A full three days after the local council and London Mayoral elections the BBC Radio Newscasts still refer to Labour’s results as ‘disastrous’ and ‘the worst for 40 years’ and places them near to the top of the news headlines.
What, I wonder, is the editorial policy behind these kind of comments?
Does it add to our knowledge, is it new news, is it impartial?
We surely know by now that the results will not gladden the hearts of Labour supporters. But the elections are over, things move on, especially politics. Analysis and comment about the results are by now pretty played out and surely comments such as ‘abysmal’ and ‘disastrous’ can now be dropped?
It is the tremendous momentum of the news narrative–think super-tanker taking miles to stop. This is why the blogosphere is so important to our democracy (and bloggers are only too aware of this kind of intellectual laziness): it offers an alternative.
Perhaps there is something New about Labours poll results?
Why pick out the BBC? Post-mortems are being conducted by every news outlet. Multiple angles have been analysed, from which poll proved more reliable than another to whether the votes were anti-Labour or pro-Tory. Political editors have to earn their crust, too.
The same could be said about the ‘crash’ in house prices when, according to one lender, they’ve dropped an average 1% over the past year. A closer look reveals most prices are static, some have gone up, but the massive boom in N Ireland over the past two years has led to a recent drop of 5%. The result of alarmist headlines about prices, HIPs, no money in the banks, and panic about the economy has led to a near standstill in sales.
Gordon Brown (the PM, as I write) has to accept he upset Rupert and cosying up to the Daily Mail and the Telegraph is a ‘brave’ move. His Sunday interviews with Andrew Marr and Adam Boulton were pitiful; it is Gordon himself who makes the disastrous headlines for the media.
I suspect that it’s simply because they don’t have any other political news to report and the media do like a bit of drama. Also, it is more common these days for political reporters to be pundits and now they have evidence that Labour may lose the election.
Of course extrapolating the next election from local election results (especially when there is a displacement in time) is not the easiest thing to do…
Whilst I would echo Baroness D’Souza’s comments in general regarding the tone of news reportage, I draw a sharp breath at the comment: the elections are over, things move on, especially politics.
I would argue that to an enormously discontent public majority things are not over.
Voters do note register a degree of discontent as significant as they have done and a week later think ‘That’s it, message given; time to move on’.
I feel sure that the majority of the public will want pressure to continue to be applied to the government until either there is siginficant change/improvement or, at the next general election, the vote for change will make itself felt once more.
As usual, a handful of thoughtful, sane and acceptable comments.
I did – perhaps unfairly – single out the Beeb but only because it has such a good reputation for balance? I do rather agree with Chris Dornan’s reference to intellectual laziness.
ladytizzy, I wonder if you would give any credence to the idea that it may not be G Brown who creates the headlines but more that the newseditors have made a decision to portray them as disastrous?
Punditry is of course a fourth estate activity and to be welcomed – so I agree with Hifranc – more or less. If we turn to the US Presidential Election process, what amuses me most is the pundits capacity to change their views as to who will be the Democratic front runner on an almost hourly basis. If Obama slips up literally or politically – the commentators almost immediately focus on Hillary’s chances – and vice versa.
Brennig, I agree things are by no means over, but the elections results are very much over. We may continue to speculate on the consequences but my point was that there is no longer any need to refer to the actual results in such dramatic and doomed terms?
Baroness D’Souza – If you really have to ask this question, then you need to get your paws on Nick Davies’ book ‘Flat Earth News’ NOW…
Baroness, I often snap a peg to my nose when reading/hearing/viewing the news. I realise many outlets have axes to grind and swing in one direction or another, but politicians are as guilty by playing their game.
I can agree that simply because Gordon is the Richard Nixon of our time it would be unfair to make assumptions about his abilities. It is also true that global activities have impacted negatively upon his premiership. But it is a fact that he has made some disastrous decisions (for himself and his party) as it is a fact that the results were the worst for Labour for decades.
Of course, the media could have put headlines suggesting the Tories have had their best results for 20 years but the British don’t do glass half-full. Take a look at the award-winning news stories – they invariably report on disasters.
Boris won’t make the news with his policies; the sharks are circling waiting for his first gaffe, reported as inevitable.
Do I give credence to media bias? Absolutely. Do I believe they are unfairly reporting on Gordon’s leadership? No. Has the elections aftermath been unduly dragged out? No, because the results were dramatic, and there is an important by-election coming up.
Bedd Gelert, have got the book – now need to read it!
Ladytizzy, absolutely fair comment.