Lee Rotherham complains about Ken Livingstone's latest 'propaganda on the rates'

Tory Mayoral hopeful Lee Rotherham has written to the Advertising Standards Authority this morning about Ken Livingstone's latest propaganda newspaper:

"Last night, I received a copy of The Londoner magazine unsolicited through my letter box. It is dated March 2007, and can also be found in electronic format on the Mayor’s website.

This purports to provide “news”. On its launch, in a press release the Mayor of London said that, “The Londoner newspaper contains lots of useful information for people who live and work the capital.”

This morning I discussed the content of the publication with someone who has attended a NATO course in psychological operations, who indicated that it appears to “primarily be a method of providing biased, politically-orientated material for the purpose of supporting the incumbent of the mayoralty.” In his words, it is “a publicly-funded propaganda sheet rather than a newspaper in the traditional Western sense of the term”. He added, “There is editorial slant, and there is outright political marketing. This is the latter.”

I have forwarded a copy of the paper to an associate, who was a dissident in the former Soviet Union and spent a number of years imprisoned there, for follow-on comments.

In particular, I draw your attention to the following aspects, drawn from a rapid analysis:

• Name frequency. At a quick count, “Mayor” appears 21 times and variants of “Ken Livingstone” appear 10 times. This is a simple trick of repetition for brand recognition.
• The Mayor is given five opportunities to provide short in-piece quotes.
• There are eleven cases where the Mayor is given opportunities to provide lengthy quotes, or where articles directly support stated policy positions.
• The lead article on page one would successfully operate as a press release from the Mayor’s office in support of his budget and policies, and acts as a lead to his editorial.
• Key word analysis highlights the following examples of editorial bias in article construction: “vowed”, “despite”, “enjoy”, “all” (as an emphatic), “advantage”, and “benefit”.
• There are some eleven instances of quotes from third parties being used in a supportive manner; and just one instance of quotes to oppose policy.
• Two full pages are bought by a Mayoral Agency as overt advertising
• Quangos. Transport for London gets four name checks (one as “Your Transport for London”); three quangocrats supply articles.

Our contention, therefore, is that this publication performs neither the public service role nor the public information role which it pretends.

If there was any doubt about bias, 29 Across in the Crossword rather spells out the hidden agenda. It reads, “Fidel Castro’s Island Republic”.

It may be that this falls beyond your remit. I wonder, then, in such an instance if you could tell me from previous experience whether such might fall within the Electoral Commission’s bag? Putting out such strongly biased material during a policy consultation period may be in breach of the law in its own right.

Yours faithfully,

Lee Rotherham."

Related links: TfL spends £78,000,000 pa on "communications" and Roger Evans AM complains to ASA about Livingstone's ad campaign

Comments

[Paul Kennedy]

Sounds like a clear cut case to me of as Lee describes it "propaganda on the rates". A disgraceful state of affairs, of course the problem is for London that there are now so many vested interests reliant on keeping Mr Livingstone as the Mayor, he will be difficult to remove......for the moment. I heard one of them yesterday giving an interview about the benefits and success of the congestion charge, benefits and success for whom I have to ask.......what further "amused" me was that she was referred to as "Doctor", what was her doctorate in, congestion charging, because if it wasn't it was a rather pointless title to use, and given her interview, merely emphasised the decline in academic standards.

[Neil Reddin]

Good luck Lee.

The District Auditor might be worth a go also.

[Oddball]

Why all the fuss? Ken is almost 100% bulletproof. Everybody in London (and elsewhere) know that he spends tens of millions of our money on personal hype and PR and stupid gestures and St Paddys Day parades, while thumbing his nose at his pet hates. There will be a £25 charge for decent cars, it beggars belief, it is ridiculous, short sighted, unfair, undemocratic and blatantly stupid.

NOBODY CARES ANYMORE!

We need to find someone who can attack Ken in a different way.

Wish I knew what it was but I feel sure that any credible candidate CANNOT be a career politician (or an ex DJ for that matter). It needs a special "ordinary" guy (or girl) to outbloke Ken on a level that the voters relate to and understand.

Clear as mud, excellent.

[Denis Cooper]

Well done, Lee, but I doubt that either the ASA or the District Auditor will do much about it. Getting it publicly exposed in the Evening Standard would have more effect, especially if the report included comments from Soviet dissident.

[greg]

Ken's been mayor for 7 years and he's only just discovered "The Londoner"?

[David Boothroyd]

The most unintentionally hilarious piece of writing I have seen this year! Keep it up!

[Tim Roll-Pickering]

I never get the Londoner through my letterbox. Where do I go to complain? ;-)

[Simon Fawthrop]

I look forward to Neil signing up to my web site.

Though he needs to recognise that even in this media driven age it is possible to win on policy. My Communities First Agenda offers that simple view to connect with ordinary people. That is why so many ordinary people have already signed up to my web site.