Introduction

This chapter examines changing patterns of newspaper reporting of the proceedings of the Westminster Parliament during the twentieth century. It offers a detailed case study of coverage at a key moment and argues that since the 1990s, newspaper reports from the House fluctuated greatly in number and kind while also exhibiting a growing focus on lobby reporting at the expense of the Gallery tradition since the 1930s. Drawing on contemporary interviews with parliamentary correspondents, combined with content analysis of national newspaper coverage, the chapter highlights the striking decline in press reports across all national newspapers as well as the alleged ‘dumbing down’ of published parliamentary stories. The chapter concludes by exploring the possibilities of digitally native editorial formats such as live blogging, developed at the end of the twentieth century, for enhancing parliamentary coverage.

The chapter illustrates the perennially conflictual relationship between politicians and journalists reflecting parliamentarians’ desire for secrecy (or at least discretion) about House proceedings and debates and journalists’ professional ambition to report them in order to inform the public and ensure responsible government (Franklin 1992; Franklin 2004; Negrine 1998): democracy, as Schudson reminds us, demands ‘an unlovable press’ (Schudson 2008: 50–62). Andrew Sparrow similarly argues that the Commons’ reluctance concerning newspaper coverage was ‘not because Members were shy about having their names in the papers, but because they realised that being reported would make them accountable’ (Sparrow 2003: 3).

Parliamentary Reporting; Changing Press Freedoms, Changing Journalistic Traditions.

Probably the most striking fact about the history of the press reporting of Parliament is the complete absence of newspaper coverage for approximately the first half of Parliament's life. The de Montfort Parliament of 1265 predated the first daily newspapers by more than four centuries (Black 2001: 9). This lack of newspaper reporting proved a difficult habit for some parliamentarians to break, as many MPs believed that House proceedings should remain private. Paradoxically, ahead of the arrival of print journalism, accounts of parliamentary debates were increasingly leaked, discussed, written about and circulated– not least by Members of Parliament themselves– who sought the esteem of voters, friends and dignitaries by offering a ‘running commentary on the affairs of the state’ (Sparrow 2003: 8).