The recent local elections were reported by the news broadcasters as a dismal performance from Labour and a somewhat fine result for the Conservatives. According to certain television anchors, Labour had a tragic night as they didn’t make as many gains as they’d hoped to. Looking at the stats, on the surface, Labour had the best local election in London since the 1970s. They won in places where they never thought they’d win and won over 50% of the seats. The UKIP vote completely collapsed and their vote share naturally went the way of the Tories, which is why the Conservatives looked to have had a mediocre night for an incumbent party. This, of course, wasn’t mentioned by the media as they focused on Labour’s apparent stagnation since the general election in 2017. But, as I mentioned, Labour had the best results in London since the 1970s. So, why is the media talking it down?
I know it’s a huge cliché for the left to blame the media for things or to suggest the media are harsh on us, but let’s forget about the stereotype for the moment and ask one question: can the media be objective when it comes to politics?
Although I despise the likes of The Sun and The Daily Mail, I don’t have a problem with them being completely anti-Corbyn, anti-Labour or anti-left because everyone is aware of their agenda and support for the Conservatives, the right and Brexit. The wider public doesn’t pick up a copy of The Sun, read something about Corbyn being a communist and take it as gospel. They know they’re biased and take it with a pinch of salt. What I do have an issue with is the apparent neutrality of the mainstream news broadcasters. The likes of the BBC and Sky News are viewed by the wider public as being objective and impartial. We’re told they don’t have agendas and don’t hold any bias. However, I don’t believe this to be true. Yes, going back to what I said about the left moaning about the mainstream media. But, believe it or not, it’s a thing.
I have an issue with the apparently neutral broadcasters peddling their right wing bias and anti-Corbyn dogma because the wider public believes that these media companies are neutral. In all aspects of their reporting, there are opinions, bias, slurs and falsehoods, or should I say FAKE NEWS?! I have an issue with this because the wider public holds these broadcasters in high stead, especially the BBC whose entire foundation is on the basis that they inform and educate, and take what they say as the truth and nothing but. The difference between the broadcasters and the press is accountability, ownership and management. We know who owns the papers, we know the agendas, we don’t have to purchase the papers if we don’t agree with the content. As the likes of the BBC and Channel 4 are owned by us, and we have no choice but to pay for it if we want to watch television, the accountability falls on the management who sneakily peddle their agendas.
In essence, I don’t believe we can have an impartial media. It’s almost impossible for human beings to remain neutral when it comes to politics. Actually, it’s quite impossible for human beings to remain impartial about anything. Opinion pieces should remain in newspapers and on websites where everyone is aware of their political beliefs. So, in answer to my question, no, you can’t have an objective and impartial media. That’s simply never going to happen.
If you’re still reading this and haven’t thrown your phone down in annoyance at another lefty moaning about the state of the bias press, I thank you. If you are still reading this but rolled your eyes a few times, you have the choice not to revisit my blog. Like the press, you know my political agenda and can choose not to read my content. It’s a shame the broadcasters aren’t like that, isn’t it?