On Laura Kuenssberg and Why Political Reporting Should Be Better
The world is burning and Rishi Sunak likes lemon drizzle cake, apparently
Like Taylor Swift or the Liberal Democrats, Laura Kuenssberg cannot be stopped, even though she is becoming very tedious and was never at all interesting in the first place. While most BBC coverage has a sort of beige centrist bias, Kuenssberg stands out for combining tiresome neoliberalism with a vapid, all-fluff-no-substance approach to political reporting. She unfortunately writes a weekly column, and her latest entry reminds me of nothing so much as a puddle of bright pink sick. It is eye-catching and striking, yes, but lacks any kind of depth or insight, and should not be consumed.
It is titled “Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer have more in common than you might think”. Any reader hoping for a cutting critique of the way both men represent a drab middle-of-the-road establishment philosophy would be disappointed. Kuenssberg’s most incisive observations are on each man’s snack habits (Sunak likes lemon drizzle cake, Starmer eats crisps, apparently.)
It’s ironic that, in her desperation to offer “character” and “colour”, Kuenssberg ends up with writing that is bland to the point of indecipherable. For instance, she asserts that Starmer and Sunak “have both been prepared to be ruthless, and to compromise”. This is an oxymoron - to be ruthless is to be uncompromising - making it hard to know what she means. A more junior journalist would have an editor to remove some of the guff here, but presumably Laura is too high up for proof-reading. She then reveals that “they both like to think things through”. I will admit that after Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, a Prime Minister who thinks is a novelty - but this is still a mind-bogglingly vapid sentence. Who says? How do you know?
Her column continues to draw strange lines of similarity between the men, including that “neither is a political ‘lifer’”. Sunak, we learn, waited tables at a restaurant, while Starmer’s first job was “clearing stones from fields on a farm”, which is probably ripe for a metaphor (tossing all obstacles out of his way, desperate to exhibit roots, obsessed with growth) but Kuenssberg misses the open goal.
Moreover, her comparison seems doubtful: Starmer’s parents were a toolmaker and a nurse who sent him to a grammar school; Sunak’s were wealthy businesspeople who paid him through the expensive Winchester College. Sunak became an investment banker at 21 and walked into a cushy seat in parliament at 35; a far cry from the decades of grind Starmer put in as a lawyer. Kuenssberg suggesting their upbringings have a lot in common is reductive. It reminds me of those GCSE English essays where you have to compare poems and end up saying stuff like: “They’re both about feelings”.
In a political culture dominated by people saying “All politicians are the same”, here is Kuenssberg abetting that argument, despite talking about two very different politicians: a posh, privately-educated super-rich Conservative, and a state-educated lower-middle-class lawyer. The electorate should be allowed to decide which of these men is most likely to represent their interests. Kuenssberg shouldn’t obscure reality.
Another of Kuenssberg’s worst habits is to report on recent news as if she doesn’t herself make it. She describes Sunak’s poor start to the campaign, including a “photo gaffe featuring him under an exit sign”. The word ‘gaffe’ here is absurd - how could any leader possibly avoid being near something that says ‘Exit’ at some point in their campaign? Does Kuenssberg ever think about whether the word ‘gaffe’ is appropriate, or the way her framing of things as ‘gaffes’ or embarrassments might have an impact on how the public views these politicians? I doubt it. (She also fails to mention his one genuinely execrable act - having two Tory councillors dress up as warehouse workers to ask him softball questions on a photoshoot, which constituted a genuine effort to mislead the public as well as a particularly stupid stunt to imagine he’d get away with. A curious omission.)
Then she suggests that: “It’s impossible not to see the departures of more and more Conservative MPs as damaging”. It’s another sentence that will only be true if prominent media figures keep banging on about them. Compared to the number of Labour MPs who stood down in 2010, the Tory figures aren’t particularly spectacular. But Kuenssberg doesn’t stop to look up that stat. She’s too busy getting the next fab bit of gossip! Did you know Sunak leaves the teabag in the mug?!
When she’s not mislabelling things as gaffes, Kuenssberg simply fails to tell us anything substantial about what these men stand for. It’s all fluffy entertainment value and no information. Her language is like a rodeo host, anticipating the election will be a ‘wild ride’ even though it’s still an ‘early stage in the game’.
And look, I get that the Beeb is desperate to make the election sound interesting. But politics isn’t a game. Not for disabled people who know Sunak is planning to cut their benefit payments. Not for those on record-length NHS waiting lists hoping to get cancer treatment before they die. Not for those starving in the developing world, to whom Sunak has cut billions in funding.
Kuenssberg, because she spends all her time around people in Westminster - well-off journalists and politicians and civil servants who are insulated from all possible effects of the decisions Parliament takes - she too believes an election is a game, a good bit of fun. Her language reflects her unserious mentality.
I think Laura Kuenssberg would be quite a good entertainment reporter. She can flit around collecting gossip, she can effortlessly fill time and column inches with waffle and flimflam. But she seems to have no skill for critically thinking about political ideas, and no awareness of how what she writes affects the political landscape. In her prominent role, she wields extraordinary power. The BBC would do well to give her role to someone who can wield it with the care and thoughtfulness it merits.