Search

The 2009 MPs' expenses scandal was one of the most significant political stories of modern times. It raised questions, not just about the ethics and behaviour of MPs but also about the relationship between politicians at Westminster and the political correspondents who follow them on a daily basis, known as ‘the lobby’. For the significance of this scandal, in media terms, was that the story was not broken by members of the lobby but came from outside the traditional Westminster news gathering process. This paper examines why this was the case and it compares the lobby today with that which was described and analysed by Jeremy Tunstall and Colin Seymour-Ure in their respective studies more than 40 years ago. The article concludes that the lobby missed the story partly because of the nature of the lobby itself and partly as a result of a number of specific changes which have taken place in the media and the political systems over the past 40 years. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The Edwardian years saw a range of dominion and colonial issues brought to the forefront of public attention by the British press, with the doyens of Fleet Street taking an active part in shaping the popular debate. This paper analyses the agency of the press in the imperial dramas involving the Indian empire, focusing upon leading aspects of the Viceroyalty of Lord Curzon. It provides, for the first time, an in-depth study of the national press coverage and its role in the controversy surrounding the downfall and resignation of Curzon in 1905, thereby shedding new light on media perceptions within the metropolis, and detailing the engagement of officials in press manipulation and propaganda. It is contended that it was the domestic context, and the consequences of attacking Curzon in public at Home, along with his failure to mount a successful defence, that were instrumental, though often overlooked, factors in determining his fate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the issue between British national newspapers and Prime Minister Tony Blair's government in Great Britain. It examines the press/politics relationship since 1997 and shows how eight national dailies presented New Labour in government and the Torries in opposition, in and between general elections. It also addresses several questions in which answers explain the inconsistencies and contradictions that characterize the performance of certain newspapers throughout the period and their alignment at election time. The author then presented his conclusion that neither the mail, nor the more or less half-hearted pro-Blairs papers, nor the telegraphs which alone constituted the "Tory press" in 2001, had an intimation about what happen to Tony Blair in only few years' time.

This piece investigates the role of news media and journalists in setting political agendas. It presents evidence to challenge the agenda-setting paradigm most often adopted in such research. Instead it argues for greater employment of methods and perspectives more usually employed in media sociology. It then presents findings from research on Members of Parliament (MPs) in Britain. The findings, based mostly on semistructured interviews with 40 MPs, offer some interesting perspectives on the relationship between political journalism and the political process at Westminster. The overall conclusion is that intense media attention on issues can shift political agendas and policy development, but not according to the simple stimulus-response model of agenda-setting commonly employed. More often, news content and journalists play a significant role in setting agendas because politicians use them, in a variety of ways, to promote or negotiate agendas and policy options among themselves. In other words, journalism and journalists have a significant social and cultural role in helping MPs, consciously or unconsciously, to reach agreed agendas and positions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]