Election 2017: MEDIA WATCH.

[BlodwynPig]

Isn't May' argument a tautology "I'm holding an election so you can vote us in to continue to do the job that I am doing already"

"If you don't vote me back in, how the bloody hell can I do that job, so vote me in!"

[Blumf]

I reckon this Steve Bell fella has an agenda!

[Black_Bart]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-chickening-out-tv-debates-10259986

Intriguing piece from the Mirror on how May not doing debates will give her an advantage. Well, people won't have to hear so much of her voice, there is that.

Theresa May still refuses to take part in live TV debates before the election - because she knows chickening out gives her a massive and unfair advantage.

Broadcasters are reportedly planning to hold them whether she turns up or not.

The Tory leader presumably hopes she can effectively veto a head to head showdown on prime time TV.

David Cameron argued ahead of the 2015 election that holding debates without him would break TV channels' obligation for balanced coverage.

But if the sitting Prime Minister is allowed to scupper the events by refusing to show up, it will hand her a huge and unfair advantage.

[Fabian Thomsett]

It would be quite good if the BBC made an effort not to be so openly Tory

https://twitter.com/maitlis/status/854308223838371840

https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/855004519297679361

[greenman]

https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/855004519297679361

Bar of course the multiple policys outlined already yet he seems to have much less trouble with Mays nebulous "security" and "stability" claims that even extend as far as basically saying "if I told you my super secret Brexit negotiation tactics they wouldn't work, you'll just have to trust me".

[Quincey]

Bizarre blog post from Laura Kuenssberg whose opening could belong in the Infantalisation thread:

Chalk and cheese. Black and white. Night and day. Yin and yang.

Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn are not, repeat not, cut from the same cloth. Their fundamental beliefs differ enormously. Their solutions for society's problems are poles apart.

Politicians in opposing parties are sometimes friends across the boundaries. But it is hard, extremely hard, to imagine the Labour leader and the Tory leader ever quietly enjoying a pootle round the Berkshire countryside of a weekend, or a cappuccino in Islington in a quiet moment.

But right at the start of this election - whisper it - there is something significant they share. Jeremy Corbyn, no surprise today, made his first big election speech, all about his classic theme.

For Labour it's the powerful versus the people, the Tories are the party of the wealthy and the elites - and he vowed proudly to tear up the political rule book that dictates elections are won from the centre. His repeated charge - that society is being "rigged" by elites making life unfair for the many.

That has been part of Jeremy Corbyn's political analysis forever. But it's more than that. The leadership believes, and has tested too, the analysis, the political message that the odds are "rigged" or stacked up against with voters.

And they say it finds sympathy and agreement. The notion that life, society, is unfair, that those at the top aren't playing by the rules, has an appeal, and an appeal on a wide variety of issues - whether that's big companies dodging tax, astronomical house prices, or the insecurity of work.

They hope, therefore, that this message will pull voters towards Labour and Jeremy Corbyn. They know time is short, but they expect they will be able to make a significant dent in Theresa May's enormous poll lead. Can they do enough to get anywhere close? That's a different question altogether.

But remember Theresa May's first speech in Downing Street and numerous statements and interviews thereafter? Remember her talking about the "privileged few" time and time again?

Remember her direct appeal to those who are "just about managing", those who feel that life isn't fair, who are working hard, but the way that society is set up is somehow stacked against them? (the use of "privileged few" by the way seriously wound up former ministers who were part of the Cameron project who believed it was an attack on them)

Remember her promise to "ordinary working families" that they would be her priority, time and again, not the wealthy, not the few?

That doesn't sound quite so different from Jeremy Corbyn's view that there are millions of voters out there who believe "the system" doesn't work for them - his vow to take on the elites on behalf of "the people". The actual choice of terminology is different.

And of course, their choice of solutions to that problem varies wildly.

But it's worth noting that the rebel and the reverend's daughter have both chosen to try to touch the same nerve among the voting public...

[Quincey]

It would be quite good if the BBC made an effort not to be so openly Tory

https://twitter.com/maitlis/status/854308223838371840

https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/855004519297679361

Are BBC reporters allowed to make those kind of comments on Twitter? Aren't they meant to be impartial? Can we not complain?

[biggytitbo]

It's not just outright bias like that but the constant tone of all reporting on the BBC, it's all about personality and it all insidiously endorses the establishment candidate, in this case the tories and delegitimises the anti-establishment one, in this case Corbyn (relatively speaking).

[asids]

Bizarre blog post from Laura Kuenssberg whose opening could belong in the Infantalisation thread:

I was going to post that one as well. A very weird one, basically just clutching at straws to try and create a false equivalence between May and Corbyn that they are both "anti-establishment". Every politician at least attempts to appeal to the working class though so the point is moot, the real difference is in policy where there is a massive difference between the two, especially in the way they treat big businesses.

Kuenssberg had another report on Corbyn on the news at 6 yesterday with similar deprecating tones, beginning at about 2 minutes 30: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08mh7ds/bbc-news-at-six-20042017

[BlodwynPig]

Are BBC reporters allowed to make those kind of comments on Twitter? Aren't they meant to be impartial? Can we not complain?

Complain? Complain! That ship sailed long ago, you traitorous saboteur. An office will be along shortly to take you away.

[MoonDust]

Quite a big Grauniad cock-up:

Asked whether he had decided what to do after the election, Corbyn said: "What an absurd question. We are 72 hours into the election. We are putting a message out there: 'this country doesn't have to be so divided' ... and the Labour party is totally divided in putting that message out."

If you listen to the sound segment he says "the Labour party is totally united in putting that message out."

https://soundcloud.com/attheweaver/system-audio-20170421-1312

Freudian slip from the journalist?

[colacentral]

Those Twitter comments are outrageous - at least suspension worthy if not sackable offences surely.

The BBC are utter cunts. Their bias seeps subtley in to every report. Take that Cuntsberg one as an example: "...this carefully selected group of supporters...". Does the media watchdog ever actually do anything about this shit?

I posted yesterday about Dawn Butler twice being asked if she'd prefer Burnham. Will Nicky Morgan be asked if she'd prefer Gove? Will she fuck.

[BlodwynPig]

I wonder how deep the complicity is.

Are they oblivious, spouting their impartial views believing they are unbiased.
Are they afraid, orders from above to set the agenda against Corbyn for fear of reprisals from the Government/elsewhere?
Are the malignant, walking hand in donald trump hand with the Government/Establishment or other vested interests to ensure the cream floats to the top?

[MoonDust]

Corbyn reading to children today, courtesy of the Guardian:








So tempted to change my avatar...

[Absorb the anus burn]

I wonder how deep the complicity is.

Are they oblivious, spouting their impartial views believing they are unbiased.
Are they afraid, orders from above to set the agenda against Corbyn for fear of reprisals from the Government/elsewhere?
Are the malignant, walking hand in donald trump hand with the Government/Establishment or other vested interests to ensure the cream floats to the top?

Manifold reasons.... Mainly malignant alas.

- they were bought years ago.
- their loyalty lies with the alphabet agencies.
- they have establishment stamped through them like Blackpool through a stick of rock.
- the BBC should never have hired so many journalists who batted for the Tories at university.

[BlodwynPig]

Corbyn reading to children today, courtesy of the Guardian:








So tempted to change my avatar...

Those kids are enthralled. He'll breeze the election in 14 years.

[greenman]

Whilst theres definitely some degree of influence from Torys working there and the fear of what they might do to the BBC I think your also dealing with a similar mindset to a lot of the right of Labour, the idea that a certain kind of politics involving a certain kind of person must rule from on high forever.

For all the medias attempts to throw it at others I think there one of the groups most guilty of the echo chamber issue, a load of upper middle class people educated at a few universities living in a handful of cities who don't care to look very far beyond there doors. That's really confounded by there creating there own narrative for the world outside of this bubble and buying into it utterly to the exclusion of any other evidence.

[George Oscar Bluth II]

Tell you what I'd like to see from the media. A pushback against this "chaos" narrative.

The party that won an election two years ago and since then has:

- accidentally taken us out of the EU because they couldn't reform their own party
- unleashed bigotry and hatred
- left EU citizens wondering if they're even allowed to live here past 2019
- put the existence of the country in peril because of their pandering to English nationalism
- got rid of the guy who won them the last election and almost all of his top team
- tanked the pound
- called us out to vote in another election

These are the people warning about "chaos". Yeah right. Sure.

The only thing these people care about is the continued existence and dominance of the Conservative Party. That's it. They will throw the country under the bus to achieve that. And they have the gall to lecture us about "chaos". It's staggering.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

2010-present has been chaos. Austerity, mountains of debt piling up, reinflation of the housing bubble to spare their blushes, two recessions, the largest riots in decades, fuel poverty, stagnant growth, wage collapse, immigration targets not even nearly met, genuine crises in the NHS and care sector, student loans and pension funds due to collapse, disabled people tested and humilated and constitutional crisis in exiting the EU and bringing the UK to the brink of dissolution.

In any measure, an absolute fucking disaster zone.

But low interest rates and I can buy things

[Absorb the anus burn]

How to complain to the BBC.

https://ssl.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/?lang=en&reset=&uid=156550077

Why should you complain....?

This.

[biggytitbo]

Whilst theres definitely some degree of influence from Torys working there and the fear of what they might do to the BBC I think your also dealing with a similar mindset to a lot of the right of Labour, the idea that a certain kind of politics involving a certain kind of person must rule from on high forever.

For all the medias attempts to throw it at others I think there one of the groups most guilty of the echo chamber issue, a load of upper middle class people educated at a few universities living in a handful of cities who don't care to look very far beyond there doors. That's really confounded by there creating there own narrative for the world outside of this bubble and buying into it utterly to the exclusion of any other evidence.

Yep its more than just the 'BBC supporting tories', its because the media is overwhelmingly made up of the same very narrow strata of people who, even over the last 9 years, are doing pretty well out of the neoliberal globalist, 'borrow, speculate and bailout' economy and can't even comprehend anyone with a radical alternative to it. Its the way they almost pathologize Corbyn that's so disgusting, like he's some kind of loony simply because their world-view is so suffocatingly narrow. Like it or not, but this is the action same process that led to Brexit and Trump, despite the fact many of the remainers were Corbyn supporters. But it makes me think they could have grievously and complacently underestimated the chances of a Corbyn victory too. The most important thing is to simply refuse to have the election debate on their terms, because thats how they sustain their 'kooky, crazy, chaos' narrative that seeks to undermine anything that dares to stray outside of their bubbles.

[greenman]

Yep its more than just the 'BBC supporting tories', its because the media is overwhelmingly made up of the same very narrow strata of people who, even over the last 9 years, are doing pretty well out of the neoliberal globalist, 'borrow, speculate and bailout' economy and can't even comprehend anyone with a radical alternative to it. Its the way they almost pathologize Corbyn that's so disgusting, like he's some kind of loony simply because their world-view is so suffocatingly narrow. Like it or not, but this is the action same process that led to Brexit and Trump, despite the fact many of the remainers were Corbyn supporters. But it makes me think they could have grievously and complacently underestimated the chances of a Corbyn victory too. The most important thing is to simply refuse to have the election debate on their terms, because thats how they sustain their 'kooky, crazy, chaos' narrative that seeks to undermine anything that dares to stray outside of their bubbles.

One thing you are dealing with though is that a Corbyn or a Sanders is naturally much more feared than a Brexit or a Trump, indeed I think a significant cause of the latter two was actually there reaction to the former. Trump getting so much attention early on was an effort to starve Sanders of it and the remain vote was clearly hurt by the effort to sideline Corbyn who could have offered an alternative to just "more of the same".

2010-present has been chaos. Austerity, mountains of debt piling up, reinflation of the housing bubble to spare their blushes, two recessions, the largest riots in decades, fuel poverty, stagnant growth, wage collapse, immigration targets not even nearly met, genuine crises in the NHS and care sector, student loans and pension funds due to collapse, disabled people tested and humilated and constitutional crisis in exiting the EU and bringing the UK to the brink of dissolution.

In any measure, an absolute fucking disaster zone.

But low interest rates and I can buy things

This really highlights I'd say one of the biggest issues Corbyn needs to overcome, the draw of "grown up politics", The idea that only a narrow band of neoliberial supposed technocrats really know what there doing and the wheels will fall off without them. Hopefully he carries on highlighting that actually the wheels came off sometime ago but even now I think the appeal in strong because its an appeal to ego. Its basically nodding your head along to some blowhard at a party on a subject you don't actually know a great deal about for fear of looking dumb or causing a fuss.

[Danger Man]

How to complain to the BBC.

Thanks. Complaint sent.

I'm no fan of Corbyn but it's a disgrace seeing BBC staff not bothering to hide their Tory sympathies.

[KennyMonster]

I think this one is quite subtle but shows that The Grauniad is staffed by people from the privileged class these days.

"Unite: Len McCluskey re-elected leader of key Labour funder."

Strictly speaking it is true and maybe is is quite relevant for a GE campaign to say that someone who supports Corbyn gets re-elected to their key funder but is that all that The Grauniad sees from a Union? a body that shovels money into Corbyn's pockets?

I'm kinda sure that Unions have other uses too and have achieved lots in the past?

Maybe not for the kind of person who can afford to work in newspapers these days, so let's see them keep the narrative going that unions are a thing of the past and don't do anything relevant for people working today eh lads?

[MoonDust]

Good point. I didn't pick up on that subtle phrasing.

But yeah, the argument that unions are things of the past is similar to the argument espoused by the kind of liberals who will praise the suffragette movement, civil rights movement, Stonewall, and various other liberation and emancipation movements, which more often than not were forced to violent means to achieve their aims, but will stop themselves from condoning acts of civil disobedience happening now because we don't need it any more.

[3D]

I posted yesterday about Dawn Butler twice being asked if she'd prefer Burnham. Will Nicky Morgan be asked if she'd prefer Gove? Will she fuck.

She would be if the likely outcome was reversed. Labour polling and Corbyn's personal polling indicate a disappointing Friday, June 9th for Labour, and even if they start to chip away at the polls - and they will slightly because they can't really get much worse - the party needs to turn a negative circa 20 points to plus three or four. This in a world where Miliband was fourteen points a year ahead of the last election and still lost.

Labour's problem goes so much deeper than their front bench. Yesterday I watched in horror as Mike Kane, Shadow Education minister, was demolished by Jo Coburn, of all people, on the Daily Politics. Just as the shudder and my memory of the disaster began to fade he turned up on the World At One and if anything managed to be worse still.

[Absorb the anus burn]

^^^^^

Didn't you get banned for transphobic posts, Milverton?

ANTI-CORBYN BIAS (part three)

More articles on the anti-Corbyn bias in the media since 2015.

http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2015/800-corbyn-and-the-end-of-time-the-crisis-of-democracy.html

http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2016/817-corbyn-s-millions-blair-s-millions.html

http://medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2016/819-anatomy-of-a-propaganda-blitz-part-2-hitlergate.html

http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2016/822-killing-corbyn.html

[3D]

2010-present has been chaos. Austerity, mountains of debt piling up, reinflation of the housing bubble to spare their blushes, two recessions, the largest riots in decades, fuel poverty, stagnant growth, wage collapse, immigration targets not even nearly met, genuine crises in the NHS and care sector, student loans and pension funds due to collapse, disabled people tested and humilated and constitutional crisis in exiting the EU and bringing the UK to the brink of dissolution.

In any measure, an absolute fucking disaster zone.

But low interest rates and I can buy things

How would you describe 1997-2010, or in the rather likely event you pretend that wasn't really Labour, 1974-1979?

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Shut up and fuck off you cunt

[Absorb the anus burn]