As most of us will have been doing, I have been closely following the continuing saga of the UK General Election campaign. The televised leadership debates thus far appear to have altered the traditional dynamics of British politics as the Liberal Democrats come more into focus as a viable alternative to Labour and the Conservatives. Indeed there has been a massive amount of media coverage analysing these leadership debates, and their importance cannot be underestimated. For instance, this is highlighted in the fact that Alex Salmond’s SNP recently launched a legal battle against the BBC in an attempt to have equal representation on the next nationally televised debate.[1]
When thinking of the media coverage of this election, I began to think in a wider context about the power of media brands and the ways issues are represented in today’s ‘globalised’ world.[2]Networks such as the BBC, CNN and Rupert Murdoch’s Sky News and Fox News have an established and recognisable presence around the world in televised and online forms. While the BBC has a remit of public service impartiality (an issue hotly contested by many people across all political divides, not least the SNP at this current time)[3], every network undoubtedly has its own agenda and reason for representing issues in certain ways.
This issue of representation is an important one, as the collective media plays a vital role in the democratic process of keeping the electorate informed. Furthermore, the global scale of today’s media through the sheer reach of the internet and digital television broadcasts can create a two-dimensional portrayal of the truth behind certain events or political developments to those outside the country or area that the reports are coming from. Thus, any information relayed to the media consumer is a ‘construct of reality’, which could and might be interpreted in different ways according to pre-determined media selection.[4]
One of the most controversial networks that could be accused of a very selective interpretation of events on a large scale is the American based Fox News. As a somewhat ironic observer of the Fox News channel via satellite television, the level of bias displayed for the centre-right of the political spectrum is particularly shocking (especially in contrast to British network news, which is more strongly regulated in terms of overt bias; although this is of course separate to what could be perceived as a less obvious institutional bias). In America, Fox News is powerful enough to strongly influence the political zeitgeist and perhaps even to influence final electoral outcomes.[[5]]Documentaries such as ‘Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism’[6] highlight this extremely effectively, with a focus on ‘the dangers of ever-enlarging corporations taking control of the public's right to know’.
The recent debate and division in the US over the ‘Obama care’ overhaul of the American healthcare system[7] has shown the ways in which networks such as Fox News can affect debate with a selective use of facts according to political persuasion, with connotations on a multi-national level. For instance Fox regularly used the appearance of British Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan to discuss the pitfalls of universal healthcare, with the NHS pointed at as an example of a failing ‘relic’ of a system [8]. Of course this viewpoint ignored that of a majority in the UK in favour of the NHS, and forced Tory leader David Cameron to distance himself from his MEP’s comments in the shadow of the impending general election.
In terms of the coming general election in the UK, I believe the leadership debates are a false construct of the powerful media organisations that broadcast them and the main parties and Prime Ministerial candidates who participate in them. While some argue that party politics and policies are under greater scrutiny as a result of the presidential style debates and the global 24/7 news cycle, there is ultimately a much greater focus on ‘style over substance’ which feeds the continual media demand for drama.
