The hidden hand

IN THE daily round of news conferences over the war in Yugoslavia there is a surreal touch about lobby briefings in Downing Street. On most mornings, the closest political correspondents at Westminster get to the presence of Alastair Campbell is to hear his disembodied voice on a telephone link from Brussels, where he has spent the past few weeks helping to co-ordinate Nato's media operation.

Campbell has a pivotal role in what the British Government insists is the "legitimate and essential" task of making sure that Nato's operations are "explained to the public at every stage". But, unlike other highly visible key players such as the Nato spokesman, Jamie Shea, the Prime Minister's chief press secretary is rarely identified by name and his responses cannot be broadcast.

Last Wednesday's televised briefing at the Ministry of Defence illustrated a discrepancy in public accountability. After giving his opening presentation, the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, handed over to the White House spokesman, Joe Lockhart, who was accompanying President Clinton on his visit to the Spangdahlem air base in Germany. Lockhart was in vision and spent 10 minutes replying to points raised by journalists at the MoD yet, an hour earlier, on the other side of Whitehall, questions to Tony Blair's spokesman were off camera and his answers could not be seen or heard on television or radio. In his two years in Downing Street, Campbell has been a stout defender of the lobby system. In November 1997 he served on a government working group which recommended that lobby briefings should remain "off camera and that ministers should continue to be the public face of government". If the press secretary was identified by name and appeared on radio and television, it would build up an official "too much into a figure in his own right" and undermine ministers' accountability to Parliament. Six months later, Campbell told the Commons Select Committee on Public Administration why there was no need for Downing Street to follow the example of the White House and hold televised briefings: "The fact that it me, Alastair Campbell, is not important ... My views really are not important when I am speaking as the Prime Minister's spokesman. It is his views that are important." However, seven weeks into the conflict with Serbia, Campbell's role in co-ordinating Nato's communications strategy is a matter public interest and, in view of his new and enhanced duties in Brussels, Parliamentary protocol Westminster can hardly be used as a justification for keeping his briefings about Nato's activities off camera. Campbell has made much of his desire to avoid usurping the role elected ministers. None the less, one weakness in his argument is that he sometimes goes further in off-camera briefings than ministers might choose to in Parliament. His recent criticism of British journalists in Belgrade for accepting propaganda and not being sufficiently upfront in acknowledging Serbian censorship, followed an earlier rebuke television correspondents in Baghdad for their failure to provide adequate "health warnings" on reports about the impact of air strikes on Iraq. I felt then that it would have been far better if Campbell had voiced his criticism publicly, rather than off camera, and it is noticeable how, in recent weeks, both Tony Blair and Robin Cook have become much more circumspect when expressing concern about frontline news reporting from Belgrade. I am probably in a minority of one in calling for televised briefings. Most lobby correspondents, whether broadcasters or newspaper journalists, believe they are more likely to get more information out of the press secretary at private but attributable press briefings. I admit there might be some loss in the flow of information but it would be a small price to set against a new and significant safeguard. MY OPPONENTS say the briefings are usuallypretty boring and would be a switch off. At a general election, news conferences by the main parties are always recorded and they are often tedious beyond belief. Nevertheless, they are an important record of what was said, and if an issue does assume importance at a later point, extracts are available. Televised briefings at the White House do act as a check on the executive. As pressure mounted for President Clinton's impeachment, responses given by his former press secretary, Mike McCurry, formed part of the montage of material used to illustrate Clinton's evasions. McCurry resigned last October in protest at the way he felt he had been used unfairly to perpetuate a deception about Clinton's sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. He was no longer prepared to be caught by the White House press corps trying to "wriggle out" of the maze of questions which was thrown at him. Campbell does little to hide his contempt for what he thinks are the deficiencies of political journalists at Westminster. If his briefings were televised, he could, at a stroke, put the news media on the spot. Lobby correspondents would be on parade: viewers and listeners could judge the relevance of their questions and assess their persistence. My hunch is that Campbell is as resolute as before in seeking to ban cameras and microphones because successive governments have found it easier to exploit and manipulate a system of private lobby briefings. lSultans of Spin by Nicholas Jones (Victor Gollancz, GBP 18.99) is published tomorrow.

Copyright 1999
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.