When Gordon met Piers

"Politics is show business for ugly people" Jay Leno

Politicians have embraced celebrity for more than 50 years. From Richard Nixon to Tony Blair, those in the highest corridors of power have, since the advent of television, sought to gain an advantage over their political rivals by performing to the media.

However, with the arrival of David Cameron and Barack Obama things have reached crisis point. Politics now increasingly resembles a talent show, where participants pour their hearts out to the nation in a desperate struggle to regain the public's short-lived attention span.

This reached a nadir on ITV1 at the weekend when prime minister Gordon Brown followed in the footsteps of Sharon Osborne, Katie Price and Richard Madeley by appearing on Piers Morgan's Life Stories. Fronted by Britain's Got Talent's personality-vacuum, the show had all the glitz and glam more readily associated with the channel's Saturday night output.

In a celebrity-style format - complete with a stock studio audience and what appeared to be canned laughter - the hour-long special seemed destined to become another public relations setback for Brown. But somehow the prime minister managed to come across as a human being, something which has evaded him throughout his entire premiership. Gone was the bumbling, weather-beaten basset hound caricatured by thousands of newspaper cartoonists - replaced by a confident, pragmatic leader.

Speaking eloquently and emotionally about the tragic death of his first child Jennifer Jane, Brown recounted how days after her birth he realised that she wouldn't survive.

He said: "It just gradually dawned on us that something, something was going wrong and she wasn't getting any bigger.

"I turned to the doctor and I said: 'She's not going to live, is she?' and he said: 'No, I don't think so. She's not going to live.'"

That isn't to say that it the show didn't contain a few cringe-inducing moments. I'm sure voters around the country were grasping for their remotes when Morgan asked the serving prime minister whether he had joined the mile-high club - an image no viewer would ever want implanted in their mind.

Laughably Morgan - who oozed charisma in the way that bullet holes leak blood - stated before the interview that Brown would face the toughest hour of his life. I doubt that this was even the toughest hour of his day. Jeremy Paxman he was certainly not. The closest Morgan came to really grilling the prime minister was on details about his engagement to wife Sarah in 2000, which was more voyeuristic than investigative.

Writing in the Guardian, Anne Perkins described the glorified party political broadcast as indicative of the "celebrity debasement of politics".

She said: "All that these toe-curling TV therapy sessions (remember poor Nick Clegg and the outrageous question about the number of women he had slept with?) tell us is how terrified politicians are of failing to match the pornography of the lowest common denominator."

The programme was watched by more than four million people - roughly two million viewers less than Holby City attracts on a weekly basis. Whether it will make any difference for Brown on polling day at the next general election is therefore questionable, but it has raised serious questions about whether we want our leaders to be personable or productive.

World's Worst Newspaper Hits London

It's 7:30am, London Waterloo. Thousands of bleary-eyed commuters shuffle in unison, attempting to delay the day's inevitable office-bound grind. Most of this suit-clad crowd avoid eye contact at all costs - with their head's buried deep within the morning's news. City Boys grasp their pink sheets, idealistic graduates survey The Guardian and lads ogle The Sun. This scene, it seems, has been played out for eternity.

But in 1999, things began to change. The Metro was launched as a free colour newspaper and was distributed among the capital's commuters. This offered readers a selection of short, unoriginal news stories hidden within a mass of celebrity gossip, sport and entertainment. Following the success of the Metro, a variety of cost-free imitators soon emerged. CITY AM for the financially-minded, the London Paper for the absent-minded and the now sadly-deceased London Lite for the feeble-minded. Even the Evening Standard, under the helm of the former KBG spy Alexander Lebedev, joined the party in October last year by dropping its cover charge of 50p.

And now London has got a new free sheet, the London Weekly - a newspaper so bad that many industry figures believed it was a public relations stunt. Shrouded in mystery, the London Weekly published its first ever edition last week - complete with numerous typos, spelling mistakes and a mundane front page splash about Wasps Rugby Club. Described by Steve Busfield, former news editor at guardian.co.uk, as "with doubt the worst front page lead I have ever seen in any newspaper of any format, shape, size or distribution", the story was even lifted word-for-word from a press release.

The paper's many other highlights include its top five albums of the week, with only four albums; spelling Phil Tufnell's name incorrectly as Tufnel on the front cover; an article entitled What Happened When Pasta Met Sauce; and a design so awful it appears to have been drawn up a group of four-year-olds with felt-tip pens. All-in-all, the London Weekly appears to have completely forgotten that to produce a newspaper they might have to employ trained journalists and sub-editors.

After a less than glorious opening, executives at the London Weekly, which is owned by the Invincible Group, have today attempted to fight back against their many critics with the release of the second edition.

However, the paper has still not managed to shake off the doubt that it is a terrible parody of an awful student newspaper dreamed up by advertising men. The front page story this week is actually about themselves. Entitled Pot Calling the Kettle Black, the story criticises the BBC for refusing to disclose the pay of its top owners, after the beeb reported on the mystery surrounding the private details of the London Weekly's benefactors.

This seems a little self-indulgent. The story is basically a rant about the negative media coverage the paper has received, which nobody outside of the Invincible Media Group really cares about.

For those lucky enough to obtain a copy, the second edition was as abhorrently awful as the first. Its writers continued to show a basic lack of grammatical knowledge that journalism first-year students would be scolded for. As an example, the sentence structure and spelling mistakes in the first paragraph are almost laughable for a newspaper with a target distribution of 1.5 million.

"The BBC who ran a news piece last week criticizing The London Weekly for not disclosing any private details were themselves in the spotlight this week for refusing to disclose it's top earners. The irony is, when we tried to get in touch for an interview, comment, or quote from the Beeb. There was no one to come forward for an interview."

Beyond the sniping about apostrophes and "7 things you never knew about Ginger Beer" features, the main question raised by the London Weekly is will people read it? Some commuters would rather gouge their own eyes out then be forced to read the adverts adorning tube walls. And this paper is free and has some, albeit questionable, content.

Its publishers will be hoping that a policy of not employing experienced reporters or sub-editors is a masterstroke. If the London Weekly can continue to attract enough readers to catch the attention of advertisers then why bother with such trivial pursuits as finding original, well-researched stories or a decent newspaper design. Here's hoping that this business model is not successful - as it could have wider implications for newspapers everywhere.

Groundhog Day at the Express

Ever get the feeling that you are stuck an endless, repetitive cycle of boredom and monotony? Like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day you relive the same set of circumstances day after day with no hope of ever escaping the sequence. I get this feeling solely when I read the Daily Express.

Like a broken record, the newspaper's coverage perpetually focuses on immigration, taxes, Gordon Brown and, as readers of this blog will know, the great global warming conspiracy.

Yesterday's paper contained a story entitled Global Warming: No, World's Cooling Down says Expert, which again underlined the biased nature of its reporting of the environment.

The article focused on comments made by Michael Beenstock, a professor of economic affairs at Hebrew University, who suggested that global warming is set to become global cooling this century.

In a speech to London's Cass Business School, the academic, who has no background in environmental science, claimed that the link between rising greenhouse gas emissions and rising temperatures is "spurious".

"The greenhouse effect is an illusion," he said.

Now I do not doubt that Mr Beenstock is an intelligent man, but his theories on global cooling don't stand up to scrutiny.

Last year, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies disclosed that the ten warmest years recorded since temperature analysis began in 1800 occurred between 1997 and 2008. Recently, data released by the state-run publication China Daily disclosed that temperatures in Tibet - often referred to as the roof of the world - increased in 2009 to the highest level ever recorded. India also experienced its hottest 12 months since records began last year, while Australia has just experienced its second warmest year ever.

Need I go on?

Beenstock should not be quoted when newspapers discuss global climate change science. He has no standing in the international scientific community and thus is sidelined from any reasoned debate.

But I expect no better from the Express. Its reporting of the environment always manages to maintain a delicate balance between stupidity and absurdity. Instead of interviewing anyone associated with the global climate change debate, it instead relies on a rabble of celebrities, sceptics and outright crack-pots to justify its views.

The public should know that some publications are undergoing a blatant effort to alter peoples' views on climate change. And the problem is that it is working. A recent survey of 1,000 people conducted by the BBC discovered that the number of Britons who believe the science of climate change has fallen substantially in the last 12 months. The poll revealed that 25 per cent of adults do not believe in global warming, which is eight per cent less than recorded in November.

This is serious. Our actions over the courses of the next couple of decades will determine whether the stable environment on which human civilization has depended since the last ice age 10,000 years ago continues. All reasonable data suggests that unless carbon dioxide emissions are reduced by 60 per cent by 2050, global temperature rises will surpass the tipping point of two degrees. This is going to be impossible if second-rate newspapers recklessly choose to highlight spurious stories for their own agendas.

UK rejoices as Pig Flu pandemic declared over

It's official. The UK swine flu pandemic is over. Why? Because the press says so! Millions are not dead, global infrastructure hasn't ground to halt and we all haven't turned into half-pigs, half-zombies wondering the pavements in search of Tamiflu.

This may come as a surprise to many who read newspapers in the UK. At the height of swine flu fever last year, you couldn't open a paper without being blinded by the latest prophecies of social collapse, streets littered with bloated, virus-riddled bodies and the end of the world as we know it.

But now it seems as if we all might have got a little bit carried away. The government announced yesterday (February 4th) that the flu hotline and website that make up the National Pandemic Flu Service will be closed from next week - in the clearest sign yet that the outbreak is subsiding.

Fewer than 5,000 cases of swine flu have been recorded every week for the past six weeks, which is substantially down from the 100,000 confirmed last summer. Around the world, an estimated 14,000 people have died from the virus - a fraction of the number who perished from ordinary flu in the same period.

In light of this news, some publications have sought to blame the government for mishandling the epidemic and sparking a sense of panic that "scared thousands witless". The very same press in fact that sought to drum up widespread fear over the nation's impending doom at the hands of the 'killer virus' last year.

The Daily Express has run a story today entitled Swine Flu scandal, criticising ministers for their "excessive reaction" to the epidemic and the billions of pounds spent on vaccines that will never be used.

Now I know hindsight is a wonderful thing, but you would expect more from a newspaper that published the following stories at the height of pig flu hysteria last year.

*By the way, these capital letters have not been added by me for dramatic effect. The Express has a nasty habit of publishing stories in a style that makes them read like a mentally-ill man bellowing the day's news at you through a megaphone.

SWINE FLU TO KILL 350 A DAY
50,000 DEAD IN MONTHS
HAS LABOR DONE ENOUGH TO COPE WITH SWINE FLU?
SWINE FLU PANIC SWEEPS BRITAIN
ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT SWINE FLU?
SWINE FLU CAN 'PENTRATE DEEP INTO THE LUNGS'
And ludicrously, BRITTANY MURPHY: WAS SHE KILLED BY SWINE FLU?

I could go on and on.

However, other newspapers didn't far much better. The Evening Standard screamed dementedly from its billboards last summer of a SWINE FLU MASS GRAVES PLAN, while the London Lite attempted to brighten the days of up sardine-packed commuters with the hysterical headline PIG FLU MAY KILL 94,000 LONDONERS.

The fact is that thousands of people die from flu every winter and usually because of underlying health problems or old age. In total, swine flu has killed just 411 Britons.

Policy-makers and scientists tend to prepare for future events based on a range of scenarios to ensure that every eventuality is catered for. Journalists have a nasty habit of publishing the worst-case scenarios and making them look like predictions. Why? Because it sells newspapers. So the next time you pick up your paper and read of the impending outbreak of a nasty strain of goat measles that is destined to kill billions, keep calm and carry on.

Big Brother looms over UK press

Life as a journalist can be pretty tough. Thousands of wide-eyed journalism graduates stumble out of university every year with delusions of investigative assignments in some south-east Asian outpost - only to be faced with the grim reality of writing 500 car insurance stories a day for bloody comparethemarket.com.

As if this isn't bad enough, the pay is awful. Many local newspaper hounds could earn more from stacking shelves at Lidl and even national reporters' salaries are less than the average Carphone Warehouse salesman.

I know what you're thinking - not another London-based media type bleating on about how hard his sheltered little life is. Well no actually. Shut up and listen! This is merely a dramatic device to introduce the main theme of this blog - the dire straits that journalism, as an industry, is currently in.

With the advent of the internet and the decline in traditional media, many newspapers have struggled to adapt their business models. In the early days, as more and more readers flocked online, most publications rashly decided to put all of their content on the internet free-of-charge. At the time this seemed sensible as the revenue pulled in from advertisers balanced the books. However, the recession has drastically reduced the value of both print and online advertisements, while paid circulation is continuing its seemingly inevitable decline to nothing.

This is a particularly stark issue for the UK's quality press. Last month, GMG - owner of the Guardian and Observer newspapers - disclosed that the Guardian posted a loss of £36.8 million for the year to March 2009. This has led to feverish debate within journalism about how it can reform, as currently the industry resembles a dying man stumbling to his grave.

Earlier this week, Sir Martin Sorrel, chief executive of the marketing and communications firm WPP, offered his method of reviving the deceased sector. He suggested that if widespread consolidation and closures in the media reach a crisis point then governments may have to begin subsidising newspapers like the Guardian.

Previously, this would be treated as blasphemy by many hacks, who believe that a press - free of state influence - is a vital component of a fully-functioning democracy. But, in the current media landscape, any idea is welcome.

He told Arabian Business: "You could argue that newspapers provide a vital service [like banks]. It is the same issue, whether the state should intervene in certain issues to help preserve a service."

The problem is that good newspapers are the antithesis of business or government. The main goal for a select few publications is producing an informative, sometimes entertaining, paper that uncovers corruption, abuses of power and miscarriages of justice. Like premiership football chairman, investors chuck loads of money in and the only thing they receive back - apart from status - is massive debt.

But sometimes life - albeit rarely - is about more than money and influence. It's about an idea, a purpose. Birds don't sing to appeal to the teen consumer market, the sun doesn't shine to improve its revenues for the fourth quarter, babies don't smile in the hope of winning over an electorate. Some things are more important than that, including a free press.

Mail stumbles over wounded soldier

In my mission to bring you witty insights into the UK media I have had to make some sacrifices. The most painful has been buying and reading The Daily Mail on a regular basis in favour of my beloved Guardian.

Every morning I face the acute embarrassment that comes with handing over a copy of the paranoid, delusional 'preserve of Middle England' to my local newsagent, who gives me a knowing wink and a breathless mutter of "bloody immigrants".

During the last two months of reading I have made an astounding discovery - The Daily Mail doesn't like Gordon Brown. Shocking I know. Page after page of the paper is devoted to the PM's latest cock-ups, which range from the spurious - accusations of assaulting his staff - to the truthful - the furore surrounding MPs' expenses.

The Labour Party leader has been widely barracked in the press from both sides of the political spectrum since he succeeded Tony Blair. So much of this criticism is warranted. But today the Daily Mail's online editor got a little bit too excited.

This morning, the newspaper published a story on its website revealing that Brown held a photo-call with Derek Derenalagi - a private in the 2nd Mercians who lost both legs in Afghanistan.

The former Fijian rugby player, who now hopes to compete in the London 2012 Paralympics, was visiting Downing Street to promote a St George's Day rugby match set-up to raise funds for the charity Help For Heroes.

However, during the promotional exercise Derenalagi took a tumble on the steps of Number 10 and had to be helped back on to his prosthetic legs by Brown.

The Daily Mail choose to publish this story under the headline - Help for a Hero: Another PR setback for Gordon Brown as wounded serviceman falls on steps of Downing Street.

It read: "This morning a well-meaning photo-call for the Help For Heroes charity went awry when a soldier who lost both legs in Afghanistan took a dramatic tumble on the steps of No 10.

"With the government under constant criticism for its treatment of servicemen and veterans, the sight of the prime minister having to help Derek Derenalagi, up from the floor was probably not the upbeat image the Number 10 press office was hoping for."

Berating Gordon Brown for the state of the economy, the war in Afghanistan and the health of the NHS is understandable. Referring to the unfortunate stumble of paraplegic servicemen on the steps of Number 10 as a public relations setback is downright offensive.

The Daily Mail is beginning to become a parody of itself. Well known for its views on immigration, which are more conservative than the Nazi Party's, the paper is so caught up in its own hatred that it has forgotten the golden rule of journalism - objectivity.

Some potential Daily Mail stories to look out for next week:

Exclusive: Brown killed Diana!
The Daily Mail has uncovered secret evidence linking Gordon Brown to the death of the people's princess.

Bungling PM responsible for dinosaur extinction
For decades scientists have debated the cause of dinosaurs' sudden disappearance 60 million years ago. But now the Mail can reveal that newly discovered fossils place Gordon Brown as the prime cause of extinction.

Brown causes cancer!
A senior aide to the prime minister has told the Daily Mail that Gordon Brown has the power to instantly cause cancer through the power of touch.

Placards and protests welcome Blair to Iraq inquiry

Stop the War campaigners today dusted down their grim reaper costumes and picked up their 'witty' B-LIAR placards to welcome the arrival of Tony Blair to the Iraq War Inquiry.

For those interested - or merely unemployed - the whole day's events were broadcast on BBC News with a one-minute delay, to avoid the disclosure of national secrets. Sound exciting? Well not exactly.

The former prime minister arrived through a side entrance early this morning to avoid protestors and take up his seat as the star witness of the inquiry, which has been set-up to identify lessons that can be learned from the Iraq conflict.

For your benefit, I disciplined myself to watch all six hours - yes, six whole bloody hours - of proceedings.

Sitting in front of a five-member panel constituting senior civil servants, academics and lawyers - and with his back to families of servicemen and women killed in the conflict, the day promised to be tense.

However, those expecting a televised Judge Judy-style bashing will have been disappointed with the tone of the proceedings. Demonstrating the statesmanship that swept him to three consecutive election victories, Blair remained relatively unruffled throughout, fixed with the facial expression of a schoolchild being reprimanded by his headmaster for a minor playground discretion.

The inquest was a very English affair. All polite questions, pleases, thanks yous and knowing glances. Blair received more of a grilling last month from that famous in-depth investigative political correspondent Fern Britton, who - on her day off from hosting the drab ITV show All Star Mr and Mrs - managed to get him to admit that he would have still invaded Iraq if Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction.

Despite Blair's absence from politics for the best part of two years, he displayed the primary skill essential for any politician worth his tax-dodging salary - the ability to duck interviewers' questions.

Looking like a man who has spent too much time sun-bathing in the Middle East, rather than solving the region's political crises, Blair defended his decision to go to war, denied placing pressure on the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith to legalise the conflict and downplayed any agreement with US president George Bush at a private meeting in 2002

But this isn't a hatchet job on the former Labour Party leader. He did, throughout the six hours make some valid points, despite his failure to offer any humility or an apology, which drew wide-spread anger inside the inquiry.

"This isn't about a lie or a conspiracy or a deceit or a deception. It's a decision," he said.

"And the decision I had to take was, given Saddam's history, given his use of chemical weapons, given the over one million people whose deaths he had caused, given ten years of breaking UN resolutions, could we take the risk of this man reconstituting his weapons programmes or is that a risk that it would be irresponsible to take?"

The consequences of his decision are still apparent in Iraqi's blood-soaked marketplaces and the 150,000 grieving mothers and fathers that litter the country - with or without this pointless exercise.

Whether it managed to distract the nation's sofa-stricken population from Murder She Wrote, Loose Women or Cash in the Attic is questionable, but the BBC's decision to broadcast it should be applauded. Politics is an issue that affects us all, so we should take a more active role in it.