Abstract
The critique of ‘spin’ in recent autobiographical accounts of political reporting from Westminster is deficient because it fails to ask questions about political journalists' own ideologies and practice. Without greater self-reflexivity on the part of these journalistsas-political-actors, government may systematically be misunderstood.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bobbio, N.
(2000 ) In Praise of Meekness . Cambridge : Polity .
2.
Briggs, A.
(1959 ) The Age of Improvement . London : Longman, Green .
3.
Cockerell, M.
,
P. Hennessy
and
D. Walker
(1984 ) Sources Close to the Prime Minister . London : Macmillan .
4.
Dunn, J.
(ed.) (1992 ) Democracy . Oxford : Oxford University Press .
5.
Dunn, J.
(2000 ) The Cunning of Unreason . London : HarperCollins .
6.
Luckhurst, T.
(2001 ) This Is Today– A Biography of the TodayProgramme . London : Aurum .
7.
Jones, N.
(1996 ) Soundbites and Spin Doctors . London : Indigo (Cassell) .
8.
Jones, N.
(2001 ) Control Freaks . London : Politico's .
9.The Journalist (2001 ), 17 April.
10.
Margach, J.
(1981 ) The Anatomy of Power . London : W.H. Allen .
11.
Norris, P.
(2000 ) A Virtuous Circle: Political Communications in Post-Industrial Societies . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .
12.
Oakley, R.
(2001 ) Inside Track . London : Transworld .
13.
Sergeant, J.
(2001 ) Give Me Ten Seconds . London : Macmillan .
14.
The Times
(1852 ) ‘The Press Lives by Disclosures’ , 6 February.
15.
Tunstall, J.
(1971 ) Journalists at Work . London : Constable .
16.
Tunstall, J.
(1996 ) Newspaper Power . Oxford : Oxford University Press .
17.
Walker, D.
(2000 ) ‘Newspaper Power: A Practitioner's Account’ , in
H. Tumber
(ed.) Media Power, Professionals and Policies . London : Routledge .