Local Press Fail On Impartiality

This is bigger than whether I get coverage

We already knew there was a wider media problem

Before the hustings, Clacton.org reviewed election coverage published between 12 July and 3 August 2026 to answer a simple question: how does an Independent candidate actually get heard?

We identified 86 original articles and publisher pages covering the Clacton by-election.

The audit does not prove that every Independent candidate received the same treatment. It looked specifically at coverage of my own candidacy.

But it demonstrated the scale of the problem. Election reporting was overwhelmingly driven by famous names, established political personalities, controversy and novelty candidates.

A list containing somebody’s name is not meaningful political coverage. Voters need enough information to understand who candidates are, why they are standing and what they would actually do.

National media is one thing. Local media is different.

I understand why national newspapers concentrate on nationally famous politicians. I understand why Count Binface attracts headlines.

I may not like it, but I understand the commercial reality.

A local newspaper occupies a different position.

The Clacton & Frinton Gazette is one of the principal established sources of local news for people in this constituency. When a voter wants to know what is happening locally, it is precisely the sort of publication they should be able to turn to.

That creates an expectation that local election journalism will make a serious effort to help readers understand the local democratic choice.

Then came the Clacton hustings

This should have been one of the best opportunities of the entire campaign for voters to discover the candidates who had received little national coverage.

Instead, the article gave readers very little substantive information about what most of the individual candidates actually said.

There were no useful links to candidate websites, no links to manifestos or policy pages, and no meaningful candidate-by-candidate account that would allow a voter to compare the people who had actually appeared and answered questions.

Names appeared. Meaningful information largely did not.

What readers actually saw

The lack of detailed coverage becomes much more troubling when you look at what surrounded the article.

While readers were trying to find out about the candidates who had actually attended the hustings, the page was visually dominated by repeated Nigel Farage campaign advertising.

Paid advertising and editorial journalism are different things. I fully understand that distinction.

But voters experience the finished page, not the internal accounting distinction between an advertising department and an editorial department.

Screenshot evidence 1 The Gazette’s hustings coverage as presented to readers, with prominent Nigel Farage campaign advertising surrounding the article.

Screenshot evidence 2 Further down the coverage, campaign advertising for Nigel Farage continues to dominate the visual presentation.

That is the issue.

I am not alleging that accepting political advertising is itself unlawful. Nor am I alleging that an advertiser purchasing a large campaign automatically proves editorial bias.

I am saying that the combined effect of weak editorial coverage of most candidates and saturation advertising for one candidate creates a presentation that, in my view, fails the standard of fairness local voters should reasonably expect during an election.

Newsquest says its local newspapers are politically neutral

The Clacton & Frinton Gazette is a Newsquest publication.

Newsquest publishes its own editorial policy.

Newsquest’s definition of political neutrality is narrow. It means its local papers are not formally affiliated with a political party or movement.

I believe local voters are entitled to expect something more meaningful during an election, particularly from one of the area’s principal news organisations.

Political neutrality should not merely mean that there is no party membership card pinned to the editor’s wall.

It should mean making a serious effort to ensure that local people can discover the choices actually available to them.

The uncomfortable truth: the rules allow much of this

It is important to be accurate about the law and the current press rules.

Newspapers are not subject to the same election-period impartiality rules as television and radio broadcasters.

Other candidates are saying the same thing

No newspaper can interview 34 candidates every day.

Nobody is asking for mathematically identical column inches.

But there is an enormous distance between demanding identical coverage and asking the main local newspaper to provide voters with a basic, meaningful route to information about everyone standing.

Being on the ballot is not the same as being heard

Democracy is not simply the administrative act of printing 34 names on a piece of paper.

Meaningful democracy requires voters to have some reasonable opportunity to understand those choices.

When political parties with national organisations, wealthy supporters, press teams and large advertising budgets can dominate attention, candidates without those resources start the campaign at an enormous disadvantage.

Media attention then creates more media attention.

Pollsters ask about candidates people have heard of. Journalists report the polling. More articles are written about those candidates. Search engines display more of those articles. The cycle reinforces itself.

Meanwhile, somebody standing on a serious local platform can remain almost invisible.

That does not just disadvantage candidates.

It disadvantages voters.

What I am actually asking for

I am not asking government to decide what newspapers are allowed to think.

I am not asking newspapers to endorse every candidate.

I am not asking for identical coverage.

I am asking for a minimum democratic standard during elections.

The question the Gazette needs to answer

If the answer under the current rules is yes, then I believe the rules are inadequate.

Local journalism matters enormously.

Strong local newspapers hold councils, MPs, businesses and institutions to account. Communities need them.

That is precisely why this matters.

The more important a newspaper is to its local community, the greater the damage when voters lose confidence that the election information they are receiving gives them a fair opportunity to understand their choices.