Three weeks ago, the Times did a story on the House of Lords and corruption within it. To do this their undercover reporters posed as representatives from a lobbying firm after a change to a few laws. What they exposed was some pretty serious stuff. The general consensus among us folks here at CE Towers is that the government should take serious steps to address the problem.
Last weekend, the Mail on Sunday did a story on Jacqui Smith exposing the supposedly vast amount she claims on expenses for a second home while lodging with her sister. I've not canvassed my comrades for a view on this one, but I'll go out on a limb and suggest that it's a pretty pathetic piece of anti government journalism. Claiming a second home allowance and using it to pay a mortgage is not exactly uncommon among MP's, in the big book of MP's sins this would seem to be nothing more than a minor footnote.
But what I'm more concerned with is the journalism. For the first story, the journalists behind it had to invent their fake lobbying firm, arrange appointments with various lords and attempt to steer the conversation towards a change in certain laws. I'd imagine it took a fair amount of time and effort and a hell of a lot of guts. For the second story all that was needed was to ask a few questions and make a few FOI requests.
One was a gutsy piece of serious investigative journalism, the second took hardly any effort at all. It's no secret that journalists are these days forced by time constraints to spend very little time on their stories, commercial pressures have deiven them towards easy stories, and herein we have a problem. I can't help thinking that part of the agenda for transparency is pandering to towards the interst of the press, and I just don't think that's right.
When we talk about scrutiny, accountability, openness and transparency, we should do so with the aim of fighting corruption and keeping politics honest. Spoonfeeding stories to journalists should not be on the agenda.
