Faktajustering
Categories: Brittiska medierTuesday, Jul 26, 2011
Det är en bra artikel, men jag tror inte det är första gången Dan Josefsson i Aftonbladet snubblar över myten om att Murdochstöd åt partier = seger i brittiska val. Det är ju just denna groteska vanföreställning som ligger i centrum av mysteriet varför brittiska politiker varit så patetiskt knäfallande inför the Rupe.
Det finns inga som helst belägg för ett samband mellan Murdochpressens stöd för ena eller andra partiet, och en viss valutgång. Låt mig ägna mig åt en av mina favoritsysselsättningar och citera mig själv (om det senaste valet) (som de konservativa förlorade, märk väl, därav koalitionen med Lib-Dems):
Tories stod inför en tretton år gammal och utmattad labourregering, och den mest impopuläre premiärministern sen John Major. De hade hela den samlade högerpressen mangrant bakom sig [inkluderat Murdochpressen]. De hade £5 miljoner från Lord Ashcroft att vinna marginalkretsarna med, och tre år och fulla resurser att förbereda sig på. Och de klarar bara av att lägga fem procent [från 31% till 36%] på Michael Howards post-Irakvalinsats 2005.
Eller som (den konservative) mediekännaren Stephen Glover uttryckte det i Independent i måndags (ursäkta långt citat):
And yet, as we know, David Cameron did not win the general election in May 2010. The Tories got 36.1 per cent of the vote. We will all have our differing interpretations. I happen to believe they presented too vague a prospectus. At all events, they did not do as well as might have been expected against a very unpopular Prime Minister and a discredited Labour Party. It is also impossible to ignore the fact that from the moment The Sun took up the Conservative cause – at the beginning of October 2009 – Mr Cameron’s fortunes began to decline.
I do not suggest any causal link. What is undeniable, though, is that the fervent support given to the Tories by the Murdoch tabloid, as well as its denigration of Gordon Brown, failed to win them the election.
That is not to say they did not perform better with the support of The Sun than they might have done without. According to Ipsos Mori, there was a 13.5 per cent Labour to Conservative swing among Sun readers compared with a national swing of 5 per cent among all newspaper readers. On the other hand, this swing was 7 per cent among social grades C2 and DE, which make up a high proportion of its readers. It is also noteworthy that there was a 10 per cent Lab-Con swing among readers of the Daily Star, which took little interest in the election and offered no party endorsement.
On this evidence, The Sun may have delivered Mr Cameron some extra votes but by no means enough to affect the outcome. And the question which he and his advisers should be asking themselves is whether they did not greatly exaggerate the potential benefit of having the support of the Murdoch press. The costs of Mr Cameron’s abasement in front of Rupert Murdoch surely far outweigh the benefits.