-
Just looking at that article summarising the report - its conclusions
don't to my mind say the same thing as bias. They say more time is
given to criticism than support: e.g. this quote from the Huffpost:
"finding the BBC’s flagship 6pm evening TV bulletins gave double the
amount of airtime to Corbyn’s political enemies than those still
backing him."But if more people are critical of JC than support him, perhaps that
balance could be correct? As JC's supporters dwindle, how much of an
effort does the news have to make to find people who do support him in
order to present what you think is "balanced"?I'm glad someone in this thread has some media literacy. Well, you and @Velocio
@andyfallsoff has hit the nail on the head here.
The job of the media is to report the facts. The facts are: Corbyn as leader has been shambolic, disorganised and chaotic. He has failed to demonstrate leadership or articulate what the Labour party stands for under him.
It is not media bias to come to this conclusion, based on the evidence available, and report it.
Corbyn and his people are terrible at working with the media. They don't understand how it works. I can tell you from personal experience that this lack of understanding has cost them at least one good media opportunity and I'm sure there have been many more. He is actively anti-journalist and he doesn't seem interested in engaging with them.
You are reading a single comment by @Fox and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Fox
Just looking at that article summarising the report - its conclusions don't to my mind say the same thing as bias. They say more time is given to criticism than support: e.g. this quote from the Huffpost: "finding the BBC’s flagship 6pm evening TV bulletins gave double the amount of airtime to Corbyn’s political enemies than those still backing him."
But if more people are critical of JC than support him, perhaps that balance could be correct? As JC's supporters dwindle, how much of an effort does the news have to make to find people who do support him in order to present what you think is "balanced"?
Bias to my mind means being over-critical or over-generous to one side as opposed to another based on a prior opinion of them. Criticising JC at a time when he appears to be doing a bad job doesn't demonstrate bias. This is the same issue we had with the Brexit campaign, where spurious economic nonsense was presented as an equal counterbalance to serious economic commentators, in the name of fairness between the two sides. Sometimes people need to call a spade a spade