Political coverage: this isn\’t quite true

Parties have to show proportional coverage, and most broadcasters rely on opinion polls which do not routinely single out independent candidates Mrs Benita is also denied an election broadcast because she is not an official political party.

Not relly. The BBC relies almost exclusively on results from the previous election of that type. Thus at the last GE UKIP was treated about as serioiusly as the Monster Raving Loonies (for anything after third means you\’re pretty much ignored) but at the euros we were one of the main three. No spokesman or candidate for Labour or Conservatives was allowed on without UKIP being able to pop up on hte same programme.

And we had to fight hard in the bureaucray for that.

Once the votes were counted they reverted to form of course. Post election on Radio 4 and we\’d just come second. In theory we should have been in with the Tories (first) and Labour (third). But no, I was in with the Greens (fifth? or was it sixth behind the BNP?) while the \”big three\” had a separate programme.

They\’re doing the same in the London elections. The Greens are being taken seriously and given air time. Yet UKIP out polls them regularly and is not given the same airtime.

Yes, yes, sour grapes no doubt. But there really is bias at the BBC and it\’s necessary to fight hard to make them live up to their own written guidelines.

In theory the Lib Dems should get the same amount of airtime as the BNP at the next euro elections. It\’s going to be fun watching the BBC try to squirm away from that.

And with UKIP polling better than the Lib Dems on Westminster GE polls at present it\’s going to be really interesting to see how coverage plays out, isn\’t it? Past results or current polls?

9 comments on “Political coverage: this isn\’t quite true

  1. one thought that did occur to me – along with the idea that people opposed to shale gas fracking on the grounds that it causes seismic activity must therefore approve of closing the coal mines as they caused far more, surely those people opposing UKIP for seeking independence from a large entity which it feels doesn’t serve the UK well must logically also oppose the SNP for seeking independence etc etc?

  2. Well, if you’re right about the upcoming Kipper vote you’ll all get taken seriously at GE London 2016. Or possibly at By-GE London Sooner
    (anyone know offhand the rules as-and-when the dilettante with no connection to ‘his’ city quits as Mayor so that he can take over from the hapless idiot leading his party nationally?)

    But meanwhile, outside of the context of specific elections, rating parties by their GE2010 performance seems like the fairest way to do things.

  3. As a matter of interest, did you find the editorial approach of Sky News and ITN markedly different from the BBC’s?

  4. “outside of the context of specific elections, rating parties by their GE2010 performance seems like the fairest way to do things.”

    No, it clearly does not.

    If a new party emerged and was polling at 15% plus, then the BBC would be remiss not to include them in debates. Arguing that they will be given air-time *after* the election is ridiculous.

  5. @ Thomas Gibbon
    You are insulting oligarchs by attributing the BBC’s behaviour to them. The pre-Lloyd George House of Lords treated minority views far more generously.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.