Propping up democracy

Readers from Liverpool, look away now. Kelvin MacKenzie features heavily in this post.

MacKenzie oversaw as editor a controversial period in the history of The Sun, Britain's "favourite" tabloid. Having read Piers Morgan's book, I can't say I was surprised that MacKenzie is viewed as a ruthless operator. One doesn't gain the ear of Murdoch without being a little professionally devious.

He's moved in radio, television and publishing circles since leaving The Sun, but is best known for the newspaper's disgraceful coverage of the Hillsborough disaster. To this day, many newsagents on Merseyside refuse to stock The Sun and its sales in Liverpool are (anecdotally) negligable.

As a sidenote, the 20th anniversary of the disaster, in which 96 Liverpool supporters were tragically killed, is almost exactly a month away - MacKenzie is bound to be in the spotlight. Still, makes a change from Topless Darts.

He is quite obviously a touch right-wing which means that I wouldn't agree with anything he says for the sake of it. But something he wrote this week has at least made me think, and the only thing MacKenzie normally makes me think is that I don't much like the fella.

As you may have noticed, I've been reading (and writing) a lot about the future of newspapers lately, both here and on my personal blog, Silent in Flames. So it was certainly interesting to read a former tabloid editor's view on it, particularly when the figure in question has been so divisive a character over the years.

As reported by Roy Greenslade, MacKenzie argued the case for fighting for the survival of local newspapers in his column for The Sun.

And he makes an interesting point, too. While the rest of us discuss the loss or hyperlocalisation of news, the online v print advertising question and possible solutions, MacKenzie believes that local newsapers are a keystone of democracy:

"Who will tell you what the local councils are up to in future? Not Google. Who will cover the magistrates' courts, the inquests, the local crime, the speech days? Not Google."

Of course it would be well within Google's power, but personally I can't see the inclination ever being there. I suppose we could ask whether those events quoted are absolutely central to democracy, but they're definitely important pieces of news which the local media excel in reporting.

MacKenzie also suggests that the public must take responsibility for saving this vital democratic tool, telling us to use it or lose it. That's the whole newspaper futures argument in a nutshell, I reckon.

But the assumption that newspapers - particularly locals - are a cornerstone of democracy raises some important questions. How far would newspaper closures really erode democracy? Is there an online alternative?

A crucial part of MacKenzie's argument goes roughly thus (my interpretation): if the government is willing to use public wonga to bail out parts of the car industry (too late for Longbridge, by the way) and the banks, surely it should do the same for democracy? What do you think?

Cross-posted from Clicking & Screaming

(Photo: The Speakers Agency)