Councils and hyperlocal ‘bloggers’: It’s the council system which needs changing, not how people are allowed to cover them

A lot of discussion today around Eric Pickles’ demand that councils ‘open up their public meetings to local news ‘bloggers’ and allow filming of council meetings as standard.

According to the Department of Communities and Local Government, Mr Pickles feels this is essential  ‘to ensure all parts of the modern-day media are able to scrutinise Local Government.’

The press release from the department states: “Local Government Minister Bob Neill has written to all councils urging greater openness and calling on them to adopt a modern day approach so that credible community or ‘hyper-local’ bloggers and online broadcasters get the same routine access to council meetings as the traditional accredited media have.”

Much as this positive statement is welcome, I can’t help but think it misses the point somewhat. The problem with ‘scruntinising local government’ is not about who has what access, but the way in which local government operates.

On the point on hyperlocal bloggers – the government’s term, not mine – having meetings ‘opened up to them’ this should never have been an issue in the first place. Most council meetings are public meetings, and there should be nothing to stop ‘bloggers’ attending these meetings in the first place.

The issue, so far as I can tell, has been the differentiation between ‘blogger’ and mainstream media. The example cited in the press release involved Tameside Council accrediting mainstream media outlets to liveblog from meetings. Tameside’s argument was that too many people liveblogging could have disrupted the meeting.

Tameside appears to be the exception rather than the rule in this respect. If you look at Manchester City Council, it enjoys live coverage from the Manchester Evening News’s political team as well as others who wouldn’t fall into the bracket of ‘mainstream media.’ At the other end of the scale, Trafford Council banned all media from tweeting from a council meeting last year. So it’s by no means normal for councils to treat different parts of the media in different ways. Then the examples of those people who are able to cover meetings live already, such as Jason Cobb in Lambeth and Richard Taylor in Cambridge.

Liveblogging from council meetings should be an essential part of a political journalist’s job – but it’s important that we don’t confuse being able to liveblog with believing we’re holding a council to account.

So, even if we now have a situation where hyperlocal bloggers and the mainstream media are treated on an equal footing when it comes to what you can do in the council chamber,  we won’t actually be any closer to what Pickles described as scrutiny of local government.

Any local government journalist will tell you that the real stories from councils aren’t generally found in the council chamber. Some stories begin life on a council agenda, but it’s probably always been the case that the best stories come from hanging around in corridors and getting your face known.

That’s particularly been the case since for the last decade since Labour gave councils the power to overhaul the way they work under the Local Government Act 2000. Out went the endless committees which all reported in to the full council for rubber-stamping, and in came often-secretive cabinets dominated by the ruling party.

The cabinet, or executive depending on which name they chose, meets in public – even getting that was a battle n 2000 –  but often it’s a nodding through exercise, clearly pre-briefed beforehand. Even then, the cabinet only deals with ‘big’ decisions. An opposition councillor or two may be allowed to take part in discussions, but their vote doesn’t necessarily count.

That doesn’t provide a democratic spectacle for the media – be it a full-time political reporter or a hyperlocal blogger – to scrutinise. At a stroke, the many public meetings which involved in-depth discussion on a particular service area – lesiure and sport committee, schools committee, highways committee and so on – where sensible debate could take place, vanished. Instead, the ruling party nods through only the ‘big’ decisions with token opposition councillors reduced to little more than making political statements to try and get into the newspaper.

Lancashire County Council is the perfect example of this. Cabinet meetings could get through decisions on which tens of millions of pounds were riding, in 30 minutes. According to its current constitution, the cabinet takes decisions deemed as being ‘key decisions.’ Other decisions can be taken just by the relevant ‘cabinet member’. One of the criteria for something being a key decision is that it carries a cost implication of more than £1.2million. In other words, decisions which will cost less than £1.2million can be signed off on a councillor’s desk, then posted on a website along with all the other non-key decisions. In Lancashire’s case, each cabinet member would present a bit of a report on their work area at each meeting, but there’s no guarantee of it.

Much as the old system was very long-winded, it was more open and transparent. Real democratic debate was possible with a view to influencing decisions. That’s not the case now. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s great news that we’re being told we can film council meetings, but it won’t make councils more accountable or transparent.

One irony here is that some councils used the lack of coverage in their local newspaper as a defence for their propaganda newspapers. In Lancashire’s case, the decision to increase the publication of Vision so it was a monthly propaganda newspaper came around about the time the county council was under a lot of pressure over its decision to close 32 care homes. It felt it had had a raw deal in the press – and it was a good example of how the new system is far from transparent. The Tory administration reversed the Vision decision.

A one-sided cabinet took the decision to close the care homes, and it then passed through to the full council to rubberstamp. The relevant overview and scrutiny committee had a look at the issue but they remain toothless talking shops. They are public, but can’t make decisions. In short, all the talking is public, but most of the decisions are behind closed doors.

NUJ top bod Jeremy Dear, when speaking to the select committee on council newspapers, said:

Council publications cannot replace independent local journalism, but the fact is that 68% of editors in a Society of Editors survey believe that they now cover council functions less than they used to, so it is a fact that there is less coverage. When I was a working journalist rather than a trade union official I covered subcommittees; I covered planning committees. The vast majority of the stories we got were from council meetings and council coverage. It is just not the case that there are people dedicated to doing that. Despite the best efforts of newspaper companies and journalists, they simply do not have the staff any more to be able to cover it in the way they did. You see the correlation between that decline and the expansion of a whole number of different council publications.

Sadly, it suits the NUJ to blame the Society of Editors statistic solely on a reduction in reporters. But the world Jeremy Dear lived in as a reporters stopped existing at the turn of the century – and to be quite frank, I can’t imagine most stories ever really came from the meetings themselves – and at least part of the blame for reduced coverage can be attributed to the behind-closed-doors system many councils adopted. Often, issues which were there in open discussion required so much digging that it really wasn’t worth the effort.  And council newspapers aren’t the solution to that.

Sadly, neither is Mr Pickles’ decision today to make sure all bloggers have access to meetings. It’s the council system which needs changing, not the way we’re allowed to cover it.

8 thoughts on “Councils and hyperlocal ‘bloggers’: It’s the council system which needs changing, not how people are allowed to cover them

  1. Manchester city council covered by MEN” and others who wouldn’t fall into the bracket of mainstream media” David so what would you describe us as.
    Like you I hate the term hyperlocal and for that matter bloggers
    It’s term is part of the problem in that counciils have no problem letting you report live from the meetings as long as they se you as credible
    At Inside the M60,we have built up that credibilty for balanced and fair reporting of the City over time and as a consequence are gives access to most council goings on

    I don’t believe that Mr Pickles and his cohorts can really replace this attribute with legislation

    1. I don’t know what I’d call insidethem60 although blogger certainly wouldn’t be right. Not sure I understand why you hate the term hyperlocal.

      I think it is too simplistic to say that those ‘bloggers’ (using the government term) who don’t get access to live tweet are denied that access because they aren’t credible.

      Likewise, I was also told by a council press officer the other day of their delight at having a hyperlocal site on their patch ‘because they republish all our press releases no questions asked.’ That, I’m sure you’ll agree, isn’t the right attitude for a council to have towards any site.

      My main point is that it really doesn’t matter who can or can’t liveblog from council meetings because council meetings are, these days, little more than a rubberstamping show. Allowing lots of people to tweet from council meetings won’t lead to greater transparency of local government. That will only come if the way decisions are made is overhauled. Being allowed to cover a council meeting shouldn’t be confused with covering the council.

  2. I really don’t think that council meetings are simply rubber stamping exercises David.

    I have just come back from Manchester council’s Scrutiny and Governence committee where five different protest groups were allowed to speak for five minutes about the cuts would effect their particular programmes.

    The groundswell of public opinion has forced the council to start to rethink their cut policy and sites like ours and the reporting we have done on the issues,have I hope at least contributed a small amount to that process

    (Incidently despite over 50 people in the public gallery,Inside the M60 were the only media there reporting whereas the established mainstream media, as you put it,simply reproduced the council’s press release.)

    Being allowed to cover council meetings is not covering the council,but it’s a start and at least by showing people the council in action we are starting to give a transparency to local politics which has been sadly missing from the mainstream media for some time.

    Now back to the credibilty argument and my distain for the hyperlocal and blogger.Both terms are now outdated along with the phrase that everybody was using a few years ago,citizen journalism,for rightly or wrongly they have connations of amateurism.

    The term I would use is Independent Local Journalism,three words which embody the ideals of our site and many other local sites around the country.

    1. I’m not saying you, or anyone else for that matter, should stop covering council meetings, but journalists need to see them in the context of what they really are. The Local Government Act 2000 did away with the committee system which ensured that the vast majority of debates around decisions took place in public before the decisions were made. That simply isn’t the case now. At executives, there can be a debate but the opposition can’t vote, and full councils are little more than talking shops. Allowing greater coverage of those doesn’t lead to greater transparency.

      You mentioned a scrutiny committee meeting you attended. That scrutiny committee won’t have had the power to overturn a proposal, but can ‘call it in’ for discussion and then make suggestions back to the executive. It has no real power. Good on you for attending and covering them, but I can understand why many don’t. As for your suggestion that other media ‘reproduced the council’s press release’ I’ve read four versions of the same story today, so I can’t see how that is the case.

      Real transparency of local government will only come from reform of the committee system. It’s important we record what is said in council meetings, but lets not kid ourselves that it’s enough.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: