Has Media Coverage Of Politics Been Undermined By The Televising Of Parliament?

When television cameras were admitted to the House of Commons in 1989, many thought the media's control over edited TV coverage of the House would undermine the reputation and stature of the legislature and by featuring on only a selection of the House's activities, would misrepresent the House's work. In one of the debates, James Kilfedder MP said, "people outside see on their television screens only what the television producers and editors permit them to see and that is contrary to the democratic principle. Why should we permit the media manipulators to censor the televising of our proceedings?"

However, proponents of television aimed to dismiss these worries by calling for a Parliament channel, which would provide gavel to gavel coverage of proceedings minus any editorial influence. Another argument was that the two institutions of parliament and the media were incompatible. The ultimate goal of TV is to be entertaining, achieved by trivialising and sensationalism. By contrast, the Commons is solely interested in informed, rational debate and deciding on laws. Broadcasters were only interested in "tarting up" evening news programmes with occasional footage of the "sexy bits", Gale argued.