Full Report: UK media and the election

Nearly every single respondent to a survey by TheMediaBlog.co.uk has seen what they believe to be clear instances of political bias in the UK media during the coverage of the forthcoming General Election (continues...) 

In total, 96 per cent of respondents said they believe they have seen clear bias within the UK media, with just three per cent saying they hadn't and one per cent saying they are unsure. 

In terms of which party benefits most from bias within the UK media, respondents suggested the Conservatives enjoy a clear advantage over Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

 

As for where that bias exists there were also some very clear trends, most notably where Sky News is concerned with 64 per cent of respondents saying the broadcaster shows a clear bias towards the Conservative party. (Read more here about this part of the survey with exact percentages revealed).

 

The BBC and Channel 4 fared far better than ITV and Sky in terms of impartiality, and tellingly 70 per cent of respondents added in a further question that they believe commercial organisations are more prone to bias than the BBC. When quizzed further about the BBC, on the issue of the state broadcaster's public service remit, respondents were clearly split on the amount of coverage given to so-called minority parties, such as UKIP or the Green Party. 

Certainly respondents appear to be more closely scrutinising the media and the way it covers the election and that is supported by the 69 per cent of respondents who said the forthcoming general election has increased the amount of time they spend reading newspapers and watching news programming.

And despite apparently having a strong grasp of what bias exists, and where, people aren't just seeking out those media outlets whose political allegiance matches their own.

 

But if this election has taught us anything about the media, it's that its role in shaping the opinions of the UK electorate is being challenged from the grass roots by social media use. Asked whether their use of social media channels such as Twitter and Facebook have increased their involvement and interest in political discussion an overwhelming 82 per cent said 'yes'.

And in the world of social media it becomes clear that the old order of politics has been challenged if not entirely overthrown.

The survey, carried out by TheMediaBlog.co.uk polled 1,055 people in April 2010.

Comments

[twitter.com/markpack]

I was involved in commissioning a poll question which asked the public how a clear political line in the media affects their voting. The result was that people say newspaper hostility to the Liberal Democrats actually makes them more likely to vote for the party. See http://www.libdemvoice.org/exclusive-poll-newspaper-hostility-makes-voters-more-likely-to-back-lib-dems-19168.html for details.

It's only one slice of information on what's overall a complicated issue, but does raise an interesting question about whether over zealous partisanship ends up both not shifting votes and also depressing sales.

[neil]

For a balanced view `i would recommend http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxJiQCItPYs

[Flash]

I believe the vast majority of voters would have voted LibDem, if the election had been after the first Leaders' debate. They saw in Nick Clegg a glimpse of hope for a more fairly distributed tax burden, a fairer voting and political system, and a fairer society overall.

Then, over the next few weeks, all the radio and Tv media did its brain-washing.
Every outlet of the UK's supposedly neutral broadcast media hammered the voters with negative questions, and unfounded worries, about the prospect of a 'hung parliament'. The word hung has very negative connotations; which work in favour of the two old parties, in their unfair, yet continuous quest to effectively bar any third party from power. The term ‘Hung Council’ was dropped by broadcasters decades ago, as a biased and non-pc term; yet ‘Hung Parliament’ is actually promoted, particularly by the BBC, over ‘Balanced Parliament’. (I have received a written response from BBC Complaints, which claims “ the term ‘balanced’ carries a value judgment; but ‘hung’ carries no value judgment”.)
The use of the word ‘hung’, and the unerring associated negativity, was brroadcast hundreds of times every day for a fortnight; so it is small wonder the voters came to believe that they needed to worry about it! For the sake of balance, the fact that most European countries run more consistently smoothly and effectively than Westminster, would have to have been given hundreds of times, the tiny fraction of the available airtime which it actually received.

I heard not one single tv presenter or commentator suggest a balanced parliament might actually be beneficial to the UK! After all, it would necessarily lead to a government made up of MPs representing a real majority of voters! (Surely, that is a vast improvement over the 40%-supported alternating dictatorships we are used to!)
Actual party policies were largely ignored for the duration of the election campaign, except to ridicule any discussion about nuclear arms reduction, or reform of immigration policy. The media delighted in saying all other policies were largely the same: almost totally ignoring the much less severe effect that lower income people would suffer under a LibDem economic regime.

Meanwhile, Tory propaganda was indulging in its usual fare of: "vote liberal, get labour", and "hung parliament means muddle and fudge: and the stock markets would collapse." All these glib untruths were absorbed more easily by the electorate, as they agreed with the broadcast media's own biased negativity.
All the media people threw their hands up, after the election, saying: "we do not understand why the LibDem vote flopped back down." They should look to themselves: they are still carrying the old-parties' scare-mongering lines even now, three days later.

Monday morning's top BBCtv headline was to the effect that: "economic experts are worried the stock-market prices might collapse further, than they already fell last week; as political leaders have not concluded their negotiations”
In reality, the real experts saw NO cause for concern over the continuance of ‘coalition’ talks: which was the position they had outlined consistently from the start of the election campaign. The markets had actually fallen last week because of worries about Greece’s mammoth outstanding debts; and the current political position in the UK had no discernible effect. And yet the BBC reports the mendacious Tory scare-mongering as though it is fact!!!! I expect ITV, and other broadcasters’ reports were largely similar: they apparently dredge the same gutters for biased opinions in lieu of facts. When the London stock-market opened, share values actually rose noticeably: a fact mentioned in a few seconds of airtime, after hours of negative (Tory-inspired?) speculation!

The election result was inevitable; and I also found it largely predictable in terms of (a) turnout, and (b) voting percentages. The public interest had first been aroused by the Clegg effect: just maybe change was possible. Then the biased media colluded with Tory propaganda to instil an irrational fear of a ‘hung parliament’. Thus the projected would-be LibDem support fell away, with many voters also falling for the Tory/media smears about their policy on already-long-term-resident illegal immigrants.
Late-campaign reports of an increase in Tory support, at the expense of the LibDems, then worried many lower-income electors. Many of these people were scared about the prospect of the Tories’ history of huge tax increases; so they came out to vote Labour, to keep Cameron from achieving a majority.
As usual, any third party support is squeezed at a General Election. I have long believed that MOST voters decide to cast their vote in an attempt to “keep the other lot out”; rather than feeling much agreement with their chosen candidate’s policies.

Get real, people: Labour didn’t change; and we will get no real change out the Cons.
The voting system is heavily biased in favour of rich kids giving their buddies safe seats ‘for a small consideration’. Most voters get NO REPRESENTATION at all.

We desperately need a fairer voting system, and full parliamentary reform.
We KNOW this is made more difficult by the broadcast media’s prejudice in favour of the status quo: the two old parties locking everyone else out of their cosy self-serving despotic world of power. Oh, the secret shady deals within those parties: how dare anyone suggest the LibDems would sink to those levels!

You may notice that I have a bias in favour of the LibDems: actually, I support any under-dog which is unfairly positioned. I do not apologise for this: as my writings will only slightly redress the current imbalance!

Broadcasters should report FACTS fairly; not fill all the available airtime with the bigoted opinions of partisan commentators.