New Statesman Scotland

New research has shown a remarkable Holyrood effect on television news coverage in Scotland. Previously unpublished, the results of a comparison between news output on Scottish Television and Grampian in early November 1998 and early November this year make revealing reading.

Not surprisingly, in November 1999 there was a significantly larger proportion of airtime taken up by stories about the workings of the Scottish Parliament, or stories affected by it, or given a new angle by MSPs or the Scottish executive. But in a completely new way, with no Westminster precedent, the parliament now plays a role in moving stories forward that in the past would not have had a direct political connection. Two recent football stories were given a new dimension when Holyrood became involved.

The row over Scotland v England tickets and the reports of financial irregularities at Hampden Park were both refreshed when the parliament's education, culture and sports committee called the deputy sports minister, Rhona Brankin, to appear before them and answer questions on both issues.

In a completely different part of the news agenda, Holyrood had another profound effect. During the course of its inquiry into the Scottish national arts companies, the same committee generated a wholly new story when details of Scottish Opera's near- bankruptcy were uncovered. And most prominent was the life given to the implications of "Lobbygate" and the relationship of Beattie Media with political figures, after Holyrood committees and ministers were called upon for judgements and comments for a long period after the story first broke.

These new mechanisms are also well oiled by the simple facts of geography. MSPs and Scottish executive ministers are now far more accessible than Westminster MPs ever were, or could be. The logistical difficulties of finding Scottish MPs in London, getting them into a remote studio for a live interview up the line into an evening news broadcast from Glasgow or Aberdeen (with the potential for technical failure ever present, to say nothing of how unsatisfactory these were as television), or sticking them on St Stephen's Green for a taped piece - these profound awkwardnesses have almost all disappeared. Parliamentary television in Edinburgh is not only easier to make, it is better to watch. In addition, Westminster used to be covered for Scottish bulletins by one or, at most, two correspondents based in London. Now all of the specialists in a newsroom, from sports to the arts, have ready access to MSPs.

Another striking aspect of the Holyrood effect is the way in which MSPs have almost totally eclipsed Scottish MPs. While this is less of a problem for the substantial number of MPs who are ministers and can command airtime for that reason, it must be worrying for Scottish backbenchers. An early example of these anxieties surfaced on 11 June in Irvine, Ayrshire. There had been a fatal fire in a block of flats and the Scottish Television reporter covering the incident was confronted by Brian Donohoe MP and Irene Oldfather MSP arguing over who should contribute to the report. By November this year it had become established practice in newsrooms to call on the MSP in the first instance.

The comparative research also found that a new style of reporting was beginning to appear on programme running orders. These were explanatory pieces, the purpose of which was to help viewers understand how Holyrood worked. For example, in late November there was a news feature on the importance of public petitions and how Holyrood has an obligation to consider them, while Westminster has not.

Now, much of the Holyrood effect on television news (and on other media) is only to be expected. By enabling a Scottish parliament, the government intended to bring it closer to the Scottish people. That that closeness should have bred news stories in abundance should come as no surprise. But what must give the government pause is both the profile and the role of back-bench MPs in Scotland.

What sharpens the broader picture even further is another piece of unpublished research. Earlier in 1999, before the parliamentary elections, almost 1,000 Scots, selected as a demographic mirror of the whole country, were asked to choose between two options for television news. Two-thirds preferred to see two clearly branded, separate programmes of Scottish and UK news, while one-third wanted to see the two combined into one hour-long programme. The SNP will find these statistics inconvenient as they continue to argue for the integration of UK news into a Scottish bulletin - the Scottish Six. If this is somehow forced through against the express will of the viewers, they may find that audiences will migrate in numbers to something scheduled at that time that they do want to watch. Or, if they ponder the results of the comparative research into the current news set-up in ITV in Scotland, wiser heads might conclude that the optimum position is the status quo.

However, politicians are notoriously badly informed about television. They don't watch it and tend to see it as something they should be on rather than in front of. Really sophisticated judgements about programmes are best left to those with a genuine interest in them - ordinary viewers.

Alistair Moffat

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website