The Evening Standard – campaigning for Boris

1st May, 2012 3:07 pm

Newspaper endorsements are part and parcel of elections, but usually newspapers still have the good grace to practice balanced news reporting post-endorsement. Seemingly the Evening Standard doesn’t feel that way.

After endorsing Boris yesterday, here’s a selection of Evening Standard articles in today’s edition:

Boris Johnson: I’ll get capital through tough times with 200,000 jobs

Ken Livingstone is a ‘figure of the past’, says Charles Clarke

Ken Livingstone still divides hearts and minds in suburbia

Business leaders back Boris to drive recovery

Slapstick will keep Johnson safe from hubris

On balance, Boris deserves to stay in office — just

That’s about as fair and balanced as Fox News.

Remember this ad campaign from the Evening Standard? They said they were sorry. But they weren’t, were they?

Value our free and unique service?

LabourList has more readers than ever before - but we need your support. Our dedicated coverage of Labour's policies and personalities, internal debates, selections and elections relies on donations from our readers.

If you can support LabourList’s unique and free service then please click here.

To report anything from the comment section, please e-mail [email protected]
  • Charles Clarke calls Ken a figure of the past, I think the irony meter just blew.

    • AlanGiles

      Charlie knows ALL about being a figure of the past – a barely remembered figure of the past at that!

      • Bill Lockhart

        Ah, Labour loyalty – don’t you just love it? All the fraternal solidarity of six Tasmanian Devils locked in a desk drawer.

        • GuyM

          Senior Labour members who don’t back Ken…

          a target rich environment.

        • John Dore

          Usual hypocrisy, they cry fowl if you dont support Ken, but as soon as one of the tribe isn’t in favour you’ll get the daggers.

          • AlanGiles

            Unlike the Conservatives, where the right wingers lose no opportunity to snipe at Ken Clarke…….

          • GuyM

            Which is largely down to his views on Europe, much like Heseltine and his idiocy over the EU.

          • John Dore

            WTF has this got to do with the Tories? I’m talking about the complete and undeniable hypocrisy of the left. Alan you get battered here daily and try to come back with quite frankly rubbish. Do you have Teflon skin?

          • AlanGiles

            Your reply actually makes grammatical sense this time Mr Dore well done.
            You said “but as soon as one of the tribe isn’t in favour you’ll get the daggers.”

            I was merely ;pointing out that a lot of Conservatives on the right often have an outburst against Ken Clarke and even the beloved leader himself “Cameron isn’t Tory enough”

            SDo it is rather childish of you to pretend this only happens in one party.

          • Billsilver

            Cry fowl?
            Ken gets the bird in this election

        • AlanGiles

          Charlie Clarke has been sniping away for years since he got the sack as a minister. Understandable, but he represents nobody but himself – even his constituents sacked him in 2010.

    • treborc1

      You have to feel sorry for Clark, he’s just a bitter old gent now.

  • Captainpovey

    Be fair on The Standard. It’s much more absorbant than it used to be …

    • treborc1

       Bloody hell I’m not that broke.

  • AnotherOldBoy

    Whereas the Daily Mirror is always comletely balanced in its coverage?

    And did you see the Guardian on the eve of the Mayoral election in 2008?  Exactly 4 years ago it went hysterically over the top: see

    The various “personalities” who gave us the benefit of their views were all laughable, but none more so that the ludicrous Arabella Weir, whose contribution was:

    “I will go on hunger strike and throw myself in front of the next horse at Ascot if he wins. Failing that I was going to say I’ll sleep with him, but he’d probably say yes. So instead I’ll chain myself to the railings of his house. And then I’ll move out of London. How do we trust a guy who says he knows about London, when he’s just taken three of his kids out of state school and put them into private schools? That’s a man in touch with the people. He’s loathsome. He’s everything that’s wrong with the upper classes at their worst. Limited, pompous, without any breadth of vision or sense of inclusion. But I don’t even think he thinks he’s up to the job. He said it for a laugh, is my guess, and now he’s got to go through with it.”

    Unfortuantely, she does not appear to have kept her promise.

    But, apart from the unintended humour, the piece shows a venomous hatred and loathing of the wonderful Mr Johnson and makes Fox News seem entirely fair, balanced and neutral.

    Grow up!

    •  Daily Mirror doesn’t have a monopoly over London having used aggressive business tactics to put other papers out of business.

      • AnotherOldBoy

        The Evening Standard does not have a monopoly: there are free handouts.

        And there are other newspapers every morning and the TV, radio and internet.

        The Left seem to be very quick to denounce right-leaning newspapers while ignoring their left-leaning equivalents.

        • AlanGiles

          As far as I am aware the Evening Standard is now the only evening newspaper. Up to a couple of years ago there were two free evening papers – at the time the Standard was still a paid-for newspaper

          • GuyM

            The “free evening papers” weren’t really papers.

            Imagine a dumbed down version of The Sun mixed with a dumbed down version of Heat and that’s what they were. I used to feel aggreived for the trees that died to end up as those rags.

            London has Metro, CityAM and Standard as daily free papers. That is a pretty good supply.

          • AlanGiles

            Well, Alistair Heath, the editor of City AM is a real City toady – you could imagine at the end of his stint “editing” his little newsletter, he is going round the boardrooms and Downing Street licking the directors and ministers lavatory seats clean. Very “pro-Johnson” of course, and his editorials look as vacuous as the young fogey himself.

            Metro is out-takes from the Daily Mail and the Standard is very much like the Daily Mail, so all three are very similar. Mind you they pander to the Guy’s of this world, so no doubt that is why you like them: and they are free, which will be of great benefit to you.

          • GuyM

            Nothing like a bit of anti-business rubbish from you Alan.

            CityAM is a good product for a free newspaper, whether you like the business orientation and City focus is neither here nor there as the people who read it like it.

            As for Metro and Standard, yes they in places both get a little too close to the Mail, which is why I selectively read them only.

            The “free” insult is amusing, I pay for The Times, member of Times + online, unlike others who only use free online broadsheets.

          • BillLockheart


      • GuyM

        If you really can describe the short lived free hand-outs at the end of the day as “papers” then I’m in awe of your ability to get creative. More like celeb/gossip rags is how I’d describe them.

        Anyway, we still have things like Metro and City AM in the morning, all the national newspapers and online content as well.

        Complaining about the Standard in 2012 when the amount of media has exploded seems a little out of touch.

        • JoeDM

           CityAM is a particularly good paper.  

  • JoeDM

    Just about as balanced as the Guardian or Mirror.

    Its called Press Freedom !!!

  • Hugh

    “Usually newspapers still have the good grace to practice balanced news
    reporting post-endorsement”.

    No, they don’t, as cursory glance at the Mirror around election time would tell you.

  • MattWales

    Ever heard of a paper called the Guardian?

  • Its not known as the Evening Boris for nothing. I know other newspapers are partisan, but the sheer partisan nature of the Standard beggars belief. I seriously think that if Boris was found guilty of a serious crime, the Standard would try to blame it on Ken.

  • alexagiusuk

    Ken Livingstone spent £1 million per year on his own inhouse popaganda newspaper “The Londoner”. The hypocrisy and faux outrage in this article is comical.

    • John Dore

      So very true.

      • treborc1

        Anyone seen a socialist

  • jay

    It is when money was wasted on a bus (I do like the bus though) thats then money well spent by Boris, when money is wasted on a festival (I do like a party – but last years St Georges Trafalgar Square was an embarrassment to London with EDL drunks – this years was ok garden thing no alco pops) so ok if wasted by Boris but not Ken. The Evening Standard did not report either Boris’ failures or successes very well.

    If there is a strike or threat, thats Kens issue as Boris guaranteed no strikes (?!) that happended and the ES held him to account (no). The Evening Standard is sadly a shadow of its former self, its ok to attack Ken, but Boris has wasted his time and our money more than Ken ever did, and as a London paper, they havent held Boris to account. Thankfully it is free now, so can look at the pictures.

  • Comedinewithme

    Well if Londoners want a pathological liar,who has met News International more times than he has bedded his wife, ooh no that is a bit unfair as he has met them more in the last week than he has bedded his wife, Speaking of Bojo’s wife what exactly has he hired ‘Bing’ Crosby for  ????

  • John Dore

    Ken is so toxic, the left wing owner prefers Boris. Not all are as blinkered as those stuck with Ken. Labour voters know that London would be a mess under Ken.

    • Trudge74 as alexwilliamz

      One presume many of them will be Labour members, why did they not vote for an alternative labour candidate?

  • Politicians complaining about the press are like sailors complaining about the sea…

    • John Dore

      This site is also heavily moderated, so complaining about another media vehicle showing an opinion is hypocrisy.

      Oh did I just accuse the left of hypocrisy?

      • AlanGiles

        This site is barely moderated at all. Just look at the number of Conservative posters on it, holding forth.

        • GuyM

          How true, Allan. I myself am a vivid Tory blue dyed through and through. Even my blood is blue… but that’s because I hail from an ancient and a noble stock with a lineage vastly superior to Her Majesty Elizabeth II, our current glorious Sovereign. God save her! 

          • GuyM

            Silly  troll once more….

        • I assume the Conservative posters are here because Mark wants them here. For reasons of legality I’d expect him or other moderators to at least skim-read all posts.

          • AlanGiles

            Yes I dare say, but it is ridiculous for Mr Dore to suggest this site  is “heavilly moderated”. Some of the Purple Booker’s foul langauge and sexual innuendo, for example, would be edited out if the site was moderated

  • Billsilver

    At least it doesn’t say that Ken took money from those who support female circumcision and who aren’t in favour of education for women, that he shovelled his earnings through a company to reduce his tax liability while denouncing those who did errrrrrrrrrrrrr just that!
    Let’s all vote for Ken and show that we’re as big a hypocrite as he is.

  • Ernest Lynch

    So the Evening Standard supports the Tory …. how is this newsworthy?

  • Jeremy_Preece

    Yesterday we saw how the Conservatives will not oppose Rupert Murdock in spite of his role in the phone hacking scandel. But this is because Cameron and Murdock are now best buddies (or were until recently).

     Today we see a different paper which shows that it cannot just report news, but becomes a party political weapon.

    Both cases show that for deocracy to stand any chance, we really need to see both urdock and thne the rest of the media reigned in.  

    • GuyM

      Since when was it justified for MPs with strong vested interests to make highly politically motivated judgements on who should or shouldn’t run a business?

      The select comittee behaved like a Kangaroo court, let proper legal procedures run, not get business non entities in the Commons laying down judgement.

      • Jeremy_Preece

        My point is that deocracy is being subverted by media barons. This has been especially true since Thatcher.

        Let’s turn the question around. Who gave Murdock and the other big media bosses the right to filter the news and information to the public and so set the political agenda. Who elected Murdock and who even appointed him. Answer is no one. Yet this man exercises huge control over several democracies, UK USA and others.

        Now it appears that in generating his nasty bias propaganda, he is prepared to turn a blind eye to totally illegal criminal activies because he thinks that he is too big to be subject to the law.
        Yes it is a two way street insofar as the likes of Thatcher, Blair and Cameron encouraged them in order to get elected, so maybe it is the political system that has to admit that the monster it adopted is out of control.

        While I forget the actual numbers, it is a fact that Murdock and his family own a controlling majority of the voting shares of New International, but that most of the share are of the non-voting type. Therefore Murdocks own only an overall fraction of the organisation. The guy is 81, is covering more than one of the leading roles, and is either too overstretched to do his job in terms of corporate control, or just so big that he feels he didn’t need to care. Either way that seems to make him unfit.

        • GuyM

          Who gave them the right to filter news? They have that choice simply by living in a free society.

          This site “filters” information to put a slant on it, all newspapers big or large do so.

          When you stand on a doorstep canvassing you are putting your own slant on it.

          If you don’t like Murdoch’s newspapers then don’t buy them. If you don’t like Sky News then don’t watch it.

          Personally I love The Times and I like Sky News, as this is a free society I am free to pay for those two media options.

          Or would you rather I was forced to purchase whichever media option you regarded as free of bias?

          • Jeremy_Preece

            No Guy, you miss the point.

            While everyone has the right to whatever their view, my objection is that a few big boys, nearly all of the same political opinion run nearly all of the media. I am very anti Murdoch because of the amount of influence that one man has.
             Take 1992, “it was the Sun Wot won it”. It is a sad fact that this one individual controls so much media that the politicians realised that if they want to get elected they need to have Murdoch’s backing. If they incur his wrath, as did John Major and Gorden Brown, then they can’t win an election.

            When Obahma became USA president, Murdoch publically stated that he did not agree with him and set about using Fox News, The Washington Post and the New York Journal to undermine him.

            Murdoch is also very big in Italy and other countries. He became so huge that he seems to feel that he is above the law. If he manages to get B Sky B, after all of this, then he really has become bigger than the law.

            Just as the free market is supposed to be all about consumer choice, so democracy is about a range of opinion, and people listening to all of it and making up their own minds. Hammering one point of view only is propaganda.

            Traditionally Newspapers reported news and published their opinions in their editorials. The tabliods on the other hand, present opinion as if it were news.

            It is wrong that one man has such power that politicians daren’t argue with him. Tony Blair wanted to explore the Euro, so he met Murdoch who was opposed to it and so it couldn’t happen. However if Murdoch had been in favour, then he could have “swung enough public opinion around to the idea”. That level of influence is a danger.

            When such a man as Murdoch seeks to expand still further and take over B Sky B and then probably Sky News again later, then it is an outrage.

  • Go on
    to the Evening Standard’s website and tell Lebedev what you
    think about Sarah Sands using his paper as a party political smear machine on
    behalf of Boris Johnson and the Tory Party. It only take a minute to

    Much for the Standard’s ‘Sorry’ Campaign a couple of years back.
    Sarah Sands
    is direct from Tory Central office and is an obedient Boris lackey and

    Lebedev is fortunate that the Standard is a free rag as the
    appointment of Sands as Editor would drive all non Tories running for
    Tube.Boris doesn’t own the Evening Standard. He merely told the owner to
    appoint his old girlfriend and cheerleader, Sarah Sands, as Editor and his
    campaign only suggests what Standard hacks should write ( to make him look
    good). The Standard has always been a propaganda rag for the Tories for decades
    and this will continue under Sarah Sands. What has the Evening Standard
    been promised by Boris/ the Tories in return for their obedient cheerleading and
    shilling ? Veronica Wadley was eventually appointed to the Arts Council despite
    opposition from many in the artistic Community for getting the Standard to act
    as a pr machine for Boris. Sarah Sands is no different from Wadley, she is in
    Boris’s back pocket and takes her orders from Tory central office. If
    Boris is re-elected could he please work FULL-TIME as London Mayor and stop
    spending so much time cashing in by writing so much for The Daily
    Telegraph.The Mayor is a prestigious position and requires complete
    attention, not just when elections are approaching.Londoners want a
    full-time Mayor to sort out the City not a part-time one. Candidates take note
    !We thought after the last Mayoral campaign where the Standard loyally
    backed Boris that we then had an advertising campaign saying “sorry” and that in
    future the paper would be independent. Did I dream that? Instead, the Standard
    has formally endorsed Boris again. So the same as last time.Why even pretend
    to be objective? Sarah Sands is a political hack, not a credible


LabourList Daily Email

Everything Labour. Every weekday morning

Share with your friends