Burnham turns to social media and podcasts, raising scrutiny concerns
The Greater Manchester mayor's shift away from traditional press engagement, including a Commonwealth summit trip with a minimal press presence, has prompted questions about whether public scrutiny is being reduced. Downing Street rejects the claim that the Prime Minister is ducking accountability.
Andy Burnham has said traditional media matters less than it once did, a stance that has prompted questions about whether reduced engagement with the press weakens public scrutiny. In an interview this week, he described the current media environment as "not like that", pointing to a landscape in which other platforms now reach people directly. The remark has been read by some observers as a signal that the established press corps no longer sits at the centre of how he intends to communicate with the public.
The clearest test of that approach came at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, known as Chogm. Burnham travelled to the summit without the usual press pack that normally accompanies a senior political leader on an overseas trip. Only one television crew and one news agency journalist were in the party. Senior political leaders travelling abroad are customarily followed by a larger group of reporters, whose presence allows questions to be put on the record in the course of the visit, and the reduced group has therefore become the focal point of the scrutiny debate.
Alongside this, Burnham has increasingly favoured formats such as lifestyle podcasts and brief television clips. Critics argue that these settings are less demanding than press conferences, where reporters can put follow-up questions and test answers in real time, and that a short clip or a relaxed conversation rarely requires a leader to defend a position under sustained challenge. Supporters of the shift say such formats allow a politician to speak to voters in more accessible and direct ways, without the filter of journalists and their editorial choices, and that they reach audiences who rarely read political reporting at all.
Downing Street has rejected the suggestion that the Prime Minister is avoiding accountability. Officials maintain that scrutiny remains intact and that the government is answerable to Parliament and the public regardless of the channels it uses to communicate. The dispute therefore centres on a basic question: whether reduced access for reporters is compatible with maintained accountability, or whether the two are being set against each other. Those arguing for the traditional model point out that parliamentary questioning and press conferences are where answers can be tested against contradictory evidence, while those defending the new approach stress that accountability is not confined to any single forum.
The question of whether fewer reporters means less scrutiny remains contested, and the available reporting offers no data on the volume of press access granted to Burnham or on the outcomes of such engagements. There are no published figures comparing how many questions were answered, how many stories resulted, or how often his statements were later corrected or challenged. Without that evidence, the debate rests largely on principle and on the observed choice of travel party and format.
What is clear is that the decision to travel with a lighter press presence, and to prioritise podcasts and short clips, has sharpened a wider argument about how political leaders should be held to account in an era when much of their communication happens outside the traditional press briefing room. The outcome of that argument will depend less on the platforms themselves than on whether reporters retain meaningful opportunities to question him directly and whether those opportunities are used.
Source: theguardian.com
7
