Oh no! The Archbishop of Canterbury has lost his inhibitions, thrown caution to the wind, and – in a massive scoop for the media – has slagged off the government in a book to come out after he has left office in 2013. It must be his considered revenge, mustn’t it?
Even the BBC website has him “dismiss[ing] David Cameron’s ‘big society’ initiative as ‘aspirational waffle’”.
The story broke with the Observer claiming to “have obtained” the book. Just how clever is that?
Has it occurred to any of these guys that the book is a collection of speeches and writings already given over the last few years? In other words, the scripts are all public anyway and have been for some time. The headline story about Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ was, I think, delivered before the last election.
So, why is this now puffed up into a sensation story? Why is it presented as if it was anything new? Why did any editor think this could possibly be a ‘story’ unless it was misleadingly represented as ‘new’?
Or, just like (a) when the riots hit England last year and we were constantly asked why the Archbishop of Canterbury was making no comments, and (b) when St Paul’s Cathedral steps were Occupied and we were constantly aksed why the Archbishop of Canterbury was making no comments, why did no journalist go back to their previous ‘scandal’ story and recall that the Archbishop of Canterbury had actually spoken very loudly about all these matters in articles and speeches – not least the New Statesman editorial that politicians and journalists castigated him for?
Is such amnesia deliberate? Or is there some other explanation?
[Note on 25 June: I notice that John Bingham got the story right in the Telegraph.]
June 24, 2012 at 5:57 pm
the medium is the message
June 24, 2012 at 6:56 pm
The cause is a mixture of idleness, indifference, and ignorance. Since there is no penalty for this kind of thing, it will continue.
June 24, 2012 at 7:01 pm
Laziness and prepared narrative dominate subject to the perceived interests of the foreign/Brecqhou based billionaire owners of most UK media.
.
Rowan Williams might be grateful he isn’t subject to the disinformation Tony Blair suffers.
.
His percipience re Cameron’s Big Society was shared by a few, pity we were right.
June 26, 2012 at 8:18 am
It’s poor journalism by The Observer first and foremost, but it did have the desired effect.
The question is why did they want it to have this effect, when the Observer itself is not necessarily Dave’s biggest chum nor any great defender of the Big Society policy. Which leads us to who was saying it. (Or not saying it, but you know what I mean!)
As you’ve probably worked out by now, the media has a bit of a problem with the Church. Actually, religious figures in general, but the Church of England in particular. The Archbishop of Canterbury, as its leader, holds one of the highest offices in the land and is afforded a huge amount of power and influence at the highest levels, despite us living in an increasingly secular and multicultural society. Furthmore – and worse – he is appointed to this role and not elected. And still, instead of just appearing at Christmas, Easter and Jubilees for a bit of light blessing work, he has the nerve to try and use this great influence to say things some find uncomfortable. And we know whose job that is, don’t we?!
June 26, 2012 at 11:19 pm
I also agree that it is poor journalism by the Observer, and a more accurate piece of reporting from the guy from the Telegraph…never thought I would hear myself saying that!
I do however feel that we should be prepared to deal with the media as they are, rather as we would wish them to be in an ideal world. I accept that it can be galling for the Press to approach things from a completely different angle than we would hope for, but surely we should be realistic to know that is part of the territory. Even at local level , the local media often get even the most basic details wrong re church events/personalities etc so it is no surprise to see it replicated at the national level. However, sadly, I think we need to face up to the fact that this is where we are at this moment in time, not where we would like to be, although the church does have an important role to play in arguing for, urging and shaping reform of the press.
Which leads me to worry about how the Cof E is going to be depicted when issues of national interest such as the General Synod vote on Women Bishops hits the headlines shortly, as well as the ongoing debate over gay marriage etc. I truly hope that Lambeth Palace and the C of E in general has its very best Press Officers on duty, because it is sure going to need them!
I still remain personally unconvinced that we are properly equipped to deal with how the events will be presented to a bemused public, and the subsequent fallout from the news stories that will undoubtedly emerge.
June 28, 2012 at 12:59 pm
I agree with Phil.
Was the announcement of the book accompanied by a press release that states in its headline “Archbishop to publish collection of speeches given between … and … ” and in the opening paragraph: The Archbishop of Canterbury is preparing to publish a collection of speeches he made during his tenure at Lambeth Palace between… and …. All of these were widely reported at the time, but will now for the first time be presented in one single book….”
Something like that?
Then, if the Observer gets it wrong, it will be very easy for the church to send the accompanying press release to the Editor and ask for a clarifying letter and a correction to be published.
Done consistently, this approach could do a lot to correct wrong perceptions.