Media : Extra! Labor Takes a Beating in British Tabloids : * The so-called popular press has shown no mercy--or fairness--in covering this week’s national election.

“If You Make It--They’ll Take It,” screeched the front-page headline in the Daily Mail the day after the Labor Party announced its economic program for the current national election campaign. The pro-Conservative Party Daily Mail was countered by an equally strident banner line in the Labor-baiting Sun: “Labor to Squeeze the Backbone of Britain.”

The story on the same announcement by the pro-Labor Mirror, however, took a decidedly different tack. “Goodby To All This,” declared a front-page headline over photographs of closed hospital wards, run-down schools, jobless and homeless Britons--all, by inference, the result of 13 years of Tory stewardship.

This is British election coverage, tabloid-journalism style.

Even if an American tabloid might occasionally approach the bias of its British counterparts, it cannot approach the influence of what Britons term the “popular press.” It’s an apt designation. For all their unabashed partisanship, Britain’s national tabloids enjoy a combined circulation of 12 million copies daily--more than four times the combined circulation of the country’s standard-size, so-called quality dailies such as The Times and The Guardian.

Since five out of the six national morning tabloids are staunchly Conservative, the Labor Party election campaign gets a rough ride, indeed.

Their wide circulation also guarantees a truly nationwide audience when the tabloids turn their spotlight on a political dust-up, such as the allegation in a Labor Party campaign telecast that a 5-year-old girl named Jennifer had to wait for more than a year to get a simple ear operation.

It turned out that the delay was mainly caused by an administrative error rather than Tory mismanagement of the national health service, as the broadcast, approved by Labor leader Neil Kinnock, suggested.

“The Big Lie,” screamed the Conservative Daily Express: “Kinnock on the run as Labor fiction explodes in his face.” The Daily Mail dutifully added: “No Regard for a Little Girl.” And The Sun topped them with: “If Kinnock will tell lies about a sick little girl, will he ever tell the truth?”

Only the Mirror demurred. Its banner headline read: “TV Health Broadcast That Shocked Britain: Doctor’s Letter Damns Tories.”

In every case, the stories under the headlines were slanted in a way that has long gone out of style among major American newspapers.

Peter Golding, co-director of the Communications Research Center at Loughborough University, said in a campaign study that the tabloid press is marked by “outright partisanship as distinct and sharp as ever.”

The Daily Mail went so far as to hold over a worldwide exclusive story on the marital split-up of the Duke and Duchess of York in order to condemn Labor’s economic platform on its front page as “the politics of envy.”

Daily Mail editor David English makes no apologies. “It’s always been a Conservative paper,” he said, noting that Lord Rothermere, father of the present proprietor, established the principle that the Tories must be supported not only in editorials but “throughout” the paper.

There were times in the United States when some publishers were equally unconcerned about supporting political parties in news stories and headlines as well as in editorials. But that practice has mostly gone out of fashion.

British proprietors, meanwhile, have received knighthoods and peerages for slavishly supporting the government of the day.

The “quality” dailies are generally more discreet in their headlines although they often select articles to reflect favorably on their party of choice. The Guardian and the Observer on Sunday tend to lean toward Labor, while the Telegraph is distinctly pro-Conservative, for example. News stories in the Tory-leaning papers invariably have the Conservatives “attacking” while Labor is “defending.”

The Times sharpened its coverage of the Labor budget between editions, switching from the headline: “Labor To End Tax for 740,000” to “Labor Loads Taxes on the Rich.”

The Financial Times commissioned a poll of company directors that, not surprisingly, discovered that the business leaders want the Tories to win Thursday’s vote. The Daily Telegraph found this so newsworthy that it lifted the story--with attribution--as its Page 1 lead.

That doesn’t mean that the pro-Conservative papers have been uncritical of the Tories. On the contrary, they have accused the party of mishandling the campaign, risking the loss of the election and the triumph of an unwanted Labor government to succeed that of incumbent Prime Minister John Major.

The Tory bias among the British press is nothing new. A previous Royal Commission media report declared that throughout the 20th Century, the Labor movement has “had less newspaper support than its right-wing opponents and . . . its beliefs and activities have been unfavorably reported by the majority of the press.”

While conceding a pro-Tory bias in the newspapers, one of Major’s senior advisers insisted that it has a distinct downside.

“Readers come to expect a loaded approach and ignore it,” this aide said privately. “But if a paper reports that our campaign has a few problems, readers then believe that we are in really deep, possibly terminal trouble, which may not be the case at all. So total, unwavering support can be counterproductive. “

British television has generally been more balanced in its election coverage than the printed press. The two government-owned British Broadcasting Corp. channels are committed by charter to impartiality, as are the country’s two commercial networks.

“Our job is to ensure that no one party controls the agenda, that all are given due weight and that different shades of opinion are treated fairly,” said Tony Hall, BBC director of news and current affairs.

“The skills required of producers attempting to set up a three- or four-way discussion at election time can be similar to those of a (U.S. Secretary of State) James Baker trying to stage the Middle East peace talks.”

In three weeks of monitoring four main TV news broadcasts, Golding’s research showed that of a total of 29 minutes devoted to John Major and Neil Kinnock, the difference in coverage was only 44 seconds.

And a National Opinion Poll showed that 66% of viewers trusted the BBC and commercial Independent Television News (ITN) “a great deal” or “a fair amount.” The equivalent figure for the “quality” dailies was 53% and for the tabloids, 29%.

That hasn’t stopped Conservative Party leaders from complaining about alleged pro-Labor bias by the BBC’s newscasters and producers.

Some senior Cabinet ministers such as Chancellor of the Exchequer Norman Lamont have refused to appear on some news shows on the grounds that the interviewers are known for anti-Tory bias. But Labor complained to the BBC because of changes made in the program to suit the Tories.

While it may be more balanced, however, British TV appreciates a scandal just as much as the next guy.

For instance, the BBC’s main, 9 p.m. news program devoted 10 minutes and 29 seconds to the Jennifer ear-operation row, while giving only 3 minutes and 29 seconds to Labor’s health plan--supposedly the day’s top election story.