Palin: How Obama Won

A fascinating interview that has been canned by PR Junkie, which calls this as proof that she needs media training. However there are actually some interesting points, on whether a candidate's family should be foregrounded by the media and particularly that anonymous bloggers should not be used as sources of fact.

But some of the lines she defends, such as when asked what media she reads saying 'all of them'; and suggesting had she been Obama's Vice President the voters would have loved her, tenuous? Yes perhaps she needs some advise on dealing with journalists such as Katie Couric. But it also raises some interesting questions about the role of the media within an election campaign and how low they should be allowed to go despite the fact Palin is not a great performer, and independent of her politics, there are some interesting points in this. If she does reappear as a candidate in 2012 could she celebrate her inability to perform in front of the media or emerge as a professional communicator?

Is the BBC backing Cameron?

In announcing the final day of campaigning before the London mayoral, Assemblies and 159 council are elected, the BBC have chosen an interesting way to visualise the contest. The composite picture of the three main party leaders does little in the way of favours to anyone but Cameron. Given Brown now has employed former BBC producer Nicola Burdett as a sort of style guru managing media picture selection, is this the BBC rebelling or a bit of bias towards David Cameron and the Conservatives?

Just to check perceptions I asked an unwitting young person what they thought of the party leaders based on these pcitures. Brown was described as 'old, ugly, squeezing and invisible err 'breast' (ok unwitting young person was male), but less amusing for Gordon, said male yout also thought he looked 'uncaring and uncompassionate... I wouldn't vote for him'. Clegg was 'snobby', 'needs a shave' and 'remote' though he also asked who he was and if he was a Conservative. Cameron seemed like 'a nice guy', 'I'd vote for him'. Why, well the photos offer perceptions, Cameron's photo shows him lookign straight at the camera, not down at it, so he is 'on the level' not in a position of authority, he is smiling unlike the other two, he looks normal. Is this accident or conspiracy, if I was the PR team of Clegg or Brown I would complain!

Media Bias = Public Bias?

The slant the media places on a story is often of concern to politicians, news analysts and academics. The perception is that a negative slant on a story about any individual, celebrity or politician, or brand, be it a Whitehall department, public service or high street emporium, translates into a negative impression of that individual or brand among the public. While such media effects can be contested wholly, and can be changed by experience or rejected by an audience (so they can be transient), there is a logic to the media effects argument. If an individual has little experiential knowledge, or the media is talking about a world that is closed to public scrutiny, where else can the public get their information from but the media. Hence, if this is true, any impression gained of the players will be formed by the media comment on them. This seems particularly logical for politicians. Because the are engaged in permanent campaigning and so always spin the positives of their actions, but the public cannot perform any checks on their claims, they allow the media to inform them of the facts; this allows political editors and journalists great power in shaping perceptions.

Friend and colleague David Phillips has developed a tool for comparative analysis of bias in media coverage, currently this looks at Google News feeds and is a fascinating tool when looking at election contests or straight fights between two leaders. It certainly can offer insights into the reporting of politicians.

Looking at Britain only, and comparing coverage of Cameron and Brown, Cameron gets neutral coverage. So there is little bias either way suggesting that there is more information than comment. Brown, however, receives more slanted coverage, 75% of which is negative. Therefore when both leaders feature in an article, Cameron is reported on whereas Brown receives negative commentary. In contrast when Cameron and Clegg feature side-by-side, Cameron receives positive commentary while Clegg is treated neutrally. More interestingly when Brown and Clegg are both covered, bias is mixed. The right wing press are critical of both on Europe but tend to favour Clegg over Brown. The left-wing and Scottish press overwhelmingly favour Clegg but Brown is given some positive comments from quality papers such as the Times in a straight fight with Clegg.

What does this tell us, well the tool can be refined and perhaps a three way analysis would be more useful. But, if this is indicative of the average bias towards the respective leaders, and there is some link to public perceptions of them, can this explain why Cameron, in a poll today, is seen as the best prime minister (by a narrow margin) that the Conservatives seem to have popularity sown up, but that the Liberal Democrats and Clegg are holding firm. In other words, do these straight fights replicate thinking on the leaders and between Brown and Cameron, both in the media and public opinion, Cameron wins but Clegg has some positive associations for those who reject both? If you accept the media effects thesis then this may well be evidence of an actual effect.

The wrong focus? Whose bias is it anyway?

Lord Drayton, who has actually been overseeing procurement within the Ministry of Defence, is taking a sabbatical to race in the famous 24 hours Le Mans race. Curiously he has come under fire from the BBC based on a quote from the mother of 19yr old Fusilier Gentle, killed in 2004. It seems that in the course of reporting on his inquest some enterprising journalist asked Mrs Gentle what she thought of his 'leave of absence' and she commented it was insensitive, untimely and, in basic terms, unprofessional. Drayton would have no role in the Gentle case, and it does feel as if conflating the issues is intruding on grief to make a story. It also misses the point that Drayton probably got the job because he donated the most to Labour, that he has not excelled in his job and probably wanted a title rather than responsibility, and that this is a neat way of exiting with a clean record. These points are under-explored and come much later in the piece; what does this tell us about the quality of BBC journalism comes to my mind. Any thoughts why this is the big story and not possible errors in appointment (amid Cash for Honours)?

Obama: 'share your outrage'

Obama has made a call to his supporters to 'share [their] outrage' at George W's spinning on the Iraq report and the media complicity in not offering a critical perspective. His call is for supporters to write Letters to the Editor.

I often, and perhaps mistakenly, regard letters to the editor in the UK newspapers as rants from the politically engaged. If this is going around is network then newspapers could find themselves deluged, that is if only a quarter or so reply. Will they get published, obviously not, but they may indicate the strength of feeling on the issue. So, theoretically, this could be a powerful tool for changing the media agenda but it depends on whether Obama can mobilise the public; this could be a test for him!

Where's the detail?

The Treaty Amendment, or EU Constitution as some would have it, was finally agreed at dawn this morning. This meant that it was just in time for the newspapers to pick the story up for the Saturday edition. Looking across the coverage what seems lacking is the detail of the treaty, instead the focus is on the process by which compromises were reached.

The Sun suggests Blair was ready to surrender until forced by Brown; The Telegraph agreed arguing Blair 'caved-in' until Brown insisted on safeguards for Britain. Similarly The Guardian reported that 'a chastened' Blair returned after being told by Brown to 'stand up to the French'. On a more positive tack, The Times argued that Blair largely achieved his aims but was pressured by Brown to compromise while The Mirror, offering the only positive perspective, hailed the safeguards as a victory for Britain. In total contrast The Mail proposed the treaty as a 'threat to British sovereignty'; even the BBC raised doubts allowing the euro-sceptic UK Independence Party MEP Nigel Farage most airtime during Breakfast News.

So the perspective being offered is that there this was the last Blair-Brown power struggle, that generally the treaty may not be a good thing but, depending on the editorial position, the only evidence presented is one-sided. It has long been argued that the reporting of UK-EU relations has been focused too much on the process as opposed to policy, it is noted as a divisive issue in British politics, and that there is a generally Eurosceptic tone colouring reporting; hence the British tend to be sceptical of all things related to the European Union. The quick review of main news reports offered this morning seems to reinforce these perspectives. Perhaps few would be keen to read much in the way of detail, and to be fair this is offered, however the main news is essentially an editorial selecting the negative and personal aspects as important; independent of attitudes towards the European Union, should there not be more objective information presented by the media?

The other aspect is the way it seems Brown has been able to gain media support from this. Clearly information about 'phone calls' has leaked from the Brown camp, who else would. Thus he has become the saviour of some vestiges of sovereignty. His combination of being anti-Blair and anti-EU in one go was a media management masterstroke and the media acted as his propaganda machine. Bet Brown is feeling quite triumphalist today, just ahead of tomorrow's inauguration!