Charles Kennedy and ITV so-called 'news'

[brachiopod]

I don't normally watch this, but happened to leave it on for the headlines.

Is it just me or was there something unbelievable about ITV News' bragging about how they forced Charles Kennedy to admit his drink problem?

It was all 'exclusive' this, and 'ITV investigators' that. How 'our leading reporter' forced Kennedy to admit his problem' under threat of 'breaking the news on the 5.30 bulletin'. And they were proud of it !!

Now, if it was a politician involved in corruption, scandal or some other illegal act, then fair enough.

But here was ITV bragging like they've got Woodward and Bernstein on their staff, and have just broken the story of the century.

Despicable.

[Dom Tuk]

The fact that his own shadow cabinet is now preparing to deliver a letter telling him that they have no confidence in his abilities as a leader perhaps is what is relevant rather than the fact that brachiopod reckons that that it is Ok for any leader to lie repeatedly and unashamedly on radio and television or that some TV journalist would like to claim credit for his journalistic skills. Of course we all have differing expectations of our leaders and i will not fault brachiopod or others for being willing to offer a certain degree of slack to the people they entrust the reins of our country to. I do not give them the same amount of leeway. I do not want a drunken prime minister who will be making decisions on my behalf and deciding if it is Ok to annihilate a nation by propelling an inebriated finger at a red button.

[luckyboy]

So on that score you would have binned winston churchill as leader in world war 2..god you do have high expectations don't you.

[Dom Tuk]

did he not lose the next elections...god....

[Drusilla]

Hey Dom, Winston Churchill took us through WWII and his heavy drinking was not appreciated by Eleanor Roosevelt, wife of the American president, but thank God for the man!!
I do however see your point and think most of us admire his candour in accepting his problem and his determination to do something about it. I also like the fact he stuffed a creepy little journo!

[Drusilla]

Oops, late again. Story of my life!

[city_girluk]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think the issue brachiopod was addressing here was the way in which the media has handled this, rather than the actual drink problem itself or the ramifications of it.

[Dom Tuk]

So heres how it should have gone

Weekly editorial meeting at ITV news

Journalist: hey Ed, know that Charles Kennedy bloke

Editor: Ofcourse the leader of the Lib Dems...done well at last elections...opposed the war and his view has been vindicated ...yes what about him....

Journo: Know how he kept denying that he has a drink problem...he has been on Question time, radio 5 live and when asked about the rumours has flatly denied that he has a drink problem.....

Editor: so what about it

Journo: I have evidence that he has a drink problem and has been seeking advice on it...so he has been lying to the people, his supporters and the electorate.

Editor: nah forget about it....the journalist professsion is at its lowest point now...what with the tabloids publishing all those stories about Blunkett, Mandelson, Campbell, Archer, Hindujas. I think for the sake of journalistic brevity we should shelve this story. No harm in drink is there...jolly good...

well the world does not work this way.

[Drisgirl]

I am perhaps deviating slightly but the most powerful man in the world George W Bush is a recovering alcoholic.I expect the usual remarks about - well what does that tell you - I rest my case etc - no I cant stand the man either.CK was never going to be Prime Minister.Dom Tuk - you have in your last post posed interesting points but at the end of the day everyone knew he was battling a drink problem for ages so why do ITV think they have an exclusive.Why now?

He usurped them and they now have the knives out - why was he not allowed along with his family and party members allowed to beat his demons privately.

Gary Glitter who is a serial paedo and has moved from country to country and child to child on the same bulletin warranted 30seconds of air time.I rest my case.

[stevie_c2it]

Inevitably, and regardless of popular support from the rank and file, Charles Kennedy will lose his battle for leadership.
The critical issue is that all politicians want to hold positions of power in a government. Kennedy, despite only having to compete with an ineffectual Conservative opposition has only made modest ground against an increasingly embittered incumbent government and Prime Minister.
This is less about drink (trust and honesty to a limited extent, yes), but more about his ability to lead and move his party forward.
ITV hoped to pull the trigger, but the bullets are coming from his own MP�s.

[Drisgirl]

His party should remember it was the rank and file who enabled them to lead the lives they lead.I would love to have a look in the closets of the majority of politicians and journos.

I feel his party are being backed into a corner to do the " right thing" although they were perfectly happy to allow the man to come to terms with his problems before.Now is their perfect opportunity to accept everyone has the potential to have problems and live up to their name - Liberal Democrats!

I should have been a spin doctor - missed my vocation in life :)

[brachiopod]

Thanks city_girl, the main point of my argument was ITN behaving as if they had the Pullitzer Prize winning story of the century by breaking this non-story in such a smug, bragging and tabloid way. I don't have an issue with the breaking of the story per se, it could possibly be argued that it is in the public interest, (or more probably, the party interest), it is the shoddy, sensationalist way it was done that I object to.

But in reply to your post, Dom, no, no-one wants a drunk Prime Minister, but CK is not the Prime Minister. He isn't even the leader of the official Opposition. He is not in control of this country. He is merely the leader of a third political party.

Now whether he is deemed fit to be leader of this party is up to it's members and potential voters in an election situation.

This makes it little more than a story about party politics and personalities.

As for the use of the words "lies" and "cover ups"; in this context they are usually reserved for MP's, Governments or their agencies when they are found to have done something corrupt, fraudulent, immoral or illegal. Examples of 'lies' in this context would be;
"I did not perjure myself in court in order to win a libel case"
or
"The military did not use White Phosphorous weapons"
and
"Saddam has WMD's that can be implemented in 45 minutes"

When compared to the above, do you really think CK's denial of having a drink problem is in the same league? It could hardly be called, in your words, lying 'repeatedly and unashamedly'.

[cont..]

[brachiopod]

[...cont]

Although it may have had implications on his ability to do his job, he is not in a position of governmental power, nor is he a train driver or airline pilot, and as such, I believe it is largely a personal matter - some would even argue that it is a medical matter. Hence his understandable desire to divert attention from it.

Though often it seems I have nothing other than contempt for 'politicians', and that their lives are open to scrutiny, I object when press intrusion goes too far, or issues are completely overblown by tabloid-style hacks with delusions of their own importance.

[stevie_c2it]

As much as I might sympathise with the support for Charles Kennedy as a man dealing with his �daemons�, ultimately, he is the leader of a political party that has failed to capitalise on the policies and decisions taken under his leadership.
Therefore (as in any employment), his ability and competency to hold high office has been undermined. Cynics might say the timing of his drink problem announcement was made in order to gain him popular support prior to any leadership contest, making it difficult for the party to remove him. The issue of a drink problem is merely a �smokescreen� to deflect attention away from the real issue of his poor performance.

Lets not forget, the Liberal Democrats stood alone as a political party against the war in Iraq, and were proved right in there assertions that it was an illegal act based on lies and a false prospectus. Given that they hold the moral high ground over a Labour Prime Minister who misled the people of this country, and there representative MP�s, it was expected (particularly now that more and more people are questioning the sense of such a war) that Charles Kennedy would press home his advantage and make the LibDems the main opposition party to government. However, this has not happened and now, right or wrong, the chant on the benches is �sack the manager�.

[brachiopod]

I don't disagree with you, stevie, and like football managers, opposition leaders come and go with monotonous regularity.

So, and I repeat the whole point of this thread, why is it being sensationalised so much by ITN? Why are they acting like it's the scoop of the century?

The ins and outs, should he stay / should he go, whether he was a good leader or not are irrelevant. Anyone would be forgiven for thinking it was Jeremy Thorpe all over again.

"What's this? 'CK involved in homosexuality and murder intrigue' ?"

"No, it's worse - he's fond of a drink !! And our top reporters forced him to admit it !"

Pullitzer Prize? No.
If they're lucky they might get the Alcoholics Anonymous 'Mentor of the Year' award - for forcing CK to face the fact he's got a problem.

[stevie_c2it]

Brachiopod, I have to agree with your view that the way this story is being �dramatised� by the media does them little credit.
News (particularly bad news) to these organisations is simply seen as a commodity to be �talked up�, �hyped up� and sold off to the general public.
It should not be underestimated, however, that there are many layers to this particular story. News corporations are never neutral, and have there own political agendas and allegiances (often shifting as Alistair Campbell found out to his cost).
As a story, as Drisgirl already pointed out, it�s �old news�, why therefore is it being whipped up with so much breathless hysteria?
There is Machiavellian intrigue and skulduggery in the background to this one, ask yourself who benefits or loses by it.
My belief is his own team are trying to �kill� him off with as little political damage to the party as possible, whereas the opposition parties want to weaken the LibDems as a whole, and the news agencies are in the middle being briefed and counter-briefed by MP�s from both sides.
As is often the case what�s life and death to some poor sod, is just a ratings game for them.

[starmack]

ITV are a bunch of ******* and hypocrites on this issue. To understand read the Guardian media page on Monday 8th January.

It certainly represented a real new low, low for TV news journalism. The media "silly season" used to be confined to late summer but it now obviously extends to any holiday period and any slack space which commercial TV needs to fill.

Shame on all the hypocrites involved.