On 13 May, 08:38, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:
Tom Barry wrote:
Boris's campaign could have done without the headache of the row over
routemaster costs. And which newspaper made an issue of it?
The Guardian. *Dave Hill's piece appeared around about the first week in
March and proved to be entirely correct.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...london08.boris
When did the Standard lay into it?

Before then - late February and earlier in March. Their website keeps
crashing my browser but amongst the search results:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...443386-details...

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...448187-details...


There is a substantial difference between stories which point out the
candidates were "clashing" over an issue, as above, and those which
make ficationalized ad hominem attacks against one - and only one - of
them.

Running a story that Livingstone had pointed out that Boris's sums
were rubbish isn't specifically anti-Boris, it's just basic reporting.
Running a story that one of Ken's campaign chiefs was an active
terrorist - which was, you know, not true - is extremely anti-Ken; the
equivalent would have been to splash with "BNP CAMPAIGNS FOR BORIS",
which they didn't do.

You seem like a bright enough chap. I don't honestly believe you can't
see the difference in scale there.

Anyway if you want an anti-Boris Livingstone-nostalgic paper, buy
the Grauniad. Or try getting "The Evening Communist" started and
successful.
If you like your transport finances to pass more than a superficial
examination you're a Communist? *Interesting. *makes note*

I meant that more for the sore losers currently whining about the Standard
and claiming it swung the result of the election against their beloved Ken..
(Although I find all the "I'm devastated for London" or "Not in my name"
comments from Labour activists far worse - they're not fooling anyone.)
Never mind the fact that other papers were vehemently anti-Boris or that the
newspaper market is the way it is.


Yes, the newspaper market is the way it is in that the Standard has a
monopoly in London. That's offensive at the best of times, before they
start swinging an election based on their own personal prejudices.

The Guardian, of course, isn't a London newspaper.

Jonn