The year journalists stopped doing their job

In 2020, we in the UK have witnessed the most severe restrictions on civil liberties in living memory. People have, at one point or another, been barred from leaving their homes without a reasonable excuse, compelled to avoid contact with others, prevented from going to cafés, pubs, hairdressers and churches, and in some cases denied full access to the NHS – all in the name of fighting Covid-19. And now, millions are being ordered not to see friends and family at Christmas.

The consequences have been ruinous: a massive economic contraction, hundreds of thousands fewer people in work, rises in non-Covid health problems, the denial of proper education for children and students, and the spread of fear and distrust among the population. Lives and livelihoods have been wrecked, and despite the arrival of a vaccine the end still seems some way away.

The government has been inept. Constant u-turns, confusing and illogical policies, incompetent ministers and monumental wastage have become hallmarks of this Conservative administration. Coming so soon after Theresa May’s weak, blundering regime, you would have hoped Boris Johnson’s would be an improvement. Instead, it is a clown show.

You would expect that, in the context of our leaders’ litany of failures, the media would be challenging the government on its key policy: lockdown. The confusing and contradictory nature of the rules should be exposed. At the absolute minimum, journalists should be approaching government data and rhetoric with critical eyes and ears.

But in reality, a very strange thing has happened. The media have certainly been attacking the government, but on everything except the lockdown. In fact, it has been clear from an early stage that the media largely support lockdown, and if anything would rather we had a bit more of it. They have done little to conceal their bias on this central issue of our time.

No doubt, many broadcasters and reporters think they are dutifully scrutinising the government and its representatives. They will likely think they are being objective. But scrutiny now appears to mean agreeing with the basic premise of the government’s policy, while arguing that it has not gone far enough.