Often I loose detachment in exchange of an irresistable attraction to evil… which sort of sums up my present atitude towards B&B (bliar and berlusconi).

Yet, in my country today, one either remains silent (but certainly we are not at the level of an Iran or what might be in South Africa if the proposed new press law becomes reality, or other less fortunate countries, in terms of freedom of expression) or is tempted to surf towards a farsical and caustic view of reality. We – or at least I… – seem to have lost that right to a sentiment of indignation versus the format of our political (?) discourse.

As for Tony Blair, I do not agree at all that the Cool Britannia program was poor pr at the time it was acted.
Above all, it was excellent politics, and began to produce negative externalities only after Peter Mandelson had left its helm… a classic situation where an organization loses its creativity and proceeds bureaucratically. A theme for another post, taking a critical look at institutionalization of pr….

Having said that, I’ve the following question: What right has “the elite” to presuppose that quality content is what represents the desired norm? And isn’t quality itself subjective? Consider the lifestyles of the readers of The Sun and The Economist? Have they the same “quality” standards?

Interestingly, if what Blair has written that you cite is true (and a lot of what is detailed as fact in the memoir is being criticised for being impossible eg timings relating to advice given to Princess Diana), then Blair praising Berlusconi for winning the London 2012 bid is an insult to the official professional public relations efforts (and vast amounts of money that has been spent).

However, perhaps all political biographies would be best seen as an example of personal rhetoric reflecting press agentry communications as they seek to gain the headlines to sell more copies. Or simply evidence of the rewriting of history in the style of the novel 1984.

As to the Edelman trust survey, I question the very notion that there has been a significant decline in trust in society (but also that there was ever great trust put in “people like us”). The whole issue needs redefinition. I have a major chapter in a book coming out later this month or early next which seeks to substantiate my viewpoint (I won’t spoil it now).

Paul – I’m not saying amateurs can replace professionals – although I believe “amateur” (meaning of lesser quality) is increasingly evident both online and in traditional media (regardless of whether it is generated by citizens, paid journalists, columnists, direct from PR materials, etc). What I am advocating is more “professionalism” (by which I mean quality and standards) amongst those who claim the title of journalism (and come to that in public relations too).

It seems to me that “traditional” journalists who are frequently bemoaning their lot, blaming the influence of PR or criticising online material are not reflecting how they are different on the basis of being better at journalism. Their “amateur” performance evidenced by a lack of fact checking, reproducing PR materials, focus on the trivial and so forth, does nothing to demonstrate the valuable role that journalism should play in modern society.

BTW, I love the way you keep citing the Edelman Trust study despite having previously criticised its methodology. And there’s a circular argument there, if online communications by the masses largely repeats what is written by others especially “mainstream media” – is the declining trust in such people like us because what they are saying is the same rubbish as most of the “traditional” media?

Of late, I’ve come to feel that this set of paladins of truth is a construct of a very narrow time — the US’s Murrow to Cronkite and Woodward/Bernstein. The penny press had no “journalistic integrity” — Hearst wanted to sell papers and make himself US President. Even objectivity as a goal is a myth — no one can reasonably expect true objectivity from humans.

We’re in the age now of balance — we have a multiplicity of sources, right, left and center; for profit and not, widely circulated and narrowly — and it’s up to all of us to make choices that address our personal likes and dislikes.