Whose vote is it anyway?

I don't know about you, but something is annoying me in this election campaign. The media. You see, as the politicians keep reminding us, who gets to run the country is up to us. Whereas the media seem to think it's up to them, and that they can't trust us to make the "right"decision if they were to give us the full facts. And with that the way they assume we're all stupid. On Media Matters on Radio 2 this week a Sun writer and a Guardian writer were discussing the rise in popularity of the Liberal Democrats, and they suggested, no, they asserted, with supreme confidence, that this was only because the people don't know what the Lib Dems stand for but that the press would enlighten them. This could be true, but the arrogance of the assumption (i.e. "I wouldn't vote for these people, so it is not possible that anyone properly informed would") was highly irritating.

However, the thing that's really had me fuming during this campaign has been the way the different media organs go about "enlightening us". In the discussion below I will be focussing on how this has been done to the Lib Dems because I count myself a Lib Dem supporter and thus have particuarly noticed the behaviour I decry below when they affect that party. But I would emphasise that the party here are the example I choose; the problem I highlight is a problem whichever party it targets.

My irritation is basically with the presentation of half-truths, usually as fact, and the systematic destruction of this "policy" in this half-exposed and (presumably deliberate) way. Let me give you an example of what I mean, and I will try to be as part-neutral in the discussion as I can. On Thursday, the Daily Mail published an article (which Ican't find now, link to follow if I can) regarding the Lib Dems' short-term prison sentence policy. The headline was that the Lib Dems would put 60,000 criminals back on our streets. The article was based on a half-truth. The Lib Dem's want to discourage short-term prison sentences in favour of Community Orders and Reconciliatory Justice and the like. But everything after "in favour" above was left out of the article.

Not only is this not "enlightening" readers but misleading them, it's also infuriating because there is scope here for a piece of good journalism. When I read the Lib Dem manifesto and saw their claims that their tactics would reduce reoffending, I thought, "That's good, it actually gets criminals off the streets. Turns them into normal members of society." But of course, I have not looked into the details of the pilot schemes, I haven't investigated whether this Lib Dem claim is true. It could be nonsense for all I know; I just believed them. Surely here the journalist should enter. The journalist is paid (OK, so I'm being naive) to enlighten me by investigating this claim, and telling me whether it's true or not. Then, having given me the facts, they can tell me what they think about it. But having done the half-baked job this Mail article did, it has not told me anything; but of course it may have put some people off voting Lib Dem not by arguing that the policy is poor or not sound, but by misrepresenting the policy. Equally, if the Lib Dem claims about reoffending rates are wrong, I haven't been told and so have not changed by political inclinations.

I can think of a few reasons that this could be, and I'll let you decide which is the most likely.

1. The journalist had not read the Lib Dem manifesto and did not know about the "cutting reoffending claim."



2. The journalist did know about the above claim, but couldn't be bothered to investigate it.



3. The journalist knew of the claim, but didn't want to investigate it because they wanted to scare people off the Lib Dems.



4. The journalist did investigate the claim, found it to be untrue, but chose to suppress this information.



5. The journalist did investigate the claim, found it to be true, but chose to suppress this information.

Basically 1-2 are laziness, 5 is scaremongering and a blatant attempt to make you vote as the Daily Mail wants you to, rather than making aninformed choice, and 3 is a bit of both (4 is unlikely because if i thappened one would expect the Mail to have trumpeted it). Either of these are poor, and basically unacceptable. And irritating.

In the above I've focussed on the Daily Mail 's misrepresentation of Lib Dem policies, but this is just as an example. Many media outlets are misrepresenting many parties; certainly Lab/Lib/Con have all suffered this to some extent or other. Isn't it time that the media realised that in a democracy, their job should be to inform our vote, not direct it through guile? Why should (for example) Rupert Murdoch claim "It was the Sun Wot Won It?" The Sun shouldn't win it, WE, the electorate, should win it. The only credit the Sun can take should be for making us sufficiently aware of the options that we could make an informed choice.

Of course, the truth is that the media don't have the goal of supporting a democracy by ensuring we have easy access the the facts. They have the goal of making money. But we do live in a democracy, and we do have the power. If the media won't tell us things straight, we don't have to give them our money. On May 6th we can vote with a chunky black pencil-crayon hybrid. In the meantime, let's vote with our wallets.