The Telegraph’s James Kirkup hasn’t been very impressed with the profundity of the punditry following last night’s debate. He’s gone off on one this afternoon:
“A lot of stuff being written about the Clegg-Farage debate today could come from the Idiot’s Guide to Being a Political Commentator. It follows the same paint-by-numbers form.
Step One: Pronounce that everyone less clever than you is saying the same thing.
Step Two: Say that they are wrong because actually the opposite thing is true. You know this because you are clever and incisive and other people do not because they are stupid and out-of-touch.
Step Three: There is no Step Three. That’s all there is to it. Really, you can make a very nice living out of this.”
Which of Kirkup’s fellow Telegraph writers followed a very, very similar step by step approach in his own write up? Here’s Peter Oborne:
“British political journalists love to pretend that they are independent and objective, but the majority are nothing of the sort. In Britain we have a system of client journalism, with reporting a manifestation of political class dominance.
Last night’s debate between Nigel Farage and Nick Clegg was a very good example of this phenomenon. The lobby wanted a Clegg win and… collectively called victory for Clegg the moment that the debate was over.
It was only when the YouGov poll came through showing that Farage had won the debate hands-down with the public that lobby journalists were forced into an abrupt U-turn.”
Who could Kirkup possibly have been talking about?