PRESS POWER It was the press wot won it?

IN A NUTSHELL: 

It was always debatable to what extent press bias reflected or shaped public opinion; in the digitised age, press influence is easy to dismiss, but the near-uniformity of anti-Labour flak and the close links between the Tory campaign and press angles (e.g., the vicious attacks on Miliband), to the extent of the Telegraph promoting 'stories' about letters it helped to generate, and the Sun offering to pay for pro-Tory stories, was undeniably a factor. The press brutalised the party (Labour) that dared to propose tougher press regulation; the Tories policy to leave it as it is, with IPSO. Political leaders will remain wary of picking fights with the press. Also, it certainly wasn't Twitter wot won it!

In the1992 general election it was the Sun “wot won it” for John Major’s Conservatives. In 2015 such hubristic declarations seemed to hark from a different era, dating back to a time before the advent of social media and rolling news curbed the influence of the rightwing press. ...

It is likely that whoever replaces Miliband as Labour leader will be even more wary of threatening Murdoch or any other press baron with increased regulation and the breakup of their empires 

Rupert Murdoch backs another election victor, but was it the Sun wot won it? (Jane Martinson, Guardian, 8.5.15)

Miliband was unfortunate with his timing; at the height of the public uproar over the News of the World's Milly Dowling phone hacking in 2011, his tough stance on regulation would have been a vote-winner:

Tony Blair flew halfway across the world to address an annual meeting of News Corp soon after being made party leader. Miliband used his own refusal to do so as a way of divorcing himself from the mistakes of the Blairite past in 2010. The Labour party manifesto was the only one to vow to protect media plurality and implement the Leveson inquiry’s recommendations for independent press regulation.

PROF. CURTICE ARGUES PRESS HAVE ZERO INFLUENCE ... BUT NOR DID TWITTER

John Curtice, a professor of politics at the University of Strathclyde who has studied election results for years, said the while newspapers “do influence some individuals, impact in aggregate is close to zero”.The jury may still be out over the impact of the press, but social media certainly did not influence the result. Asked whether the Sun could run the “won it” headline this weekend, one tabloid editor said: “Nah, but I tell you what, it certainly wasn’t Twitter wot won it.”Miliband lost despite the support, albeit belated, of Russell Brand and some of his hordes of YouTube viewers, as well as the Twitter #Milifans. “Thank you for the selfies, thank you for the support and thank you for the most unlikely cult of the 21st century, Milifandom,” the Labour leader said in his resignation speech.

Martinson was covering for Roy Greenslade whilst he took a holiday; just back, he agrees with Martinson that the press bias was significant, but stresses that its the longer term coverage, not the hysterical election period, that was crucial, particularly in building up UKIP and its anti-EU, anti-immigrant agenda 

As the Labour party tears itself apart trying to come to terms with its general election performance, it should understand this reality: the right-wing press was overwhelmingly responsible for its defeat.why did Ukip do so well? Because in the five years leading up to the election, the right-wing press lent it, and its policies, credence.In an effort to ensure that David Cameron’s Conservative party followed a largely anti-EU agenda, newspapers gave disproportionately favourable coverage to Farage and his party.The press’s role in the 2015 election requires more investigation. As so often, the coverage over six weeks tells us little more than we could have anticipated before the campaign began. Agenda-setting over a longer period is far more important.

Yes, right-wing newspaper coverage did cause Ed Miliband's downfall (Greenslade, 11.5.15)