You’re not considering the reasons for concentrating on the two main candidates: mainly that most people are only interested in them, and that we don’t want joke candidates taking up as much media space as the front-runners.

It’s a difficult issue, and perhaps more could be done to ensure smaller candidates aren’t sidelined – those funding changes you mention sound potentially problematic – but I don’t think focusing on the two candidates most people actually care about is “outdated”.

As was pointed out during the course of the election, Siobhan Benita was very loudly protesting the media silence about her campaign. Indeed she was seen protesting about it in just about every national newspaper and on BBC, ITV and Sky.

I do not think it is unfair for minor party and independent candidates to have to demonstrate some base level of support before they get treated with the same status as the frontrunners. Otherwise it puts the broadcasters in the difficult position of giving undue prominence to people with little support, or (worse) having to pick which among the other candidates gets the publicity boost and which does not.

It is arguable whether it was fair in the London election to give equal prominence to the Green Party and Liberal Democrats as to the Conservatives and Labour, given that the election was so obviously between Ken and Boris.

It is arguable whether it was fair in the London election to give equal prominence to the Green Party and Liberal Democrats as to the Conservatives and Labour, given that the election was so obviously between Ken and Boris.

But was it only between Ken and Boris because they and their battle are getting the most coverage?

Chicken and egg?

never mind just the broadcasting media (who are in need of major reform on this issue), independant candidates face a massive uphill struggle without the support of a party machine. It would probably shock most of you to realise just how much data the big 2 parties have on the electorate that has been collected over the years. the big 2 have enough data to produce targeted literature ( campaigned for a new school? then you’ll get leaflets on the party’s education policy. Ever expressed support for a party? you’ll be called on election day to remind you to vote. Above applies to marginals).

So the only way an independant can realistically have a chance at above council ward level is with the support of the media – the few who have been succesful have either been celebrities or people well known locally on an issue of major local importance (Dr Richard Taylor for example).

The idea that the BBC/broadcast media generally will only give parties/people coverage once they have established support is also bollocks. They define support as ‘elected representatives’, which means UKIP and the Greens started getting allowed on programmes like question time not when their support reached a certain threshold, but when the electoral system for euro elections changed and their existing support levels got Lucas and Farage a salaried post. Since then UKIP have capitalised certainly, and it is an interesting hypothetical to consider what would have happened had euro elections stayed on a FPTP basis.

“It is arguable whether it was fair in the London election to give equal prominence to the Green Party and Liberal Democrats ”

Simple – the lib dems have large enough funds to ensure a legal challenge should they be excluded,.

There’s nothing new about this at all. We went through the same thing with UKIP.

The BBC rules actually say that it’s either considerable support that can be publicly seen: or the results of the last election of the same type.

So, UKIP at the GE…no seats, 3-8% (whatever the current number is) polling. You’re an outsider. Get the same sort of coverage as Monster Raving Looney (well, maybe a bit better. Given the candidates numbers we’ll get a party broadcast).]

At euros: we came second last time. This is important. Can’t remember whether it’s the top three or top four parties. But no BBC show is allowed to have anyone from one of them without having someone from all top three (or four) in the election period.

Thus, for example, next euros, any show having a Tory must have the Tory, a UKIP, a Labour and maybe or maybe not a Lib Dem. Greens are below the cut off point.

These may or may not be good rules but they are the rules.

Newspaper editors get to choose what you get to read about, and their television equivalents get to choose what you’ll see on the idiot box. You can talk about equal time and even try a free speech angle, but that’ll always remain true.
As David Boothroyd pointed out @2 what was chosen to be aired about Siobhan’s campaign was constant whinging about not being seen. Talk about ‘framing the narrative’.

I believe they do this in the last few weeks of the French Presidential elections: all candidates must be reported on equally. The downside is that even when its a two horse race, there’s equal airtime given to the no-hope fringe groups with less than 1% support.

It’s no use saying your candidate is ‘emminently qualified’ or ‘convincing’ – there’s no way to test this fairly. Either broadcasters discriminate based on polls or previous results, or treat everyone all the same. To give everyone equal airtime will mean that the frontrunners’ campaigns and policies won’t be discussed in detail, in order to give a brief outline of everyone from far right to far left.

‘Outdated’ is a misleading word – it implies that things are moving towards your way of thinking, an assertion for which you have no evidence. There’s a

You’re not considering the reasons for concentrating on the two main candidates: mainly that most people are only interested in them, and that we don’t want joke candidates taking up as much media space as the front-runners.

The London Mayoral elections proved it was possible to give the main party candidates and the joke candidates equal airtime – so long as they are the same people.

Most of us would claim that we want to see independent candidates given airtime – unless they have unacceptable opinions, in which case the media will be denounced for giving them a platform.

A word about Siobhan and the “media blackout”. She never complained about press coverage. Her beef was with the broadcasters. She had positive press coverage from respected political editors and commentators who bothered to interview her at length. It wasn’t her choice if the articles focused on the broadcast issue. One of the silliest episodes in the campaign was being barred from the ITV debate but then being told she had to do a sound bite for the evening news purely complaining about her exclusion from the debate. She wasn’t allowed to to talk about policies. Talking about ‘framing the narrative’.

She wasn’t allowed to to talk about policies. Talking about ‘framing the narrative’.

Exactly, doesn’t matter how good your argument is or policies are, if all footage broadcasters are going to show of you, is when you’re complaining, quite rightly, at their shoddy behaviour, then all viewers are going to see is someone whining that no one is paying attention to them. With obvious consequences.

Editing is modern day censorship, imo, and quite a pernicious form of it too. We should recall what was done to Shanene Thorpe, and more importantly what they chose not to show – in that case the question regarding why she didn’t abort her child, showing that question would have made Stratton look an ogre and made Thorpe a figure for sympathy, which wasn’t the ‘narrative’ the BBC was after.

The forthcoming PCC election fiasco will have nothing to do with coverage in the media. It’s a stand-alone ballot on an issue people are not remotely interested in. The already cynical public cannot understand the point of Nick Herbert’s Big Idea and won’t bother with it.

@9. Giselle Green

‘A word about Siobhan and the “media blackout”. She never complained about press coverage. Her beef was with the broadcasters. She had positive press coverage from respected political editors and commentators who bothered to interview her at length. It wasn’t her choice if the articles focused on the broadcast issue. One of the silliest episodes in the campaign was being barred from the ITV debate but then being told she had to do a sound bite for the evening news purely complaining about her exclusion from the debate. She wasn’t allowed to to talk about policies. Talking about ‘framing the narrative’.’

Although not recently active, I’ve been an Agent or Candidate/Agent for all levels of election except Parish. I’m not an electoral lawer, but I think a convincing case could be made that this exclusion was illegal.

The rules say that any meeting must either be paid for by the candidate (or in this case candidates equally)unless all are invited, and can only proceed when a candidate (or their representitive) is not present iss wirth that candidates explicit permission.

I suspect that charging for the debates would put all the candidates over the expenses limit, thus leading to their disqualification, and a re-run of the election.

@ 8 Shatterface

“Most of us would claim that we want to see independent candidates given airtime – unless they have unacceptable opinions, in which case the media will be denounced for giving them a platform.”

I’d like to see all candidates given airtime. I just don’t think that Bob Bobson, of the Liberate Hackney Party, or Ivor Biggun, of the Look At Me I’m A Zany Attention-Seeker Party, should get as much coverage as the main two candidates just because they’ve managed to scrape together enough support to stand.