Labour Leadership 2016

that's MISTER trash can with no name to you, sparklenips.

You do sound like a moron though.
And I realise this sounds like bullying.
Aggregation of data sources to produce analysis to try and disprove a hypothesis and all that.

-point made - I don't need the bad karma

Or maybe we could all make some effort to discuss things in a slightly more civilised manner?

^ agreed, but

do fuck off you tiresome bullying midget.

makes this statement sound a little thin.

I was illustrating my point bluntly.

The whole Fox versus Nameless Trashcan argument descended into both just trying to sound cleverer than the other, and had little to do with the future of the Labour party.

I was illustrating my point bluntly.

Yeah but in doing so you contradicted yourself. But whatever, I just found a climbing wall in Blackpool and had fun for the first time in a month away for work, so it all suddenly seems rosy what with the endorphins and satisfyingly achy fingers. Everyone I meet here voted brexit, and wanted Bojo for PM. They all think Corbyn's a silly twat. They're not morons, they might be a bit racist, but it's ignorance and frustration at living in a poor shithole, rather than being essentially evil. Of course this is anecdotal, but it makes me think Labour as a big centrist force are finished, because the country has moved to the right, while the hard left has simply become more vocal.

I think this would be better.

I dont think @fox is a moron.

Oh dear, you did not rise to the bait....

Mind you the Tories in Scotland now seem interesting.

A reasonable analysis of where we are now...

https://medium.com/@OwenJones84/questions-all-jeremy-corbyn-supporters-need-to-answer-b3e82ace7ed3#.ystgl1dln

The comments are quite telling - a large proportion of them try to belittle him rather than addressing his arguments.

owen jones sure does like to use the word " I " a lot.

why are corbyn supporters the ones that have to justify themselves?

i'm halfway through the comments and so far they've ranged from supportive to constructively critical... the TROT BASTARDS.

Yeah, as somebody who is more than likely going to vote for Corbyn (I joined the day after he won) that was an uncomfortable read, but most of those question apply just as much to Owen Smith as they do Corbyn.

https://www.facebook.com/ISeeYouStories/posts/870273949743346:0

Going back the the media expert issue - I think there's an interesting question there. What makes more of an expert, academia or practical experience? And does it depend on the field?
For example, taking my line of work - a lecturer in film studies vs a working director/producer/editor... who would have the most accurate insight into the industry? I'd argue for the person currently working in the industry. That has a lot to do with the speed in which things change, and how much the industry makes you learn on the job.
But I can see how there's a sliding scale here - for example if you're something like a historian, I'm not sure there's even a distinction between academia and practical experience.
I'd perhaps argue that someone like @Fox has a far better practical understanding of some aspects of the media compared to the academic cited, but because Fox only works for one organisation, he (sorry, just assuming you're a chap from the way you write, apologies if not) will have more embedded bias than the academic. Possibly. However, one huge point I would make, that others have resolutely ignored, is that Fox quite possibly is an expert if he's been working successfully in the media for 15 years or whatever it is. Denying that he has a useful insight into how it all works is daft, and is also falling into the current media trap of pitting opposite sides against each other even when those arguments might not be balanced at all.

I think, as has been mentioned before, that the way we consume news and opinion has changed dramatically in the past 20 years. So much competing information makes clickbait headlines and 140 character opinions far more popular than in depth analysis. It does mean that politics will increasingly pander to the more stupid half of the electorate, and that's a huge worry.

Yes. I don't doubt he has expertise and experience. I don't want this to become personal.
An academic study will weight opinions and collective evidence to come to a conclusion.
I think that's what im trying to say.

Yep, that's fair enough.

Back to the leadership - who believes Corbyn can defeat May in the next election? And if so, how?

Yes, some good balanced points. I am a chap.

I should clarify that what I said about me being an expert was not meant literally - I have worked in the media for 14 years (you were very close!) and definitely do not consider myself an expert, especially on media bias. The media world is changing so quickly it's very difficult for anyone to be an expert. But that was kind of the point.

I can see that this academic is quite possibly an expert in analysing the media's output for bias, but then his organisation is clearly taking a stance - calling for media reform - so my other question was whether we should trust someone commenting on bias when he appears to be biased himself.

his organisation is clearly taking a stance - calling for media reform - so my other question was whether we should trust someone commenting on bias when he appears to be biased himself.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying is that an organization that campaigns for media reform (specifically pluralism, ethical journalism, and the protection of local and investigative reporting) should be ignored when they talk about those things because they are obviously biased towards trying to encourage those things.

NGOs/Pressure groups/campaigners are not expected to be unbiased. The opposite is true, in fact. They take positions and campaign for those positions. They do have other ethical and legal constraints (don't lie, for example), but to imagine a world where Oxfam should be ignored when they campaign against the causes of famine because they have an interest in people not starving to death is strange.

If, on the other hand, you're claiming that the organization would lie to support their particular political position, you can read the report and highlight why their conclusions are false.

But simply drawing attention to the fact that they campaign for something which is relevant to the topic of the report seems strange to me.

NGOs/Pressure groups/campaigners are not expected to be unbiased. The opposite is true, in fact. They take positions and campaign for those positions.

Exactly and I totally support organisations like that publishing research - campaigning organisations should be evidence based - but is that true of academics doing supposedly independent research?

It seems like a conflict of interest to me.

What is the conflict of interest?

If he produces research which suggests the media is biased then it supports his contention that the media needs reforming, surely?

If anything it seems like a confluence of interest? Like climate change scientists working with environmental NGOs.