Well...haters gonna hate.
But you're quite right it fits in with the usual level of strange Guardian editorials
The Guardian
- Thread starter DOTA
- Start date
Well...haters gonna hate.
But you're quite right it fits in with the usual level of strange Guardian editorials
This industry of cultural criticism that revolves around Taylor Swift and Beyonce is mystifying to me.
Granted I don't listen to either
But from my limited knowledge neither strike me as overly political figures. Yet literal Nazis use Swift as a symbol, the Guardian has actual editorials criticising her, while Beyonce has been anointed leader of the masses. What on earth.
It quite genuinely reads like a parody piece.
I read it. It's not even offensive, unless you describe it as offensively stupid. Swift caters to her fans. Trump caters to his. They are the only 2 people ever to do this apparently. And she looks inwards, like he does. Again, the only 2 narcissists in the world, ever!
QED.
It's idiotic and borne out of anti-trump narrative of forcing every one to criticise him lest they want to be branded as his supporter. Many consumer good companies are also stuck in the same predicament. Just goes to show how divided US is right now along political lines.
Terrible terrible article.
Another great headline : https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...-why-match-of-the-day-biased-insert-club-name
Revealed: why Match of the Day is biased against [insert your club’s name here]
For the first time the massive newspaper, website and TV conspiracy against whichever club you happen to support can finally be exposed
: https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...-why-match-of-the-day-biased-insert-club-nameRevealed: why Match of the Day is biased against [insert your club’s name here]
For the first time the massive newspaper, website and TV conspiracy against whichever club you happen to support can finally be exposed
Guardian said:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-would-it-take-for-labour-moderates-to-revolt
And we're back. Feck the graun/observer distinctions it's Saturday and it's under their banner.
And we're back. Feck the graun/observer distinctions it's Saturday and it's under their banner.
There's a cohort of 'centrists' so devastated that they are not in power that they've lost their minds
Seemed a reasonable piece to me.
There’s nothing reasonable about criticising St Jeremy.
So it seems. The Laura Kuenssberg bodyguard thing had actually passed me by.
Oh and Cohen quotes Mark Fisher who.........well wasn't a fan
She had a body guard for the tory conference as well.
She needs protection from the far left and the far right. Great company for Jezza’s acolytes to be in.
Just checked that. DM did a very DM write up of it.
There really isn't any far left or far right people at these conferences. For the Labour one it's mostly people picked by the local labour party(The two people who went from mine are two very nice people who are in no way the ''far left'' or Leninists
)and from what I saw on the TV the Tory conference seem to mostly empty. I image she needed a bodyguard due to online threats but that literally could be anyone.It's here as well - https://uk.news.yahoo.com/bbcs-laura-kuenssberg-get-bodyguard-tory-party-conference-155803196.html
I really don't get peoples thing with her. To simply say Kuenssberg is bias is a completely lazy analysis and misses the actual bias problems at the BBC.
Me neither. She's clearly a very intelligent editor who knows their stuff- maybe the fact she is a woman riles some. Maybe it's like Marina Hyde's column today, saying that everyone feels the media is biased against their own team or cause.
Oh I think there's clearly some of that but at the same time the ''if both sides are mad at us then we must be doing something right'' is often used to cover deep rooted problems.
It's clear that there is
.A bias with the way the BBC report about Labour Party under Corbyn,
.A problem with just how easy people high up at the BBC can go and work for the Conservative government(May's head of commutations used to work at the BBC - in the fact the top two picks where people from the BBC - https://www.theguardian.com/politic...n-running-to-head-theresa-mays-communications).
.The BBC long history of siding with British governments(Tom Mills is worth looking up to see more of this).
Thought this was a good pieces on what changes should be made at the BBC -https://www.ippr.org/juncture-item/tom-mills-the-future-of-the-bbc
It's not so much the Sir J criticism or demented Penfolds weird Trump-Nazi-Jeza dot-to-dot but rather what I see as the sly duplicity of the grauns political coverage. They still hate him.
Is there really a anti-Corbyn agenda within the BBC? It's not as if they're bigging up May.
I wouldn't read too much about BBC people taking jobs with the Tories tbh- these journalists are people, which tends to be forgotten. All of the DM staff I've ever known have been lefties, but the paper pays well and it's personal finance section is actually probably the best part of the rag. It's not like all of their staff are crypto-fascists. They live with the house view and earn a wage etc, just as we all do.
I'd take a well paid strategy, comms or writing job with a government of any hue- not because I have no morals, but I like the challenge of writing for different audiences and while 99% of what I write is factual news or features, I've done freelance marketing stuff, which is kind of intellectually interesting as a different challenge (and lucrative).
Lastly, maybe less so with say the DM, where Dacre seems to rule with a rod of iron, but on our website, how we write a story might be different if I edit it as a centrist or my news or features editors do, who are both pretty left. I don't mind that though- we're a specialist financial publishing site, so I don't think we need a uniform political agenda, albeit it may send mixed messages at times.
http://www.mediareform.org.uk/featured/stay-go-television-online-news-coverage-labour-party-crisis. And also the recent data the BBC decide not to run that shows the thousands who have died because of austerity, so while the BBC might not be bigging up May, they are protecting her and her government time in office.
I don't really care about the anti Corbyn stuff but where I think the bias against someone like Corbyn comes from is
1)The BBC has rightly or wrongly a dedication to the structures of parliamentary democracy. Where MP are giving the highest priority, a good example of this being in the link above but also the recent reporting on Labour councils elections and the laughable idea that it is somehow a purge.
2)There is ideology barrier/political limits(Basically the neoliberalism)at places like the BBC, so ideas like basic social democracy which was what The Labour Party was putting forward is seen as a harp back to the 1970s or even pure fantasy. Further proof of this barrier is how the recent political events are both portrayed and honestly seen as out of the blue shocks, rather than what I would argue as signs of a political consensus breaking down.
I would have to disagree. In terms of the heads of commutation, Robbie Gibbs job at the BBC(I image he was paid very nicely as well) was to at some degree hold the government to account, he has now left that job to join the government. This has to be something of a worry.
As for lefties at the Daily Mail are these the sort of lefties that are so left wing that they have to conservative(To bring it full circle are they Nick Cohen). For private business I don't see a problem although personally I'd rather sells my organs than work for the mail.
Last edited:
I admit I look at this stuff primarily with a focus on the business and personal finance pages. I struggle to see the BBC as a rightist hotbed though. Was so weird when I had an interview there for a PF job.
I did apply for a reporter job (shit pay) in about 2004- they had these massive words like 'inspire' and 'create' on the walls, that isn't satire or spoof. Weird place.
I wouldn't read too much into people taking lucrative jobs tbf. I once wrote for the Express
Maybe what annoys them more is the fact the party now pretends losing an election is 'victory'
This came from an Aussie real estate mogul claiming that the housing affordability crisis wasn't stopping millennials from getting into the housing market but that buying crushed avo on toast for breakfast was as it was stopping them from saving a deposit. Given that you have to travel a very long way from the city center before the average price of a house dips under a million bucks I think people must be eating a huge number of breakfasts ever day.
This followed soon after the Junior Minister tasked with addressing housing affordability stated that the solution was for people to get better paid jobs. Thanks Captain obvious. So glad my taxes are paying this numpty's wages.
It might not have been a victory but it was a very good result given how close they came after being so far behind.
When you go into an election expecting annihilation and come out with a draw you too would celebrate.
What bothers the Blairites is their plans for a post Corbyn takeover was put in hold. Now instead of working towards a Labour of any flavour they instead double down on hating the left. I think Stephen Kinocks face in that beeb documentary summed it up. He wasn't happy that Labour did well
Could you name any other BBC political Editor who has been sanctioned by the BBC Trust for falsifying a report about the leader of a political party?
I've searched. I can't find one. Just Laura.
Would you say there was any major differences between the papers you've written. Also did you see the monkeys in basement who I presume are forced against their will to come with the Express daily headlines.I admit I look at this stuff primarily with a focus on the business and personal finance pages. I struggle to see the BBC as a rightist hotbed though. Was so weird when I had an interview there for a PF job.
I did apply for a reporter job (shit pay) in about 2004- they had these massive words like 'inspire' and 'create' on the walls, that isn't satire or spoof. Weird place.
I wouldn't read too much into people taking lucrative jobs tbf. I once wrote for the Express
I didn't know she had tbh.
I'm probably the worst person to ask tbh, as I only did stuff for nationals on a freelance basis. I've written for the Telegraph/Sunday Tel, Guardian, Express and Evening Standard over the years, but it was all educational personal finance stuff, so not agenda driven.
One of the guys I worked with who went to the Daily Mail, more an acquaintance than a mate tbh, did say that after building really good contacts while working on trade titles, he had to flame them all at the DM, where the thesis underpinning everything was that all financial services companies are inherently evil rip-off merchants. DM pays very well with excellent benefits, by all accounts. Their offices are about a half hour or less walk from my flat too, which would be kind of nice.
I don't really know anyone who worked on home or international news tbh.
You see journalists give hard times to parties from each side, yet it's only when they're grilling a Tory particularly hard that we hear it's proof of the BBC's left-wing bias, and only when they're grilling a member of Corbyn's team hard is it proof that the BBC have an anti-Corbyn stance. People think they prove bias by providing links to undoubtedly partisan websites that allege such.
Think maybe social media is partially to blame for this with people gravitating towards genuinely biased news sources such as Breitbart and the Canary, and for people that do this becomes the new 'normal' and media coverage that deviates from Breitbart's/the Canary's (pick your poison) stance epitomises bias. Therefore if your coverage is not effusive about the outcome of the Brexit talks you're a 'traitor', if you're critical of the Labour leadership in your coverage, you're 'biased'.
Still convinced there's large swaths of people in this country completely unrepresented by the hijacking the hard right and the militant left seem to have successfully executed on public discourse in the last 18 months or so. People who can absorb news without having to check on Ilovethispolitician.org/medialies to verify whether or not they should get angry about it.
Think maybe social media is partially to blame for this with people gravitating towards genuinely biased news sources such as Breitbart and the Canary, and for people that do this becomes the new 'normal' and media coverage that deviates from Breitbart's/the Canary's (pick your poison) stance epitomises bias. Therefore if your coverage is not effusive about the outcome of the Brexit talks you're a 'traitor', if you're critical of the Labour leadership in your coverage, you're 'biased'.
Still convinced there's large swaths of people in this country completely unrepresented by the hijacking the hard right and the militant left seem to have successfully executed on public discourse in the last 18 months or so. People who can absorb news without having to check on Ilovethispolitician.org/medialies to verify whether or not they should get angry about it.
Last edited:
For some reason, this one was not widely published.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-38666914
Of course, the report of the investigation is , for some unknown reason, hidden in the entertainment section of the BBC website.
Christ, real semantics with that finding, not exactly a stitch up of Corbyn. No idea what control she has of the actual editing of the segment either- she's only the political editor, so she'll have the news editor above her.
Maybe odd it's in the entertainment section, but I guess it's cos it was TV? At least they ran the story in full- you know it would be a nib at best if it was the DM reporting a finding against it.
Semantics?
They played video of her asking one question, then played his answer to a different one.
As senior political editor for that spot she was directly responsible.
They played video of her asking one question, then played his answer to a different one.
As senior political editor for that spot she was directly responsible.
But the Trust found no evidence that there was a deliberate attempt to mislead audiences and noted that the full interview had been published on the BBC website.