The Gazette Gave Candidates 250 Words. Nigel Farage Advertising Took Over The Page.

I am standing in this election. The Gazette has never contacted me.

I am one of the 34 candidates whose names will appear on the Clacton ballot paper on Thursday 13 August. Despite that, the Clacton & Frinton Gazette has never contacted me about my candidacy.

As at the publication of this report, I have also received no reply to any of the emails I have sent them.

I was not approached for an interview.

I was not asked why I am standing.

I was not asked about my policies.

I was not contacted and invited to provide my 250-word statement.

I had to chase them myself to make sure I was included.

Eventually, my photograph and my statement appeared.

Then people started sending me the Gazette link.

I opened it and found my contribution sitting in a page filled with advertising for one of the people I am standing against, Nigel Farage .

There were Vote Nigel banners across the top.

More down both sides.

More inside the article.

More beside other candidates.

In some cases, the adverts repeatedly appeared as readers tried to work through another candidate’s short contribution.

I counted 16 visible political advertising placements while reviewing the article.

Every political advert I saw promoted the same candidate: Nigel Farage .

We raised the problem before. It has not gone away.

This is not the first time I have raised concerns about how this election is being presented to local voters.

Clacton.org has already documented the difficulty independent and lesser-known candidates face getting meaningful media coverage, and concerns about the Gazette’s local election reporting.

This is what voters were actually seeing.

I do not expect people to simply take my word for it.

I captured the page.

The screenshots show candidate after candidate being presented inside the same repeated Vote Nigel advertising environment.

These are candidates, not background decoration for somebody else’s campaign.

The screenshots show candidates from different parties, backgrounds and political positions.

Whatever anyone thinks of their politics, they are standing in the same parliamentary election and voters should have a reasonable opportunity to read what they have to say.

This advertising campaign was deliberate. The unanswered question is how deliberately this page was targeted.

Political advertising does not appear by magic.

Someone planned the campaign.

Someone authorised it.

Someone paid for it.

Decisions were made about when, where and to whom Vote Nigel advertising should be shown.

In that sense, the campaign promoting Nigel Farage was plainly planned, organised and deliberate.

What these screenshots alone cannot tell us is exactly how this particular Gazette article ended up so heavily saturated.

Was this article specifically selected?

Was Clacton geographically targeted?

Was election or political content targeted?

Was the advertising purchased directly through Newsquest?

Was an advertising agency involved?

Was it delivered through automated programmatic advertising?

Was there any frequency cap preventing the same political campaign from occupying multiple positions on the same article?

Newsquest has access to this information. Its readers do not.

I am not claiming that these screenshots prove a Gazette editor manually positioned every advert next to every opposing candidate.

What I am saying is that the pattern is sufficiently extensive, and the effect on the presentation of rival candidates sufficiently obvious, that Newsquest should explain exactly how it happened.

Equal word count does not mean equal presentation.

On paper it sounds fair.

Give every candidate approximately 250 words.

Publish their photograph.

Let voters read what they have to say.

But presentation matters.

If one candidate’s words are repeatedly surrounded by advertising for another candidate, the reader is not receiving a neutral visual presentation of those statements.

The fact that a website may technically separate advertising systems from editorial systems does not alter what appears on a voter’s screen.

The reader experiences the finished page.

They see Tony Francis .

Then Nigel Farage .

They see Attieh Fard .

Then Nigel Farage .

They try to read Adham Alkhatip .

Across roughly 250 words they encounter six advertising images promoting Nigel Farage .

That cumulative effect is the problem.

I would say the same thing if those adverts said Vote Martyn.

This is bigger than Nigel Farage .

If six Vote Martyn adverts appeared while somebody was trying to read 250 words from Nigel Farage , Adham Alkhatip , Tony Francis , Attieh Fard or any other candidate, I would still think the newspaper had a serious problem.

Newspapers need advertising revenue.

Candidates and political parties are entitled to advertise within the rules.

But editorial content specifically designed to help voters understand an election should not become the wrapper for saturation advertising by one of the candidates being compared.

Questions for the Clacton & Frinton Gazette and Newsquest

This time, I want an explanation.

I have already raised concerns about local election coverage.

I have already emailed.

I have already published a detailed report.

I have already made a formal complaint.

I have received no reply to my emails from the Gazette.

Now I have further screenshot evidence showing candidate statements surrounded and, in some cases, repeatedly broken up by advertising for one of their opponents.

Maybe Newsquest has a technical explanation.

If it does, publish it.

Tell us who bought the advertising.

Tell us how it was targeted.

Tell us whether this election article was specifically targeted.

Tell us how approximately 250 words from Adham Alkhatip ended up alongside six advertising images promoting Nigel Farage .

And tell Clacton voters whether this is really the standard of election journalism and political advertising they should expect from one of their principal local news sources.