In the discussion of the representation of political actors, all three PSB editors made reference to editorial practices and the emphasis upon impartial coverage as it
happens, and coverage that is based upon the actions of politicians, PSB editor A, B and C respectively stated:
“We would never select a look and feel for our packages and our studio with the objective of helping to positively or negatively present a party leader. I mean that would never enter our mind. We would never get involved in trying to enhance or diminish the reputation of any politician. We would never do sympathetic or hostile coverage. We report the news as we see it”.
“He [the politician] decides erm the original framing and we can only use the picture he gives us. I don’t I don’t think we… the question might have suggested that we in some way were trying to work out how that we project him as a leader and I don’t think we really I don’t think that’s a mental process we go through”.
“We try and cover things as they happen and try and do them as faithfully as we think we are covering them correctly. I don’t think we go out and think ‘this man is wonderful, this man is whatever, we will paint him that way. I think image is rather like a cartoon, cartoonists seize on an aspect of someone’s personality or look and use that as a short-hand. Political journalists do the same as well”.
All three editors emphasised their role in the process of representing politicians and that they aimed to faithfully present news and politics as it happens, as opposed to consciously projecting and endorsing political figures in particulars ways that would be beneficial (or not) to them. In the discussion of how the character of politicians is represented, PSB Editor A made reference to the ways in which they select politicians for TV interviews:
“on the basis of how they perform. If a politician mumbles their way through an interview then you may think people will immediately be turning to the off button so we have to consider those factors as well. This is where the whole image side of things comes in”.
Character and performance are acutely intertwined and can have positive effects for politicians. PSB editor A referred to David Cameron’s performance of his 2005 conference speech against his political rival, David Davis:
[Cameron’s] “performance was notable because it was seen in stark contrast to his political opponent in that particular conference which was David Davis… Cameron’s speech looked better but if you stood back and made an assessment, actually what those two speeches said was more than what they just said. You’re saying being a leader of the party, being the leader of any institution is a performance and you have to instil confidence”.
In this case, it was the performance itself that conferred character traits upon the audience and in turn generated personal capital and established Cameron’s political persona within his party and as a credible opposition leader.
PSB editor B referred to the relationship between performance, character and faithful political coverage:
“when Gordon was running for office, um maybe this is shaming him, no, but he would he would frequently miss the step on his way er onto the platform and then just… not fall over but just miss the step slightly… we use that shot because it was him and it was it was authentic, it was authentic, it told you something about the man.
You’ve got to engage and draw people in and, but it is about the man and and likewise, if I saw David Cameron, the equivalent would be sort of turning round and just sort of touching his hair a bit in the in the shop window, god I’d use that shot as well it just, there’s something authentic about it”.
The mediation of the character of politicians through PSB is informed by the value-judgements of editors as indicated by PSB Editor B:
“I’m supposed to be, you know, getting to know them, working out who they are and helping people with that judgement its er, you know enormous… er er it’s a responsibility and a privilege and all sorts of other things”.
As PSB is unlike other media outlets which are commercially driven, it was noted in the interviews, nevertheless, that the style of political coverage has changed in response to intense competition from other mediums such as the Internet and the press, as well as a change in audience expectations towards entertainment. The emphasis upon entertainment and personalisation of politics has altered the ways in which politicians communicate, for example, PSB editor A stated that the style of politicians communicating in the media was
“one of which you concede where you have limitations, you’re more honest in the way you communicate and I think a lot of broadcasters actually warm to those kinds of politicians because it’s more engaging for the public and you don’t hit a brick wall”.
High levels of personalisation, as in British politics e.g. the public display of the character of political leaders and its mediation, can generate forms of personal capital and create a series of imagined relationships between leader and led (or leader and audience) which in turn can offer politicians followership, authority and legitimacy.