A lucky PM needs greater prominence of trusted media
Opinion
While the right-wing media did everything they could to push Starmer over the edge, what did for the PM was the lack of a defining story and the inability to articulate it to a public with little interest in the details of politics.
You would have to be an assiduous reader of newspapers to spot the small but important story at the bottom of page nine of Monday’s Times, as the great political storms thundered above.
It said that ministers, and Lisa Nandy in particular, were examining plans to force social media companies to give news organisations such as the BBC greater prominence in their algorithms to combat misinformation.
As the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism made clear last week in its report on digital media, social media is now the leading source of news worldwide. Among under-40s it’s barely a contest. Three-quarters of those aged between 16 and 24 use social media for news updates.
Yet as early risers heard on yesterday’s Today programme, which followed up on The Times story, Jim Egan of the Reuters Institute set out the central paradox. People in the UK may use social media extensively, but three-quarters are worried they may be misled, and only 6% say they trust social media news.
The debate over greater prominence for “trusted” media organisations on social media almost exactly mirrors what was once, 20 years ago, a controversy over greater prominence for public service broadcasting channels in a multi-channel TV world.
That battle was won. It might be a lot more difficult to persuade the tech giants, already stung by plans to impose a ban on under-16s accessing most large social media platforms, to go along with what they would see as yet more restrictions.
There is one small pressing problem with all of the above. We do not know whether Nandy will be culture secretary beyond July amid the likely coronation of Andy Burnham as Prime Minister. If there is a new culture secretary, will they pick up the prominence plan?
In the scheme of things, does any of this matter, given the scale of the major political changes now taking place?
It absolutely does, because the arguments for greater prominence and the encouragement of verified, trustworthy news obscure a much larger question.
Namely, how big a role did the media, mainstream and social, play in the removal of Starmer, the sixth enforced prime -ministerial resignation in less than 10 years?
It was clearly a factor, though not the only one
Sir Starmer found out over the weekend that he could no longer govern because many MPs did not want him to lead the Labour Party into the next election for fear of what might happen at the hands of Reform UK.
The answer that greeted Labour MPs on the doorstep was bleak. Many disliked Starmer, and many others hated him.
Such widespread public perceptions have been partly created by a sustained campaign in the right-wing press to denigrate his every action and opinion while ignoring or downplaying the many unrelated achievements of his government.
The campaigns against him were even more extreme on social media, from the outputs of Reform, Restore, and the efforts of endless bots paid for by God knows which bad international actors.
As far as we know, the factors that cut through at the doorsteps were the fear of immigration, which Starmer has actually managed to reduce during his time in office; the paid-for glasses and suits; and the misjudgement in appointing Lord Mandelson as US ambassador.
While Starmer’s many opponents in the media amplified such issues on maximum volume – two of them the glasses and suits, plus the Mandelson appointment were problems much of his own making.
While not filthy rich, Starmer could have bought his own suits and glasses, so why on earth would a barrister and KC accept money from multi-millionaire Lord Alli for such accessories?
Anyone with a GCSE in public perception would have smelled danger and realised that the Daily Mail would be over such a story like a rash.
It was a small example of Starmer’s lack of political judgment, which played out on a grander scale in the much more serious Mandelson appointment.
While his opponents in the media took full advantage, alas, the verdict has to be that, to a large extent, a decent and honourable man did contribute to his own downfall.
But even those today mourning his departure will have to acknowledge a much larger underlying issue.
It was well articulated by former Observer editor Will Hutton, partly in his book This Time No Mistakes: How To Remake Britain published less than three months before Labour’s landmark victory, and in subsequent columns.
Hutton, a moderate left-of-centre social liberal, talked later of Starmer making more mistakes in his first 100 days than any other postwar government.
But he went on to criticise Starmer for presiding over “a managerial party” focused on delivery rather than ideas.
In what turns out to be unfortunately prescient words, Hutton argued:
Ideas are the lifeblood of politics. Without a philosophy, the politician blows in the wind and has no definition.”
While the right-wing media did everything they could to push Starmer over the edge, it looks like Hutton was right: what did for the PM was the lack of a defining story and the inability to articulate it to a public with little interest in the details of politics.
Andy Burnham, for all his affability, will face similar pressure and there will be absolutely no honeymoon period or allowance for the fact that he has just got off the train from Manchester.
Which is why, if he has any sense, Burnham, the former culture secretary (2008-2009), should take the future role of culture secretary very seriously, and realise that the issues identified by Nandy could help define his prime ministership for good or ill.
It would be a wise move for Burnham to push ahead with Nandy’s proposals on prominence and give all the backing he can to media organisations that produce verified, trustworthy news.
Who knows, Burnham may turn out to be a lucky PM, whereas Starmer was not.
If all goes smoothly, he could be coronated two days before the FIFA World Cup final… and if Harry Kane stays injury-free, you never know…
But perhaps if he does fly to New York for the final, it would be a good idea to pay for his own tickets.
Entirely for the sake of appearances and to prevent any misunderstandings.
Raymond Snoddy is a media consultant, national newspaper columnist and former presenter of NewsWatch on BBC News. He writes for The Media Leader on Wednesdays — bookmark his column here.