Television Election News Analysis: Use and Abuse — A Reply
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1989.tb00294.x |
| Date | 01 December 1989 |
| Author | Martin Harrison |
| Published date | 01 December 1989 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Political Studies
(1989),
XXXVII,
652-658
Television Election News Analysis:
Use and Abuse
-
A
Reply
MARTIN
HARRISON
University
of
Keele
One feature
of
recent British general election campaigns on which
all
observers
would surely agree is the ever-increasing extent to which they have been designed
to capture favourable attention from television. Labour’s 1987 campaign was
proof, if proof was still needed, that the last bastions of resistance to ‘modern’
techniques had crumbled. Even the Greens, ostensible exponents of an
‘alternative’ approach to politics, have shown in their broadcasts that they are
prepared to be as unsentimentally (and as sentimentally) manipulative as the old-
style politicians they seek to displace.
The parties’ efforts focus most intensely on obtaining favourable news
coverage on television. As they see it, TV news is watched by more people,
particularly among the less politically minded, than any other election pro-
gramming. It
is
also trusted more than most other sources. Moreover,
programmes like ‘Newsnight’ or ‘Today’ take many of the cues shaping their
coverage from the main news, as to some extent does the press. Perceptions about
how well or badly a party is doing on televison may also affect its morale, directly
and by way of the small army of commentators who analyse campaigns in print
or
on
the air. It is therefore surprising that the behaviour of television news
during election periods has received such limited academic scrutiny. The Nuffield
series has discussed it since coverage began in 1959, as more recently have the
Political Communication and American Enterprise Institute volumes.’ Useful
though these may be, all are limited by the genre within which they are produced
or by imperative resource constraints. The Nuffield chapters, for example, are
produced single-handed inside four months, at minimal cost and within tightly
limited space.
By
contrast, Miller and his team enjoyed substantially greater
resources, which provided an opportunity to investigate underexplored
dimensions
of
television’s handling
of
elections and test earlier findings.
Unfortunately the outcome is profoundly unsatisfactory.
Following the paper from the confident simplicity of its title to the no less
confident conclusions about ‘television’, one must remind oneself repeatedly how
‘
H.
Penniman,
Britain
at
the Polls: The Parliamentary Elections
of
1974
(Washington, American
Enterprise Institute,
1975);
H.
Penniman,
Britain
at
the
Polls,
1979:
a
Study
of
the
General Election
(Washington, American Enterprise Institute,
1981);
H.
Penniman and A. Ramsey,
Britain
at
the
Polls, 1983: a Study offhe General Election
(Washington, American Enterprise Institute,
1985);
R.
Worcester and
M.
Harrop,
Poliiical Communications: The General Election Campaign
of
1979
(London, George Allen
&
Unwin,
1982);
I.
Crewe and
M.
Harrop,
Political Communicaiion: The
British General Election Campaign
of
1983
(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,
1986).
0032-321 7/89/04/065247/$03.00
0
1989
Political Studies
To continue reading
Request your trial