A State of Fear: How the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic - Laura Dodsworth (the first e reader .txt) 📗

the day the Office for National Statistics revealed that there had been 26,000 non-Covid excess deaths between March and September in homes,12 the media would ‘get it’ and balance the harms and costs of lockdown: ‘It was close to the Covid death toll at the time. It got some coverage in the newspapers but I remember the news bulletins didn’t do it. The reporting has been focused on Covid deaths and the consequences of lockdown have been ignored.’ I asked why he thought that was: ‘I think there is a groupthink mentality. If the BBC covers a story then ITV and Channel 4 do it too. A lot of journalists will take the easy option.’

A broadcast journalist who spoke to me off the record said that most people on her editorial team had a different perspective on the epidemic to her. She described herself as ‘fighting the good fight in the newsroom’ but being outnumbered by her team. Maybe they had consumed the information provided by the government more uncritically than this journalist. It was a crusade for her to push for balance, such as for statistics on recoveries to be given alongside deaths, more detailed breakdowns about ICU occupancy in hospitals and PCR false positives.

The Number 10 press briefings were characterised by bland and unchallenging questions from journalists, such as ‘When will the epidemic be over?’ A Press Gazette reader poll13 concurred. When it asked ‘Do you think journalists have done a good job of holding the Government to account during the daily UK Covid-19 press briefings?’ 70% said no.

Weak questions fail to hold politicians to account, fail to uncover essential information which should be in the public domain, fail to provide balance (which would settle minds and emotions) and they also damage journalism itself. Another Press Gazette poll14 showed that public trust in journalists had been eroded. When asked ‘Do you think trust in journalism has increased since the Covid-19 epidemic?’ 48% said no and 19% said it had remained the same. Only 33% said it had increased. Another survey15 conducted by Edelman’s Trust found that, globally, journalists were the least trusted source for coronavirus updates.

In general, mainstream journalists only discussed the epidemic and the lockdown within the framework set by lockdown – they didn’t investigate and interrogate from outside the framework. Where journalists provided challenge, the default position was to perform outrage at every opportunity and to play at unelected opposition, but always in the one direction: demanding the government go further, and lock down sooner and harder. Close businesses? Now schools. Tier Three? Why not Tier Four? Perhaps journalists have come to see themselves more as political activists holding populist Johnson to account, in a simplistic morality play of pandemic deaths versus evil Tory politics.

Of course the political and health journalists employed by newspapers, TV and radio had secure jobs throughout the crisis. If they had suffered financially in the same way as the millions of self-employed, or those in hard-hit sectors such as hospitality and leisure, would they have provided more challenge?

Why else haven’t journalists asked more challenging questions? There is a complex relationship between the government, the media and the public. Noam Chomsky explained the ‘propaganda model of mass media’ in his book, Manufacturing Consent. One aspect of this is that the proximity of mass media to political and economic power means that the media propagate the world views of the powerful. One simple way this works is that newspapers and broadcasters have to cater to the financial motivations of their owners and investors. Proprietors have a top-down effect on the preferences and biases of the media. Boris Johnson was a popular leader at the start of the crisis and so newspapers might have been sympathetic. Put simply, if Rupert Murdoch liked Boris Johnson at the beginning of 2020, a News UK media brand would be more likely to write supportive articles.

Piers Morgan offers a marvellous example of someone who was supported by the media. He was a vociferous supporter of lockdown, and critical of people who broke the rules or appeared to minimise the dangers of the epidemic on Good Morning Britain and through his Twitter account. On 16 December he urged the government to introduce tougher restrictions for Christmas. Yet he went to the Caribbean island of Antigua for his Christmas break. This didn’t break the law, but it did breach guidance, and was contrary to his strong words to the nation and Cabinet ministers. You might call it hypocritical. Guido Fawkes16 broke the story, which was not picked up by the newspapers. Politicians and celebrities who broke the rules were castigated by the media. Piers Morgan is friends with editors and a powerful figure in the media – did they form a silent circle of protection around him?

I spoke to a seasoned investigative journalist from one of the broadsheets about the challenges in political journalism. There is a symbiotic relationship between government and journalists that can – uncomfortably – provide government with the means to partially set the agenda. Firstly, beyond official press briefings, government press officers and SPADs (special advisors to politicians) give favoured information and informal briefings to political journalists. If the journalist writes things the government doesn’t like, the journalist is less likely to be kept in the loop. So to an extent, they are under pressure to write about what they are told, if they want to maintain a preferential relationship. Secondly, if information is fed to the journalist late in the day, there isn’t always time to thoroughly investigate before it runs. If it’s a cracking story, it may be published quite uncritically in order to get the scoop.

The investigative journalist acknowledged that fear is a good story; it’s easy for the media to go full throttle into scare mode. Fear engages the reader. That has a short-term positive benefit for the news outlet, but ultimately it disrupts the delicate balance between public, government and media. The longer lockdowns and restrictions go on, the more advertising