Ideas: Reform media coverage

This idea comes from Giles in Richmond:

What's the big idea?:

The stranglehold of the two main parties on our political system has to be broken and it can only be done with a substantial change in the make up of the House of Commons.

In order to achieve this, in the forthcoming General Election Campaign the Media, in particular the BBC and others with a public service remit, should avoid reporting almost exclusively on what the two main parties are saying - with regular and usually tedious reports from the main parties' battle buses etc. Instead they should report on the next election campaign in terms of issues - not political parties - and examine what a wide range of candidates across the country have to say.

Candidates from every party as well as independents should be given plenty of air-time: everyone who stands for Parliament already has some support in their constituency and every candidate has at least a theoretical chance of winning.

Why is this change important to you?:

In spite of their overwhelming coverage in the media, membership of the two main parties accounts for less than 2 per cent of the electorate. So there is no justification for the coverage they receive. In-depth debates with a wide spectrum of candidates and audience should be held on matters as diverse as the war in Afghanistan and privatisation of the Post Office (on which both labour and Conservatives have nearly identical views which are at odds with a large proportion of the electorate).

All of this means a different way of working for the journalists - instead of relying on press briefings from two large party machines, more investigation of minor candidates' and parties' views would be needed - but it would make for a much more diverse and interesting campaign.

When the expenses scandal was at its height a few months ago, the media ran several stories on how this was the end of politics as we know it and the corrupt political class would have their come-uppance at the next election. But since then, reporting is back to the two party approach with the Lib-Dems getting the occasional mention.

One reason for the problem may have something to do with the way journalists are trained. I understand that trainees at the BBC are told when reporting on a story to get one alternative view -so, all too often, a Labour view is then followed by a Conservative one, or vice versa. That is too easy and too simplistic a way of dealing with complex issues but it may account for the ways in which we get our news and comment. Another reason is that it makes for an easier life if journalists can rely on the two big party machines to feed them their stories.

Contrast this approach with debates that have a wider range of speakers - e.g. Any Questions. All too frequently the Labour and Conservative panel members agree with each other and are out of step with the more independent minded panellists and the audience. The Iraq war was a prime example but there are many others.

So - open up the debate and let us go for a new, more diversified Parliament of all the talents.