Labour Leadership 2016

I love this song and will repost it in the event of the slightest provocation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWXA8O28fso

:)

Jeremy says: Bring it on!

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/29/jeremy-corbyn-labour-could-win-snap-general-election

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2016/jul/29/jeremy-corbyn-im-very-optimistic-video-interview

Show me the proof

I care, and I'm not a Corbyn supporter...

The media is not meant to provide a representative sample of news to
suit particular political views in proportion to the population. It's
mean to provide impartial reports which allow an informed public to
make their own decisions.

That is how you would like the world to be, not how it is. The media isn't 'meant' to do anything. Individual media companies and organisation will pursue their own objectives; those that are for profit entities will pursue the objective of maximising their owners / shareholders returns.

Murdoch is always cited as the dark hand - have you ever considered that his papers take the line they do because they seek to reflect the views of their readership? Case in point - the Sun was pro Brexit, the Times anti; the Scottish Sun was pro Scots independence, the Sun against.

Those on the left struggle to countenance this, as they prefer to believe that the media creates false consciousness. How awful it would be if all these poor lambs actually thought these horrible things - rather than being told to think them by the press!

Corbyn's problem isn't a media bias against him - it is a popular bias.

Interesting post, but my point was simply about measuring bias. And it's not what "I" want. Journalism is a profession with it's own ethical code.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards

It may be out of date/obsolete, but that's what I was referring to.

Hmmm. Given our press struggle to operate within the actual law I doubt they give anything other than lip service to hifalutin ethical codes.

I wish it wasn't this way though. To my mind the most corrosive aspect to public in life in both the UK and the US is not bias, per se, but the slide towards news as entertainment, with everything reduced to simple plot lines and extreme characterisation. I'm fairly sure that explains how a reality TV star is in the running for president, and how voters woke up the day after the referendum regretting their vote for Brexit as they confused reality for a VR game.

I love Owen, but could the setting and tone of this interview be any more islington if it tried?

Anecdotal proof is the best kind :)

Looking for that 'proof, if proof be need be' quote from the day today.

You said 'no one' one person said 'actually, me' so you are wrong, someone does care.

FWIW I'm not voting Corbyn in the leadership election and also care. Which makes 2. So even if you murder salmonman you'll still be wrong.

The media isn't 'meant' to do anything.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news

and they're one of the worst offenders.

A good watch. Owen is completely right about social media though. It isn't convincing anyone, people have to seek out the stuff that they want to see/hear/read so I'd guess it's mostly people already supporting Corbyn that he feels like he's reaching out to.

Also saw this the other day, too true:

1 Attachment

I saw that on facebook, it changed my mind.

The bias argument around Corbyn reminds me of the difficulties around 'balance' when reporting on issues such as climate change. I heard a reporter on R4 exlpaining that it's not 'balanced' to give equal weight to both sides of an argument, when one side is much more strongly represented, and there is therefore more information to report from that side of the argument.

Should every report of a Corbyn supporter using intimidation tactics against an MP be countered with Corbyn saying "I have recieved death threats too"? Should every report of an MP lacking faith in his leadership be countered by that bloke from Momentum explaining that it's a blairite / murdoch plot?

To give one example from the Guardian, which has really debased itself over Corbyn. A short while after his election they reported a poll showing he was quite a lot less popular than Cameron - ignoring the fact that Cameron wasn't going to be standing at the next election, whatever happened, so he wasn't going to be the person Corbyn had to beat. That was the result they used in their headline. Further down they mentioned that Osbourne, at the time the favourite to succeed Cameron, was only three points more popular than Corbyn, who was supposed to be 'unelectable'. Choosing to highlight one finding rather than another is how they expressed their bias. Pick the bit of the story that makes Corbyn look bad and a lost cause.

I think your post is biased against the Guardian. Try searching for Corbyn on the Guardian webpage. You'll find lots of articles to back up your opinion, and lots that don't which are easy to ignore.

I think if someone told you the sun rises in the East you'd try and argue that it actually rises in the West just as often.

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.

Deluded. As per usual.

I'm glad someone in this thread has some media literacy.

Did you really just claim the media experts lack media literacy?

This is all irrelevant. The report wasn't about Corbyn's ability as a leader. It was about the media.

Media experts?!

LOL. I have never heard of the 'Media Reform Coalition' until today. But even their name is biased - they are clearly agitating for media reform. They aren't unbiased at all. Look at this from their website:

"The hacking scandal and its aftermath demonstrated how that power has been used nationally, whilst at local level community after community is losing the means to publicly hold power to account."

Does that come across as neutral and unbiased?

Also, why is Dr Justin Schlosberg an expert exactly?

Yeah! Fuck experts! Fuck universities! I know what's right!

This is all irrelevant. The report wasn't about Corbyn's ability as a leader. It was about the media.

You are criticising the media for being partisan based on their criticism of Corbyn's leadership. But then you are saying that Corbyn's ability has nothing to do with it.

Can you not see that this stance makes no sense at all?

You still haven't explained why this guy is an expert. I work for one of the largest media organisations in the world. I'm going out on a limb here but I reckon I know more about how the media works than some academic at Birkbeck. Has he even been a journalist, or worked in the media? Did you look into that?

But then you're accusing me of being the one who knows what's right without even checking your facts?