Labour Leadership 2016

For the record, the 'expert' has only ever worked in a university. Guess he knows loads about the media from the window of his academic ivory tower...

1) I posted a link to a second report claiming the media has been acting in a way they would describe as biased. No criticism, just a link.

2) If the media response was simply unbiased reportage of his inability to lead they would not call it biased.

3) I didn't criticize anyone so I don't know what "stance" doesn't make sense. You're diatribe was irrelevant.

4) Happy to criticize you though. You're a fucking moron.

^^ Alison Pearson, is that you?

I work for one of the largest media organisations in the world.

Lol.

I guess Birkbeck and the LSE should get in touch as they're clearly out of their depth.

You still haven't explained why this guy is an expert.

To be honest I went by the institution rather than author (s). But a quick Google:

BA (University of Nottingham), MSc (LSE), PhD (Goldsmiths)
Lecturer in journalism and media

Justin Schlosberg is a lecturer in journalism and media and Network Fellow at the Edmund J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University in 2014-15. His research takes a critical look at accountability both through and of the media, with a focus on institutional ethics and policy; alternative forms of media ownership and the ethics and sustainability of public media in comparative contexts

So LSE, Goldsmiths, Birkbeck, Harvard.

But you work at "one of the largest media organizations in the world." Clearly no competition.

You're a fucking moron.

How rude.

Unbiased journalism at its best.

I work for one of the largest media organisations in the world.

You clearly need reforming, then. :)

#trollolol

I work for

Is it a Murdoch one? I suspect it is.

It's not. I was just yanking his chain. :)

Jezza went to york

And there was me thinking you were resorting to swearing and personal insults because you'd clearly lost the argument.

Journalism is a vocational profession. This guy has only ever worked in academia, so I still don't see why his opinion of the media is worth much.

Most media outlets are biased. That's the price we pay for freedom of speech and plurality of the media. I know which I'd rather have.

The very idea. No it's one which is known for being unbiased, funnily enough.

Sounds just like a banker talking about the regulator.

There's a big difference. Freedom of speech is one of the things which underpins our democracy. Anything else is censorship. Is that what you want?

I'd love to see more neutral media outlets, but how could that be achieved? The reality is it takes money to run a media organisation. If you're very lucky you will find a sustainable business model which lets you sell unbiased news to your clients, but many media outlets are effectively loss making and funded by their rich owners who have opinions they want to promote in lieu of profit.

And there was me thinking you were resorting to swearing and personal insults because you'd clearly lost the argument.

There is no argument (with me) and you can't see it. That's why you're a moron.

a sustainable business model which lets you sell unbiased news to your clients,

the license fee.

for a given value of 'unbiased'

So why were you swearing at me and calling me names? I didn't do that. That was you.

Straw man much?

I called you a fucking moron because that's the impression I got from you posts (having just got home from the pub may have contributed as well, but having reread your posts I'm happy to stand by it).

Here are some highlights:

I'm glad someone in this thread has some media literacy. [In response to a report from media experts.]

I have never heard of the 'Media Reform Coalition' until today. But even their name is biased - they are clearly agitating for media reform.

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.

For the record, the 'expert' has only ever worked in a university. Guess he knows loads about the media from the window of his academic ivory tower...

And you also claimed this:

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.

Which didn't happen. I didn't criticize anyone (except you, for being a moron). What I did was post a link to a report which I thought people on this thread would find interesting and perhaps troubling.

So all those other posts about a day ago where you were debating whether the media is biased against Corbyn with Velocio and co didn't happen right?

I love the take a stance, deny you made it then call people who disagree with it morons approach. And by the way: quoting things I said doesn't make them wrong, you have to disprove them. Which you've categorically failed to do.

.

1 Attachment

^ amazing.

#topthread

So all those other posts about a day ago where you were debating whether the media is biased against Corbyn with Velocio and co didn't happen right?

Do you read? Here's a key part of what I said to DK:

Regardless of Corbyn, having a biased media is never a "meh" situation. What if the next guy or gal gets the same treatment? Is it their fault because they failed to win over Murdoch?

The discussion was about whether media bias is something worth worrying about, not whether the media was biased against Corbyn. That was what the report argued.

I wouldn't waste your time.

This is the unbiased media professional who during the IndyRef can advance himself as some kind of embedded expert on all things Scottish 'because his sister lives there and he visits every now and again' before passing over to decrying why anyone 'up there' would insist upon speaking Gaelic and using it as proof of embedded racism against the English.

About as subtle as Dacre and informed as Farage imhop... but please, give him the proof that he is demanding.