By Will Hayden

Ethical journalism should educate and inform.  Too often, lobby journalism exploits the privileges the media enjoys, is unserious and can even be harmful to democracy.  

Recently, Westminster has been consumed by speculation over the future of the Prime Minister.  

Press coverage of political developments along with scrutiny of politicians’ behaviour is a critical part of journalists’ work.  

However, some parts of the media appear to have a closer insight into political development than others. This is the result of the parliamentary lobby system which grants select publications with special access to Westminster, leading to some parts of the media having a closer insight into political developments than others.  

For example, The Times newspaper was packed with story after story on political developments and speculation over the last few weeks.  In many cases, developments speculated by The Times never came to pass. For example, there were endless column inches about the assembling of a “shadow team” by allies of former health secretary Wes Streeting, which claimed an imminent leadership challenge. As it turns out, there was no leadership contest and Starmer has not resigned – at least not on the schedule anticipated by The Times.  

So how did these stories end up in The Times?  The obvious possibility is that they were “leaked” to the paper by those who stood to benefit.  If we are to believe the narrative provided by the media, that the Prime Minister fought to avoid a leadership contest while Streeting was hopeful one would be initiated, then it seems most likely that allies of the PM were leaking stories that Streeting lacked support in the PLP and that his running would open the door for a more left-wing candidate, while Streeting’s allies were leaking that they had the numbers, that a mass Ministerial walkout was inevitable, and that the PM was on the brink of resigning.  

From all this speculation The Times – or whichever newspaper – gets its big scoop and the politicians get what they want.  But at the end of all the briefing and counter-briefing, The Times (and that of other papers) are disproven given that events have not transpired as their paper predicted.

No doubt, newspapers and lobby journalists have a good idea of what is really going on behind the scenes.  They must have known that the odds of some of the claims made by their unnamed political sources were long.  So, are these newspapers serving the public and their readers effectively, when they are doing little more than providing a platform for the politicking of rival Westminster factions and delivering the addictive goods for their audience who love scandal? Furthermore, are journalists who have been given disproportionate access to “inside sources” within Westminster at risk of becoming too close to politicians and their spokespeople?  These private relationships, at the very least, create the space in which unhealthy relationships between the press and politicians might develop. 

It is telling that, across the media, any reference to Streeting’s “shadow team” in coverage over the last two weeks seems to trace back to The Times.  This suggests that the publication has been given some level of exclusive access to Streeting.  

Naturally, Streeting distances himself from the allegations of leaking. In a WhatsApp message to Labour MPs, Streeting referred to journalists discussing possible leadership aspirations of his as “an industry in fishing expeditions by lobby journalists”.  

There is a history between Streeting and Rupert Murdoch owned publications. The Times published an article on the 24^th of April; Wes Streeting hits the campaign trail to face a familiar foe, which gave an unusually positive account of a governing politician, and was critical of his opponents. Additionally, Streeting wrote for The Sun in 2024, on privatization measures for the NHS to cut waiting times.  

The information regarding the political maneuvers of Streeting being tied back to Murdoch-owned publications is representative of the problems that the lobby poses to journalism. Going forward, it is crucial that the lobby system be re-evaluated considering the impact it has on the circulation of information that a democracy needs to be informed.  

‍