Ill deserved victory for the Evening Standard

re: Ill deserved victory for the Evening Standard

N Heaton — Wed, 07 May 2008 14:55:36 GMT

umm guardian in london pro ken 200,000 london paper circulation 500,000 london lite 400,000 standard 300,000 metro in london 750,000 numerous other papers and radio and tv stations get over it and lets get the capital dynamically moving for the people who live here not about politics

re: Ill deserved victory for the Evening Standard

Cara Swindell — Wed, 07 May 2008 14:02:38 GMT

The Standard is owned by The Daily Mail. That's all that needs to be said. It is a real shame Boris became so 'popular', only time will tell.

re: Ill deserved victory for the Evening Standard

Peter Totman — Tue, 06 May 2008 16:26:05 GMT

The Guardian was just as bad in its own broadsheet way, pretty much suggesting that London would be turned into facist state if Boris won. People don't seem to 'see' bias when it reflects thier own.

re: Ill deserved victory for the Evening Standard

Craig Smith — Tue, 06 May 2008 15:28:44 GMT

How much more interesting and illuminating might it have been had the Evening Standard polled its own readers on their voting intentions? Whatever its shortcomings, the YouGov poll was always conducted among a representative sample of Londoners. The Standard, on the other hand, nails its colours to its masthead and does not pretend to be representative - its last relaunch and cover-price hike were designed to make it even more exclusive in an era of giveaway rags. My point is that the Standard has 280,000-odd readers - twice the difference in votes between Johnson and Livingstone. Do we believe that half of those readers would ever have had the inclination to vote for Ken, given their choice of newspaper? No, nice as it would be to blame a shrinking media monopoly for the election outcome, the reasons for this disappointing swing to conservatism lie elsewhere.

re: Ill deserved victory for the Evening Standard

johnny rambleton — Tue, 06 May 2008 15:21:03 GMT

and realistically he was elected to mayor by the people of henley as well as the good people of bromley, sutton, enfield and harrow. these places aren't london! the only real londoners who voted for boris are the famously right-wing folks of kensington and chelsea (bit of hammersmith and fiulham thrown-in)

re: Ill deserved victory for the Evening Standard

Gordon Macmillan — Tue, 06 May 2008 14:35:43 GMT

Yes I know he is a Tory MP, former HE spokesman, for Henley where as a Tory you can not fail to get elected. It is a safe seat. I think it is fair to say he was when this campaign began unelectable in Londonn. Mine post was about the Standard so a BR blog rather than for anything else.

re: Ill deserved victory for the Evening Standard

208645 — Tue, 06 May 2008 14:24:01 GMT

Er, Gordon, Boris has been twice elected MP for Henley. I'm sure you meant this post for Harrysplace. You're a bit inaccurate in saying that the Standard holds a monopoly - paid for, for sure, but then thelondonpaper could have taken a pro Ken stance, even if we know full well that would never have happened.

re: Ill deserved victory for the Evening Standard

Mark Griffiths — Tue, 06 May 2008 14:05:44 GMT

We get the media we deserve. London gets what it deserves. One newspaper further right than Attila the Stockbroker. We get the politicians we deserve. London got what it deserved. Boris Johnson.

re: Ill deserved victory for the Evening Standard

Peter Martin — Tue, 06 May 2008 11:48:37 GMT

Naked political bias and lack of balance in reporting and commentary by independent media is, of course, unfortunate, if inevitable. Mechanisms to try to prevent this do of course exist (see associated blog post on these pages about TalkSport firing an over-partisan DJ), but they are few and far between, not always applicable or effective. I do not live in London so I was not exposed to The Evening Standard's shenanigans, but was certainly aware of those by others not mentioned here, such as The Guardian, for instance. It is in fact being noted now that by trashing the ability of the public to make a decision, in a democratic vote, by some who seem to believe they are better placed to know what's 'right', may have actually served in reverse of what was intended. Darn those independent minded voters... how dare they rain on other's agendas. The fools! Or succumb to the wiles of 'blonde Tory buffoon Boris Johnson..' who, apparently, is now '..where he can quaff champagne and caviar and wonder what the hell he has got himself into.' I guess London is just going to have to find out what IS going to happen, but will be guided, I am sure objectively, by many media outlets on the journey. Will we also, I wonder, along with age now be treated to the perceived (by whom, and what measure?) affiliations of all who get mentioned in future. Becuase, other than being right - in this case at least - I don't recall reading before aboutYouGov as being 'run by Tory Peter Kellner, partnered with the Standard'. Ta for the heads up. So, before hitting the keyboards in future, I think I might try a bit of Burnsian looking in the mirror first. Just to make sure I am not being as bad, or worse, than those I see fit to critique.

re: Ill deserved victory for the Evening Standard

Gordon Macmillan — Tue, 06 May 2008 11:05:40 GMT

Fair point does the Standard do well in London's suburbs? Not sure, but the paper certainly pushed a strong news agenda.

re: Ill deserved victory for the Evening Standard

Ciaran Norris — Tue, 06 May 2008 10:58:26 GMT

Interesting post, All I'd say is that I remember seeing research showing that in 1992 Labour did better in areas where The Sun was the biggest selling paper, and the Torys in Mirror areas, countering the suggestion that it was The Sun wot won it. I'd be interested to see similar research on Standard readership in areas Boris did best. What we really need to know is what The Telegraph knew that nobody else did: http://www.seomoz.org/ugc/telegraph-breaking-news-before-its-happened