Yesterday the report of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities was published. It was immediately controversial, and the government would have expected that. The media were provided with some material from the report and the chair of the Commission was made available for interview. Was this good enough?
In the early part of the Today programme (around 6:35) the BBC home editor Mark Easton told Nick Robinson and the listeners that it was "slightly odd", and that "we're relying on selected lines which have been provided by the government". I saw two print/online journalists discussing the same thing on Twitter. The report itself was not to be published until 11:00, so all the listeners had to go on was (admittedly very relevant) interviews and several news items and introductions based on these "selected lines", but the "slight oddness" of that information was not mentioned at any other point in the programme.
Later that day, fact checkers FullFact published a comment by their chief executive Will Moy, lamenting this approach by government (and by media). "Will we accept these tactics again when the inquiry into how the coronavirus pandemic was handled is released?" he asked. "A favourable summary given press coverage while some convenient time later the rest of the report comes out?" He went on to propose "a parliamentary inquiry into the oversight of government communications to protect the good they do and the vital importance of good official information" and suggested "the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee [as] one of the possible routes to make that happen".
Former senior civil servant Jill Rutter responded "I also think it's up to journalists to refuse to report until the whole thing is available".
The sceptical audience's perception of government media management must be that information is released to prime the debate, ministers (or other approved speakers) are made available for the "morning shows" and then - far too often - everybody disappears when the report (or whatever) comes out later in the day.
I agree with Mr Moy, and sympathise with Ms Rutter (though which editor will hold back while others are running with the story?) and I would be grateful if you could get some comment from the editor or presenters of Today itself, as Radio 4's prime accomplice in/victim of these particular media management exercises.
