ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ

I think Tony Blair is correct, the media now run politics hyping up stories that are only newsworthy inside the Westminister hothouse. This in effect numbs people to the real issues when they come to the surface.

But then media as a whole has become nothing more than "big brother lite" No real news of depth only what "celeb" is doing what to who. I sat last Friday night a bar which had the Paris Hilton live re-arrest live on a news channel, is this really news

Don't really feel it is right to comment as this con-man will shortly - if there is any justice - appear at the International Criminal Court in the Hague.

The problem is with politicians rather than journalists. We are cynical about politicians because of the way they have behaved: they want to be exempt from rules they impose on the rest of us (FoI), they distorted the evidence to justify a war against Iraq (no-one expect politicians seriously doubts this now), they drove a leading scientist to suicide (Dr. Kelly), they ignore public opinion, they lie and dissemble all the time.

Is he really surprised that we the public and the media are cynical? Politicians, especially TB and his Ministers, have turned serial lying into an art form. I don't believe a word they say any more.

It was The Sun who made Tony Blair prime minister. So he should now a lot about the press and how it works. A call to Rupert Murdoch will do.

My god! The cheek of the man. He and his odious henchman Mr Campbell seemed to think the media was lovely when they were accepting his spoonfed lies, but now they don't much like him any more, he thinks they are "a feral beast" (code for not reporting what he wants them to).

Actually, I think he has now reached the stage where he believes his own lies and propaganda and it is difficult to decide who is more self-delusional Blair or Mugabe.

At last the Grinning Puppet had learnt irony

It’s difficult to say what comes first: the media’s β€˜cynic’ treatment of the politicians or the evasiveness of British politicians to face up to facts. However, knowing and following the political debate in Scandinavia and Italy, with half an eye on France and Germany, I can say I no know politicians as unwilling to part from the script and speak from the heart. No wonder the media here tries all their limited means!

It can often be quiet dizzying to listen to the debate i.a. on Newsnight and see politicians conduct some sort of a β€˜Alice-in-Wonderland’ discourse where the listener cannot at all understand what is up and what is down and the politicians float up into thin air, out of touch with normal vocabulary and certainly out of all common sense.

If the media turns cynical it’s because the politicians have turned the discourse into verbal acrobatics on a thin line accessible only to them...

Blair is absoluteley right , Its about time someone brought the media to book . All they do is complain, and pull people apart.

BBc news in general is a disgrace , followed by ITN.

You do not report the news, you try to make it !

Nick Robinson and that goon on ITN are pathetic. Who wants their opinion, tell us whats hapenning, stop preaching your opinion !

With your leaked news and speculation and inuendo, its a shame non of you have the guts to stand up and have a go at running the country yourselves.

It applies to whichever political party you are reporting on.

Very sad and as a public funded body where do viewers get the right to complain. I tried once and was told to put it in writing, which I did but never heard anything back.

Who,s checking the checkers !

Every News Editor has an agenda and so does every Prime Minister!

We all remember the pre-New Labour days when the Conservative agenda dominated the headlines and which spawned the likes of Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell, the architects of "spin" who have made us all very cynical.

Competition and oneupmanship is what news and comment is about these days. Let's have a return to the days of the media being the fourth estate and take the focus off who's going on holiday with their caravan and what shoe's everyone is wearing.

Tony Blair has hit it on the nail.
There is a vocal minority of repoeters from the paparazi scum to those in print who do not report the news, but try to create it.
Dryden said it first-
"some truth there was, but brewed and dashed with lies-
I can't remember the last two lines, I believe it ends with-"and confuse the wise"
Max Hurren.
British Columbia

A bit rich now isn't it. Is not this what Peter Hain tried to raise a year or two back? He identified the need to redefine the relationship between politicians and the media by recognising politicians can learn from mistakes and should be allowed to do so while politicians need to be prepared to admit mistakes.

If only there were fewer "career" politicians with little experience of ordinary life we might begin to allow them to not be Supermen and women. I'm afraid by allowing themselves to become divorced from the real world of their consituents and unable to express humility, our carrer politicians have brought much of this on themsleves. Perhaps they really do need to "get a life" - preferably before entering politics.

Mr. Blair is completely correct and it is a shame that he never had the courage to make this statement earlier in his premiership. It is time the public had a chance to hear or read the news as it is and if they dsesire without comment or political slant.

Tony Blair has hit it on the nail.
There is a vocal minority of repoeters from the paparazi scum to those in print who do not report the news, but try to create it.
Dryden said it first-
"some truth there was, but brewed and dashed with lies-
I can't remember the last two lines, I believe it ends with-"and confuse the wise"
Max Hurren.
British Columbia

Mr. Blair is completely correct and it is a shame that he never had the courage to make this statement earlier in his premiership. It is time the public had a chance to hear or read the news as it is and if they dsesire without comment or political slant.

Blair is absoluteley right , Its about time someone brought the media to book . All they do is complain, and pull people apart.

BBc news in general is a disgrace , followed by ITN.

You do not report the news, you try to make it !

Nick Robinson and that goon on ITN are pathetic. Who wants their opinion, tell us whats hapenning, stop preaching your opinion !

With your leaked news and speculation and inuendo, its a shame non of you have the guts to stand up and have a go at running the country yourselves.

It applies to whichever political party you are reporting on.

Very sad and as a public funded body where do viewers get the right to complain. I tried once and was told to put it in writing,
which I did but never heard anything back.

Who,s checking the checkers !

Mr. Blair is completely correct and it is a shame that he never had the courage to make this statement earlier in his premiership. It is time the public had a chance to hear or read the news as it is and if they dsesire without comment or political slant.

Yet another step in New Labour's strategy of priming us for a de facto totalitarian state.

I am very concerned at the constant use of the word "BUT" in news reports. So many statements of news items are followed by a "BUT". Any report of a positive action, improvements in statistics, successful negotiation etc etc has to be followed by a "but is it really true?", "but has it had other negative side effects?", "but could it be better?" etc etc If something is better in one area then a "but is it better elsewhere?" or "but will it continue?" etc etc. The media do seem to feel the need to encourage cynicism and/or controversy in order for an item to be considered newsworthy. Whilst it is essential that statements are analysed and questioned by the media, the continual use of "BUT" seems to be a formula designed to discredit without discretion.

I FULLHEARTILY AGREE WITH MR TONY BLAIR,BUT NOT ONLY IN THE U.K. I WOULD SAY THE MEDIA HAS BECOME THE GLOBAL CYNIC,CREATING JUST AS CYNICAL A BUNCH OF VOTERS EVERYWHERE!
I CHEERISH MY OWN INDEPENDANT JUDGEMENT AQUIRED DURING AN ACTIVE LIFE, BUT THOSE VEIWERS AND READERS FROM 5 TO 55, DO NOT STAND A CHANCE....TRUTH!
JPS. GENEVA

The relationship between politicians and the media is 'damaged', but in the inverse sense to which Tony Blair refers...

The truth is that the media is incapable of performing the very serious task of holding our politicians to account, because the media have the attention span of a gold fish, and share the same values as the politicians.

Those values are; to maintain the status quo wherein the powerful exploit the powerless.

Is this the point where the Journo's throw their hands up in horror / sneer contemptuously 'Shurely Shome mishtake' or in mock innocent astonishment 'Do they mean us?!' I recently watched some local TV journalist stun a Police Chief by ripping into him over some perfectly sensible and innocent suggestion he'd made. Lesson to kids - sneer and snarl at authority figures lads - you'll be earning a lot more than them so who's the sap? - Whoops, sorry must remember to patronise nurses whilst deriding anyone else in public service - except the civil service of course 'cos we have to blame all their cock-ups on the government.

Ever since the Tory meltdown in 1997, the news and broadcast media have behaved as though Her Majesty's Official Opposition. The past ten years are characterised by scraps, skirmishes and battles with a government that is accountable to parliament (e.g. defeated votes), to the electorate (e.g. general elections) and to the news and broadcast media (e.g. through maulings by Jeremy Paxman). However, the news and broadcast media are barely accountable to anyone. The whole process is out of balance.

feral beast, he is so funny when he cannot manipulate the news it becomes a feral beast, when he can manipulate it does it become Alaster Campbell, and i read now when he is no longer prim minister he will convert his faith, bit like me and the labour party.
you have to ask yourself does anybody care what he thinks anymore I for one think every word that comes out of his mouth is a lie, he even took us to war on a lie,

Of course Tony Blair doesn't like the Press - he and his infamous government have done more to undermine our civil liberties and hard-won traditions of freedom than even the Nazis with their Luftwaffe or Weremacht could ever achieve.
These freedoms were fought for by decent people over centuries and should not now lightly be surrendered to New Labour.
It is still hard to believe that this British Prime Minister led this peaceful Nation of ours into an illegal war attacking a Sovereign Nation that posed no threat to us- and now objects to the minor murmurs of our Press!
Watch the gates of our Free Press.
The enemy is us!

Jed Falby

Had Blair not been runnning scared of Murdoch and the Tabloids in the first place, maybe he'd have paused for ten minutes, before committing us to an illegal war we didn't want, long enough to at least wonder if losing the resounding endorsement of George Bush was really such an unthinkable headline from the Feral Beast. To complain now, after ten supine years of attempted appeasement, rather reminds me of Colin Powell breaking five years of silence to object to illegal detentions. By their deeds shall yea know them.

I've not read/heard the speech, but the bald assertion that 'the media is creating cynicism' is astounding, coming from Mr Blair, whose various apparatchiks and spinmeisters cynically tried to play and manipulate the media throughout his tenure of office.

Oh Please! We all know that there are segments of the tabloid media that have earned their status as 'gutter press' and there has certainly been a fair amount of dumbing down, even at the more respectable end.

But basically there has never been a more cynically manipulative government when it comes to media management than this one. Mr. Blair knows this all too well and this is sheer sour grapes.

If the media have bitten the hand that feeds it, the government has treated them like mushrooms - and we all know what mushroom are fed on don't we?

Good evening everyone, like many of you I will be glad to see the back of Tony Blair.
His draconian legislation has led to a gradual erosion of our basic freedoms as individuals and organisations.
As someone who spent a hard apprenticeship in newspapers it would appear that Mr. Blair now wants to stifle the media. Hard news, that is reporting the facts is one thing, commentary is based on opinion.
Is it possible he cannot face up to criticism of his mistakes as he makes them or criticism in the form of the opinions of a 'free' press? Or worse still, can he not distinguish between the two?
Our dear Mr. Blair is becoming something like 'the cloned Mr. Bush!' Geoff Brown, Newcastle upon Tyne.

Journalists have a duty to report the news accurately, they have a duty to report the likely effect the news might have on others and journalists and others have the right to comment on various aspects of the news.If journalists are creating cynicism then either their reporting is inaccurate or politicians are giving them something to be cynical about. If Tony Blair thinks that readers cannot distinguish between "News" and "Comment" he would have done better to improve the educational system so that readers are capable of this.

Come now Tony you and your spin Dcotors manipulate the press to your own advantage, even take them on your gravy train trips abroad at the Taxpayers expense.
When they question your activities you call foul you can't have it all ways.
I don't expect Brown will be any better.

It is Tony blair and his Ministers who have made the public cynical and distrust politicians, they have developed their perpetual lying, twisted and contorted answers into an art form. Non of his associates are in politics for anything else but themselves and a carreer.

To some extent politicians determine what is reported by the media. When a politician makes a statement on a given subject, especially if there is a controversial edge to it, the media will pick up on it, dicussing it ad nauseum. It can be a little disheartening to see certain highly respected media institutions following this pattern, since this helps to detract from more pressing issues, and give knee jerk opinions more media time/space than they're worth.

An example of this process at work is the inevitable reporting and discusion of just this topic on Newsnight.

surely cynicism is what we need from the media

News and comment should certainly be separate. TV newsreporters should be just that and not adding comment. Tone of voice when reading news on the radio is important especially on the Today programme. There is a legitimate place for comment lets keep it there.
Language needs to be toned down. Do we have to have so many crises when they are just minor happenings or disasters when something goes wrong?
Tony Blair was right to acknowledge that a mistake was made initially but Downing Street's disregard for Parliament has made us cynical.
One last point - can we have real news not where someone buys thier underwear!

I agree with Blair on this occasion. The press and politicians both have competing agendas but the net result is a cynicism on the part of the public whom they are both supposed to serve. We end up trusting neither the sincerity of the politicians we've elected, nor the salacious press/TV reporting we are fed as being 'in the national interest'. Result: bunkum

Is Max Hurren, Tony Blair or Alastair Campbell's 'friend in hiding'?
If Tony has a problem with the 'Press' maybe he should look deep inside himself for the answers as to why the press has such a cynical view of the diatribe politicians cone out with these days.
After all he was the one that started it!

News and comment should certainly be separate. TV newsreporters should be just that and not adding comment. Tone of voice when reading news on the radio is important especially on the Today programme. There is a legitimate place for comment lets keep it there.
Language needs to be toned down. Do we have to have so many crises when they are just minor happenings or disasters when something goes wrong?
Tony Blair was right to acknowledge that a mistake was made initially but Downing Street's disregard for Parliament has made us cynical.
One last point - can we have real news not where someone buys thier underwear!

The simple process of selecting the news is a form of comment. The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ has an inbred left wing bias and they do indulge in too much commentary at the license payer’s expense. I would like more historical/legal context and detail on news items with separate knock-about comment sections where the Guardianistas are balanced by some intelligent conservatives.

The first time I have ever agreed with Tony Blair!

The first time I have ever agreed with Topny Blair!

I do think the media, particularly print, is just a bit too pleased with itself - happy to criticise in sensational terms but god help anyone who dares to comment on the media! Do you ever see the media criticising itself or revealing the scandals that undoubtedly take place among it's journalists?
A bit brave of Mr Blair to invite the wrath of the "feral beasts" - but one can understand how he feels.

Mr. Blair uses the Hutton Inquiry as an example of the press being a 'feral beast' and then goes on to say 'But leave that to one side'.
Typical Blair 'spin' as per Alastair Campbell.

I do think the media, particularly print, is just a bit too pleased with itself - happy to criticise in sensational terms but god help anyone who dares to comment on the media! Do you ever see the media criticising itself or revealing the scandals that undoubtedly take place among it's journalists?
A bit brave of Mr Blair to invite the wrath of the "feral beasts" - but one can understand how he feels.

Course blair's right.But hey 24 news channels have a product to sell and if journalists don't sensationlise the products would we bother tuning in?

Watch the 24 hour news channels...look at all the sensationalist adjectives used in comment..breaking news, crisis, tradgedy, conspiracy...the news is sold to us not reported to us:

1. news plus sensationilism = ratings

Now watch journalists interviewing journalists...how many times has a interviewed journalist said "actually that polilitician made a simple error" vs "that politician may have conspired with xx":

2. Journalists add depth to stories to jusify their existence/fill time.

The only solution is
1. tighter statutory guidelines and the seperation of comment on and reporting of news. This doesn't stop the media saying anything it wishes, it just gives gives the viewer and reader the ability to distinguish between what happened and the journalist's opinion of what happened.
2. Statutory guidelines on reporting BOTH sides of the story with equal time devoted to each side.
3. Bias warning.. we know the daily mail is a right wing paper..the bottom 1/5 of the paper should carry a warning that the paper reports its right wing view of what is happening not simply what happened. The sun warning should state news is simplified and may be sensationalised to be more intresting, the question is what would newsnights warning be?

Dear Tony
That's not cynicism - that's experience!

Yes, he has it right. We often accuse politicians of spins but the press does it with gusto.

A man who lives by the credible lie, relying on the press to amplify it, complains when they cease to do so and imitate what they should be - free and independent. Because his lies have ceased to be believed by almost everyone.

How many people has he killed, indirectly, through the use of his once-credible lies, this Christian multi-millionaire of ours? His legacy will be a shameful one.

Let's just look forward to getting rid of the man and let him start to rake in his pre-planned millions on the American circuit.

A man who lives by the credible lie, relying on the press to amplify it, complains when they cease to do so and imitate what they should be - free and independent. Because his lies have ceased to be believed by almost everyone.

How many people has he killed, indirectly, through the use of his once-credible lies, this Christian multi-millionaire of ours? His legacy will be a shameful one.

Let's just look forward to getting rid of the man and let him start to rake in his pre-planned millions on the American circuit.

Tony Blair is absolutely right about the media. Watching the news and reading the papers is a constant battle to read between the lines, check different programmes etc. to try to decipher the truth and what is really going on.

The mainstream news media seem incapable of reporting the real issues behind what we are fed by our leaders. While this can be expected of commercial news organisations, it is acutely frustrating and disappointing to witness it from the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ.

I find I'm getting the real news from documentaries these days, and short investigative pieces burried on Newsnight (sometimes) - this information should be on the Ten O'Clock News. It smacks of laziness - everyone's in their comfort zones and don't want to rock the boat too much - just enough to make a name for themselves perhaps, but nothing 'serious' like, say, the truth.

If the mainstream news media reported the true issues behind the soundbites, with impartiality (psst - ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ - that's you!), politicians wouldn't get away with outright lying as they do now, and then perhaps they might be able to build a real reputation - trust among the public, not the ones projected by colleagues.

I agree with Tony Blair's statement, but it is a bit too late for someone who used the media for so long to cry now.

News should be that, and comments are comments, for too long the 'media' have created the story in politics, but who do we have to thank for that? The promo team extraordinaire Blair, Campbell, and the one who was sacked before he got a cushy number in Europe, Mandlesson I mean.

It is time for the media to report rather than create the news, but this may be done inspite of Blair not because of him.

Tony Blair is a Liar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The media did not make him so, it must have come naturally!

Do you remember the comment Colin Powell made? 'I quote' There are No weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Could it be that Messrs Bush and Blair were aware of this from the start and prevented Hans Blix from completing his assigned task because of this?

tony blair and alister campbell are two of the biggest manipulators of the media so it is a bit rich coming from the pm. is it coincidental he is leaving on 27th june? i don't think these "comments" would have been made otherwise. sometimes i think the press does go overboard but generally they do a reasonable job on behalf of the public.
jack

Bliar (sorry, Blair) says media puts impact before accuracy. Gulp!

Message 29# (David Mackinder):

Without being rude, but if you have not read or herd the speech how can you come on here and make a informed comment?

Having taken the trouble of actually reading Blair's speech I have to say his analysis is spot on. I think Michael White confirms this view on the Guardian website:

'Blair's diagnosis is hard to dispute'

One of the great myth's of British politics is that Blair is the first Prime Minister ever to be concerned about the media. Perhaps people need some history lesson's about previous Prime Minister's? Did Mrs Thatcher not court the media? Did she not employ PR consultants and spin doctors? Ditto did John Major not concern himself with what the press wrote about him and try and infulence journalist's? There has never been a mystical goldern era for British political discourse and the sooner people realise that the better it will be for all.

What's been interesting today is how much of the media have reacted to Blair's speech, alot of so-called expert commentators have taken the view 'how dare the PM comment on our profession'. Pretty sad state of affairs.

Bloody cheek! Tony Blair has had a pact with the devil, or more explicitly, Rupert Murdoch, for more than a decade, not that Margaret Thatcher was immune from Murdoch's blandishments ten years or more previously. They have been locked together in the massive dissembling of news, opinion and comment ever since. In over 20 years in Fleet St on almost every title, I was never less than impressed by how much every proprietor's interference with the editorial line was determined by political self interest and by how much their loyal readerships continued to absorb their skewed views, opinions and downright lies. It was if copy tasters never existed.
The Campaign For Press Freeedom's Right of Reply never got off the ground in spite of every media union signing up to it, including the NUJ. Local print chapels' fight to resist the worst excesses of wholesale mis-reporting of significant issues throughout the eighties lead to the rubbish that parades as reportage today and as a consequence we, Blair and his cohorts have only ourselves to blame for the present poor standards of journalism thar pertain today across the media.

Having taken the trouble of actually reading Blair's speech I have to say his analysis is spot on. I think Michael White confirms this view on the Guardian website:

'Blair's diagnosis is hard to dispute'

One of the great myth's of British politics is that Blair is the first Prime Minister ever to be concerned about the media. Perhaps people need some history lesson's about previous Prime Minister's? Did Mrs Thatcher not court the media? Did she not employ PR consultants and spin doctors? Ditto did John Major not concern himself with what the press wrote about him and try and infulence journalist's? There has never been a mystical goldern era for British political discourse and the sooner people realise that the better it will be for all.

What's been interesting today is how much of the media have reacted to Blair's speech, alot of so-called expert commentators have taken the view 'how dare the PM comment on our profession'. Pretty sad state of affairs.

Tony Blair and New Labour manipulated the Media for there own ends. As time went on with the "Dodgy Dossier" and the 45mins that we had before Sadam Hussein could release his missiles was all fabrication by New Labour. In turn with the government having full backing by the media, the public have been lied to wholesale!
For once the Media are reverting back to investigative journalism and the public are at last being told at least some of the truth, and I don't think Tony Blair likes the truth being told. His Legacy will be one of lies, lies and more lies, this country went to war on a lie!

Bloody cheek! Tony Blair has had a pact with the devil, or more explicitly, Rupert Murdoch, for more than a decade, not that Margaret Thatcher was immune from Murdoch's blandishments ten years or more previously. They have been locked together in the massive dissembling of news, opinion and comment ever since. In over 20 years in Fleet St on almost every title, I was never less than impressed by how much every proprietor's interference with the editorial line was determined by political self interest and by how much their loyal readerships continued to absorb their skewed views, opinions and downright lies. It was if copy tasters never existed.
The Campaign For Press Freeedom's Right of Reply never got off the ground in spite of every media union signing up to it, including the NUJ. The failure of local print chapels in their valiant ight to resist the worst excesses of wholesale mis-reporting of significant issues throughout the eighties lead to the rubbish that parades as reportage today and as a consequence we, Blair and his cohorts have only ourselves to blame for the present poor standards of journalism thar pertain today across the media.

Tony Blair and New Labour manipulated the Media for there own ends. As time went on with the "Dodgy Dossier" and the 45mins that we had before Sadam Hussein could release his missiles was all fabrication by New Labour. In turn with the government having full backing by the media, the public have been lied to wholesale!
For once the Media are reverting back to investigative journalism and the public are at last being told at least some of the truth, and I don't think Tony Blair likes the truth being told. His Legacy will be one of lies, lies and more lies, this country went to war on a lie!

Typical Bliar. His government has lied and spun continuously to parliament and to the people since 1997, and it is they who have created cynicism. What gall he has, blaming the media.

Nick, #59, you ask how I 'can come on here and make a[n] informed comment'; I was responding to the specific reported assertion that 'the media is creating cynicism', and I thought it only reasonable to indicate my lack of familiarity with the speech.

Lies are not needed, merely choice of words. i.e spy plane for reconaissance/ 'so called' preface to War on terrorists.

An anarcho-capitalist puppet who, like Thatcher's brood before him, has been hoist by his own petard.

Will we ever learn to stop these people 'wrecking' our country whilst promising freedom and choice? Why do so few see the problem? It's because they've been bedazzled

See #126 onwards for what we should have noticed long ago:

/blogs/newsnight/2007/06/the_cult_of_the_amateur_by_andrew_keen_1.html

Lies are not needed, merely choice of words. i.e spy plane for reconaissance/ 'so called' preface to War on terrorists.

Typical Bliar. His government has lied and spun continuously to parliament and to the people since 1997, and it is they who have created cynicism. What gall he has, blaming the media.

New Labour is a "feral beast" and its relationship with the media is "damaged"......we need to separate "News" and "Spin".

I'm shocked, SHOCKED that Blair failed to mention Rupert Murdoch and his outrageously partisan organs. Surely this was an oversight on the PM's part and had nothing to do with his shameful toadying up to Murdoch over the past 10 years.

wouldn't it be nice if the elected politicians were folk that we COULD look up to ? It's not that I envy their pension prospects or their property portfolio : - they are the folk that are driving the roller that's supposed to be creating a level playing field, but it's quite clear that their idea of level is tilted in their favour at the expense of the weary taxpayer

I believe Tony Blair is correct. The media does tend towards sensationalism and this is reflected in tonights show itself. As the first response to Blair's response was to discredit him, not to try to understand where he's coming from. I do find "the independent" extremely opinionated, at some points resembling more to a tabloid than a newspaper. The same occurs with "the times" although I believe to a lesser extent. For a newspaper to be professional and more credible, it needs to remain impartial.

The man my have his faults, but I don't think any right-minded person could disagree with him on this. By his own admission he is guilty of complicity but the sensation-driven reporting has made much of the "news" not much better than the glossy gossip mags. Even previously respectable programmes, like the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ's own Panorama now go for the easy route of sensationalism over substance. I'm glad Mr. Blair had the guts to openly speak about this, even if it is a little late in the day. I can now look forward to the next media scrum as they all have the knives out for him winding down his term and getting on with his life instead of them researching real, useful news to inform and educate as I believe they are supposed to.

I have never once agreed with anything Blair has said or done in his time as Prime Minister. Therefore I am amazed that I find myself now afreeing on what he has said about the media. I have noticed and commented on numerously over the past few years that the media in the UK has surpassed the USA media machine in actioning hype to report a story. The UK media are now at a stage where they are continually hyping up and sensationalising a story to make it more responsive to the viewer/reader. This is achieved at a loss the the story being reported. Tonight before It was reported about Blairs speech I noticed on a local news programm a very serious report about 6 men being jailed for tax fraud in its millions, how was this very serious story reported, with music, yes some synical money money music track that made a mockery of the seriousness of the story but obviously the editing team thought it would hype up the story. The UK media are now like a pack of animals running ordinary peoples lives with their viscious verbal assaults before they move on to their next victim, even at times creating the story themselves.

What a pleasure to watch the factual and complete report of Tony's Blair's sppech. Bbc and other mesia, this is what I at least want a decent account of sppeches, reports etc which can then be followed by comment, interprtation and content. Why should I have to seek out text of speeches, inquiry reports, legislative proposals on the internrt - the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ and newspapers of record should summarise for the intelligent reader

Please ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ do more of this.

When we had decent unions in this Country people were not frightened of saying and doing the right thing, now everyone is worried if they will be in a job if they speak the truth thesedays.

So do any of us get to the truth?

Let's take Blair out of the equation for the moment because just look at the Newsnight story which followed: the Woolmer non-murder.

How many here can honestly say that the appalling error made by the Police was not in part brought about by the 24-hour news cycle: champing at the bit, sensationalising every new twist and turn, demanding constant updated, pressurising (I would say bullying) the Police for a speedy verdict - and the consequence was this chaotic mess.

Too many contributors here are so warped by their hatred of Tony Blair that they are evidently incapable of considering rationally what his underlying message is.

It is that 24 hour news is a toxic environment for good decision-making, that trivia now trumps substance, that subjectivity is pervasive in both our print media (fair enough to an extent: it's privately owned) and our broadcast media (not fair enough to any extent, especially in respect of ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ and Channel 4).

And the best that The Independent can come up with to disprove Blair's argument is "would you be being nasty to us if we'd agreed with you?"

Well yes, I for one would because I buy a newspaper primarily for objective news, not for eighty pages of subjective, snivelling skewed, dishonest, slanted and genuinely nasty editorialising dripping through every single story. Sure I don't have to buy the paper (and I don't any more), but why is it now impossible to report news objectively and keep comment to clearly headed comment pages which we can choose to read or not? Every other newspaper still manages to make that distinction.

Problem with Blairs speach is it will be dismissed because he has made it. Yet I think the points he makes are fair.

The media is increasing interested in heat rather than light, confontation rather than analysis, and we are all the poorer for it.

The newsnight debate was laughabke, A Dial Mail journalist defending jounalistic untegrity (!) and of AWS really beleives Givernements are the only organistions that lie one wonders how he came to edit anything more important that a school newsletter!

Blair wasn't hard enough on the media. Journalists are people who make their living doing things that decent people wouldn't contemplate, and have no hesitation in publishing lies and destroying the reputations, not only of public figures, but of ordinary people too. In the words of another Prime Minster, Stanley Baldwin, they enjoy 'power without responsibility - the prerogative of the harlot through the ages.' And how typical of the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ to think that having four smug journalists sitting around a table on 'Newsnight' represents a balanced debate.

Like others, I would recommend everyone who has posted up "Typical, Blair is a liar himself"! - type comments to read the actual text of the speech

He's not talking about the media lying, or complaining that it's given him a rough time. And he admits his own complicity. He's talking about the way the media is so massive and unwieldy, so hungry for sensation to beat ratings, that it is not serving society – it's corrupting and subverting the necessary dialogue for a society to exist.

I also think that there should be more simple reporting so that one knows what is comment and what is news. I wished the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ TV programm would bring just news and then the comments separately. I realise that the selection of the news to be reported already involves an element of opinion - but that cannot be avoided. elisabeth

I think the master manipulator is at it again.

I would like to say that I want the media to scrutinise and question the policies, protocols,practices, and messages an administration offers the electorate.

When, for example, a health minister makes the assertion that the NHS is having it's best year ever, it is the media's job to assess the validity of the statement, not just to report it as fact without question - that would be irresponsible wouldn't it?

And what about the missing Iraqi WMD, Dr David Kelly, and the Hutton report?

It sounds to me as if the PM is making a case for restricting debate, for limiting contrary opinion, for neutering the media so that administrations can just get on and do whatever they want...

I am reminded of the words of a master manipulator from another eraβ€”-Hermann Goering:

"Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."

The media is the means by which the message is communicated, and not the message itself.

The speech is worth viewing as a whole off the No 10 website. It is a speech only a retiring and successful PM could make. There is something refreshing about Tony Blair in this final phase, a frankness and honesty of view that is rarely available. We should all grab this chance to take up the debate about the role of the media, the attitude of government, where we all go from here.

Its about time someone who will be listened to had a pop at the media. They've done more harm to this country than any terrorist.
Termites.

This is really rich coming from Blair. His government and party have determindly tried to control the media and 'spin' from the beginning of their 1997 election campaign. The evidence is there in almost every aspect of government. If the relationship with the media is 'damaged' then Blair has only to look in the mirror and at his spin doctor Campbell to see the source of the problem. They clearly either do not understand the meaning of 'integrity' or more likely simply do not care. Dodgy dossiers are probably more to blame for any 'damage' than the media.

Ford - Land Rover - Jaguar.
Get real, 2 years ago I predicted that Ford would dump Land Rover and Jaguar.
Why would any Company produce products in a Country whose Government goes all out to penalise its Customers?
As for the Unions - get a Grip, your losing reality - Socialism is a Proven disaster for any Country!

What did he say 'a Government should pour money in to save jobs' Where exactly does that Money come from?
Oh yes the same place it with the last Labour Government, the IMF.
Creating a bankrupt Nation State. A State the Socialist desire more than anything - they love it, when mediocrity rules. Ask the Russian, The Pole, The Hungarian etc.
Everything was lovely in the State Run Controlled Garden wasn't it!

Egypt - well what did anyone expect, it is Muslim!

Bob Woolmer - the Media reported what was announced, how about the Pathologist, where was he? He is what led to the whole debacle.

Tony Blair/Media - Done!

It's a bit rich coming from the leader of a political party that has based it's last ten years on media manipulation, spin and downright lies. That's why there is so much cynicism amongst the electorate.

The problem with politicians is that they loathe discerning people; malleable fools are far more favourable. Unfortunately for Blair, a lot of people are discerning and, as a result, have become very cynical about him and his coterie.

Think back to the Gilligan affair, and how Alastair Campbell went for the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ's jugular: a really prime specimen of the feral beast.

Blair has surrounded himself with liers and low lifes. He has milked the system so that he and his missus can become wealthy beyond value.
He has used sound bite politics and taken it into a new art form and eroded our freedoms. He has performed u turns on policy as major as E.U. membership. He has taxed us beyond anything ever tried before.
He has been part of a group of three or four people who gathered, and presumably spent, about 14 million quid, to the complete ignorance of the party treasurer and everyone else. But what's more he did all of this and tons more under the cloak of whiter than white politics.
And now the press have made us cynical! Speechless!
Have a read of Adolf Hitler's book Mein Kampf. Notice any similarities?

On this occasion, I agree with Tony Blair.

There is no where the British public can go to get a balanced presentation of the facts. As was clearly shown in the 'debate' journalists cannot or will not see that presenting their opinion as fact is wrong or intermingling facts and opinions distorts the truth.

Fine to have an opinion piece, but keep it separate from the 'news' piece.

Look at the Woolmer affair, a mistake by the pathologist was spun into all kinds of mad stories about jealousies within the team or worldwide 'cricket' mafia, presenting the argument that "strangualation is common in India and Pakistan so it make sense that his killer is Pakistani". Grief!

Or have we forgotten the week spent spinning a croquet match into major scandal?

Remember the MMR Autism scare? Why check facts or put the story in context, just run with the headline and put childrens lives at risk.

I've lost count of the number of ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ reports that fail to put facts, or even statements, presented in context.

Most people may believe that Tony Blair lied to the Commons, but without proof it is not fact, it is opinion. Yet here again it wasn't presented as popular belief, but fact. If there were any factual evidence he would have been impeached long ago.

This isn't a defence of Blair, I believe he did mislead us, but it's a defence of the truth, no matter how inconvenient that truth may be.

The truth is most newspapers have built their circulation on feeding their readers prejudicies and it is not in their interest to tell the bald facts. The broadcast media compete with the tabloids more and more.

I doubt anything will change, the media will not allow itself to see the simple truth of its own corrupt culture and the public will simply take the opportunity to kick Blair on his way out the door, without giving his words any consideration.

We need a free press, but those few elements of the press that are free and not simply peddling their masters dogma are failing us.

So again I say to the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ, stop competing with the lowest common denominator and simply give us a balanced presentation of the facts.

You can add your opinion pieces separately, but for Gods sake allow the British public room to make our own minds up. Report the news and stop manufacturing it.

I have to say I DO agree with TB here. It was very interesting to here Harrriet Harman say in the deputy leadership debate that the income of the pporest families has risen under the Blair government, something which did not happen under major or thatcher. This was the first time I had heard such information.

And I do think that the government is just so preoccupied with its media output, that it has no time to listen to party members and party members themselves are becoming less preoccupied with policy and more preoccupied by digging sleeze on councillors from other parties. This is why I stopped being an active member of my local CLP. I thought the report (a slightly ironic take on modern reporting) was the best political stuff I have seen on the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ for a long time, becuase I actually heard what BLAIR SAID in a seemly unpolluted and unbiased way which was so refreshing.

And believe it or not, Tony Blair actually sounded inspiring and brilliant again.

In the last decade there has been no real opposition, not from the Tories, and not from the Press, which has shifted towards the right wing as with the Labour Party.
Blair, the con man who was made Prime Minister through support by Rupert Murdoch’s papers, is now learning that these papers will now start to dump him as he is now history, and a disastrous chapter of British history at that.
He has destroyed Iraq, and much of Afghanistan is going that way, and in addition Blair’s lack of dignity and presence has left Britain without stature on the world stage.

Even recently, he was aggressive towards the Russian bear in the G8 summit, as if Brown needs a Cold War problem left for him. Blair, it appears, must acquire Dutch courage from sniffing Bush’s breath.

It appears that not having secured the legacy that he was hoping for in these final few months, he is now continuing what his Ministers have been famous for: blaming others. Lord Levy will soon tell us about that.

Blairism can fit up anyone with anything... they want to make it illegal to stop crime and criminal to stop the economics of illegality ....

They are free to put fear into the lives of any challenger to their eccentrically inclusive economic campaigns...

Comment and news are the same for them in their deterrence fights...to safeguard their missions... to even your odds... and win the money or your life...by defeating their opposition for ever...

Any belief and value that means they can excuse themselves and punish people they don't like leads to belligerent victimisation of you... and misrepresentation of any story any event any motive or participation into a belief system of deservence and justified action...where the prejudices of public safety and established economic position must be enforced....for them to feel safe and free to do crime ..

Making people be menial failed forced down and excluded...until they are ethnically satisfied your people are defeated dead and cleansed from the empires in their minds....

Any evidence to the contrary is not even seen or heard anywhere...economics and progress towards a new future free from the workabilities and tolerances of the past free from the inconveniences of humanity truth dare and trustability negotiation knowledge and law...is the internalist vision of their immigrant ethnic pride...

Any picture or forwarded email address can be used to generate online misrepresentation...

They have criminoligies psychiatries and game theories predictions perjury plans fraud believers supporters and friends in every place that can hate and demean something about you...

NICE is Nominal Illegitimisation Competitive Economics...the NHS is to make them feel better not you... they want your money for the futures they are inspired by...and they hate your kind...and want it off you...

They are economically trivialising ...image to them is more valuable than humanity...

Their immorality fights fashions of popularity and victimises senses of community and commonwealth trustability...

For them fear created civilisation not common expectation and language art and practices of work and discovery...

They are peculiarly inclusive believers ...economically eccentric ...ignorant and incredulous that there was ever a law to stop them....

Greed hatred and revenge are their goodness ....everything else must be suffered to win the money ...and your people don't deserve it because you haven't been through what they have...

They want you menial and beneath them ...they have not got the ability to compete or even the understanding of why others get support to perform better than them ...

Life is for them a fun game of ethnic pride and defeat of any truth and knowledge...

So we celebrate blairism the way it celebrates itself...and promote and substantiate what worked in our lives to counter act the hateful views of theirs....

The truth is what we care about...the public knows what has happened in our lives in our country...there are dozens of victims per blairite...for them death is a triumph a kill is a victory...success is the love of disabling and defeating opponents...every media exposure can be seen to be a warning that their criminals are celebrated and your people should fear their crimes...

No one must be better than them... everyone will obey them and become the way they like or die..... your houses will never be decorated again except in the style they think you deserve...you will soon never have a job without their say so...they love the hatred the struggle the denial the menialisation the disablement the punishment of everyone who will not do what they say and be the way they like... it is a systemic revenge of complete hatred of anyone looking at them like they aren't worth it and they want you people exterminated for being able to do anything you want the way you love that ignores them....

But maybe the word will win .....their people are not new...they are dependent on a primitive and dying gene of prehistoric suffering incapable of sensing or imagining the societies or companies we love at all...lead only by their gods of enmity and iniquity the memories of their own repression the ires of being beaten and the drugs of their state...that make them militants for ever...!

Andy: You may have a point about balance and abuse of power, but it doesn't detract from the fact that empirically we have a major demographic problem (so long as you accept that 'we' refers to the indigenous English population) and that Blair and his backers have made this group's plight far worse through 'education, education, education' and their other Lysenkoist legislation (not to mention house price inflation).

I suggest this demands careful attention to the demographic figures and projections. An ability we appear to be haemorrhaging at an alarming rate as a result of a) our low indigenus white TFR b) the effect of differential fertility and worst of all, c) the paradox of the hyperbolic discounting function.

Classic economics is nonsense. See Kahneman 2002 (it was said by others, i.e Herrnstein, but especially Chung, many years before)

To believe in the state is to admit that you do not know how the community works...because your force is funded for operational targets...not for the reassurance of workable business.....we have care and concern so we invent futures of possibilities based on the worlds already won and the workabilities we care about...

To go to Egypt is to awaken to the dawns of civilisation... it is as if the god we love has come home to show you the life everlasting of the once awesome feats of humanity..in the era of garden builders and beautiful loves...of passions for pharaohs... the movies of James bond..the adventures of exploration and discovery and the blood of Sheba..and the clays of Adam...your soul weeps to have found humanity again a nature of warmth and a freedom of enjoyment...

There have been tourist police for many years... but the taxis will guide you to every sight you ever heard of...in some places there are kalashnikovs and check points... and armed escort may take you to where you should be going... but everyone is thankful for the fun and adventures of life....

Men who would kill you instead love the thought that you may have come from oxford that their dreams of business and travel are alive with the enthusiasm of someone who sympathises with the wrongs and the longings for freedoms and the poverty and the concerns and the loves of life....

But their police have offender profiles??....no longer the amour of Allah and the practicalities of the community?...but a heightened sense of self preservation privilege and indicative questions of militant exclusion of economic unsuitables.... i.e. a force funded for operational targets...not for the reassurance of workable business??

To believe in the state is to admit that you do not know how the community works...because your force is funded for operational targets...not for the reassurance of workable business.....

From the very little of Blair's speech quoted by the media (all the TV News networks show is the "feral beasts" sentence - that in itself is an indication of the pack mentality of journalists) I am in total agreement with him. The media portray themselves as arbiters of truth snarling at those nasty peddlers of lies, policians; particularly Blair and his government. The real truth is, of course, the complete opposite.
The true facts of events are often obscured or ignored (and invariably distorted) in favour of theatricality and sensationalism. Even journalists admit that, because of increasing competition from other and newer forms of newscasts, they have to "present news with a greater degree of personal bias".
Unfortunately, personal bias and bigotry have now totally replaced objective and impartial reporting.
If journalists were unbiased, why do they always follow,say, a Blair announcement or a government proposal that will improve the lot of this country, by three times as many opposing views from, not only Tories and Lib Dems, but from "experts" and "influential think-tanks" - most of whom are sad cases of looney academics looking for media stardom, or organisations with highly political agendas hidden behind a humane and laudable title: 'Liberty', 'Human Rights Watch', 'Council of Europe' etc. are just a few of the often used groups the media employ as part of their anti-Blair/Bush artillery. Also, notice how often reporters invoke the masses to bolster their argument: "people throughout the country.../everybody is saying.../everyone I have spoken to.../there is a general feeling that..." - what arrant arrogance!
If the 'truth' of a story is its raison d'etre why do they all feel it necessary to present the truth wrapped in ludicrous gesturing and theatrical jerks? Are the facts insufficient to inform the viewer?
The comments expressed by some people on this site are laughable and, at the same time, disturbing. I have no objection to anyone holding a contrary view to me. However, I have little sympathy with those who refuse to engage their brain cells when they read a newspaper or watch a TV News report. There is no hope that you will reach a reasoned stance on any reported news item if you do not question the possible bias and assumptions made by the reporter. Accepting as gospel what any journalist reports is, I believe, tantamount to being lobotomized! I fear that a number of contributors have been indulging in DIY brain surgery.
For what it is worth, my advice would be to take all news reporting with a large grain of salt - it may be bad for your heart but it's sure healthy for the mind, and democracy.

At least we don't have to put up with Fox News like they do in the U.S., I think our media is about the only way to get the news nowadays. Sure you have to swim around for it, you won't find it on the front page among the Big Brother dross, but at least we don't have hatemongers like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity catering to the oncoming dictatorship of the U.S.

That doesn't mean Blair has any leg to stand on here either. He should know what the media is like, and when you turn our country into a police state and push it into an illegal war, expect severe backlash. He can expect even more when he is tried for the murder of a nation bombed on lies. If he can't take the heat, get out the kitchen.

The words of TB are not surprising neither are they worrying.

By its very nature, media and public are the most reliable part of societies, as opposed to politicians who thrive on telling lies.

We expect politicians to rule us but not to give reliable information as is done by media and public.

If it is at the back of your mind to rely on politicians, wait until election time when they will come and praise themselves before you, wearing by the name of God that they will be the servants and the public will be the masters.

By the end of the day, they turned out worst more than the formers.

Let us respect politicians, but let us not believe what they say.

P.S. If you want to know where this country is going, look no further than the later story on Egypt.

This is what the alternative media think of Blair's drivel

"Blair Calls For Chinese Style Net Controls In the UK
Declares war on "pernicious conspiracy theory" media coverage"

Outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair has savaged online media today in a speech in which he declared war on the free press by hinting at new restrictions on internet journalism and suggested that the media should be brought more into line with the government.

Blair complained that the media was too "feral" (i.e. not tamed by the government) and referring to online journalism stated:

"In fact, the new forms can be even more pernicious, less balanced, more intent on the latest conspiracy theory multiplied by five."

This is an outright call for a crackdown on the free press. Blair is out in the open here saying the media is too independent of the government, he is admitting that the freedom with which the media, especially online, is now operating is hurting his government and its agenda.

Despite the fact that it is the government itself that has consistently lied to and refused to listen to the British people, Blair blamed the media for an undermining of trust in the government amongst the people and further accused the media of being responsible for a moral downturn in Britain.

"The damage saps the country's confidence and self-belief; it undermines its assessment of itself, its institutions; and above all, it reduces our capacity to take the right decisions, in the right spirit for our future.'' Blair stated.

This is rich given the fact that when New Labour came into power in 1997 Blair's government quickly became masters of spin, using the media as a tool of hype to whip up a frenzy of positive attention towards itself.

Blair even admitted that his government readily did this and is to blame for what he now sees as a brutal backlash:

''We paid inordinate attention in the early days of New Labour to courting, assuaging, and persuading the media ....such an attitude ran the risk of fuelling the trends in communications that I am about to question.'' Blair stated.

So there you have it, the government used and spat out the media and now it doesn't like the fact that it is no longer trusted and is scrutinized as if under a microscope, especially by the independent and online media which does not pander to corporate masters.

Therefore Blair's solution is to bring in an online journalism regulator to decide what is "balanced" reporting and what is not. Such a move is exactly the kind of thing that has been witnessed in Communist China in an effort to crackdown on criticism of the government there.

Blair has recently been under the media microscope concerning the BAE cover up over Saudi arms dealing. Before that he was subject to scrutiny and twice questioned by police over the cash for honours scandal where peerages were handed out by the government in exchange for financial favours. No doubt these are the kind of "conspiracy theories" Mr Blair wishes the media to be unable to cover, along with the scores of lies he told in the lead up to the Iraq war.

Blair can whine and whine all day long but the fact is it is the openness with which his government has conducted its criminal actions and its own attempts to use the free press as a propaganda arm that has led to a surge in media scrutiny.

There is nothing he nor his elite masters can do to win this battle save shutting down the internet and free speech completely and risking revolution.

Unfortuunately I agree with some of what TB said, I believe it would be better if there more of a seperation between hard news and fact reporting and comment in the media. This does not excuse Blair and cronies for their part in the increasing cynicism of the nation nor for their outrageous exploitation of their media contacts (Mr Campbell that means you)

Why was my last comment blocked?

Michael Crick !
Should have his own show we think up here in Scotland ...

The issue of the press being viewed as a ferocious "Feral beast" is not the preserve of Tony Blair. Jacob Zuma in South Africa, has not only labelled them as such, but instituted legal procedings against too.

After five years it seems that if a political party is re-elected its leaders and upper echelons become amalgamated into an increasingly selfish in-looking top-heavy power consuming lump, feeing inwardly on its self-importance. We have had plenty of β€˜spin on this’ from this labour party and if Blair had not been so charismatic, e.g. Michael Foot, the outcome would be quite different despite the best spin in the world: even without the war. He has no reason to criticize about his rather gentle treatment in consideration of his time in power.

Now he will not be playing anymore he wants to complain about those that made his reign not as easy as he would like. He has always wanted to be a statesman. A true statesman knows when he has had a good ride and when to shut up.

The press have many faults but embarrassing political parties by pointing out there excesses, inividual or otherwise, is not one of them.

Tony Blair said what many people now think - as demonstrated by a good proportion of the preceding messages.
The media is not interested in reporting anything well done outside sport and the arts. They seem never to have forgotten the fervid excitement of the Thatcher downfall, and try to make every political report as dramatic.
I have never seen a report which acknowledges that many political decisions are difficult where often the least worst option is the best that can be achieved.
The power and influence of those who are not elected, have no duty to fulfill, and frequently no sense of responsibility to present a balanced argument - i.e the media - has had a highly adverse affect on all our institutions.
If this speech by Tony Blair can start a serious debate on how to kerb the power of the press without removing its essential freedoms, it mat turn out to be his most abiding legacy.

Tony Blair is right of course, when he says 'the media is a "feral beast" and its relationship with politicians is "damaged". He is also right that the media is creating cynicism and calls for the need to separate "news" and "comment".
Trouuble is however that what he calls "news" is spin.

A GREAT Prime Minsiter of Great Britain

Transcript of Tony Blair MP's speech

Trimdon Labour Club, Sedgefield

Monday 10 May 2007

It's a great privilege to be here with you again today and to thank all of you too for such a wonderful and warm welcome.

I'd just like to say also if I might and just a special word of thanks to John Burton. John has been my agent here for many years now. He's still the best political adviser that I've got. He's...he's all the years I've known him he's been steadfast in his loyalty to me, to the Labour Party and to Sunderland Football Club, not necessarily in that order.

You know it's been my great good fortune at certain points in my life to meet exceptional people and he is one very exceptional person. And also if I may refer to another exceptional person who's my wife, friend and partner, Cherie.

And the children of course. Euan and Nicky and Katherine and Leo who make me never forget my failings...but give me great love and support.

So, I've come back here to Sedgefield, to my constituency, where my political journey began and where it's fitting that it should end. Today I announce my decision to stand down from the leadership of the Labour Party. The party will now select a new leader. On the 27th June I will tender my resignation from the office of Prime Minister to the Queen.

I've been Prime Minister of this country for just over 10 years. In this job, in the world of today, I think that's long enough, for me, but more especially for the country. And sometimes the only way you conquer the pool of power is to set it down.

I can only describe what I think has been done over these last ten years and perhaps more important why I tried to do it, and I never quite put it in this way before. I was born almost a decade after the Second World War. I was a young man in the social revolution of the 60s and the 70s. I reached political maturity as the cold war was ending and the world was going through a political and an economic and a technological revolution. And I looked at my own country. A great country with a great history and magnificent traditions, proud of its past. But strangely uncertain of its future. Uncertain about the future, almost old fashioned.

And all that was curiously symbolised you know in the politics of the time. You, you had choices, you stood for individual aspiration and getting on in life, or a social compassion of helping others. You were liberal in your values, or conservative. You believed in the power of the state or the efforts of the individual. Spending more money on the public realm was the answer, or it was the problem. And none of it made sense to me. It was twentieth century ideology in a world approaching a new millennium.

Of course people want the best for themselves and their families, but in an age when human capital is a nation's greatest asset, they also know it's just and sensible to extend opportunities, to develop the potential to succeed for all our people not just an elite at the top. And people today are open minded about race and sexuality. They're averse to prejudice. And yet deeply, rightly, conservative with a small 'c' when it comes to good manners, respect for others, treating people courteously.

They acknowledge the need for the state and the responsibility of the individual. And they know spending money on our public services matters and they know it's not enough. How they are run and organised matters too.

So 1997 was a moment for a new beginning. The sweeping away of all the detritus of the past. And expectations were so high. Too high probably. Too high in a way for either of us. And now in 2007 you could easily point to the challenges or these things that are wrong or the grievances that fester.

But go back to 1997. Think back, no really think back. Think about your own living standards then in May 1997 and now. Visit your local school - any of them round here or anywhere in modern Britain. Ask when you last had to wait a year or more on a hospital waiting list or heard of pensioners freezing to death in the winter unable to heat their homes.

There is only one government since 1945 that can say all of the following: more jobs, fewer unemployed, better health and education results, lower crime and economic growth in every quarter. Only one government. This one

But we don't need statistics. There's something bigger than what can be measured in waiting lists or GCSE results or the latest crime or jobs figures. Look at the British economy: at ease with globalisation. London, the world's financial centre. Visit ou8r great cities in this country and compare them with 10 years ago. No country attracts overseas investment like we do.

And think about the culture in Britain in the year 2007. I don't just mean our arts that are thriving - I mean our values. The minimum wage. Paid holidays as a right. Amongst the best maternity pay and leave today in Europe. Equality for gay people.

Or look at the debates that reverberate around the word today - the global movement to support Africa in its struggle against poverty. Climate change, then fight against terrorism. Britain is not a follower today - Britain is a leader.

It gets the essential characteristic of today's world. It's interdependent. This is a country today that fort all its faults, form all the myriad of unresolved problems and fresh challenges, it is a country comfortable in the twenty-first century. At home in its own skin, able not just to be proud of its past but also confident of its future. You know I don't think Northern Ireland would have been changed unless Britain had changed. Or the Olympics won if we were still the Britain of 1997.

And as for my own leadership, throughout these ten years where the predictable has competed with the utterly unpredicted, right at the outset one thing was clear to me. Without the Labour Party allowing me to lead it nothing could ever have been done. But I also knew my duty was to put the country first. That much was obvious to me when just under 13 years ago I became Labour's Leader.

What I had to learn, however, as Prime Minister was what putting the country first really meant. Decision-making is hard. You know everyone always says in politics: listen to the people. And the trouble is they don't always agree.

When you are in Opposition, you meet this group and they say 'why can't you do this?' And you say: 'it's really a good question. Thank you'. And they go away and say: 'it's great, he really listened'. And then you meet that other group and they say: 'why can't you do that?' And you say: 'it's a really good question. Thank you'. And they go away happy that you listened.

In Government you have to give the answer, not an answer, the answer. And, in time, you realise that putting the country first doesn't mean doing the right thing according to conventional wisdom or the prevailing consensus or the latest snapshot of opinion. It means doing what you genuinely believe to be right; that your duty as prime minister is to act according to your conviction. And all of that can get contorted so that people think that you act according to some messianic zeal. Doubt, hesitation, reflection, consideration, reconsideration; these are all the good companions of proper decision-making but the ultimate obligation is to decide.

And sometimes the decisions are accepted quite quickly; Bank of England independence was one, which gave us our economic stability. Sometimes, like tuition fees or trying to break up old, monolithic public services, the changes are deeply controversial, hellish, hard to do. But you can see we're moving with the grain of change around the world. And sometimes, like with Europe, where I believe Britain should keep its position strong, you know you are fighting opinion but you're kind of content in doing so. And sometimes, as with the completely unexpected, you are alone with your own instinct.

In Sierra Leone and to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo I took the decision to make our country one that intervened, that did not pass by or keep out of the thick of it. And then came the utterly unanticipated and dramatic September the 11th 2001 and the death of 3000 or more on the streets on New York. And I decided we should stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our oldest ally and I did so out of belief. And so Afghanistan and then Iraq, the latter bitterly controversial. And removing Saddam and his sons from power, as with removing the Taliban, was over with relative ease, but the blowback since from global terrorism and those elements that support it has been fierce and unrelenting and costly. And for many it simply isn't and can't be worth it. For me, I think we must see it through. They the terrorists who threaten us here and around the world will never give up if we give up. It is a test of will and of belief. And we can't fail it.

So: some things I knew I would be dealing with. Some I thought I might be. Some never occurred to me, or to you, on that morning of 2 May 1997 when I came into Downing Street for the first time.

Great expectations not fulfilled in every part, for sure. Occasionally people say, as I said earlier, the expectations were too high, you should have lowered them. But, to be frank, I would not have wanted it any other way. I was, and remain, as a person and as a Prime Minister an optimist. Politics may be the art of the possible; but at least in life, give the impossible a go.

So of course the visions are painted in the colours of the rainbow; and the reality is sketched in the duller tones of black, white and grey.

But I ask you to accept one thing. Hand on heart, I did what I thought was right. I may have been wrong, that's your call. But believe one thing, if nothing else. I did what I thought was right for our country. And I came into office with high hopes for Britain's future and, you know, I leave it with even higher hopes for Britain's future. This is a country that can today be excited by the opportunities, not constantly fretful of the dangers.

And people say to me it's a tough job, not really. A tough life is the life led by the young, severely disabled children and their parents who visited me in Parliament the other week. Tough is the life my Dad had; his whole career cut short at the age of 40 by a stroke.

Actually, I've been very lucky and very blessed and this country is a blessed nation. The British are special. The world knows it; in our innermost thoughts we know it. This is the greatest nation on Earth.

So it has been an honour to serve it. I give my thanks to you the British people for the times that I have succeeded and my apologies to you for the times I've fallen short.

But good luck.

A journalist is someone who reports facts because it is noble to do so and in an evidence based science the facts accurately reported will naturally lead the consumer to a closer picture of the truth. It is also very boring which is why its much more sexy to be a Yaparrazzi. To mix fact, fiction and comment into a sexy frothy colourful cocktail that gets the ratings before the other yaparrazzi gets them. Not so noble.

if the press is so powerful why are they not more scrutinised? is it because there is a media pax romana not to investigate each other? There are no undercover bbc or itn or news international shows are there?

one way to cover both bases of fact and comment on tv is to report the facts in words but to put the comment in images? Sometimes to merely report a fact is to repeat a lie so the closer the fact is to a lie the more outrageous one can make the images?

Overblown rhetoric may have its fans but the simple understatement is like a torpedo with the ability to sink a big ship full of blarney.

I think the PM was quite correct in his remarks about the media. I rarely watch TV news these days due to my being sick and tired of hearing commentators giving their opinion on what 'really' is going on rather than telling us what the facts are. We have commentators speaking to commentators and making up the news as they go along. I think the real spinmeisters are the news commentators who provide biased slanted news reports that very often bear no relation to the actual events. I do not believe that the government is getting a fair crack of the whip particularly from the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ. It infuriates me when the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ and sometimes ITV fails to give adequate full coverage of good news from the government but rather they concentrate and search out bad news to pump out. I am in favour of fact reporting even the things that have gone wrong but that should be balanced by fair reporting of the things that go well and this has not been the case for a very long time. So i am glad that the PM made his comments, I hope that the news commentators draw in their teeth and claws and spin, and turn around their bloodthirst and perhaps change thier relationship with politicians. One thing I know is that I would never be a politician because they are undervalued and public opinion is so low of them simply because of the appalling news churned out by the media. I think if the news was presented and represented in an honest and fair way that public opinion would change for the good and so would people's attitudes towards politics and their likelihood of voting would improve. The media has a lot to answer for but they will no doubt continue to blame the government and politicians. Mick

I would'nt want to be a blogger in Egypt, them broom handles are chunky as well as long... not unless of course thats your thing..

No surprises with the Egyption report and their slip back into stalinist type terror practices towards any political opponents ( looking forward to adriannes response in defending and waxing lyrical Stalins wonderful leadership). The only thing i got from Eygpt was the abject poverty on display and shoeless people selling trinkets to all the western tourist; fascinating ancient structures though.

Really enjoy peter oborne's political daily mails columns, but he needs to work on his public speaking, ie, he needs to do something about that constipation thing he has going on, his performance on newsnight whilst standing at the podium giving his prepared speech was odd to say the least, though i agreed with his comments. a voice coach will solve this..

Whilst being no Blair fan, he is perfectly correct in what he says about the media. Opinions are not news. On the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ 6 o'clock bulletin we are frequently given not only the journalist's, but a member of the public's opinion(not a vox pop,but an item where the person is actually named.) This is lazy journalism and a complete waste of time.
Newsnight in particular is heavily into scare stories for headlines eg
pictures of a nuclear bomb exploding with the headline asking if we are heading for a new cold war.
Pathetic.

Tony Blair has described with honesty and some feeling his mistrust of the media. I agree with him in also feeling that we have certainly shifted from a fact based objective style of reporting, to a negatively driven cynicism, which has by its style eroded peoples perceptions of truth and reality. This is especially (and I might say specifically) true of many of the current ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ news front line team, who have undoubtedly developed a culture within the team of negativity which reveals itself with a great deal of smugness and a "we know better than you" air. Far too often factual news items are clouded by clumsy attempts to discredit or scorn the hard work and endevour of individuals rather than spend any time searching for that which is of credit and worthy of praise. Why? What is wrong with these journalists who are so bound by a lack of grace?

It is quite farcical that Tony Blair has the temerity to criticize the Media. This man really needs to come down to earth very soon. Why?

1. The Labour government came to power through leaking stories of Tory sleaze to the press.
2. Tony Blair is the man who actively courted Rupert Murdoch in return for beneficial policies in relation to News International’s interests.
3. Tony Blair for the past 10 years has relied upon misinformation, regular leaks of policy and permanent spin to mislead the public.
4. Tony Blair misled our country by going to War on a false premise – WMD - using dubious information to feed to the media. This not only takes the lives of our troops daily, but has also taken the lives of a respected advisor (Dr Kelly), an indirect victim of the government’s spin machine.
5. Tony Blair has eroded the major checks and balances to politicians in the country via un-appointed Quangos, Consultants and Spin Doctors that have replaced our Civil Servants and Parliament in many areas of decision making. The press have acted as a check on his ad hoc governance.

Mr Blair clearly does not like the fact that the media are no longer β€œon message”, but that is the nature of the beast: His record is quite clear and we should celebrate the fact that most of our press have seen what Blair is really about: Hypocrisy, self gratification and, of course paving his was to a rewarding retirement; lecturing wealthy Americans (Please stay there, Blair).

The Prime Minister is right. The media is now so interested in entertainment and junk in the main that it becomes almost impossible to get the messgae of an elected govt over.

healthy scepticism is sensible but not when it borders on vast conspiracy theories which lead to the kind of wacky and illogical thinknig of poolitical extremes and those claiming 'lies' were told over Iraq.

These people are FAR more guilty of spreading falsehoods than the Prime Minister and Cabinet who had the strongest evidence available given that we were not allowed to verify the evidence obtained by the UN and weapons inspectors and by the repeated breacjes of the terms of the ceasefire Saddam had agreed to after his invasion of Kuwait.

It is about time the media relasied why journalsits are at the bottom and I mean the BOTTOM of people's opinions alongside used car dealers estate agents and lawyers.

Will that make some of them think? Sadly I doubt it when you have people like Andrew Gilligan, Piers Morgan and John Humphrys peddling their consiparacy theories and earning lots of money for doing so and with no evidence at all to support their fictitious and reckless claims.

To claim a govt lied requires more than 40 words transposed on a Personal Organiser and not one single witness!

And this is why people polled say thay now only beleive 20% of what's in tabloids, 40% of what's in broadsheets and 70% of what's on the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ. That is cancerous

"The media have no morality in the sense that the word is traditionally understood. But they prefer the short-term to the long-term, sentimentality to compassion, simplicity to complexity, the dramatic to the mundane, confrontation to the sensible compromise. They can destroy with a pitiless and awesome brutality. But they can rarely create anything new, original and good. They yearn for the stark contrast between hero and villain. It is hard to imagine any environment for political decision-making that could be more damaging and unhelpful."

Oborne, Peter, and Simon Walters, Alastair Campbell, (London: Aurum, 2004, p.108)

Nicky - but it was Blair and fiends who have encourage this anarcho-capitalist cancer. He began with an assault on 'elitism' and 'deference'. Then he promoted 'education, education, education' making out that half the population or more could benefit from university.

As I've said elsewhere:

/blogs/newsnight/2007/06/the_cult_of_the_amateur_by_andrew_keen_1.html

this must be nonsense given what we know from rdsearch into the distrubution, immutability and heritability of intelligence, in fact, what we have seen is the opposite of what one would expect any responsible government to have been done. In fact, it's been much worse than nonsense, it's been dangerously seditious, as has so much of New Labour's blizzard of legislation and much else besides. They have just commercialised everything - kids in a candy store, something one or two episodes of "The Apprentice" neatly summed up.

Our population is ageing, when they go it will begin to show just how bad things are. It's 'the starving snake' model of demographic decline. The quick fix of mass unskilled immigration isn't expedient, it must ultimately make matters worse. They have been wrecking things at home just as they have in Iraq. One must ask why.

I'd be more than happy to be shown where what I say is inaccurate.

Blair didn't start it, but he certaibly didn't try to stop it.

It is an outdated concept to merely distinguish what is a 'news' and what is a 'comment'.
'News' is 'News', and 'Comment' is 'comment', no doubt about it.
However, what about a personal touch or intonation after a news is read on TV, radio, and other media?
Is it more 'user-friendly' for a news reader to give a smile, a feedback, after a news is presented?
Secondly, there is a classification of "Personal View Programme" by the Broadcasting Authority back in 2001 in Hong Kong,where everything including news, public affairs, and all government policies can be commented together with the listeners on radio?
In an era where all sorts of presentations appear in all sorts of media, viz mobile phones, blogs, internets, traditional newspapers and electronic media could innovate new content such as "Personal View Programming" and 'News'+ 'Comments' is a good programme.
It is outdated to stick to only two sorts of programming,viz "News" and "Comments". There should be more. Similar to Blair, Raymond Roy Wong and his team who has finished a review of the public service broadcasting in HK also hold the same conservative and traditional outdated view as Blair's.

Can anyone give them some advice to catch up to the brave new world?