A Bit Of A Bonus? F.a.o. Sandy And...
News4 mins ago
Yet Another Q Re Reshuffle, Sorry!
How on earth do people (journalists) find out the content of meetings between say 2 people?
In the news today is how Hunt was offered another post but refused to move. It is very unedifying for both parties involved, so you would think that neither of them would report it
In the news today is how Hunt was offered another post but refused to move. It is very unedifying for both parties involved, so you would think that neither of them would report it
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bednobs. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Hunt and Greening have their supporters amongst their colleagues. So Greening will tell her friends what happened, it gets put on the Westminster Whatsapp Group and soon all the journalists know.
https:/
https:/
Could be any or all of the above, but as a former journo, I know that the 'good' journalists/columnists/commentators (i.e 'trustworthy' to the leaker, or well-embedded) get 'off-the-record' briefings from all kinds of people.
That could be a phone call (but those can often be traced) or a suggestion to go to lunch together where many things can be discussed, or a walk outside in a park, or even a simple email from an 'anonymous' email address.
Senior people do it for a number of reasons:
1. to further their own agenda within the organisation they represent
2. To frustrate the progress of a rival individual
3. To prepare the ground for some kind of future move
4. To build trust with the journo, so that they can call in a favour later..
Could be many things.
The 'off-the-record' means that the journo is not supposed to quote the source, but often, the journo and the leaker agree a 'form of words' that is acceptable to both sides. That is what subsequently appears in the media outlet concerned.
In reality, with modern phones, recording devises and so on, ther eis no such thing as an off-the-record briefing.
But if as the journo, you screw up and reveal the source, it will be a long time before you get any more such scoops.
IN theory the senior leakers keep the press office informed of their actions. But in practice, much of this kind of thing goes on under the radar.
IN the political journalism, there is the 'lobby system' under which certain journalists are given access to lobby briefings where senior party officials give the 'official' line on some incident, or plan, so that they get their message out to the newspapers and TV channels without being directly quoted.
Some newspapers have chosen to reveal the sources of those briefings and subsequently been barred from the lobby briefings.
That could be a phone call (but those can often be traced) or a suggestion to go to lunch together where many things can be discussed, or a walk outside in a park, or even a simple email from an 'anonymous' email address.
Senior people do it for a number of reasons:
1. to further their own agenda within the organisation they represent
2. To frustrate the progress of a rival individual
3. To prepare the ground for some kind of future move
4. To build trust with the journo, so that they can call in a favour later..
Could be many things.
The 'off-the-record' means that the journo is not supposed to quote the source, but often, the journo and the leaker agree a 'form of words' that is acceptable to both sides. That is what subsequently appears in the media outlet concerned.
In reality, with modern phones, recording devises and so on, ther eis no such thing as an off-the-record briefing.
But if as the journo, you screw up and reveal the source, it will be a long time before you get any more such scoops.
IN theory the senior leakers keep the press office informed of their actions. But in practice, much of this kind of thing goes on under the radar.
IN the political journalism, there is the 'lobby system' under which certain journalists are given access to lobby briefings where senior party officials give the 'official' line on some incident, or plan, so that they get their message out to the newspapers and TV channels without being directly quoted.
Some newspapers have chosen to reveal the sources of those briefings and subsequently been barred from the lobby briefings.
Kidas is right. Sometimes you can look for attributions like "Sources close to 10 Downing St" or "friends of Mr Smith". Sometimes newspapers just say "It is believed that..."
In Hunt's case it shows him in a good light: May wanted him to go but he was so persuasive or powerful that he got his way even over the prime minister.
In Greening's case it could be either party. Greening might think it shows her in a good light as refusing to take demotion just so another male can be promoted. May might think it shows her in a good light, not backing down (for a change).
It can also be just as Gromit says: they tell their friends, their friends tip off their favourite journalists. (This favouritism works both ways: the reporters get more stories, the MPs get their stories told.)
In Hunt's case it shows him in a good light: May wanted him to go but he was so persuasive or powerful that he got his way even over the prime minister.
In Greening's case it could be either party. Greening might think it shows her in a good light as refusing to take demotion just so another male can be promoted. May might think it shows her in a good light, not backing down (for a change).
It can also be just as Gromit says: they tell their friends, their friends tip off their favourite journalists. (This favouritism works both ways: the reporters get more stories, the MPs get their stories told.)
I doubt she trusts him now - she had to apologise a couple of days ago for the mess the NHS is in, and people don't like apologising for things their juniors have done.
But she's chiefly stuck because she hasn't got anyone better to replace him with. It's just my opinion, but there's virtually nobody in the House of Commons I'd put in charge of a whelk stall at the moment. I quite like Hammond, but that's about it (and May probably doesn't, given how quickly she panics and overrules his budget proposals whenever the Daily Mail squeals).
But she's chiefly stuck because she hasn't got anyone better to replace him with. It's just my opinion, but there's virtually nobody in the House of Commons I'd put in charge of a whelk stall at the moment. I quite like Hammond, but that's about it (and May probably doesn't, given how quickly she panics and overrules his budget proposals whenever the Daily Mail squeals).
Even if it was Hunt who leaked it, the process is more complex than that.
A good journo will speak to all kinds of peole about a certain event, some will lie; some will give partial truths some will clam up.
The journo's job is to interpret all of that information, filter it against what he or she already knows about the situation and the background to it, seek clarification from those people who gave a version of events that is different from the consensus view, and then present a piece to camera, or column in the paper about what (they think) really happened.
There's always an element of interpretation from the journo, though they are supposed to be impartial, that's rarely possible.
But the ones who have a large or influential readership usually get the best briefings. And you dont get to that position unless you have the ability to work through all the lies, bias and misinformation that comes your way.
I think Westminster politics is especially febrile at present. That's the 'Westminster village' that you sometimes hear about on the news - all those dinners, lunches, private briefings, not to mention WhatsApp groups and Tweets and what have you - they are a bubble and an echo chamber on a worse scale than Twitter or Facebook (IMHO)
A good journo will speak to all kinds of peole about a certain event, some will lie; some will give partial truths some will clam up.
The journo's job is to interpret all of that information, filter it against what he or she already knows about the situation and the background to it, seek clarification from those people who gave a version of events that is different from the consensus view, and then present a piece to camera, or column in the paper about what (they think) really happened.
There's always an element of interpretation from the journo, though they are supposed to be impartial, that's rarely possible.
But the ones who have a large or influential readership usually get the best briefings. And you dont get to that position unless you have the ability to work through all the lies, bias and misinformation that comes your way.
I think Westminster politics is especially febrile at present. That's the 'Westminster village' that you sometimes hear about on the news - all those dinners, lunches, private briefings, not to mention WhatsApp groups and Tweets and what have you - they are a bubble and an echo chamber on a worse scale than Twitter or Facebook (IMHO)
Kidas, I don't know that there's always time for such things any more. In more leisurely times a reporter might have had hours to prepare a story for the next morning's newspaper. Now he'll be expected to provide a couple of sentences for a "Breaking News" scroll bar across the website, followed by the full story asap (not tomorrow!) and probably bolstered by a tweet or two. Proper newspapers, and the BBC, do try to get the whole story fully checked out before publication. But the need to be first with a story, in an age of instant media, is a powerful disincentive.
That said, the bungled reports about the reshuffle (it was going to involve a quarter of the cabinet, Grayling was to be new party chief) seem to have derived from apparently trustworthy Tory party tipoffs that for whatever reason were wrong.
That said, the bungled reports about the reshuffle (it was going to involve a quarter of the cabinet, Grayling was to be new party chief) seem to have derived from apparently trustworthy Tory party tipoffs that for whatever reason were wrong.
Just read that back
'Lobby rules' allow journos to quote the words as said by the party official/politician/SPAD or whatever, but not to name that person or hint at who it might be.
'Off-the-record' is a pretence that no conversation took place, hence 'friends of the Minister said...'; 'It is understood that..."
If that appears, you can be pretty sure it was a n off-the-record briefing by the Minister concerned that Minister wanted the story to come out.
I also should have said that the private briefings and dinners are two-way.
The leakers want to know what the journalists know, as much as give them information.
Senior political correspondents might (in a fantasy world) have lunch with Theresa May, dinner with Hunt, coffee with Corbyn, a quiet drink with Justine Greening... And have detailed, gossipy conversations with all of them.
If Hunt wants to know what May is thinking (or vice versa) who better to ask?
'Lobby rules' allow journos to quote the words as said by the party official/politician/SPAD or whatever, but not to name that person or hint at who it might be.
'Off-the-record' is a pretence that no conversation took place, hence 'friends of the Minister said...'; 'It is understood that..."
If that appears, you can be pretty sure it was a n off-the-record briefing by the Minister concerned that Minister wanted the story to come out.
I also should have said that the private briefings and dinners are two-way.
The leakers want to know what the journalists know, as much as give them information.
Senior political correspondents might (in a fantasy world) have lunch with Theresa May, dinner with Hunt, coffee with Corbyn, a quiet drink with Justine Greening... And have detailed, gossipy conversations with all of them.
If Hunt wants to know what May is thinking (or vice versa) who better to ask?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.