On political salience

One aspect of politics that is perhaps under-appreciated is the question: who gets to decide, and how, which issues become prominent and which not?

I say this because on the Sunday Politics yesterday, Andrew Neil interviewed Gerard Coyne (23'20" in). This is odd. How often does the BBC give such prominence to former regional secretaries of trades unions? Even if Mr Coyne’s allegations of Stalinism at Unite are wholly valid, do they really deserve such attention? Of course, I’d be the first to deplore intolerance of dissent. But this is common in many workplaces, among them Ms  May’s: it might well have been a significant contributor to the financial crisis. I'd love to see more debate about the scarring effects of groupthink, hierarchy and suppression of dissent. But why discuss these in a union, and ignore them in companies and in politics?

This is one way in which BBC bias works. Bias isn’t just – or even mainly – slanted reporting of particular issues. It also consists in deciding what to report. Giving prominence to a story which might reflect discredit upon Unite whilst ignoring dictatorial management in other organizations is a form of bias.

I don’t say this merely to complain about the BBC again. Instead, it’s to make the point that power and political skill isn’t merely a matter of being able to get what you want. It’s about being able to put some matters on the agenda whilst keeping others off it. For example, the achievement Brexiters wasn’t merely to win the referendum but to get the obscurantist obsession of a few cranks to a dominant position onto the political agenda in the first place.

Jeremy Corbyn, though, has achieved a similar feat. He’s raised the salience of an issue on which Labour is strong – austerity- whilst reducing the salience of issues on which it is weak. The party’s policies on immigration and Brexit leave something to be desired, but Corbyn has – for now – downgraded their visibility.

These, however, are exceptions. Generally speaking, the matter of what is salient and what not serves reactionary purposes. For example, the merits (or not) of land value tax, citizens income or coops are insufficiently debated in the MSM. And important questions are downplayed such as: to what extent is the long stagnation of labour productivity a symptom of capitalist dysfunction? Why are real interest rates negative and what does it imply for fiscal policy? Under what conditions is hierarchy efficient? Why has CEO pay exploded since the 1980s? Is it possible to increase job satisfaction and if so how? And so on. If questions such as these were more salient – the BBC rarely discusses them – politics would surely look very different.

Such questions would, of course, bring class struggle more into politics. But then, as Steven Lukes wrote. “the most effective and insidious use of power is to prevent…conflict from arising in the first place.” (Power, a radical view, p27) One challenge for the left is to fight this power by asking the questions we want to, and not merely accepting the right's agenda.

Comments

[Phil Beesley]

Why did you use the acronym MSM, Chris, rather than writing "mainstream media"?

[Tom]

Ah yes, like when Ed Miliband "forgot" to mention the deficit in his party conference speech. Amazing how the right have been so successful over the years in painting the BBC as being just one rung to the right from the Morning Star.

[D]

Guess the main point of the post's probably right. Given that he just ran for election as head of the TUC, lost narrowly, and then got the sack, the union guy's maybe not the best example to prove it.

[derrida derider]

"Bias isn’t just – or even mainly – slanted reporting of particular issues. It also consists in deciding what to report."
True, dat.
It's exactly how the quality Murdoch rags work - their journalists are often excellent journalists, but they and their subeditors know exactly which stories Mr Murdoch thinks are front page news and which are to be buried on page 23.

[MJW]

The Coyne interview is reasonable because it sheds light on some of the underpinnings of Corbyn's leadership. Coyne almost unseated Len McCluskey, if he had done it would have been significant to Corbyn's leadership; not a show stopper, but it would have raised questions about the significant backing he gets from Unite. Do you really believe that if one of Theresa May's key backers had been linked to dodgy behaviour of the kind surrounding the Unite election it would have gone unremarked?

Of course if Coyne has been sacked because it is proven his campaign abused the Unite database, then I'm sure the allegations McCluskey's campaign did something very similar will also be thoroughly investigated and McCluskey will also be sacked if the case is proven?

[D]

@Tom

What's your point exactly? Can't tell if it's sarcastic or not

Cheers

[james c]

Chris, the BBC play the gotcha game,where politicians are ambushed.

Brillo is the master of this.

Ostensibly, the interviews are fair and the victim politican has none to blame but himself.

But Brillo chooses who gets the easy questions
and who can win the game.

Perhaps it was inevitable that a different style of opposition politican would emerge, one who would play by different rules.

They had no chance playing the old game.

So, Corbyn has become something of a folk hero, a messiah.

Media hostility is something he feeds on.

[Anonymous2]

'Do you really believe that if one of Theresa May's key backers had been linked to dodgy behaviour of the kind surrounding the Unite election it would have gone unremarked?'.

Not sure I buy this.

The Government propose to drop the Leveson 2 enquiry into wrongdoing at News Corp?

[mike berry]

'For example, the merits (or not) of land value tax, citizens income or coops are insufficiently debated in the MSM.'

I published a paper on the lack of debate at the BBC of policies such as LVT as potential alternatives to cuts in public spending.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0163443715620931

[gaudensia]

The article is very difficult to understand. More clear information much need. Thank you for sharing.

[Tom]

@D

Apologies, appreciate the tone wasn't terribly clear there. Wasn't being sarcastic, just pointing out another instance of where the BBC placed disproportionate focus onto something a leftie said (or in that case, didn't say), which despite this still sees the BBC as being seen in the eyes of many as socialism in a studio, despite Farage having chalked up (I think) 35 appearances on Question Time now (amongst other stuff).

[c]

@Tom - no apology necessary. Thanks for taking the time to reply

[Keith]

I am always pissing myself laughing when the people who have been cutting the back out of the leader of the labour party with the help of the MSM start to complain about dirty tricks and the importance of the rule book..bunch of hypocritical liars. Time they cleared off if they cannot support the decision of the Labour movement. And take your so called journalists and fake news right wing propaganda johnnies with you on the way matey.

[gastro george]

That would be Andrew Neil who was editor for Murdoch at the time when he took on the Fleet Street unions ... so no bias in his back story then.

[Churm Rincewind]

"I don't say this merely to complain about the BBC again."

Yeah, right.