Yes UKIP has used some pretty hard-hitting messages and posters, some of which have made me wince, but they have a short period of time and a limited (though thankfully decent) budget with which to get their messages across, so I don't necessarily blame them for the approach. Inevitably their campaign has divided opinion and brought out some of the usual nutters on both sides - and the usual anti BNP and EDL protesters, shorn of having those targets to aim at, have turned their frankly nasty attention to UKIP vesting it, by association, with the same 'qualities' as the BNP, EDL, National Front etc.
The reality is that UKIP is not anti immigration but anti uncontrolled immigration; anti our EU-driven open door policy which means we have absolutely no control over our borders - which is, incidentally one of the first functions and duties of a sovereign government.
Mr Farage talks about quality not quantity - which makes me slightly uneasy, but is essentially the same approach as is taken by Australia, the USA and Canada. I don't think anyone is accusing those countries of 'racism'?
Indeed by being anti the EU, the UKIP stance is not only not racist, but anti racist since it is the tariffs and trade barriers put up by the EU that is preventing African farmers from trading their way into the first world. That is truly a racist position. The EU is also preventing people from other parts of the world - India, Canada, other Commonwealth countries - from coming to Europe and in particular the UK at all.
UKIP chose to 'go big' on the immigration issue - obviously they took a calculated risk that the level of coverage and popularity of that stance would outweigh the equally inevitable backlash we have seen. Clearly it is a subject that has 'resonance' amongst the public but I have been disappointed that the many other issues surrounding the EU have been neglected because of that overriding stance.
None of the other party leaders thinks that UKIP is a racist party. They have each said so publicly several times during the past couple of weeks.
So I can understand all of the above in terms of what has been going on on the hustings: protesters, emotive language etc - it's all part of the political game and it is a 'red meat' business.
What I cannot understand - or I think forgive - is the stance being employed by the majority of our main stream media (MSM).
When formerly credible political commentators such as the Daily Telegraph's Dan Hodges tweets this:
And when the Spectator's Hugo Rifkind writes this:
And when the BBC - our supposedly balanced and fair national broadcaster - continually refuses to cover the story and the issues but instead to put forward its opinions on how UKIP is a racist party, then the alarm bells start to chime.
Update from today on BBC 'impartiality':
I personally don't think the above can be easily forgiven or overlooked in light of the BBC Charter to be impartial.
As former Sunday Tiimes Political Editor Isabel Oakshott tweeted last night:
She has not been part of this 'racist UKIP' campaign but I suspect that she too has been let's just say 'concerned' about its anger and vitriol.
As indeed, I would suggest, has Jeremy Paxman who interviewed Nigel Farage on Newsnight last night and whilst he (Paxo) certainly did not give him (Farage) an easy ride, it was clear that both enjoyed the interview and it was clear that Paxman quite liked Farage and respected him by the end of it. But then he and Isabel Oakshott are proper journalists who would I'm sure never criticize their fellows openly but who, it seems to me are not entirely content with what has been going on during this campaign.
As Hodges et al become increasingly unhinged and descend into ever more childish and unsubstantiated attacks, one has to conclude that there is an agenda at work here. They portray themselves as 'the voice of the people'; 'holding our politicians to account'. What they are actually doing is fighting tooth and nail to discredit UKIP which seems to be posing the biggest threat to the establishment for years.
For that reason, when all of the dust settles, I think Hodges, Rifkind and the BBC in particular (but there are many, many orthers) will have lost all semblance of credibility. Because, thanks to the power of social media, people will not forget how they have behaved and as I tweeted to Mr Hodges a couple of weeks ago: - Actually 20 days ago:
This campaign has broken many formerly unbreachable links between the general public and the media. The problem for the media is that people are now seeing through this nonsense. They don't believe a word you are saying about UKIP because they can see that it's an MSM campaign designed to protect your 'masters' in the establishment. And that is exactly the opposite of what you purport to do for the rest of the time. And if they are your 'masters', how can we believe anything you say about them in the future?
Journalism and commentary/punditry is all about credibility. Yes readers will agree or not, like what you write or not depending upon your stance and take on a particular issue, but if you ignore the facts, if you comment on the basis of a pre-held agenda which is completely unsupported by reality, if you are seen to be using your status and communications vehicle to try to tell people what to believe and what to think, then I think you have lost the plot.
That's a very dangerous place to be for a journalist. But the good news is that people are seeing through it, and ignoring it, and it is in fact having the exact opposite effect to that which these people want to achieve.
It is increasing momentum for UKIP, increasing the feeling of disenfranchisement amongst the population and increasing our desire to be heard and to have our say. And which party is - entirely single-handedly - in support of this as an outcome?
UKIP. Hold your nerve on Thursday and vote UKIP.
Thanks for reading
I have been following these with interest, and my main comment on the media is that UKIP, like all other parties, only ever see the bad news stories about them and use that as their way of shouting bias.
ReplyDeleteAsk any non-UKIP voter and they will tell you they are sick of the media (BBC in particular) giving UKIP far more free coverage than should be possible.
Nigel has been given more access to the media than probably any party leader ever, and this a party with absolutely no chance in a General Election next year of getting seats. The fact he manages to come over as an idiot (in my view) in almost anything he does and says is his issue, not that of the media.
And what about a lot of the negative stuff that gets ignored - such as the Croydon Carnival? Yes it was all over twitter, but nothing on the national news that evening - was that bias in UKIPs favour? Is the constant speculation about Boris and Dave bias for or against the Tories, the constant smearing of Ed as a man unable to eat a sandwich and so on.
His record on being a politician and a man of the people is possibly one of the biggest frauds in politics - hopefully he is pushing more people to vote to lower the UKIP share and he can go back to claiming all his allowances and doing nothing for it.
Vote for the new boss, same as the old boss?
My view, and especially of the BBC, is that it seems to annoy all parties, so I guess it is doing it right?
Hi Simon, hope you're well? I agree, we all see the media as biased when it doesn't portray our views and I do think that if the BBC is annoying everyone it is perhaps doing some things right.
ReplyDeleteHowever the media approach to Farage during this campaign has been hostile in the extreme. I think that they collectively took the view that they would create a high profile in the belief that he would wilt under the pressure and they would then 'get their man'. Having embarked upon that process they couldn't very well then stop and ignore him, even though some began to see the tactic as being counter-productive.
The old adage that there is no such thing as bad publicity (Gerald Ratner?) came into play and I also think that wavering UKIP supporters were very effectively pushed towards defending him against some pretty vitriolic slurs - whether they were true or not.
I know I was because I wanted to hear what he (they) had to say rather than to be told I was a racist for agreeing with him on the core issue about our leaving the EU. It almost became about defending someone's right to make valid political points and express valid views (whether one agrees with them or not), instead of considering the issues at hand.
That he came across well despite the vitriol (generally) is to his credit imo, and the Brit's love of the underdog became a factor I think.
It may have been a calculated stance from UKIP (but I'd be surprised if they were that clever) but I think it was a stance from the media which backfired.
So I disagree about his being given 'access' to the media - it was being put under as much possible pressure by the media that led to what happened. And I think it certainly helped his cause.
I really do think that the BBC's mask has slipped and that this is as big an issue as the whole campaign - see blog from earlier today.
In broad terms, as you know I am vehemently anti EU - not anti Europe in any way, but anti EU - and I see UKIP as welcome tool in that potential outcome. That's just my view.
However I do also think that a shake-up of the MP voter relationship (whoever one supports) is long overdue and that this could well be a catalyst for a major re-think by all parties and possibly a more listening and connected approach in the future. None of them seem to give much of a toss about what people think these days and I think it's about time they understood the mantra that 'they work for you'.
Thanks for your comments as always.
Mark