Lead story on the Today prog this morning was that Labour might weaken our nuclear defences if they needed to work with the SNP. Emphatically denied by Labour but still reported as if fact not conjecture and the Tory claim given main prominence.
Same yesterday with the non-dom announcement – seized on the possible nuance of confusion about how much it would raise rather than reporting on the principle.
Jackthebiscuit says
I remember when the Conservative party regarded the BBC as the virtual mouthpiece of the Labour party.
Not sure they think that now. I think the BBC regards the Labour party as having already lost the general election & they are just trying to stay sweet with the next government.
As ever, OOAA.
adman says
Heard this on the radio news.
I have been avoiding election coverage due to sickening tedium of claim / counter claim / speculation / denial that’s not quite a denial, etc.
Labour have had 5 years to make their case & have spectacularly failed. The BBC putting a small toe of the boot in won’t make much difference.
If Cameron isn’t somehow PM again in early May, I’ll come round and fart in your kitchen.
(For the record I have voted Lab all my life.)
chiz says
The lead story this morning was the Tories’ claim that Labour would weaken defences. I thought it was quite evenly balanced actually. The lead story on the BBC website has just four paragraphs on the topic, covering the Tory commitment, the accusation and the denial. That’s pretty fair too.
A much longer story on the BBC website reveals what an absolute arse Michael Fallon made of himself on the Today programme this morning. It’s hard to see a Tory bias in this one
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32231115
chiz says
first four paragraphs, d’oh.
pencilsqueezer says
The BBC is always deemed to be biased by all sides. It all depends on one’s particular prejudices I imagine.
It’s an impossible task to be all things to all men all of the time. Especially in such nit picking times.
poolhallrichard says
I don’t really have a problem with perceived bias either way. It’s the reporting of speculation and accusation as news that annoys me.
Ditto with the overtrailing and reporting stuff which hasn’t actually happened yet. The Blair speech on Monday was a classic example.
DisappointmentChoir says
If Labour supporters think the BBC is pro-Tory (which they do) and Tories think it’s an appalling bastion of lefty propaganda (which they do) then the BBC has probably got it about right.
I predict about a 25% turnout. That’s the real scandal: politicians can’t say anything principled for fear of a “gaffe” (our fault) and no bugger votes (our fault, blame the politicians as much as you like). We get the politics we’ve asked for.
David Kendal says
25% would be a stunning collapse in the turnout for a general election. The figure hasn’t been below 60% since 1945. Any particular reason you see this happening?
http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm
duco01 says
Here are the equivalent figures for the Swedish Parliament (the Riksdag).
The voter turnout figures in the 70s and early 80s seem pretty incredible now.
http://www.scb.se/en_/Finding-statistics/Statistics-by-subject-area/Democracy/General-elections/General-elections-results/Aktuell-Pong/12275/Behallare-for-Press/378903/
JustB says
Dammit, meant to post from my personal account above. The opinions in that post are my own and in no way reflect etc etc.
Twang says
I’m disappointed, Bob. 🙂
fortuneight says
I think the BBC faces a tough task during the election, having to allow all sides to comment on everything. It irks me that the Tory right are so well represented on the sofa each week on Andrew Marr – presumably the left can’t get up early enough.
I do wonder about editorial bias from time to time in the news – like the airtime given to the 100 business leaders letter in support of the Tories, and the lack of cover for the 100 working people letter follow up, or how the BBC more or less blanked the NHS march from Jarrow to London last year, but it probably balances out when you include areas like comedy where I think the right get more of a shooing.
Ahh_Bisto says
It’s a symptom of 24 hour rolling news. There is an increased dependency from the media on being spoonfed political PR masquerading as news. In the absence of a decent time-frame in which to build a balanced and substantive story with credible editorial oversight you instead get empty and meaningless ‘he said/she said’ crap.
Twang says
I agree with all the points made including the Beeb – I think Labour refusing to rule out a deal with the SNP who are opposed to Trident is interesting. They have an obligation to report what’s being said, after all. Anyway they’ve swapped it for an anti Tory headline now. Why are they doing Labour’s job for them?
Lando Cakes says
But Labour *have* ruled out a deal with the Nats. Repeatedly.
Twang says
No, they’ve ruled out a coalition. They explicitly won’t rule out a deal, whatever that means.
Twang says
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/neal-lawson-why-labour-must-do-deal-snp
Lando Cakes says
One old hack’s opinion. A very wrong one, IMO. A deal with the Nats would be toxic for Labour on both sides of the border. Particularly as it wouldn’t be Nippy Nicola but Fat Eck on the nation’s TV screens. It’s a non-starter.
Lando Cakes says
Well, they can’t stop the Nats – or anyone else – voting for them in a confidence motion. That’s hardly a deal though.
Were I Ed Miliband, finding myself in the position of being asked to have a go at forming a minority Government by HMtQ, I would simply put my programme to the House and leave Nippy Nicola to decide whether the Nats would vote for it or explain to their electorate why they’ve opened the way for the Tories (again).
Twang says
All Ed has to do is rule it out, but he won’t, and at this point I don’t blame him. it would hardly be in anyone’s interests anyway. Nicola wants a Tory majority anyway – it plays better in Scotland.
Moose the Mooche says
Charter renewal, charter renewal, charter renewal. Keep the Tories sweet because they might think twice about pulling the plug on the license fee for another couple of years. Based on the incorrect assumption that the corporation has nothing to fear from good old corporatist Labour.
Lando Cakes says
FWIW as a dedicatednon-Tory, I don’t think that the BBC has a pro=Tory bias.
There is a problem, I think, with the pervasive culture of spin, in which the media collude – because it gives them something to say.
If I had my way:
Ministerial policy announcements would be made first in Parliament and not trailed/leaked/etc. in advance.
Ditto speeches – they should be reported when they have been made, not “later today x will say…” I mean, what’s the point of them then going on to actually say it, to an audience who have presumably heard the report in advance? It’s just absurd.
Electoral counts: down with this business of reporting the result before the actual formal announcement by the Returning Officer.
chiz says
The early release/ leak thing suits everyone, unfortunately. If you give an announcement as an exclusive to a newspaper late in the evening, your opponents have little time to respond, so it runs pretty much as you want it. It’s the top story at breakfast, which is when most people absorb the news, and your spinners are all briefed and briefing while the opposition have still got bed hair and Cornflakes on their chins.
A fun thing to watch over the next few weeks will be this – whenever a party goes for the low blow, as Fallon did today, what are they trying to get off the news cycle? In this case it’s probably non-doms.
rocker49 says
I don’t see a Tory or Labour bias either way. But there is a more subtle bias in favour of the establishment parties generally and against the Greens, SNP and UKIP who are continuously sneered at by the media pundits.
By the way, the reason why the Tories are laying into Ed is to keep him in the spotlight. They don’t care if people think they are laying it on a bit thick and being a bit nasty. They know that getting a bit personal makes headlines and that some of it gets through. They have calculated that Ed is Labour’s main Achilles heel. And they’re right.
I used to be a new Labour supporter but I’m alright now.
Diddley Farquar says
Not working though is it? Ed’s been so derided that now he’s getting the chance to show himself more he can only seem not as bad as expected, the attacks are backfiring and latest polls suggests people think he’s doing OK compared to Cameron who had a good rating to lose. Not sure people like the Tories US-style negative campaigning. They see through it. Ed ends up looking decent by not playing same game. Perhaps he’s been underestimated after all.
Lando Cakes says
I suspect that the main development of the campaign so far has been the steady improvement in Ed Miliband’s personal ratings. It’s just possible that the Tories, like the republicans in the last Presidential elections and the SNP in last year’s referendum have developed the fatal flaw of being unable to comprehend that the electorate do not see things in the way that they do, despite polling evidence to the contrary.
JustB says
While I agree that the smaller parties do seem to generally get short changed by the big media outlets, I’m surprised you see this bias extending to sneering at UKIP. To my eyes, the UKIP surge which peaked last year was entirely fuelled by the media.
Btw, @david-kendal – I wasn’t entirely serious about 25% above. But I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see a turnout crash, something about which I hope I’m wrong.
rocker49 says
The UKIP surge has been in spite of the media not because of it. The Murdoch press and the Guardian (predictably) have gone out of their way to ridicule UKIP politicians and UKIP supporters. The UKippers don’t help themselves and deserve a thumping when they get a bit silly but the media also take a pop at their supporters, which is a lot less justified since they’re almost entirely lower middle and working class salt of the earth folks who just feel short changed by the established parties.
There is a clear media agenda to blow up every UKIP faux pas about race or gays or immigrants as a major gaffe showing that Farage is a cross between Oswald Mosley and David Eicke. Channel 4 News are the worst and when I watch their coverage it’s obvious to me their editors have had an objective journalism by-pass operation.
It’s to the party ‘s credit that it rolls with these punches and carries on making its arguments – whether you agree with them or not. It was incredible that they won the European elections last year with so much of the media against them. Clearly the voters saw right through the media smokescreen, and I’ve a feeling they will do so this time round too.
Lando Cakes says
That’s an interesting analysis.
Kid Dynamite says
Wholeheartedly disagree. I’m afraid. The media certainly got behind hyping up UKIP last year, not least because they wanted something to wave in Cameron’s face if he ever looked like taking the Leveson inquiry seriously.
If their supporters are the salt of the earth working class, then a) they are salt of the earth working class idiots if they want to vote for a party that planned a flat 31% tax last time round, and still wants to get rid of all that awful legislation about workers rights, and b) so what? A bigoted racist stupid homophobe is a bigoted racist stupid homophobe whether they went to Eton or the local comprehensive. You don’t get a free pass just because you’re doing shifts at the local factory.
As for the faux pas, rather than bemoaning a media conspiracy to blow them up, I think a better use of time would be to look for a party that didn’t make them in the first place? Regardless of whether or not you agree with them, the fact that they keep happening shows that at the very least UKIP has a very poor grasp on candidate selection – if they can’t manage something that fundamental properly how on earth do you think they’ll fare if they end up entrusted with anything important?
Kid Dynamite says
yeah, Lando said it better.
Mike Hull says
If anything, ITV is giving this Trident story more prominence than the BBC.
Anyway, the Tories have grabbed the agenda today, whether for better or worse, because Fallon has come across as an arse in my view.
fortuneight says
Fallon’s comments weren’t an off the cuff faux pas. As Chiz says it was deliberately placed – written in Times and must have been cleared by Crosby. It seems a bit desperate to me – prior to the election Chris Patten identified that the biggest risk to the Tory campaign was Ed starting to look credible and that seems to be what’s happening. Dave’s refusal to debate head to head with Ed is down to the same thing.
rocker49 says
Mr Dynamite – Do come down off that perch and let me touch the hem of your garment. I am clearly blind. Please make me see.
Why are you assuming everyone who might support UKIP are idiots, bigots, racists and homophobes? You are behaving exactly how parts of the media are behaving. You are also not subjecting the media coverage of UKIP to the objective scrutiny it deserves.
Kid Dynamite says
You are right, and “bigoted racist stupid homophobes” was a little strong. “Gullible and ill informed useful idiots for the corporatist Right” is probably more accurate.
Snark aside, I genuinely do not understand your fixation with the idea that UKIP are getting a rough ride from the media. Other non-traditional parties like the Greens – hell, probably even the Lib Dems these days – would kill for the attention they are getting.
Bingo Little says
I’m going to be ill-advisedly honest here: I think most UKIP supporters are bigots.
The basis of my belief is that nearly all of the ones I’ve met in real life thus far have clearly been bigots (and in many cases proud of it), and the way that party members, including the leadership, continually say horribly bigoted things in public.
I’m all for showing a bit of respect to people who disagree with you, but I’m also for calling a spade a spade (probably the one aspect in which I suspect I align with many UKIP voters): if UKIP don’t want to be called bigots they should stop acting like bigots. The onus is on them not to continually come out with vile, small-minded pronouncements, not on the rest of us to avert our eyes and pretend they’re not doing so.
I fervently wish there was a media bias against them, or at least one that they weren’t able to feed off.
OOAA