Newspaper exaggerates Sarkozy’s spending, minimizes Ségo’s
This was interesting today. The Daily Telegraph reported on the campaign spending (specifically on make-up and grooming) by Nicolas Sarkozy and his rival Ségolène Royal during the French presidential election. Despite being thought of as a conservative newspaper, it painted a rosier picture of Mlle Royal than M. Sarkozy.
First up, Sarkozy’s (over-)spending was the lead-in to the story, even though Royal’s was much higher. Mlle Royal’s spending was left to the third paragraph.
Secondly, the standards used to round off are biased in favour of Ségolène Royal. Here are the figures I uncovered, compared with the rounding that the Telegraph did.
- Nicolas Sarkozy, spent €34,445—rounded in The Daily Telegraph as €35,000 (I would have rounded it to €34,000 or said ‘around €34,500’)
- Ségolène Royal, spent €53,581—rounded in The Daily Telegraph as €52,000 (I would have rounded it to €54,000—correspondent Henry Samuel shaves off a hefty €1,581 for the socialist leader)
Reimbursements:
- Nicolas Sarkozy was reimbursed €11,482—The Daily Telegraph reported €12,000 (I would have rounded it to €11,000 or said ‘around €11,500’)
- Ségolène Royal was reimbursed €17,220—The Daily Telegraph reported €17,000 (I would have used the same figure)
In every case, it might have been easier just to report the actual figures.
The message, unless the figures I got from the French media are wrong: overestimate the spending by the right and make it look like the President is getting more state funds; underestimate the spending by the left and understate its burden on the state.
The Telegraph might need to re-examine its mathematics.
Comments
In a free society the public sector should be at arms length from campaigns and funding for campaigns. Any involvement is a corrupting influence and as the state wields police power it's far more dangerous than corporate or any private source of funds. In the US we have had this B.S. check off on our income tax form to fund Presidential campaigns. I never check yes. The reason this was started was because the Democratic candidates ran up huge bills with the media in the 1970's and failed to pay the bill. It is also a controlling mechanism as only Republicans and Democrats have access to the funds.
If in a free society, multibillionaire Jack Yan believes that Zak Klemmer is the right man for the job, why should he be denied the right to cut said candidate a check- with full disclosure?
The real problem is a defense against government power. As CEO of XYZ Corp lobbying becomes necessary as a defense mechanism. Not to lobby is against ones self-interest as the police power of the regulatory agencies can break your company down so it's a survival strategy. This is the bottom line in politics.