I aim my criticism at the BBC in the main, as Ofcom’s ever lighter regulation may have let ITV off the hook of any meaningful social contract. But I believe standards of fairness and a duty to represent all parts of Britain to the rest are still paramount obligations for the journalism of the BBC. This duty is even more vital when providing the main public speaking platform for party leaders during the UK election; particularly as voters in Wales get most of their news and comment from the media originating outside Wales.

In the first place, the ‘Leadership Debates’ must be recognised as a welcome fillip for public interest in the election itself and may yet be seen to have played an important part in increasing turnout.

However, this was not a presidential election, and what was lost may turn out to be more important and lasting in effect than what was gained. Significant issues were left out (the ‘£64 billion+ debt question’, for instance; the cuts that are already being made in health and higher education in expectation of UK block funding changes, etc). Other issues were obfuscated and trivialised by exchanges of vacuous slogans.

The exercise of sharp and insightful journalism was also considerably reduced; Marr and Paxman may have had their moments, but rarely did they have the same opportunities and successes interrogating and cross examining politicians that were enjoyed, for instance, by the likes of Sir Robin Day.

The unbalanced packaging and generalising of the debate marginalised or even excluded a multitude of significant constituency, regional and national stories, especially on issues most relevant outside London.

I think we’d have got better analysis if this election had been the Rugby World Cup – at least we’d have had in-depth examination of the form and talents of each member of the first fifteen, if not the entire squad of the competing teams.

Instead, coverage has been mostly about the external style of the captains, with trivia presented as vitally important; Brown’s bleat of exasperation – surreptitiously overheard — was resold (and I use the word advisedly) as the scandal of ‘Bigot-gate’, getting blanket coverage for the best part of two days.

Most significantly for Wales, one of our ‘main’ parties, represented ably by a national party leader who is also the Deputy First Minister of our own government, was excluded from the mass audience debates, solely on the unconstitutional and nonsensical premise that the debate should be exclusively reserved for the two politicians who could form a Westminster government – ignoring entirely the principle of electing a full parliament of representatives for the so-called United Kingdom. This whole premise collapsed when Clegg was included, on the basis that he could be the ‘king maker’ -he may well be part of a coalition government, but a deal with Plaid and the SNP could turn out to be the essential trump card for winning a working majority.
If Labour makes a deal with the Lib. Dems, the Prime Minister may well turn out to be a politician who was neither seen nor heard during the debates!

Throughout the debate, the issues were mostly framed in terms of the government of England – the media (apart from passing references and caveats) made no effort to square the claims of the UK parties to policies they could not possibly implement in Wales and even less so in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The battle was represented as a battle solely between three or even two parties –inexcusably misrepresenting the true state of affairs outside England.

It wasn’t just Wales, NI and Scotland who were treated unfairly in this, but the whole of Britain. It is quite possible the lack of balance will affect the results in each of the Celtic countries and in this expected ‘hung Parliament’ that could be a fateful effect for the governance of the whole of the UK.

No impartial and independent broadcaster in a democracy should contemplate coverage which has a potential for inequitable and material influence on the result, in favour some parties and against others. The BBC Trustees have categorically failed in their duty to uphold the Charter.
How will the broadcasters in general excuse their failure to explain the policies and motivation of the nationalist parties if by the evening news of May 8th, the SNP and Plaid have struck the policy bargains that enable a party to claim victory? If the prophecies of Salmond and Ieuan Wyn Jones that they would be closer to heart power than Nick Clegg come true, then the journalism of the BBC UK news will be arguably be seen to have been seriously negligent.

Despite a promising start at the outset of the campaign, the BBC progressively relegated the role of their ‘regional’ reporters (especially compared to previous years) and the special correspondents and ‘big guns ‘ were sent on safari to the remoter swamps and jungles of the UK. The Alan Little report for BBC1 News from Wales was grossly inaccurate, ill-informed and culpably misleading.

BBC UK has given only passing mention to what may turn out to be the highly relevant experience of the One Wales coalition pact – the lessons learned in forging stable government between previously bitter rivals could well have enlightened many UK voters to the potential viability of a hung parliament outcome.

The biggest story of the election may have been entirely missed – the 2010 General Election as the irrevocable turning point for the United Kingdom towards a federal system of government.

I like the way you compare the three dudes to American pressies. Brown to Lyndon B Johnson ,
Cameron to JFK, man hes not Irish ! Clegg to Ronnie Reagan. Oh crumbs…maybe a little

I disagree with you on the value of the debates. I think they will possibly have the highest viewing figures of the year. They may well be studied in the future at university undergrad psychology departments. Henry Fonda in Twelve Angry Men is studied in persuasion, why not these three debates also?

The debates were gladiatorial in nature and live. No bullshit with them or take two’s, cut. I think they had drama, emotion, tactics and intellect. Makes one think how hideously boring watching politicians talking at Conference. This was different.

I did enjoy the US history though. An interesting article.