Labour Leadership 2016

I've seen some make the point that this is Lewis' own maneuvering for some future moment.

Nonetheless, the piece accepts that there have been problems in the Corbyn camp (from someone in the Corbyn camp), and acknowledges that coalitions are, at this moment, the only way of removing the Tories from power. thumbs up

I can definitely confirm that I am not a member of Labour and will not be voting. I had to ask them as I wasn't sure. I'm not going to join in the immediate future. I may join something else though. The mythical coalition of the left or something...so whats out there, does anyone have any good information?

http://www.compassonline.org.uk/
http://www.moreunited.uk/
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/
http://www.lfgss.com

note: I might not tho.

http://www.thegreenparty.com

It's a bit like Corbyn's labour but less cunty squabbling.

If you're more aligned with Blair than Corbyn try the Lib Dems.

When you think about it, we might all be better off if labour disbanded.

And so it rumbles on ...

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/corbynites-attack-stitchup-as-streatham-labour-party-backs-owen-smith-a3307496.html

The 80s revival continues. This time we have gone back to 1985....

The 80s revival continues. This time we have gone back to 1985....

Back to where people left off fighting Thatcher. :)

Another academic study claims clear and consistent bias against Corbyn in the media.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-media-bias-bbc_uk_579a3cd7e4b06d7c426edff0?edition=uk&utm_hp_ref=uk

Perhaps Greenslade can have a word with his own editor.

Meh.

There's never been a lack of bias for any leader... for or against.

Either you win the press over or you fail. But given that communication is a core skill of a leader and the press is one of the ways to communicate to the masses, he needs to master this skill, and people need to stop sulking that it's unfair. Life is unfair... so go master the skill.

There's never been a lack of bias for any leader... for or against.

I haven't read the report, but I suspect they've measured with this type of thing in mind.

Either you win the press over or you fail. But given that communication is a core skill of a leader and the press is one of the ways to communicate to the masses, he needs to master this skill, and people need to stop sulking that it's unfair. Life is unfair... so go master the skill.

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?

I'd suspect that part of the bias is also due to people in the party who don't rate him so don't go the extra mile to ensure he's shown in the best possible light.

Or use their contacts to do the opposite.

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?

You can't get to power without support of the press (not just Murdoch, but that helps).

Once you get to power you get your chance to take on the press.

Trying to take on the press without being in power, one is impotent and definitely going to fail.

I'm giving up on Labour. I've been an independent voter all my life and voted for good policy, vision, philosophy and the pragmastism to get shit done. But Labour is the jokes today and even though I think my local Labour MP is great... this Corbyn stuff is ridiculous. The man needs to take on the job that he has, not fuck around acting idealistic and lashing out when he doesn't get his way. This is the job, now go shine or get the hell out of the way.

Yeah there's bias. Yeah Murdoch and a lot of the press is quite right wing. Play the game, beat them at it... then obliterate them. But trying to obliterate them when you're not in power... what a waste. Oh the huge manatee, etc.

You realize that Corbyn/his supporters had nothing to do with the report, right? It was a study by Birkbeck.

The following article is an interesting read, in the context of all this discussion of media bias:

http://www.newstatesman.com/2016/07/jeremy-corbyn-and-paranoid-style

I realise that. But it's the same shit regurgitated yet again... and it's always nice to say "ac institution says" but there's a person behind that with an idea that stems from their personal "I want to say this to the world"... so it's not like that wasn't written by a pro-Corbynite.

The job is what it is. No-one other than Corbyn supporters care.

I realise that. But it's the same shit regurgitated yet again... and it's always nice to say "ac institution says" but there's a person behind that with an idea that stems from their personal "I want to say this to the world"...

So there is a bias behind the report that says there is bias therefore the report should be dismissed because of the bias rather than the things which the reports says are biased?

it's not like that wasn't written by a pro-Corbynite.

That's not how academia, in my experience, works. And even were it to be the case that the primary was a supporter of Corbyn, the results should be verifiable.

No-one other than Corbyn supporters care.

You're patently wrong. I do think those who actively don't support Corbyn in this case are turning a blind eye, however.

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

Here's the actual report: http://www.mediareform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Corbynresearch.pdf

Here's the executive summary:

465 online articles and 40 prime time news bulletins assessed

Twice as much airtime given to critical, rather than supportive voices

Huge imbalance in favour of issues pushed by Corbyn critics on early evening BBC and ITV bulletins – especially pronounced in headline stories

Strong tendency within BBC main evening news for reporters to use pejorative language when describing Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters

Domination of views opposed to the Labour leadership in all but one of the online outlets sampled, and across both left and right - leaning titles

Online-only news sites relatively balanced in their coverage, as well as the BBC online

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"?

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.

Having said that, I think the way the PLP organized the resignations was done purposefully to keep the coup in the news. So there may be room to argue along the lines you've put forward.

You're patently wrong.

Really? Show me the proof.

I do think those who actively don't support Corbyn in this case are turning a blind eye, however.

Yup, they are. As they always have done, because you know... bears shit in woods, etc... it's not a new piece of information unique to this man, it's common knowledge since forever.

I cared about shifting the mean-point of the party farther to the left (pro-Corbyn). I don't care about this stupid pantomine (root cause Corbyn and his ineffective leadership) that is leaving Labour crippled at the time when they should be and need to be most effective in opposition.

Anyway, bias in the media thread >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Really? Show me the proof.

Let's make sure we're talking about the same thing. You want proof that no one other than Corbyn supporters care about bias in the media?

No, my statement was that no-one other than Corbyn supports care about bias against Corbyn in the media. To which your reply was that I was patently wrong.

To which... show me how.

I accept there's a generalised group who care about bias in the media as a general group... but they don't care any more or less about whether that's for or against Corbyn.

OK, so whether people care about media bias against Corbyn specifically.

I accept there's a generalised group who care about bias in the media as a general group... but they don't care any more or less about whether that's for or against Corbyn.

Yes, what they care about is media bias full-stop. So they care when it happens regardless of it being Corbyn or not. So they also care when it is Corbyn. Surely that means they care?

Specific examples:

The organization which put together the report (Media Reform Coalition) was founded in 2011, before Corbyn came into power. Presumably they didn't create the organization as a front for some future in which Corbyn would come to power so they could then create this report.

The LSE department of Media and Communications is in now ways affiliated with Corbyn, but they also published a report.

Of course, you've already said:

there's a person behind that with an idea that stems from their personal "I want to say this to the world"... so it's not like that wasn't written by a pro-Corbynite.

Being provided with such a high, unfalsifiable, hurdle, I'm not sure I can provide evidence.