Freedom of the Press and impartiality during elections

[Gromit2]

I notice that the News of the World has joined the rest of the Murdoch papers in coming out supporting the Conservatives at the General Election. Newspaper have long been able to show a bias to one side. The the famously wrote - "It was the Sun wot won it!".

This is in stark contrast to other media who have to be strictly impartial. George Galloway's Radio Show has been taken off the air, and The Apprentice TV show has been delayed until later in the year.

Several questions about Newspapers supporting a political party at elections:

Does it matter?
Does anyone really take any notice of them?
Can there be a conflict if proprietors such as Murdoch influencing a party to get his support? (The Conservatives will cut the BBC, rival to his Sky Television Service
If it were possible, should impartiality be imposed on them, or would that be an attack on press freedom?

[Seadragon]

I think people can be influenced by the biasism depicted in the newspapers. But I don't know why impartiality should be imposed on that? It's not like the papers discreetly voice their views, they do it quite extravangatly (Oh my God, I can't spell that word!). But I think people still make an informed decision.

[anotheoldgit]

Tricky one this, but no I do not think newspapers should be impartial, this would lead to "one press" "one voice" not a very healthy situation.

We already have TV and Radio, that although hidden under a cloak of impartiality, do in fact mostly lean towards a Left-Wing bias.

There should be no bar regarding politics on TV or the Radio at election time. In fact open debate should be equally allowed, if not encouraged by all, no matter what their politics.

No dropping off then at Question Time or any other similar programme.

[modeller]

Last time Murdoch supported Labour so I suppose it balances out. Whatever party we support the press must have its freedom to challenge authority.
On the other hand pornography and preaching violence should be banned because they are attacks on and the debasing of the person.

[Kromovaracun]

There's really not much solid research that backs up the idea that the press exercise controlling amount of influence on us, despite the fact that everyone seems to think so. The idea was very prevalent in the early C20 but as far as I'm aware has been quite effectively debunked.

There is some research to suggest that the media can have some effect on how suitable we see candidates/parties though, and it certainly does have a very strong 'agenda-setting' role - particularly around election time. As I say, however, most people - politicians included - do seem to be under the impression that media are very powerful, so that does give people like Murdoch more leverage than they should probably have.

Still, all the research I've read has been from the late 80s/early 90s - I don't know how the mass media age has affected the issue.

The idea of imposed impartiality is one I like. I don't agree that it'll lead to uniformity in press - for instance if you passed a regulation that stated that all press had to publish both sides of an argument, there's more than one way to argue for/against something and it would likely increase interest in individual journalists, so the market could still function on that basis.

A free press is a bit like having a free market - it's the best system we've got, but I think it does need careful tweaking to work properly - otherwise you get the crapfest we have now.

[mike11111]

The Murdoch press likes to be on the winning side (as they hope it will be) unlike other titles who tend to remain loyal to their party regardless of its popularity or otherwise.

[TTG]

Makes me laugh how they could not do enough to praise Blair and the rest...suddenly they switch sides when the realise what a state the country is in.

[modeller]

Steve5 Did you call them scum when they were backing Labour ?

[bazwillrun]

If the BBC can be so politically biased towards the left and labour , i dont see any reason why a newspaper cant be biased and support a party

[jno]

The Sun spent much of the 80s being the Maggie Appreciation Society. Then they did a poll and found to their horror that a large proportion of their readers thought they were a Labour paper. (Once upon a time, before Murdoch bought them, they had been.) It seems quite a few people start at the back page with the sport and never get as far as the editorials and political news up front.

This doesn't necessarily apply to The Times.

[Quinlad]

Former Sun editor David Yelland was on 5Live this morning. He was asked whether it's right that the Sun should be so overtly partisan to one party.

He declined to comment but did say that News International and The Telegraph Group have now made such an investment in a Tory win that, if Labour won, they'd be out in the cold.

"They'll do everything they possibly can to make sure of a Conservative win," he said.

[jake-the-peg]

I don't think the BBC is politically biased to the left.

I think it's just that the media has in general so much right wing bias that any deviation from that line looks like marxism to the right wing appologists who really don't approve of a diversity of opinion.

Before I'm accused of the same I really don't mind right wing views intelligently expressed - i may disagree with what the telegraph has to say but I think they're worth listening to.

I do however find the rabid electioneering in certain papers stepping over the line between putting forward a point of view and blatently campaigning for a political party.

That is a line that I'd like to see drawn

[modeller]

Steve I'm trying to understand your answers. You call the Murdoch "Scum " both when they support Labour and when they support the Tories. I find that an interesting point of view and would like to learn more. Would you please explain what they do to deserve such a description. ?

[jno]

ah yes, the biased BBC... I remember Nigel Lawson (father of the more famous Nigella) once accusing Brian Redhead of bias on air and Redhead saying he'd call a one-minute silence so Lawson could apologise for presuming to know how he voted... It turned that he did in fact vote Tory.

Bazwillrun's insights are no doubt equally accurate.

[modeller]

Thanks Steve I can see now what you are getting at. You didn't quote anything specific so I couldn't judge for myself. There is one point you might like to answer : Is the Murdoch group any different from all the other newspapers ?

[Quinlad]

It's different in the sense that Murdoch's media empire stands to benefit enourmously from a Tory government. David Yelland said this morning that the Sun's political stance was dictated 10% by the editor and 90% by Murdoch.

It's also relatively rare to explicity urge readers to vote for a certain party, as The Sun has done for several months.

[modeller]

I hadn't realised there would be an enormous benefit.
In what way will Murdoch actually benefit from a Tory win.?
I assume he also benefited in some way last time, when he backed Labour ?

[jno]

modeller, his big demand (as the question mentions) is that the Tories cut back the BBC. That will mean less competition for his newspapers. In particular, since he is about to start charging for his newspapers' websites, the less competition he gets from bbc.co.uk the better.