Watching it all anyway
One of the special hallmarks of this website is its editorial stance, or some might suggest lack of one. I’m reminded of it every time I consider making a contribution because it forces me to confront probably the most beneficial constraints and imperatives that any would-be scribe can operate under, i.e. those he (or she) self-imposes.
For myself, I try to avoid straightforward reporting simply because I assume that most Rust readers, being moderately intelligent and outward-looking, habitually read newspapers or magazines, listen to the radio, watch television, occasionally go online and/or use social media and therefore are (broadly speaking) about as well-informed upon what is happening in the world as I am. As a result – contrary to what some readers may believe – my guiding principle is to ‘keep my own counsel’ unless and until I think or believe that I can add something novel, insightful or amusing by way of an observation or comment.
Which is why, when it comes to matters of politics or current affairs that are dominating the headlines, I tend to keep my head below the parapet. When reporting, analysis, speculation and controversy are rife already – what’s to add?
It was that way for most of 2015-2016, from the General Election, the demise of Ed Miliband and David Cameron, the Labour and Tory leadership contests, the emergence of Corbyn and Mrs May, the aftermath of the EU Referendum and Brexit and yes, even the US Presidential Election and now (in 2017) the ascension of President Trump.
And yet.
Yesterday, after a morning of intense activity upon a number of fronts – and, I am happy to report one or two major breakthroughs (particularly on a couple of possible online scams that my bank first alerted me to and which I followed up, resulting in what might be termed a ‘score draw’, i.e. one item identified as a probable scam and another as probably not) – I then received an early-afternoon visit from a brother to discuss the legal advice we have taken upon a deeply-concerning family matter. It’s one of those situations that arise from time to time in life where you know you’re in the right and yet the attendant complexities – ranging from the legal framework in which you’re operating to the mental state of one of the parties and the likelihood that the scale of the family fall-out that will result from you acting will only be exceeded by that which will result if you don’t – mean (to your intense annoyance and frustration) that you’re constantly under stress and treading upon eggshells … even though the cause of the problem is nothing at all to do with you.
Once that session was over I was at last able to relax and flick through my newspapers which had been sitting on the arm of the sofa unread since 8.00am. A short while later I became aware that Mrs May – the first overseas leader to visit the newly-elected President Trump – would be giving a live press conference at 6.00pm UK time in advance of having a spot of lunch together.
I couldn’t help myself. I decided to strap myself in and watch the Sky News coverage as it happened, largely because I normally take my news from the BBC and therefore – if I had instead tuned to the BBC 24/7 News channel – I would have been getting ‘more of the same’ all night.
One of the problems with matters of major national (or indeed global) importance – such as Mrs May’s visit to see President Trump clearly was – is that, inside news organisations, there is a tendency to mark the occasion by sending their main TV anchors out to wherever this great event is taking place, rather than just relying upon the local correspondents to ‘do their thing’ down the line which, of course, they could quite happily have done at far less expense.
In the old – well indeed not so old – days, UK viewers always knew when some really important war, disaster or invasion had taken place because John Simpson would suddenly be sent out there to report back into the 6.00pm and 10.00pm News bulletins on BBC1.
And thus it was yesterday that Kay Burley suddenly popped up on screen from some eyrie perched high above the Washington DC landscape with the White House in the background, wrapped in a heavy-duty white puffa jacket against the bitter cold – to ‘take charge’ of the Sky News coverage of this vitally important event.
These things never quite go to plan. With Sky’s political correspondent posted outside the White House to report on comings and goings and its diplomatic correspondent permanently standing alongside La Burley, non-sequitors and awkwardnesses inevitably followed.
About 5.50pm, as we waited for the press conference to begin, the political correspondent, in mid-flow after being asked to comment on something by Ms Burley, was suddenly interrupted by her in order to go to something else.
What could it be? Live coverage of Mrs May and President Trump walking into the press conference room? A new important contributor about to speak? No – it was just that Burley wished to show UK viewers a wide-shot of the Washington DC landscape which she thought was rather impressive. It was the same wide-shot that had been behind her all afternoon, the difference being that on this occasion she very carefully walked out of shot to our right supposedly so that we could see it in all its glory.
We never went back to hear the end of the political correspondent’s piece to camera because, straight from the wide-shot of Washington DC, we went to the press conference as it began.
Similarly, the Burley and diplomatic correspondent pairing was a bit weird. They stood close alongside each other – far closer than people would stand in social situations – with Burley firing questions and the correspondent, frequently referring to the notebook in his hand, talked directly to her rather than the viewers. It would all have been so much simpler, more viewer-friendly (and presumably cheaper) if Ms Burley had remained at the Sky News Centre in Isleworth and the correspondent had reported live, direct to camera, from Washington.
But, of course, that’s not how 24/7 news channels do things.
As for the press conference itself, it was fascinating both for what did, and did not happen. I guess behind the scenes both governments breathed a sigh of relief.
Somehow President Trump managed to stick to his script and bigged up the ‘Special Relationship’, acted almost statesman-like, didn’t rant and didn’t ‘goose’ Mrs May either. (“Phew …” his handlers must have thought “.. we got away with it!”).
Meanwhile – from the UK’s point of view – apart from incongruously congratulating President Trump on his “stunning” victory, Mrs May managed to appear relatively at ease in Trumps’ presence but also not over-awed. She also stated that he was “100% behind NATO” [against a background in which a few days previously Trump has said America was unlikely to support that organisation much longer] and made some comments about Britain and America going hand in hand into the future which seemed to go down well. Her biggest concern – or perhaps the biggest concern of her handlers – must have been that she didn’t come across as too desperate and/or too willing a volunteer to be President Trump’s ‘poodle’ (a la Tony Blair with George W. Bush).
All in all, a summit meeting that most media commentators and probably viewers around the world had been drawn to watch in case it turned into a live TV ‘car-crash performance’ by President Trump seemed to pass almost without incident.
Which naturally became a live TV headline story in itself.