Election coverage wasn’t ‘impartial’ SIR – I cannot join Antony McIver (May 12) in congratulating you on your general election coverage as “impartial, interesting and informative reporting”.

It was not impartial because you launched a campaign in support of the three “main” parties at the expense of the other six candidates, three of whose parties have MEPs in the European Parliament. You compounded your bias by creating a three-party, three-face logo for the campaign.

It was not informative because, in recording hustings events and publishing a photograph, you forgot to report what anybody said in any depth, or at all. You trivialised the campaign by covering a misspelling on a leaflet but ignored the major issues of the campaign throughout. You ignored the Christians’ meeting at St Paul’s Church – the biggest of the campaign with about 200 present.

Yes, you afforded candidates their 400 words but that was formulaic and controlled. You could have allowed candidates some space to report their views and given the campaign some spice. Instead, you played it safe with your “three party” policy and a level of blandness in reporting equivalent to a reading of the telephone directory.

Peter Nielsen
Worcester

Editor’s Note: With the exception of our election debate, at which Mr Nielsen spoke, all candidates were given equal opportunities during the election campaign. It is interesting that readers like Mr McIver consider us impartial while soundly beaten candidates like Mr Nielsen do not.