Electioneering has been ongoing for many months now, but in the six-week run-up to election-day – known as the “short campaign” – party funding and broadcast media are more closely regulated.
It is when parliament dissolves that campaigning goes into full throttle, with parties laying out their manifesto promises and spin-doctors desperately trying to control the news cycle.
It is a period when people are most exposed to campaign messages, with half of voters – according to a recent Ipsos Mori poll – indicating they “may change” their mind about which party to support.
With polls putting Labour and the Conservatives neck and neck, the prospect of another hung parliament means the contest between parties is one of the most open in living memory.
Since campaigning online can bypass mass media, understandably all political parties focus on developing their web and social media profiles. Compared with the highly regulated world of broadcasting, the online environment allows parties to pursue a more personalised and negative style of campaigning.
YouTube, for example, has an ever-expanding archive of 30-second attack ads, while Facebook and Twitter – despite promises from Labour to focus on issues not personalities – are awash with negative adverts undermining the character of rival parties and leaders.
But while parties compete to invest in the latest online and social media tools, the long-standing influence of “air war” campaigning should not be overlooked. As surveys reveal, television remains by far the most dominant and trusted source of news – particularly for older people, the most likely to vote – making the nightly TV bulletins a key battleground for setting the campaign agenda.
While the TV leaders’ debates will momentarily elevate the minor parties to a far bigger stage, it is the daily drip-feed effect of news about the major parties that is most likely to sway a swinging voter.
Setting the campaign agenda
Given the rise of the minor parties and the possibility that one might swing the balance of power, how will broadcasters cope with fulfilling their impartiality requirements whilst covering all the parties that could eventually form a coalition?
While Ukip has been granted “major party” status, will they receive equal coverage to Labour, Conservative and the Liberal Democrats? In recent weeks, Nigel Farage and Ukip policy have been regularly and prominently reported, but the SNP – after polls suggested it stands a good chance of being a kingmaker in a collation deal – has also received substantial coverage, despite being viewed as a “minor party” in the UK.
In the short campaign, will broadcasters continue to exercise editorial judgments about possible collation pacts or stick more firmly to regulatory demands?
Broadcasters also have to make judgments about which party sets the agenda. The reporting of the 18 March budget, for instance, had to balance the Conservatives’ “long term economic plan” with Labour’s concerns about a “cost of living crisis”. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats’ own budget day – and Danny Alexander’s yellow box – was given far less attention.
Of course, election coverage relies not just on replaying the messages of parties, but in robustly challenging new manifesto pledges. In understanding the credibility of the budget, for example, the OBR was drawn upon to criticise the Conservatives’ long-term fiscal plan and the lack of detail in the planned £12bn cuts to welfare.
But more generally, to what extent will journalists – the BBC’s Nick Robinson, say, or ITV’s Tom Bradby – interpret the campaign compared with airtime granted to politicians? And how far will broadcasters rely on independent experts – from thinktanks to academics – to scrutinise the parties’ manifesto promises?
As parties today are increasingly defined by their leaders, which one will take centre stage as election day approaches? While Farage should legally share equal footing with Cameron, Clegg and Cameron, it is the latter’s announcement not to stand in a third Conservative term that dominated coverage last week. Indeed, will the PM’s incumbency bonus lead to greater coverage over the campaign? Or will the seven-party TV leaders’ debate on on Thursday – and the opposition parties’ one a week later – promote the credentials of the SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon or the Greens’ Natalie Bennett?
As last Thursday’s live Q&A hosted by Channel 4 and Sky demonstrated, the live appearances of party leaders can generate considerable media attention and could even change the course of a campaign – remember Cleggmania?
Beyond party politics and its leaders, to what extent will the public’s agenda be reflected in TV coverage? Although the issue most regularly considered important by voters is the NHS, in recent weeks party political agendas – from Ukip’s stance on immigration to the Conservatives’ macroeconomic plans – have pushed social issues to the margins.
More generally, how far will news about the election be central to broadcasters’ news agendas? As witnessed by the Germanwings plane crash in France, major breaking news events can easily push the campaign off the agenda.
Our media monitoring team at Cardiff University will be able to go beyond anecdotal observations about election coverage – and test claims of bias – to systematically reveal which issues, leaders and parties dominate the news agenda. We will be tracking coverage on the UK’s flagship TV bulletins – the BBC, ITV, Sky News and Channels 4 and 5 – and assessing the agenda-setting power of different parties according to their social media messages, campaign speeches and manifesto pledges. Stay tuned for regular updates during the campaign.
Stephen Cushion is a senior lecturer at the School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, Cardiff University
Richard Sambrook is professor of journalism at the School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, Cardiff University and former director of BBC Global News
