• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Media Against Jeremy Corbyn

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
[FONT=&quot]T[/FONT][FONT=&quot]he British media has never had much time for Jeremy Corbyn.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Within a week of his election as Labour Party leader in September, it was engaging in a campaign the Media Reform Coalition characterized as an attempt to “systematically undermine” his position. In an avalanche of negative coverage 60 percent of all articles which appeared in the mainstream press about Corbyn were negative with only 13 percent positive. The newsroom, ostensibly the objective arm of the media, had an even worse record: 62 percent negative with only 9 percent positive.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This sustained attack had itself followed a month of wildly misleadingheadlines about Corbyn and his policies in these same outlets. Concerns about sexual assaults on public transport were construed as campaigning for women-only trains. Advocacy for Keynesian fiscal and monetary policies was presented as a plan to “turn Britain into Zimbabwe.” An appeal to reconsider the foreign policy approach of the last decade was presented as an association with Putin’s Russia.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In the months which followed the attacks continued. Particularly egregious examples, such as the criticism of Corbyn for refusing to“bow deeply enough” while paying his respects on Remembrance Day, stick in the memory. But it is the insidious rather than the ridiculous which best characterizes the British media’s approach to Corbyn.


Read more @: The Media Against Jeremy Corbyn

The British media unity is stunning: almost all columnists/commentators at major outlets are also anti-Corbyn. [/FONT]
 
Read more @: The Media Against Jeremy Corbyn

The British media unity is stunning: almost all columnists/commentators at major outlets are also anti-Corbyn. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Not surprising.. most of the media are owned by hard core conservatives. They clearly set agendas that are anti-left wing and nationalist, why you think that people voted to leave the EU? common sense? Of course not.. they did it because the conservative media told lies after lies.
 
Read more @: The Media Against Jeremy Corbyn

The British media unity is stunning: almost all columnists/commentators at major outlets are also anti-Corbyn. [/FONT][/COLOR]

His policy mix is definitely bad for general welfare and would really hurt the country middle term. He also didn’t cut a very convincing figure in the Brexit battle. The UK doesn’t need a leader like that.
 
Not surprising.. most of the media are owned by hard core conservatives. They clearly set agendas that are anti-left wing and nationalist, why you think that people voted to leave the EU? common sense? Of course not.. they did it because the conservative media told lies after lies.

Got any proof of that? Is the Guardian or the BBC owned by conservatives?
 
Read more @: The Media Against Jeremy Corbyn

The British media unity is stunning: almost all columnists/commentators at major outlets are also anti-Corbyn. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Looks like the Britons are re-appropriating the American republican attack strategy that i can only assume they re-appropriated from chimpanzees: keep throwing **** at your opponent until some of it sticks.
 
Got any proof of that? Is the Guardian or the BBC owned by conservatives?

"According to their figures, calculated according to newspaper circulation at the time, just two individuals - Rupert Murdoch and Lord Rothermere - controlled a staggering 52.2 per cent of online and print national news publications in the UK. Rupert Murdoch owns the Sun, the Sun on Sunday, the Times and the Sunday Times, while Lord Rothermere owns the Mail, the Mail on Sunday and the Metro.

Meanwhile, Richard Desmond, who owns the Daily Express and the Sunday Express as well as the Daily Star and Daily Star Sunday, accounted for 8.2 per cent of combined online and print news readership, while David and Frederick Barclay (owning the Telegraph and the Sunday Telegraph) accounted for 6.8 per cent. Finally, Pearson plc, which owns the Financial Times, accounts for 1.8 per cent.

All of these newspapers either backed the Conservatives or Ukip in the most recent election and are all considered traditional right-wing publications. If you add up the readership of these right-wing newspapers, they account for a staggering 69 per cent of national newspaper readership in Britain in 2013.

It’s worth remembering that only when Labour moved to the centre ground did it receive sufficient media backing."

British people think their media is the most biased and right-wing in Europe - and they're probably right | Voices | The Independent
 
Got any proof of that? Is the Guardian or the BBC owned by conservatives?

Hence the word.. MOST. The BBC is pretty much unbiased on this front, as it should be. But you could accuse it of being the mouth piece of the government, which is what conservatives usually do when they are not in power. As for the Guardian, so what? How many read the Guardian vs the rest of the newspapers?
 
Wasn't he the one who called Hamas and Hezbollah friends?

Oh boy! This again.

“I'm saying that people I talk to, I use it in a collective way, saying our friends were prepared to talk. Does it mean I agree with Hamas and what it does? No. Does it mean I agree with Hezbollah and what they do? No. What it means is that I think to bring about a peace process you have to talk to people with whom you may profoundly disagree. There is not going to be any peace process unless there is talks involving Israel, Hezbollah and Hamas and I think everyone knows that. The wider question is Hamas and Hezbollah are part of a wider peace process. Even the former head of Mossad says that there has to be talks involving Hamas. "
--Its true.
 
Oh boy! This again.

“I'm saying that people I talk to, I use it in a collective way, saying our friends were prepared to talk. Does it mean I agree with Hamas and what it does? No. Does it mean I agree with Hezbollah and what they do? No. What it means is that I think to bring about a peace process you have to talk to people with whom you may profoundly disagree. There is not going to be any peace process unless there is talks involving Israel, Hezbollah and Hamas and I think everyone knows that. The wider question is Hamas and Hezbollah are part of a wider peace process. Even the former head of Mossad says that there has to be talks involving Hamas. "
--Its true.

Wait so he uses "friends" as a word for "people we are willing to negotiate with"?
 
Wait so he uses "friends" as a word for "people we are willing to negotiate with"?

He used the words “friends” as a loose collective noun for people who were willing to talk to one another, despite the fact they profoundly disagree with one another. It was very clear then and is clear now that he didn’t use the word to mean “best buds” but simply a collection of people who were willing to talk. No need to take his comments so far out of context and insisting that there’s a problem with entering into dialogue with people one disagrees with.
 
Not surprising.. most of the media are owned by hard core conservatives. They clearly set agendas that are anti-left wing and nationalist, why you think that people voted to leave the EU? common sense? Of course not.. they did it because the conservative media told lies after lies.

How do most people access online news stories? Through Google, which has been implicated in fixing search results in a biased way for Hillary Clinton.
This is a much more important story than what happened to Corbyn, because everyone expects some kind of bias in printed news media at this point and most take that into consideration while reading online news.

How many people realize that Google is trying to influence the outcome of the US presidential election? Not many.
 
Read more @: The Media Against Jeremy Corbyn

The British media unity is stunning: almost all columnists/commentators at major outlets are also anti-Corbyn. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Unsurprising. All mainstream media is fairly rabidly anti-socialist. Always has been. It was during the 80s and vastly over-rated the public support for the breakaway SDP. The positive aspect of modern politics is that mainstream broadcast and print media is becoming progressively less influential than social media in driving public opinion.

How much of the US mainstream media gave Bernie Sanders' policies a fair hearing? Mass media is a tool of corporate capitalism. Why would you expect them to behave against their own vested interest?
 
He also didn’t cut a very convincing figure in the Brexit battle. The UK doesn’t need a leader like that.
Theresa May was virtually invisible in the Brexit battle. Does Britain need a leader like that?
 
Wait so he uses "friends" as a word for "people we are willing to negotiate with"?

'Friend' is a term that many on the left have adopted in public debates and meetings in preference to the previously universally used 'Comrade', which to modern ears has a bit too much of a Soviet sound to it. It is not an expression of affection or amity.
 
Spot the difference, if you can!

The difference is that May's party colleagues were not scrabbling around to find any possible excuse for undermining her leadership.
 
The difference is that May's party colleagues were not scrabbling around to find any possible excuse for undermining her leadership.

You have a very selective view. We have known from the start that that the socialist romantic had no political talents of persuasion beyond that of a few hardcore hippy generation dreamers. But that is not really the issue here, though it weighs heavily on the reasons that nobody thinks he could win an election.
 
The difference is that May's party colleagues were not scrabbling around to find any possible excuse for undermining her leadership.

Yet..... the civil war in the Tory party is far from over.
 
I don't know the source, but it's not too far from reality.

CnaV6Z1WgAAjxw7.jpg:large
 
Back
Top Bottom