camped outside the building. Interestingly, it rarely happened at the old building, and I am convinced that an editorial decision is based entirely on the fact that there is a wide pavement, traversed by few people other than locals, outside a telegenic building.

Again, without being unduly cynical, I am curious as to what these so-called journalists are actually doing. If they are reporting from outside the building, they sure as hell aren't inside interviewing people with info. They do get admitted on occasion, but when there are TV crews outside every exit, I do wonder what they are adding to the sum of human knowledge. On the Ten O'Clock News last night Nick Robinson was reporting live from one place, and James Landale from another place just five minutes walk away. Giving the impression of thorough investigation. But ask yourself, if they were sitting on sofas in the studio would you feel they were less well informed? Would they in fact be less well informed.

I caught a glimpse of James Landale in the afternoon doing a piece to camera, being interviewed by the news anchor. Ooh, an in depth interview. He stated that the most important question was "Did the Secretary of State know?"

Well, without commenting directly, I would say that such a question is rarely the most important. Sure, in terms of accountability and democracy, there are textbook precedents about ministers taking the ultimate responsibility. On the other hand, anyone who has ever studied politics at school will know about Crichel Down, which states that not only need the Minister not have known but additionally, he need not have been in post at the time in order to be obliged to take responsibility. Which, in my opinion, is lunacy.

Whenever there is news story about maladministration, whether or not the minister knew is usually of secondary, or lower, importance to 'is the problem going to be resolved'. Obviously, if the minister knows, that enables the minister to give orders to sort the problem out. And, of course, if the minister had known, why didn't he give orders to sort it out.

Let's consider a theoretical example of which I know very little. A few months back there was some coverage in the media about the woeful lack of provision for sexual health. STIs are on the increase, and the Health Service is struggling - failing - to cope. I regard this as cause for concern.

Someone I know went to her GP complaining of pelvic pain and was offered a chlamydia test, then the GP read the small print and realised that it was only available for people under 25. This woman felt aggrieved. No such tests had been available when she was under 25, and she has been more sexually active since then than before. Furthermore, she argues that at her age, the need for diagnosis and treatment is far more urgent for her than it is for a woman fifteen years younger.

She feels that this is a scandal, and that she is being discriminated against on age grounds, and realises that this will be the pattern for life now. She is not entirely convinced by arguments that things are far better now, because chlamydia tests were simply not offered in the early-mid Nineties, so their availability to a small proportion is a massive step forward.

To her it's not good enough, and the failure to diagnose and treat is likely to have a devastating effect on her life.

So, turn this into a media story, and stick a few reporters in front of cameras on Whitehall and Millbank. Would you get a reporter implying that Patricia Hewitt has nothing else to worry about other than the availability of tests for one specific STI. Would questions be asked about the woeful lack of provision and treatment for one infection.

If someone working in the Department of Health were to say, well, the ministers are more concerned about deficits, MRSA, obesity, anti-smoking, blood donations, social care, effectiveness of treatment, access to costly drugs for terminal or long-term life-limiting conditions, would anybody really be surprised? Would anybody seriously imply that the Ministers or officials were being incompetent because a woman with pelvic aches was denied access to a test that might confirm the presence of an infection?

I recognise that my analysis is over-simplified, but there is a culture in the media, which really does influence politicians, is that the only subject that matters is the outrage of the day. In reality, in whatever department, the overwhelming vast majority of the time is devoted to the strategic issues which require a long term and joined-up approach. And, with the best will in the world, the Department of Health would find it difficult to prioritisesexual health over many other clinical needs.