A short thread on perceived impartiality as opposed to actual balance. It concerns the obsessive questioning of Labour and LibDem figures on the issue of what other parties they would or would not do a deal with, in case of the election returning a hung Parliament. 1/
HOWEVER, when was the last time those same journalists raised the issue of whom you would accept as a coalition partner, with similar vigour, persistence or frequency, when interviewing Tory politicians? It just does not happen. So ask yourself, @EvanHD, if not, why not? 3/
It is the Tories, after all, who have ended up in this sort of arrangement as a result of two of the last three elections. Labour hasn't been in a coalition for decades. It is not just the questions of ONE interview that must be fair. It is THE PATTERN across all interviews. 4/
By obsessively trying to pin down Labour or the LibDems on this, "because voters have a right to know", but almost never Tories, you create A NARRATIVE: that other parties have no chance of winning a majority, while the Tories probably will. You are predicting the result. 5/
It is exactly this sort of insidious narrative that you, @evanhd and all of your colleagues, must be far more aware of. Fairness, impartiality and balance are not just about each journalistic encounter in isolation. They are about the tapestry weaved by their totality. 6/END
