This article examines the rise of the UK Independence Party in Britain, and how this 'revolution' has been reported by mainstream news organisations. As a case study of the media and populism, UK Independence Party's rise tends to confound rather than confirm some of the patterns and trends found in previous studies. There is little evidence that 'media logic' has worked to the party's advantage and the recent increase in the intensity of media coverage of UK Independence Party is principally explained by the 'political logic' of its continued electoral advances, changes in communication policy, and a reorientation in the public relations strategies of the party and its opponents.
This article examines the rise of the UK Independence Party in Britain, and how this 'revolution' has been reported by mainstream news organisations. As a case study of the media and populism, UK Independence Party's rise tends to confound rather than confirm some of the patterns and trends found in previous studies. There is little evidence that 'media logic' has worked to the party's advantage and the recent increase in the intensity of media coverage of UK Independence Party is principally explained by the 'political logic' of its continued electoral advances, changes in communication policy, and a reorientation in the public relations strategies of the party and its opponents.
This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced version of an article accepted for publication in Parliamentary Affairs following peer review. The version of record WRING, D. and WARD, S., 2015. Exit Velocity: The Media Election. Parliamentary Affairs, 68 (Iss. Suppl. 1), pp. 224-240 is available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsv037. ; The previous campaign of 2010 produced electoral firsts in media terms (the televised leaders' debates), drama and unpredictability ('Cleggmania') and memorable moments (Gordon Brown's 'bigoted woman' comments) all of which disrupted the parties' planned scripts. Arguably, the 2015 election seems to have been its very antithesis. The plodding six-week campaign has been widely been portrayed as dull, stage-managed, narrowly focused and lacking in surprise moments, but with a dramatic ending on election night, as the broadcasters announced the shock exit poll. The disbelieving former Liberal Democrat leader Paddy Ashdown declared 'he would eat his hat' if his party suffered the losses predicted by the forecast; in fact the result was even worse. Ashdown like so many of his fellow commentators, whether of the traditional offline or online media varieties, was stunned by the apparent failure of the opinion polls to foresee the Conservative victory. What followed was the political equivalent of 'exit velocity' in the aftermath of a plodding election, with frenetic, intensive debate over the future of the UK sparking the kind of passion lacking in the preceding campaign. The 2015 campaign as reported in the media was predicated on the assumption that the outcome would be another hung Parliament and, possibly, coalition government. This was constantly reinforced by a stream of experts and opinion-formers fixated on what might happen after the election rather what had just happened in the previous Parliament. This augmented the potential power-broking role of emerging 'challengers' such as UKIP, the SNP and Greens at the marked expense of the Liberal Democrats, clear beneficiaries of the added exposure they had received in 2010. Yet if the campaign differed in terms of its focus on these growing political parties it was also reminiscent of the previous one with its similar emphasis on polls and other aspects …
This extract is taken from the author's original manuscript and has not been edited. The definitive, published, version of record is available here: http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9781137366115. It has been reproduced with with permission of Palgrave Macmillan. ; During the 2015 campaign there was considerable negativity and partiality in much press reporting; it was not difficult to find examples of where robust political partisanship descended into personal vilification. Some of this was the kind of journalism that had been repeatedly highlighted and criticized only a few years before, most notably in the House of Commons following the 2011 hacking scandal and subsequently during the ensuing year-long Leveson Inquiry. As a counter balance, some opinion-forming commentators believed this election might witness digital platforms assuming a more significant, potentially influential role in framing public participation in, and perceptions of, the contest. At the close of the campaign Alastair Campbell observed: 'Why has social media been so important? Politicians aren't trusted any more, business isn't trusted like it was, the media is certainly not trusted like it was… The genius of social media, and the genius of Facebook is the concept of the friend. We trust our friends'.
