Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Media

What a difference 4 years make…

May 4

Posted by Malc in Elections, Media | 11 Comments

Remember this?

That rather crude front page was four years ago, and while Scotland’s (ahem) more quality papers (and also, the Daily Record) didn’t go quite as far as the Sun in their SNP scaremongering, the message was pretty much the same as it always had been: “We don’t like the SNP, we don’t like independence, we don’t think you should support the SNP or independence”.  Okay, so I’ve probably phrased that slightly less, what, filled with rhetoric, than they did – but you get the idea.  On the SNP’s side they were not.

Fast forward to 2011, and the media picture has changed considerably.  While most of the nation’s press spent the four years of SNP government attacking them, many have come out in favour of a second SNP term.  Okay, in some cases that support is qualified – at best – but its a different media landscape for the SNP, and one which they are not used to.  In 2007, they had the bunker mentality, the “world’s-media-is-against-us” thinking, just as they had for generations before.  But today they have the support of much of Scotland’s printed press.

The Sun came out for the SNP several weeks ago:

 

 

 

 

 

The Scotsman offers its qualified support to the SNP in today’s editorial, though they want Annabel Goldie’s Conservatives there to keep Alex Salmond on the straight and narrow.  This seems as big a Road to Damascus moment as, well… the original Road to Damascus moment.  Guess that’s why we use that metaphor.  The Herald too, provides support for the SNP in its editorial, though elsewhere it is more circumspect about the campaign and the promises of each of the parties.  The Sundays have led where their sister papers followed, with the Scotland on Sunday citing Labour’s “appallingly negative” campaign as part of the reason why they see Salmond and the SNP as better for Scotland.  Meanwhile, the Daily Record focuses solely on the apparent 50% of the electorate who remain undecided and tells them they should vote for Labour.

I’ve already noted my frustrations with the campaign – and several of my friends and colleagues have mentioned that they too feel that the lengthy six-week campaign has failed to inspire.  Last night’s TV debate, while better than what went before, did nothing to instil any confidence in the leaders’ ability to change the record.  Tavish Scott got his “police” message in up top, and then again later in the debate.  Annabel got her “common sense” and “I’ll hold them to account” point in.  Salmond was his statesmanlike self, though unnerved by a couple of questioners and Iain Gray was better than he had been… until asked about his Subway encounter, when the Angry Man took over and his comment about “pointless conversations” undid anything good he had done to that point.  All in all, the debate itself wasn’t exactly an edifying spectacle.

So where does that leave us?  Well, polls open in around 20 hours.  If the latest STV poll is to be believed, the SNP are headed for a landslide, winning 61 of the 129 seats – not quite a majority, but pretty damn close.  Labour are to slump to 33 (down SIXTEEN from 2007) with the Tories on 18 (up 1) the Lib Dems on 9 (down 7) and the Greens close behind on 8 (up 6).  I’m never convinced when polls show such wide margins – I think it’ll be a bit closer – but if the SNP’s vote comes out and Labour’s collapses as predicted, I’ll be eating humble pie.

I’ll get my finalised predictions (based both on numbers and intuition) out before polls close tomorrow, and I think Jeff and Kate are planning the same – then you can giggle at how wrong we are.  But just remember, the only poll that matters….

The Sun ain’t gonna whine any more

Apr 19

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood, Media | 85 Comments

There’s not really much to say about the Sun’s endorsement of the SNP other than ‘Blimey, that’s a welcome surprise. Can the Daily Record have some of what they’re having please?’. The red top that loves to rant and rave has seemingly come round to the SNP a full four years after famously, and quite disgracefully, putting a noose on its front page as a warning of what would happen if the Nats got in. 

The Scottish Sun has now reeled its neck in so far that it is in favour of a referendum, though not of independence itself. So, glossing over the tawdriness involved in courting a tabloid’s favour, it will be high fives in Bute House today, I mean SNP HQ of course, let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves. 

And yet, how can this not cement Alex Salmond’s position as First Minister for the next five years? The demographic of the readership of the Scottish Sun is where any last battle between SNP vs Labour could have taken place, the scaremongering and the Nat-bashing. It is too late for Labour to write a manifesto that outscores the SNP’s if they did wish to fight on higher ground. 

So, game over? I’d say so.   

This poses an interesting question as to who the slightly higher quality Scotsman and robust but still Glasgow-centric Herald will back (place your bets now please!). Reading between the lines of the past few weeks, I can’t see either paper endorsing the SNP and Labour must be the favourite, even if a rationale would be difficult to word. They may perhaps ‘do a Guardian’ and back a thrd party and that won’t be the Tories, can’t surely be the Lib Dems and so could only be the Greens. I can’t imagine Patrick is holding out too many hopes there. 

However, when the SNP is clearly the people’s choice to be the largest party, if that moment does come to pass prior to May 5th, then the focus of a still rather mundane campaign will become who might support it, either with the SNP forming a minority Government or through a more formal coalition.

People do seem to be forgetting that Salmond’s team winning the most seats is not a mandate for a full implementation of its manifesto. One of the ‘other parties’ will win something from its manifesto into law and that deserves more scrutiny.  
   
There is of course many other ways of looking at this endorsement and, much like Brian Soutar’s £500k donation, it probably splits the field. Another intriguing aspect for me is whether News International really does back the SNP for Scotland or whether they are taking a wider view. After all, placed in a UK context, what is the best result for the Tories?

With David Cameron’s media chums backing Salmond to, possibly, poke Ed Miliband in the eye, is this the ultimate indulgence of SNP Tactical Voting? And, crucially, does it matter?

Election round up: the media battle

Apr 9

Posted by The Burd in Elections, Holyrood, Media | 42 Comments

How does the saying go?  A picture is worth a thousand words and elections are no different.  The uninitiated might think the battle is for copy and content but no.  One big, fat visual is enough to make even the most grumpy campaign co-ordinator smile.  For a moment anyhow.

So, two and a bit weeks in, a slew of manifesto launches later, who is winning this particular battle?

Never thought I’d be saying this but STV vs the Beeb?  No contest.  Hats off to Matt Roper, the digital content geek at STV -  the commercial channel has wiped the floor with the one what we pay for.  And frankly, have a right to expect better from.

STVstole a march with the first televised leaders’ debate and a live blog facility.  Its offering includes news, news round ups, live streaming, a postcode searchable facility for your constituency and region, profiles of them and the candidates, blogs and analysis, a twitter stream for all candidates, its pack of reporters assigned a party each, a polling panel, innovative programming and of course, Bernard Ponsonby overseeing proceedings.

What does BBC Scotland offer?  A shoestring in comparison.  No dedicated election space or heading.  A bog standard round up page that scrolls the oldest first (even the burd knows that is a big no-no).  There is, though, an impressively designed candidate map with postcode search facility.  And of course, Brian’s Blog (Taylor in case you were wondering), though it’s not been updated since Wednesday. Tsk, tsk.  It is all a bit, well bitty and half hearted.

The fact remains, though, that newspapers and what they print during the campaign will play a big role in informing the voting public, even if they are no longer the influencers they once were.  Looking at this week through the papers’ pictures provides some clues about who they will all be backing and urging their readers to back.

It’s unlikely that the Record will spring a surprise on us this election by transferring its traditional allegiance from Labour.  The Tories’ manifesto launch got a whole page (with an image of Annabel looking like she was about to eat the thing), the Lib Dems a paltry half page with a bigger photie of Iain Gray than Tavish Scott, and Labour a full two pages, complete with graphics, analysis and one or two well place pics of the leader.  Everyday this week (I think  – funnily enough, I’m not an habitual Record reader) Iain Gray’s fizzog featured somewhere, though Nicola Sturgeon also scored a few.  If Record readers still can’t recognise Mr Gray at the end of the campaign, it won’t be for its trying.

The Sun appears to be moving towards backing the SNP if its current coverage and slant is any indicator. Some nice pics of Salmond, highly positive coverage, a couple of front page exclusives, all adding up to what seems like a successful wooing.  A result in any party’s book.

Of the two Scottish broadsheets, the Scotsman is playing it most canny.  Pretty fair, proportionate coverage so far for all the parties and a share of the images.  Plenty action shots which they all like: how refreshing that someone is playing nicely.  The Herald – well, if they don’t come out for Labour I’m going to be a curry and a tenner down.  The Tories got a nice pic of Annabel (with a bizarre rainbow background) and damning headlines for their manifesto launch, but by far and away the best image of Iain Gray this week appeared in Thursday’s edition to coincide with his party’s manifesto launch.

The SNP, of course, tried to steal Labour’s thunder with Brian Cox’s endorsement of the SNP in this election.  Did it work?  Sort of.  A great big splash and clever headline on the front page of the Sun on the morning of Labour’s manifesto launch ensured coverage spilling over into the broadcast news headlines and into other newspapers the following day.

They did the same to the Lib Dems, with the endorsement of Salmond for FM from retiring MSP John Farquhar Munro.  They needn’t have bothered – no one was up for covering it much anyway.  Yesterday’s people would appear to be the view of the meeja, which tells us a lot.

In terms of news management, the SNP is playing a blinder, though its Scottish Futures Fund launch did fall a bit flat, when such an initiative deserved much more coverage.  Its experience tells, not least because they have veteran media man Kevin Pringle at the helm.  But they should be careful on two counts.  Playing dirty can always backfire, especially when the other parties have time to prepare to counter the SNP’s manifesto launch this coming Tuesday.  Moreover, the problem with blizzarding is that news – and pictures, as happened this week – can get lost in the whiteout.

But of course, the images that dominated the week are the ones that Iain Gray will want to forget.  Whoever is advising him on media management deserves a dressing down.  Or locked in a cupboard until it’s all over and replaced with some more experienced heavyweights.

There’s a Goldilocks effect at play right now.  The SNP?  Too much.  Labour?  Too little.  The media with its low boredom threshhold and attention span needs to be fed just the right amount of stories and images to sate its appetite.  Otherwise, incidents like the one in Glasgow Central station end up dominating the headlines.

Does Labour’s PR fail mark a downward turning point as some journalists and commentators are suggesting?  Nah.  A bad media day dents the morale of the party concerned and provides a filip for the opposition.  Such incidents provide a day’s news, and while they might entertain the masses for a moment, they do not actually influence the outcome of elections.  Anyone remember Jennifer’s ear?

Tags: , , , , ,

Debating the debates

Mar 9

Posted by James in Holyrood, Media | 37 Comments

One podium missingIt seems likely that the Holyrood TV debates won’t get quite the same attention we saw when Cameron, Clegg and Brown faced off in April last year. For one thing, they’re not an innovation for a Holyrood campaign. For another, there really is a metropolitan media bias, and that media will probably spend more time wondering whether Clegg or Cameron wins the AV debate (as it sadly seems likely to be framed).

However, they will still matter. And who will be in them? The answer so far appears to be four out of the five leaders of the Holyrood parties, and as you can imagine I’m not delighted about that, just as the SNP were rightly disgruntled to be excluded from the Westminster debates.

It’s just special pleading to argue we should be in the debates, I’m told. But how are the broadcasters framing the programmes? Won’t that make it clear who belongs in them? To my mind, there are only two credible answers.

Perhaps they should be debates between the candidates for First Minister. Hands up anyone who has any plausible route for anyone other than Salmond or Gray to become FM in May? Nope, FM debates would have to be just those two, the first chunk of FMQs extrapolated to an hour or so, heaven help us.

The other sensible option is that the debates should test the parties that might take part in government in any form. Is there anyone prepared to rule out a government with Patrick Harvie in it, or supporting it from the outside? The most recent poll suggested that would be certainly a possibility, and even with just 2 MSPs we took part in talks last time that could have led to some sort of more formal arrangement. And does anyone think that criteria would mean including Colin Fox? Really? It also should be noted that both the Tories and the Lib Dems would be hard for either the SNP or Labour to work with formally given their roles in Westminster. So this option points towards five podiums.

Actually, there’s a third suggestion. Parties currently in Parliament should get in, with varying amounts of time according to group size. Yes, let Margo in too.

Any of these is logically consistent. But four out of five is purely arbitrary.

Footnote: On the comparison between the SNP in 2010 and the Greens in 2011, it should be noted that the SNP went into last year’s election with just 7 out of 646 MPs, a lower proportion than 2 out of 129, and although there was a way it could have happened, SNP involvement in government at Westminster government was always a considerably longer shot.

Change the record

Feb 17

Posted by Malc in Governance, Media, Westminster | 14 Comments

I get pretty fed up of listening to opposition to governments – of whatever hue – moanin’ about policy A, greetin’ about policy B and whinin’ about policy C, only for when the government decides to listen to the will of the public on each of the policies, for them then to claim “embarrassing climbdown” or “U-turn” at every opportunity.

For goodness sake, this is the outcome you wanted!

Look, I get there’s a political agenda, I really do.  And I get that people hate the government, and will take any opportunity to kick them.  But can’t we be a little bit more graceful in how we do it?  Have we forgotten entirely the manners taught to us when we were young?  I’m sure I remember something about being polite when asking for something, and then when it was given to me I was supposed to say “thank you”.  Yeah, that sounds familiar.  So why does politics exist outwith the boundaries of these well-mannered social conventions?

Well, first thought is the depth of feeling.  You really despise party A (the governing party) so asking them for anything is a challenge in itself.  They’ve been a rival for such a long time that you can’t really remember a time that you liked them or worked together to achieve something.  But this is really a repeat of your childhood.  “Mum – brother/sister won’t let me have X”… “Ask them nicely – make sure you say please”.  Sound familiar?  I remember fighting with my wee brother (a lot) and even when we were forced to be polite, we still didn’t like it.  So that could be part of it.  But doesn’t there come a point when you stop being so immature?  You stop despising each other and learn to work together.  At least, that’s how I remember it.

Secondly, what about the idea that politics itself is essentially a zero-sum game – if they are doing well, you are doing badly and you want them to do badly so you can do well.  So if you ask them for something and they say yes, you want to treat it as you doing well and them doing badly, not both of you working together to improve the situation for everyone.  That’s logical because (coalition situations excepted) only one of you can govern at any one time, and you want it to be you so you make your party look better than the party in government.

But what partisan politics oftentimes forgets is that governing is not actually a competition.  Its about setting and collecting taxes and spending that money in a variety of ways in order to best serve the public.  Now you may have ideas as to how better do this than the other party, and you may want the public to know how much better your ideas are than the government’s so that next time they have the opportunity to vote they will remember your ideas and vote for you instead of the government.  But sometimes, when you have an idea that you think the government should pursue, and they do in fact pursue it, changing their own position in the process, it should be celebrated as good for the country, not good for the party.

Of course this post is inspired by the debate over plans to sell off state-owned forestry land in England.  But it is more inspired by the media reaction which calls the government’s change of heart on the issue “an instant, screeching u-turn“.  Because, as with most things in politics, you can’t do something without the media.  Media shapes the debate and how particular issues are viewed depends very much how they are reported.  So for the opposition to the government plans, while in reality this was a victory for them, they – and the media – have to spin it as a defeat for the government in order for it to be worthy of top news-billing.

So once again my naive hope that politics can be conducted in a more positive and civilised manner is likely to be thwarted because we can’t handle a situation where government and opposition can work together without one party having to outscore the other. Yawn.  And we wonder why people are turned off politics.