Keeping up the Standard

I don't keep a running commentary on other newspapers but I did want to post a quick word or two about the London Evening Standard.

Everyone in this City agrees that the paper played a huge role in the defeat of Ken Livingstone. I don't think it is hyperbole to say that without the Standard's journalism, Boris Johnson would not have won.

Some may regard their campaign as irresponsible. I don't see it that way.

First, the campaign was based on good news journalism. The stories about Lee Jasper which did most to undermine the Mayor were true and important. The Standard did what a good newspaper does - it spoke truth to power.

Second, Veronica Wadley's decision to throw her paper into the election campaign was an inspired and brave piece of editing.

After the free newspapers were launched her newspaper was in danger of being seen as irrelevant. Because of the verve and style of the Standard's journalism, Wadley (together with Andrew Gilligan and the talented Anne McElvoy) instead turned her paper into a formidable political force.

It is an impressive, and memorable, achievement.

Comments

[peter]

We'll see how inspired a piece of subjective reporting it was when Boris overspends, underinvests and fails to tackle London's probeme head on.

Or not.

Either way - Finkelstein and the Standard's motivation was much more to do with the 'concentration camp guard' quip, and much less to do with what is best for London.

How predictable that this blog should make no mention of that.

[Jez W]

Is there a source of the stuff said that can be looked at now?- as lots of people aren't in London so won't have had accces to this....

and-

I don't think the Guardian will be running similar congratulatory threads on it's bloggs about this subject- maybe? :)

[Johnny Evenham-Hickers]

I must say I'm not wholly convinced. I read Gilligan's defence in the Indy today and I join you in applauding the quality of his journalism, but when a paper goes to such lengths to bring down one politician it encourages one to take it less seriously.

Gilligan says that he couldn't find anything damaging about Boris but as we watched McElvoy's gleefully accepting congratulations at City Hall on friday night, we wondered how hard they really tried. It all smacks of childish playground bullying which ill becomes a paper of The Standard's tradition.

[Philip Craig]

Well, yes, but only to a certain extent. The Standard did raise the issue of accountability in the allocation of funds to local community groups. It also raised the spectre of undue influence exercised by one advisor. And I appreciate that the Standard’s reporting is not governed by the rules of impartiality that influences broadcast journalism. But the Standard’s reporting was deeply unbalanced. The London Development Agency, for example, is expected to focus on market failures and disadvantages faced by Londoners which are complex and long term. This means that some of the activity supported will fail – if it didn’t, the LDA isn’t doing its job. Allocating money to small community groups is risky but can, potentially, have the greatest impact. Indeed, there isn’t a huge difference between the approach adopted by the LDA and other Government agencies and Conservative and Johnson policy. And now we find our Capital City, the driver of the UK economy, governed by an untried an untested Mayor with no interest (as far as I am aware, before the contest began) in the key strategic issues facing the City – sustainable economic growth, global competition, urban design and planning policies, transport, affordable housing. My only hope is that the Standard focuses the same attention on Johnson and his administration.

[Andy]

So, Peter, it's a Jewish conspiracy then?

[adam]

Presumably the article you'd written in the event of Ken winning ("Evening Standard took a ridiculous gamble, Ken's victory only confirms its irrelevance" etc etc) has been spiked now!

[Corrupted Mind]

"Responsible Journalism" - eh? A well educated colleague of mine said that they would not vote for Ken because his office is full of terrorists. Her evidence for this, - the Evening Standard. It's hard to use the word resonsible after a newspaper has had that type of impact with what amounts to an unsubstantiated slur!

[Steve]

It helps though that you and the Standard both backed the same horse. I wonder how you would feel if it had been the other way around?

While I accept that being on the ‘winning side’ has helped the Standard remain “… a formidable political force…..” it now has irrevocable tied itself to Johnson’s tenure, and if (as I suspect) he makes a complete dogs dinner of the whole affair the long term damage to its reputation will be catastrophic.

[Wilfred]

Sorry, you're wrong on this one, Daniel. It's not a newspaper's job to change any government, whether Westminster or London. Speaking truth to power is good, but by saying this you are pretending that a newspaper is somehow not a power in itself. The vested interests of proprietors are never subjected to the scrutiny that politicians are forced (by the newspapers) to undergo. Newspapers are massively powerful and should therefore be confined to reporting on, and commenting on, the news. They should not be a "formidable political force" a la Berlusconi. In Britain, that's the job of elected politicians.

[Bob]

Daniel writes: "After the free newspapers were launched her newspaper was in danger of being seen as irrelevant."

You mean that the commercial pressure from the free newspapers are a sufficient justification for a newspaper to attempt to distort the electoral process? What kind of political thinking is this? I normally respect Daniel's thinking, but it's gone totally haywire here.

[peter]

The Standards campaign against Ken has turned it into little more than a Tory propaganda sheet, irrelvant, dull, vacuous, and completely useless beyond its sole purpose of inflating Boris' empty campaign.

The Standard can see the end in sight due to the freesheet war in London, and obviously wants to mark its decline with one final act of influence, like embittered, terminally ill relative who wants to destroy as much as possible before they die. Shame on the them.

[Miranda]

” it now has irrevocable tied itself to Johnson’s tenure, and if (as I suspect) he makes a complete dogs dinner of the whole affair the long term damage to its reputation will be catastrophic" Steve 14.49pm

Ummm no Steve, the Standard has backed the 'more honest' candidate against the 'dishonest' one. That has been their position. If Boris doesn't deliver then the Standard is likely to come down on him hard as well.

As for all the comments that the media shouldn't take sides - well I expect to see your letters of complaint to The Guardian, and a myriad of complaints written to the biased BBC - paid for by money from everyone.

Their message since last week was, and still is, - how can Labour recover, what can they do? Why are they not leading with all the things voters are angry about and what the Conservatives can now do - given their small government/ free market ethos. Isn't it about time we looked at at a new way? Even Madam Toynbee could not come up with a good list of what Labour have done right - she included the NHS and books in schools, along with the minimum wage and health centres. She has to be joking - as many people pointed out.

It's good to get a breath of fresh air through the media. Well done the Evening Standard - keep on digging out the trash, whoever it comes from.