Miliband says no SNP deal and the Sun says ‘La-la-la can’t hear you’

Series supported by
Media Integrity

Facts go into the Sun's filter and come out very different. Here's an example.

 

I’d like to draw your attention to a small but impressive story in today’s Sun, because it’s a good example of what happens to information when put through the paper’s anti-Labour filter.

First, here’s the clip of the transcript of Ed Miliband’s interview with Andrew Marr yesterday on the BBC. Marr began by pressing the Labour leader on a possible deal with the Scottish National Party after the general election:

ANDREW MARR: [the SNP] will be coming to you saying Ed Miliband that is our price for supporting you, we want that referendum.

ED MILIBAND: No, look I want to be clear about this Andrew, no coalitions, no tie-ins, you know –

ANDREW MARR: What about supply and support, a deal, one of those deals that will keep you going?

ED MILIBAND: Look I’ve said no deals, honestly I’ve been clear about that.

ANDREW MARR: Of any kind.

ED MILIBAND: Yeah I am not doing deals with the Scottish National Party, but you know I want a majority Labour government and, you know the way the House of Commons works, as you know, is that we’ll –

ANDREW MARR: (over) So absolutely clearly no support and supply deal of any kind?

ED MILIBAND: I am not interested in deals, no.

Miliband has previously ruled out a coalition with the SNP, but hasn’t before said that he would not have a ‘confidence and supply’ arrangement with them. Knowing he had a scoop, Marr asked the question again later in the interview to make sure he got the same answer:

ANDREW MARR: OK, just finally bang the nail into the piece of wood finally, a confidence and supply deal with the SNP is ruled out.

ED MILIBAND: (over) I’ve made it clear we’re not, no deals, no.

ANDREW MARR: Not going to happen, OK, well let’s move on to some other issues […]

This was reported by the BBC, the Guardian, Politics Home, the Independent, and the Financial Times as ‘Miliband says no to confidence-and-supply with SNP’, or words to that effect – and Labour has made no attempt to protest or backtrack.

So how has this information been reported in the Sun today?

IMAG0719[1]

MILI PACT RAP

Ed MIliband has been blasted after refusing to completely rule out an informal deal with the SNP ten times. 

The Labour leader appeared to go further in distancing himself from the Scottish Nationalists, but would not say a pact definitely would not happen.

Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said: “Ed Miliband can only be prime minister with the support of SNP votes.”

That’s the whole story. (Or rather, that’s all the Sun reported.)

You’ll notice from the transcript that Miliband was not asked this question ‘ten times’, nor did he refuse to rule out an informal deal. He was asked to rule out an ‘informal’ – as in, confidence and supply – deal with the SNP, and he said ‘no deals’.

One could argue that Miliband could have been more explicit, but one cannot argue that this Sun story is a fair or accurate report of what happened.

So even within the absurdly narrow confines of acceptable political discussion – why should Labour have to rule out a deal anyway? – there seems to be nothing Miliband can do to please the Sun. 

The world reflected in its pages is increasingly detached from the one we actually live in, and facts are shaped and moulded to suit the paper’s fancy.

Adam Barnett is a staff writer at Left Foot Forward. Follow MediaWatch on Twitter

 

Read more: Tory cynicism as press takes Salmond’s budget joke seriously

Rupert Murdoch ‘berated’ Sun staff for not bashing Miliband enough, reports Independent

Sign up for our weekly newsletter by clicking here.

No related posts.

47 Responses to “Miliband says no SNP deal and the Sun says ‘La-la-la can’t hear you’”

  1. JAMES MCGIBBON

    Do you honesty think the Nat-sis hate the Tories. Salmond was happy to take the dosh from Souter. So he hates Souter! Duh.

  2. JustAnotherNumber

    This is like nailing jelly to the wall. Jelly that’s not even paying attention to its own arguments.

    You said “Labour did not stand shoulder to shoulder with the Tories”, so I posted a photo of the infamous “Vow”, when Labour stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the Tories, and now you’re talking about how many people voted No. We know what the outcome of the referendum was, we also know that the swing was only 192,000 votes, but that’s not what we’re talking about.

    You did the same thing earlier when you challenged my point that there’s currently little significant difference between Labour and the Tories in terms of policy or ideology, by informing me that all of Labour’s progressive achievements were long ago in the past. I don’t disagree with that. I was talking about today, this week, this general election, and you came back with further references to their achievements from decades ago.

    If Labour were anything like the party of the past, I would still be a supporter and vote for them. Thing is: they’re not that party anymore. They’ve moved and left me behind.
    They’ve buggered off to the right, I haven’t.

  3. Jim Bennett

    James, thank you for your intelligent and nuanced contribution.
    Could you explain why the Labour Party is in formal coalition with the Tories in five local councils in Scotland? In my council, people voted Labour and got Tory. I don’t have to wait and see, I can plainly see the effects of formal Labour-Tory coalition right now, where I live.

  4. Leon Wolfeson

    FPTP sucks the big one, yes.

  5. Leon Wolfeson

    Why not? Do you want independence, or is the SNP more concerned with it’s vote share?

    You then argue that principles are bad, so evidently the latter is true. And you see harming the UK (disrupting it) for the sake of it as a good thing. Sigh.

Comments are closed.