the home of online investigations

You can support the work of Bellingcat by donating through the following link:

A Short Piece On UK Election Reporting

May 5, 2015

By Chris Brace

Over the past few years there has been a concerted effort among the more right leaning media in this country to portray Ed Milliband as a backstabber here and here Indecisive and dithering here someone hypocritical in their views because although a socialist his girlfriend at the time owned a house that had gone up in value here he looks like a animated plasticene character here mocked his accent here his face here described a set of normal pictures as “Comedy Moments” here complained his stag party wasn’t normal here

Honestly I could go on for ages and ages, page after page of vacuous crap where stories have been written on the most tenuous of rubbish here or a stream of stories that appear to be illustrated with the photo that has an odd expression here or here or filled with descriptions mocking his physical appearance here and that is before you get to unfairly attacking his relatives here or having their reporters gatecrash a relatives funeral here

Columnists have made careers of peddling streams of trash as serious insight here (you could spend whole days of amazement in that one alone) Re-fighting the Blair/Brown Conflict by proxy here or Just being plain insulting the intelligence of the readers. here

The pace of attacks truly accelerated after the Leveson Inquiry, the Press barons seeing an attack on press freedom, when in reality it was more an attack on their business model of reducing the news content in the paper and instead attracting consumers through a diet of bullying and snobbery against the poor and disabled. As the election campaign has got into gear the attacks have become even more dishonest A particularly spectacular example being the Times £1,000 Tax front page article, when called on it the response has been pitiful although in line with what the papers said they would do at the Leveson Inquiry. although maybe 20 pages too far back hereillustrating all the problems campaigners said existed in the placement of corrections in papers.

The election coverage has got so bad that even the Spectator has said

“Purely blaming the parties for this state of affairs is naive. Broadcast, online and social media now mean there are many more ways to get your message out that don’t involve being trailed by a load of people who do a very good impression of hating your guts. Ed Miliband could cure cancer tomorrow and half of the nation’s newspaper headlines would criticise him for putting nurses out of a job “

here

Once the votes have been tallied, that is not necessarily the end of the problem, the people may have decided, but the Newspapers and their proprietors appear to be preparing to have the final say. Victory may be declared by Bluff, in much the same way as TV stations declared Bush the winner in the 2000 election in the US. With the watchdogs of the press showing signs of bias, what hope do we have that we will get an unbiased result when coalition discussions are in progress? What if the press decides a fake legitimacy? can a social media ground game counter this effectively?

Newspapers are pushing the idea that a Miliband premiership would be a disaster, the bad reasons for them appear to be as he would push for full implementation of the Leveson rules for press regulation, he’d also keep the nasty European human rights rules including that pesky right of privacy that has been the key reason behind the newspapers human rights assault, yet another thing that interferes with their business model. Blame Miliband may be a good electoral strategy for the papers owners and the Tory party, but in the long term will it have a negative effect on the papers? Readership for most is in freefall. Exposure to Miliband on TV debates has just shown up glaringly how false the picture generated by the press over the past four years has been.

He’s not come across as a Shakespearean Richard the third figure, limping hunchbacked across the stage, but rather more as an ordinary person. Even the most jaded newspaper reader is going to say “hang on a minute, this isn’t the bloke we’ve been told about”

Worrying about new regulations may not be the papers problem, rather readers deserting them as they see that they are not able to trust the papers to actually tell them the truth. Something that you would think would be a basic requirement in providing a newspaper. the next six months readership figures will require careful watching to see how the papers readership handles this betrayal of trust. This may be especially true for the Sun, which has a readership that tends to lean further to the left than the company management would like, And the Times, which is wedded to the concept of being the newspaper of record. For them a departure from perceived honesty in reporting could be ruinous to their brand fo no long term gain.

How long before an editor looks back at the last four years coverage, and similarly to Gerald Kaufman after the Foot election manifesto declares the last four years coverage to be the “Longest suicide note in history”

Chris Brace

Join the Bellingcat Mailing List:

Enter your email address to receive a weekly digest of Bellingcat posts, links to open source research articles, and more.

7 Comments

  1. Eric

    …This party political broadcast for the Labour party was brought to you by Chris Brace and Bellingcat.

    Seriously, why was this totally one-sided piece of pro-Labour puff considered suitable for publication on Bellingcat?

    Reply
    • Alex Liveson

      Have you seen Eliot Higgins’ tweets the last couple of weeks?
      I assumed he had been offered a seat at the Cabinet table by Ed Milliband.

      Reply
  2. Chris Brace

    Well i’d you think Media Bias isn’t something that we should be looking at, even though during this election it appears to be more extreme than it was even in 1992, which was considered the previous high water mark for bias in UK elections.

    Is it one sided? Yes, but only because the performance from that side seems to be spectacularly disassociated from reality and honesty. That it is politically inconvenient for one party shouldn’t prevent us from looking.

    Reply
    • Philip Arlington

      Overall, the left benefits massively from media bias because the blatantly left-biased BBC is far and away the most powerful media organisation in the UK. And the BBC is funded by a pseudo-tax: that is the real scandal.

      Reply
  3. Perry de Havilland

    If you have a party political rant to make, it is quick and easy to set up blog and have at it, without hugely damaging damaging to Bellingcat’s hitherto impeccable credibility.

    Please, on this site just stick to the investigative fact-based reporting for which Bellingcat is rightly famed, and leave partisan political editorialising such as this to lesser publications. Very disappointing.

    Reply
  4. Bob

    By allowing this drivel to be published on its site bellingcat has shown its bias and shown it picks sides. Had this been a dissection of media reporting of the UK election in a rational manner by the values which it espouses that would be one thing. However it wasn’t.

    Reply
  5. Jimmy

    Eliott, this is a terrible article, biased as well as incredibly poorly written and undermines the excellent work you and your other contributors have done on this site.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

  • (will not be published)

You can support the work of Bellingcat by donating through the following link:

TRUST IN JOURNALISM - IMPRESS