Channel Four’s sample-of-one journalism is pretty grubby stuff.

I’ve been following the Zac Goldsmith/Channel Four case with more than passing interest. Having just under a year ago been a victim of their dirty tricks department, I was particularly intrigued to see the station’s sanctimonious ‘we refute absolutely’ stuff – a long-winded and overly protesting self-exculpatory piece replete with everything but a refutation as such – or indeed any evidence to support it.

I do not mean by this that I think their investigation to be fantasy: it clearly isn’t, and I do not doubt that with his Dad’s genes, Mr Goldsmith is not beyond some judicious fiddling. But this isn’t Zac’s point: his view is very simple – that he has done precisely what any other candidate for the major Parties tends to do -viz, play fast and loose with the rules. So what else is new?

As Channel Four has no answer at all to his victimisation charge – ie, the Channel picked on him as rich and Right Wing – I thought it only fair to ask a few people in the know, and dig around a bit. This is my summary of that initial research.

First and foremost, I can confirm that Channel Four’s total sample for investigation was one. As this makes it logically impossible that the Snowmen could possibly know how untypical Goldsmith’s expenses were, their refutation must by definition be complete bollocks. (Whatever devious attempt may be made post hoc to correct this, you have my word as a Slog and a gentleman that’s exactly what it will be).

Second – and here, yes (yawn) people are for obvious reasons not going to go on the record – a Slog survey of eight mainstream candidates has revealed that accountancy jiggery-pokery is accepted as part of the game – up to a point. They have a strange set of values our MPs, but one of them is that over-egging this plum pudding is simply not done. The figures in Four’s boring investigation are so pettifogging as to suggest that Goldsmith did no more or less than most of the other twisters.

Third – and I admit we’re scraping the ethical barrel a bit here – one has to ask, did any of it make any difference to the result? Four’s website erroneously describes the Richmond election as ‘a close-fought contest’ – but Goldsmith won by a clear 7% and 4000 votes over the LibDem sitting member – hardly a photo-finish. The idea that a few leaflets and printing costs were behind Susan Kramer’s defeat is plain daft. But the ludicrous suggestion that some blue jackets bearing the legend ‘I back Zac’ won over gullible electors does tell you all you need to know about
the sort of respect Four has for the average elector’s intelligence.

By the way, nowhere on the channel’s website are details of the disastrous result for Jon Snow’s favoured Labour Party – it got an almost sub-atomic 5% of the votes cast. This might help explain what gave Jon and his sidekick Krishnan Guru-Murthy such a powerful desire for vengeance: Hell, fury, scorned etc etc etc.

I’d have more time for Channel Four’s squeaky-clean posing on electoral fairness if I saw the slightest sign of them ever campaigning for real PR or the abolition of candidate and Party controlled funding. They never do, because like so many in the Left-leaning media they are hypocrites – convinced like so many of their ilk that the ends justify the means for The Cause. If you believe C4’s protestations of innocence on the question of political bias, then I’m afraid I can’t help you.