SCROLL through Twitter and Facebook and you will discover all media outlets are always biased against everybody.
Social media is - of course - a bin fire of misinformation at the best of times, never mind during a polarised general election campaign.
But the big vote today does, at least, help put to bed myths about press bias. Why? Because this is when papers who have political colours display them upfront and centre.
This year political endorsements are all over the place with no clear winner. In fact, rather like, the public many papers are not too keen on any of the parties.
Its English sister, the Daily Mirror, has been the main cheerleader for Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. And the Daily Record says it wants a Labour government too.
But the tabloid reckons the best way to get that north of the border is usually to vote SNP. That, is says, does not mean it supports constitutional change.
The Scottish Sun
Rupert Murdoch’s tabloid in England has monstered Mr Corbyn and championed Brexit. In Scotland it has flirted with independence and formally backed the SNP.
Not this time. The Scottish edition on the eve of the general election slated First Minister’s handling of health. “Nic in a N.H.Mess,” read its headline. It did not endorse Boris Johnson - but it did attack Mr Corbyn as an “extremist” and a “security risk”.
Scottish Daily Mail
There surprises from the voice of staunch unionism and Brexit. The tabloid agrees with the Daily Record that voting SNP helps deliver a Labour government. It just doesn’t like the idea. “We can’t let a squalid stitch-up between a Marxist crank and a Nationalist zealot wreck the UK,” the paper declared.” The alternative? “Only the Tories.”
The Guardian
Both Tory and Labour voters feel “estranged from their parties”, according to the liberal daily. “A sourly introspective and inward-looking campaign mood is further curdled by political misinformation.”
The Guardian does not like Mr Johnson. “He has lied to the Queen, lied about Brexit and runs scared of serious interrogation. He is a divisive figure with a record of deliberately offensive comments. He bullies institutions such as the BBC and the judiciary for daring to hold him to account. His party’s manifesto dog-whistles with slogans hinting at a hardline approach to immigration. Hate and division have flourished under him. The claim that he can bring Britain together is risible.”
The paper doesn’t have much time for Mr Corbyn either. “His obdurate handling of the antisemitism crisis has disrupted the message of hope. Anything less than zero tolerance against racism tarnishes Labour’s credentials as an anti-racist organisation. “ But it adds: “Yet Labour remains indispensable to progressive politics.”
Its conclusion: back Labour and other parties with a better chance of defeating Tories, including the SNP and Liberal Democrats.
The Financial Times
The smart money is always looks to see what the FT thinks. And it thinks both main parties “have put ideology before the national good. Neither commands our backing”.
The paper usually supports Tories “in normal times”. However, it argued “Mr Johnson has played fast and loose with democratic norms. His word is rarely his bond.” The paper said Mr Corbyn was “dangerous”.
So it is backing “moderate, centrist candidates, pro-business and internationalist.” It explained:”The UK needs a political realignment, a swing back from the extremes to the centre.”
The Times
The FT suggested some business readers might reluctantly back the Tories. It might well have been talking about The Times.
The establishment daily did not sound impressed with Mr Johnson. The “unedifying” election campaign, it said, had been “characterised to a degree unusual even by recent standards of British political debate by bitterness, exaggerations and falsehoods. It has pitted an evasive prime minister against the most unpopular opposition leader in polling history.”
But it wants to see a big Tory majority. The theory? Mr Johnson will drift in to the middle ground - and retain a close relationship with the EU - if he has enough MPs to brush off extreme Brexiteers.
It was the ERG, after all, “whose demands for a deep rupture with the EU destroyed Theresa May’s premiership.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel