If Simon Hoggart was so well-liked by politicians, then how was he doing his job?
He pioneered the view that politics was a joke subject, and that running gags about MPs' non-existent wigs constituted the height of comment.
He pioneered the view that politics was a joke subject, and that running gags about MPs' non-existent wigs constituted the height of comment.
Like the registration of newspapers with the Post Office,
the Parliamentary Lobby is already a form of the apparently feared "State
licensing", which is nothing remotely new in this country in the modern
era.
The Lobby is a very exclusive club with astonishing privileges within
the Palace of Westminster, not enjoyed by, for example, the lowly staff
of mere MPs. A cosy cartel, if you will.
It is like the City, convinced that its own oligarchy and that oligarchy's
privileges are the quintessence of liberty, transparency and democracy.
But there is nothing to stop anyone from applying for a ticket to the Public Gallery. After all, isn't that all that they are? Citizens exercising their rights as citizens?
No, of course not. But the publications granted Parliamentary Lobby access should be required to be balanced among themselves, even if not necessarily within themselves.
Broadcasters having such access should be required to give regular airtime to all newspapers enjoying the same access when covering newspapers, regular airtime to all magazines enjoying the same access when covering magazines, and regular airtime to all websites enjoying the same access when covering websites.
Subject to that condition, such access should be enjoyed by all and only those newspapers, magazines, websites, news agencies or freelance journalists publicly certified for the purpose by one or more seat-taking members of the House of Commons, or possibly of either House, whose staffs would enjoy no less access to the Palace of Westminster than that enjoyed by members of the Lobby. After all, who is in charge? Who is sovereign?
For, again, if those writing for the papers are merely doing for payment what anyone may do for free, then why do they need their own Press Gallery? Why should they not have to apply for tickets to the Public Gallery, like everyone else?
If they do not want that, then let them be made to accept this.
Even if that did mean less fulsome praise of them from politicians when they died.
But there is nothing to stop anyone from applying for a ticket to the Public Gallery. After all, isn't that all that they are? Citizens exercising their rights as citizens?
No, of course not. But the publications granted Parliamentary Lobby access should be required to be balanced among themselves, even if not necessarily within themselves.
Broadcasters having such access should be required to give regular airtime to all newspapers enjoying the same access when covering newspapers, regular airtime to all magazines enjoying the same access when covering magazines, and regular airtime to all websites enjoying the same access when covering websites.
Subject to that condition, such access should be enjoyed by all and only those newspapers, magazines, websites, news agencies or freelance journalists publicly certified for the purpose by one or more seat-taking members of the House of Commons, or possibly of either House, whose staffs would enjoy no less access to the Palace of Westminster than that enjoyed by members of the Lobby. After all, who is in charge? Who is sovereign?
For, again, if those writing for the papers are merely doing for payment what anyone may do for free, then why do they need their own Press Gallery? Why should they not have to apply for tickets to the Public Gallery, like everyone else?
If they do not want that, then let them be made to accept this.
Even if that did mean less fulsome praise of them from politicians when they died.
No comments:
Post a Comment