Kuenssberg on Johnson's relationship with the truth

[BlodwynPig]

Excellent credentials to lead a country.

[frajer]

"They call me the trolley! I came up with it because people keep putting pound coins in me even though I'm unreliable with an agenda entirely of my own."

[JaDanketies]

It is an interesting point coming out that Johnson (such as he is, the real person) has so many financial liabilities (divorce, illegitimate children, his poshcunt life style) that he really can't afford to  be PM

I bet if he even needs to justify his behaviour to himself, his justification for sleaze is that he's taking a financial loss to be PM and he deserves to recoup this loss immediately.

[pigamus]

"They call me the trolley! I came up with it because people keep putting pound coins in me even though I'm unreliable with an agenda entirely of my own."

This new woke Benny Hill is not for me

[Bernice]

An article that doesn't actually go into any specific lies and contains this baffling passage:

First, the benign interpretation of how the PM operates. One insider who knows him well says it is simply "unfair and easy to cry 'liar', as the opposition has done".

"He's far more complex and strategic and people don't give him credit for how calculating and clever he is."

Another source told me Mr Johnson has a "genuinely selective memory" and that "'I choose to remember certain things or not remember others'" is his default way of dealing with the pressures of life at No 10.

It's not fair to call him a liar, he's actually calculating (which a liar never could be) and chooses to remember facts in such a way as to distort them to his own ends, which definitely isn't lying. I mean, what the fuck does that even mean?

[Sebastian Cobb]

I don't get why she feels the need to stan him.

It certainly feels more intentional than Peston a bit, who seems to have a bit of a naive child-like mind by comparison.

I don't like Sky, or think I share politics with her, but Beth Rigby seems to show both of these prongs up despite being well within the establishment still.

[TrenterPercenter]

I don't get why she feels the need to stan him.

It certainly feels more intentional than Peston a bit, who seems to have a bit of a naive child-like mind by comparison.

I don't like Sky, or think I share politics with her, but Beth Rigby seems to show both of these prongs up despite being well within the establishment still.

It really stood out after PMQs this week that she was struggling to not say yes; he is liar.  She was kindof reluctant and resigned to it.  This new op ed seems clearly an attempt to roll back on that.

but she is doing it because he is making her a star isn't he; she is his preferred journalist so she has to play the game - it's basically the storyline from the original house of cards.

[greencalx]

I didn't make it all the way through, does she even bring up the fact he was fired from a previous job for literally making up quotes, or that many previous colleagues of his categorically state that he is frequently untruthful?

https://twitter.com/cbrookmyre/status/1388791426293682181?s=21

" I'm almost admiring of Laura Kuenssberg's chutzpah in not mentioning in this piece that Boris Johnson has been twice sacked for lying. Any other journalist might think it the kind of detail that adds an important element of perspective."

[Ian Drunken Smurf]

"They call me the trolley, because secretly they all want me in the bottom of a canal"

[Huxleys Babkins]

I don't get why she feels the need to stan him.

It certainly feels more intentional than Peston a bit, who seems to have a bit of a naive child-like mind by comparison.

I don't like Sky, or think I share politics with her, but Beth Rigby seems to show both of these prongs up despite being well within the establishment still.

I remember when she was following Theresa May about on the battle bus, gushing about how amazing her campaign was. Then the exit polls came in and she was calling her all sorts of useless cunts. "Oh, people were saying how distant and out of touch she was, that the campaign was a disaster." Yeah, shame you chose not to mention it and blew smoke up her arse instead.

She will happily go whatever way the wind blows and her continued devotion to Johnson's cause is just evidence that the Tories aren't ready to cut him adrift yet.

[mobias]

but she is doing it because he is making her a star isn't he; she is his preferred journalist so she has to play the game - it's basically the storyline from the original house of cards.

There was an interesting article doing the rounds last Spring when she was rightly given a lot of flack for very quickly coming to Cummings defence over the Barnard Castle debacle. It was written by an ex BBC news producer
who used to work with her and he basically laid into her a fair bit. He said a lot of people in BBC news regard her as being way over ambitious in her desire to break stories and she will not bite the hand that feeds her, which is pretty clear from her reporting.

[Ferris]

In fairness though, people do hate a saint.  I think many of them prefer being governed by cunts, then they can feel pretty good about themselves and complain and keep believing that, if something bad were to come out of voting for cunts, it'll happen to someone else, far away.  Probably won't even make the news.  And, if some foolish saint comes door-knocking on their consciences, telling them they can make a small effort and do something about it, they won't even answer.

Or better "well they're all like that so you want to elect an absolute shitter to deal with them all". Actually heard that one in the flesh about rob ford (remember him?) and I don't doubt it's the way people think about trump/Boris.

[Kelvin]

Maybe people want to be ruled by an unqualified, selfish, manipulative, incompetent, greedy, fat, shallow, amoral, dishonest, lazy piece of shit who would sell their grandmother for a fiver and probably enjoys lying to everybody all the time.

Buellers has sort of touched on something similar already, but I actually think the truth of it is that many people do think that greed and ruthlessness are ideal qualities in a leader. A greedy, selfish bully is more likely to get good deals for the country, prioritise our needs over the needs of others, make us the most money, give less to the feckless... At least that's the perception.

So, it's not that people don't see the failings of people like Trump and Johnson, it's that they see many of those qualities as the very reason to vote for them, over someone fairer, more compassionate, but fundamentally (to their eyes) weaker. 

[Ferris]

Yeah exactly.

"It's good he's a grasping, selfish, morally bankrupt cunt - he'd be diddled if he had any morals, so I'm going to vote for the person who demonstrably has none!"

[Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse]

"They call me the trolley! I came up with it because people keep putting pound coins in me even though I'm unreliable with an agenda entirely of my own."

fuck you for making me picture BoJo presenting his naked rear end to facilitate the shoving of pound coins up his waiting arsehole

[Buelligan]

Buellers has sort of touched on something similar already, but I actually think the truth of it is that many people do think that greed and ruthlessness are ideal qualities in a leader. A greedy, selfish bully is more likely to get good deals for the country, prioritise our needs over the needs of others, make us the most money, give less to the feckless... At least that's the perception.

So, it's not that people don't see the failings of people like Trump and Johnson, it's that they see many of those qualities as the very reason to vote for them, over someone fairer, more compassionate, but fundamentally (to their eyes) weaker.

One of the mantras we're taught from babyhood is the one about it all being well and good but it's not the real world, whenever someone says anything about building a better world, be it XR, Greenpeace before them, commies or even socialists.  I'm sure people used it at suffragettes, anti-slavery bods, those wanting kids out of coal mines and all kinds of people hoping for a better world.  Evil conspires to protect and elevate itself, always.  We don't live in Paradise or even Cloud Cuckoo Land, Hope is for fools.

[TrenterPercenter]

There was an interesting article doing the rounds last Spring when she was rightly given a lot of flack for very quickly coming to Cummings defence over the Barnard Castle debacle. It was written by an ex BBC news producer
who used to work with her and he basically laid into her a fair bit. He said a lot of people in BBC news regard her as being way over ambitious in her desire to break stories and she will not bite the hand that feeds her, which is pretty clear from her reporting.

This is how it works; I have friends that are journalists who've explained it all to me.  They argue that it's not as simple as just good guys and bad guys but pressures of the system.  They all loathe Murdoch for example as they know his journalism is truly debased whilst they'll point out that certain publications (cough cough the Guardian) are bad in lots of ways but still at least hold true to some journalistic standards; they are also quick to point out what else is there?.  I've said things like Novara and DDN to them and they just laugh; and they are right; right now these organisations have very little reach outside of their fanbase........95% of anyone that tunes into Novara already agrees (often blindly) with whatever they have to say; the scales of influence on those who are not going to seek them out pales in comparison to other influences.

They have also recently really taken a disliking to the BBC and people like Kuenssberg; it makes complete sense that this is systemic; you have the option of being a sycophant to get you to the top in loads of industries and journalism is no different; she wants to be the best and is willing to go further in debasing her journalist morals than others will; the question is how do you stop it?  I would suggest in a world of banality and conjecture we need to start "taking back control" and introducing again the principle of reasonability; this means the window of what is acceptable stops getting stretched and morphed into whatever people want; clear expectations should be laid down and that means policing ones own offenders not just moaning about the other sides[nb]see Peter Oborne as a good example[/nb], then you can legitimately bring these people to task.

[idunnosomename]

Westminster's just a game to people like Kuenssberg. it's like football punditry. faffing on about a bunch of men kicking a ball around. then Corbyn comes and picks up the ball and they go "AHHH THATS NOT ALLOWED!!! NOT ALLOWED". but if a tory does it it's all "oh well done, Boris has invented a new game! well done Boris!"

[BlodwynPig]

Magic money tree

[TrenterPercenter]

Westminster's just a game to people like Kuenssberg. it's like football punditry. faffing on about a bunch of men kicking a ball around. then Corbyn comes and picks up the ball and they go "AHHH THATS NOT ALLOWED!!! NOT ALLOWED". but if a tory does it it's all "oh well done, Boris has invented a new game! well done Boris!"

It should be no surprise that an establishment that has created a system encourage common practices to sustain itself is going to have a problem with someone proposing radical changes to how it operates.  This is one of the better bits of Jame's O'Briens early assessment on the matter; that of course they were going to do whatever they could to stop Corbyn.  There is and was a collective interest in not letting him or any other socialist getting into power because of what it means; you'll find no shortage of normal people who fear this as they think their accumulations and gains from the current system would be under threat.  In a way it is all an arms race to see who can breakthrough and social circumstances (events dear boy events) have a lot of influence on these things; learning properly from the mistakes Corbyn made and fostering a new attempt; taking into account all that is happening and where public opinion is currently at is the best way forward.

There will always be people like Kuenssberg to deal with; we just need to have the antidote to people like her and I know people are down hearted at the moment but the shoots are there;  Corbyn was incredibly influential and he didn't need to win to do this.  Much of the left is still running on Blairite fumes and not realising it; confusing Corbyns message with that of some insincere neoliberal identity politics; believing it is either fighting racism/sexism or economic and class oppression and not realising how the commodification and appropriation of socialist values occurs; powerful capitalists have long learnt that you need to quell the plebs with ideas of equality by giving them slithers of what they want.  In the US the left is now starting to put together the next formation of ideas (it's why we talk about waves etc.. because these are the ideological waves in which socialism reinvents itself to to survive - as does capitalism) and it is looking good; UK needs to start catching up (and it will I have no doubt).

[dozybugcarrot]

Buellers has sort of touched on something similar already, but I actually think the truth of it is that many people do think that greed and ruthlessness are ideal qualities in a leader. A greedy, selfish bully is more likely to get good deals for the country, prioritise our needs over the needs of others, make us the most money, give less to the feckless... At least that's the perception.

So, it's not that people don't see the failings of people like Trump and Johnson, it's that they see many of those qualities as the very reason to vote for them, over someone fairer, more compassionate, but fundamentally (to their eyes) weaker.

I think you might be right, but I don't really understand the logic. People see a narcissist and think 'He's selfish enough to fight for our countries needs over the needs of others', but completely miss that as a narcissist he will only ever fight for himself and will happily fuck over the country in the process.

[jobotic]

She'll seem like a brave investigative journalist by the time they've finished with the BBC.

[TrenterPercenter]

I think you might be right, but I don't really understand the logic. People see a narcissist and think 'He's selfish enough to fight for our countries needs over the needs of others', but completely miss that as a narcissist he will only ever fight for himself and will happily fuck over the country in the process.

It is to do with authenticity; but probably not in way most people think.  Being authentic means minimal effort for the brains of others to assess what is real; it has little cognitive load so it maps sensation to thought.  This isn't complicated it is as intuitive as the some of the phrases that are employed by people that using it in marketing etc.. "it does exactly what it says on the tin" i.e. you don't need to worry about working out what you are going to get. 

This means Johnson can connect with others through the inherit intuitive selfishness that occurs within people; the counter to this of course is the selflessness that also occurs within people (which you can get virtually from your gushing programs and clapping for NHS & Capt Tom or other relics used to safely promote this experience) either or if authentic creates low cognitive load but saying you are selfless requires trust and the stress of monitoring this until actions can prove the case (this is often long-lasting however when this occurs), it also require those professing it being diligent to their claims of if (which worked really well for Corbyn hence why a new approach had to be taken to deal with this ). 

He might be a bastard but he's our bastard just means I don't have to think work out whether he is a bastard or not; appealing to someones emotions to be trusted is much more risky psychologically in getting hurt or let down.

[mothman]

I've said things like Novara and DDN to them and they just laugh; and they are right; right now these organisations have very little reach outside of their fanbase........95% of anyone that tunes into Novara already agrees (often blindly) with whatever they have to say; the scales of influence on those who are not going to seek them out pales in comparison to other influences.

They have also recently really taken a disliking to the BBC and people like Kuenssberg; it makes complete sense that this is systemic; you have the option of being a sycophant to get you to the top in loads of industries and journalism is no different; she wants to be the best and is willing to go further in debasing her journalist morals than others will; the question is how do you stop it?

But if the benchmark is that people "agree with" Novara etc., isn't that more of the same whatever part of the political spectrum? Isn't the point to have truly independent impartial news media?

As for Kuenssberg, I'm not sure I buy the whole "just doing it to get ahead" defence some trot out. She's the fucking political editor of the BBC, how much higher is she planning to rise [heh - iOS autocorrected "to rise" as "Tories"]? What's her endgame? Fox News? GB News? They'll let any cunt on if they spew the right bile, it's not something to aspire to. CNN? Her rep is probably too toxic for them, even if they do need the odd anchor or correspondent who'll happily toady up to despots & dictators. PM's spokesman? She's pretty-much that already and Coulson, Stratton etc. make it a poisoned chalice.

[TrenterPercenter]

But if the benchmark is that people "agree with" Novara etc., isn't that more of the same whatever part of the political spectrum? Isn't the point to have truly independent impartial news media?

No idea what you mean by benchmark here and I don't see how this relates to what I've said; Media outlets are the digital version of moats around castles; in the modern day they are increasingly sophisticated PR machines for states and individuals; to change this you need structural change and new funding models (some of this is already being done).  If you mean I just want people to agree with Novara; no not at all (I'm much more in love with Jacobin tbh) I want people to be rational managers of the information provided to them by all outlets and forge an collectivised feasible idea of reasonability that can be attractive enmasse to enough people to democratically elect a socialist into government; much of Novara is great progressive journalism but subservience to anything creates vulnerabilities.

As for Kuenssberg, I'm not sure I buy the whole "just doing it to get ahead" defence some trot out. She's the fucking political editor of the BBC, how much higher is she planning to rise [heh - iOS autocorrected "to rise" as "Tories"]? What's her endgame? Fox News? GB News? They'll let any cunt on if they spew the right bile, it's not something to aspire to. CNN? Her rep is probably too toxic for them, even if they do need the odd anchor or correspondent who'll happily toady up to despots & dictators. PM's spokesman? She's pretty-much that already and Coulson, Stratton etc. make it a poisoned chalice.

Defence? Not sure why you perceive that as a defence; being a sycophantic narcissist interested in personal improvement at the cost of others is not much of a defence.  People "rise" and then want to sustain their position; it's an evolving process of accumulation; it becomes a purpose but ultimately she has perhaps already got to where she is by saying and doing the right things and now is there via mutual interest in bringing through whoever is next is in the wings.  She is also not likely putting everything on to achieve this; she most likely believes arrogantly as a lot of journalists like to think about themselves that they are playing an important role[nb]usually due to the excitement of people being invited to and the illusion of being involved in; important "grown up" things [/nb]; she could pull the plug if she felt the nation (and this is reliant on what her idea of nationhood is) was under threat or perhaps if there was a more attractive and feasible candidate that might seek to take over.