The 24-hour news cycle is ruining politics
The relentless 24-hour news cycle and social media landscape have fundamentally altered political discourse by prioritizing quick, performative reactions over thoughtful deliberation, says Emma Revell
If there’s one thing we can count on in the perma-crisis that is British politics, it’ll be that our screens will be filled with updates from weary political correspondents and beleaguered cameramen jostling for space opposite Britain’s most famous black door.
I’m not entirely sure why the journalists and their camera crews need to be there hours ahead of any actual news happening, up at 5am with a backpack full of snacks and bottled water like they’re queuing to get a ticket for Wimbledon. But as ever, there they are, because the modern news cycle demands it.
And what did they actually achieve? Hollering the same unanswered questions at incoming Cabinet Ministers as they walked up Downing Street. Delivering endless pieces to camera, desperately trying to convey new and exciting nuggets of information to the viewing public, but actually being reduced to telling us trivialities like “Did you know Andy Burnham’s middle name is Murray?”, or that he’s the first Cambridge-educated PM since Stanley Baldwin. Meanwhile we’re watching VT of an increasingly haggard looking Larry the Cat and wondering whether Andy’s notes-free arrival speech means ‘Hot Podium Guy’ might finally be able to have a well-earned holiday.
Rolling news has been with us for almost 30 years. Many journalists working today will have grown up with it and will never have known a working life without it. On the plus side, you could say it has undoubtedly meant an expansion in the breadth and depth of news coverage. But now it has combined with social media, I’m not sure it’s doing us or our politics any favours.
For starters, it has eliminated the room for deliberation. With no way to escape the news cycle, failure to respond quickly to an incident or a question is spun as dither and delay. Politicians and their teams have to prioritise a speedy response over a thought-through one. If that response turns out to have been too hasty and needs revision – after a little time to think, some feedback from colleagues, or simply contact with reality – it’s branded a U-turn, a climbdown, a betrayal, or all three.
Legendary political journalist Robin Day did a handful of sit down interviews with Margaret Thatcher over the span of a decade. Today’s leaders seem to spend half their time flitting from one outlet to another. Journalists would argue they don’t get enough time with politicians and they might be right – the art of the long-form interview has been lost to a desire for clips and pithy one-liners – but policymaking has certainly suffered from the push towards creating good content, not good ideas.
Breaking the news
Social media and rolling news have also combined to give much more attention to things that under previous administrations would have gone unnoticed. Again, this can be incredibly beneficial. Major investigations no longer need the backing of an editor and a news desk. One person with an X account and enough time on their hands can do detailed threads exposing businesses sponsoring hundreds of visas for so-called skilled workers who are, in all likelihood, no such thing. Traditional media amplifies those stories, but it doesn’t break them.
But it also means that, in order to fill time, any little slip becomes headline news. Producers spend a whole day trying to book talking heads to analyse, and criticise, Wes Streeting and Shabana Mahmood sharing a joke about the new Justice Secretary.
There is of course an argument that you can’t have too much scrutiny. But there’s a danger of reaching the point where scrutiny is actually inhibiting our ability to get things done. As I wrote a few weeks ago, my generation has only known political instability and that has gone hand in hand with economic stagnation. Politicians need the breathing room to develop policies and test them, rather than having half-baked ideas leaked out into the world and getting torn apart because they were rushed.
Our current feedback mechanisms reward the banal, the safe, the uncontested
Our current feedback mechanisms reward the banal, the safe, the uncontested. Of course under such circumstances, Andy Burnham would prioritise something as insignificant – in the grand scheme of our economic malaise – as knocking VAT off energy bills. He can’t not announce anything on day one and it must be something that benefits households directly, otherwise the backlash would have started before he’d even unpacked his bags. Any policy which addresses why we have the highest energy costs of any major economy would require time to think through, time to build support in the parliamentary party, and courage to tackle opponents head-on. The fact successive prime ministers have all failed to do that is not the fault of a relentless media cycle, but it hasn’t helped.
Of course, rolling news isn’t going anywhere. Unless politicians lose all semblance of control of their worst nannying instincts, neither is social media. And before we blame the hacks crowded on the Downing Street pavement, it’s worth remembering they’re only there because we’re watching. The doorstep circus runs on our attention. If we actually wanted politicians to think before they spoke, we might need to give them a moment in which to do it.
Emma Revell is external affairs director at the Centre for Policy Studies