ot jeremy corbyn

[KerrAvon]

Would you accept then that the owners of most national newspapers are likely to be very wealthy so are very unlikely to support any left leaning party? Why would they want Corbyn to get in? Probably for the same reason as you they dont want to be hit in the pocket.

I'm glad you agree we dont have a fair press? How can you say that doesn't have an effect on how people vote? How many national newspapers come out and say they support Corbyn? Is there any national newspaper that supports Corbyn ?

Its all to do with power reations. Study a bit of sociology owd lad. The people with theb most power have the loudest voice thats why they get heard most.

What would you say if the boot was on the other foot and all the newspapers supported Corbyn?Would you accept that because by your own argument that would mean you would be intolerant of others views yoursejf if you didnt.

I missed this post in all the excitement of you deciding that answering the points that I made was a wee bit too difficult for you and coming up with a silly excuse not to do so

The Guardian and Independent are both left leaning. I haven't read the Mirror in years (who has?), but that was certainly Left leaning when it was run by Maxwell (former Labour MP and certainly wealthy - particularly after he had taken cash from the Mirror Group Pension fund).

I haven't agreed with you that we don’t have a fair press. I was pointing out that you were wrong when you claimed that I previously said that we did. Talking about a fair press is a ‘how long is a piece of string’ point. The press is not an amorphous mass and is capable of being fair at times and unfair at others. I suspect that members of Heath’s family will feel their treatment of him – printing details of allegations against him that he can’t address – is particularly unfair. The Great Leader had the opportunity to address the Czceh spy allegations and the MSM printed his denials as per the article that animal linked to.

As for my point about the limited effect of media bias, consider this: how often do you read the Daily Mail and would it turn you into a right winger if you did?

I’m really not sure where you are going with the ‘if all newspapers supported The Great Leader’ point? How does that hypothetical argument help? Not all newspapers support May (very few do) and so it is as unrealistic as it is hypothetical. As for my views, have you heard me complain that the media are biased because The Guardian is pro-Labour? I don’t think you have. That’s the difference between you and me on this point. I accept that a free press means freedom for proprietors and editorial teams to hold and express views, irrespective of whether I agree with them.

As for me not wanting to be hit in the pocket, you should read my posts. What I object to about the current Labour Party is that it is proposing to hit everyone in the pockets by re-running the failed, inflation and unemployment creating policies of the 70s. I also object to it proposing to buy middle class votes with a policy that is likely to reduce the quality and availability of university places in this country.

[ragingpup]

I missed this post in all the excitement of you deciding that answering the points that I made was a wee bit too difficult for you and coming up with a silly excuse not to do so

The Guardian and Independent are both left leaning. I haven't read the Mirror in years (who has?), but that was certainly Left leaning when it was run by Maxwell (former Labour MP and certainly wealthy - particularly after he had taken cash from the Mirror Group Pension fund).

I haven't agreed with you that we don’t have a fair press. I was pointing out that you were wrong when you claimed that I previously said that we did. Talking about a fair press is a ‘how long is a piece of string’ point. The press is not an amorphous mass and is capable of being fair at times and unfair at others. I suspect that members of Heath’s family will feel their treatment of him – printing details of allegations against him that he can’t address – is particularly unfair. The Great Leader had the opportunity to address the Czceh spy allegations and the MSM printed his denials as per the article that animal linked to.

As for my point about the limited effect of media bias, consider this: how often do you read the Daily Mail and would it turn you into a right winger if you did?

I’m really not sure where you are going with the ‘if all newspapers supported The Great Leader’ point? How does that hypothetical argument help? Not all newspapers support May (very few do) and so it is as unrealistic as it is hypothetical. As for my views, have you heard me complain that the media are biased because The Guardian is pro-Labour? I don’t think you have. That’s the difference between you and me on this point. I accept that a free press means freedom for proprietors and editorial teams to hold and express views, irrespective of whether I agree with them.

As for me not wanting to be hit in the pocket, you should read my posts. What I object to about the current Labour Party is that it is proposing to hit everyone in the pockets by re-running the failed, inflation and unemployment creating policies of the 70s. I also object to it proposing to buy middle class votes with a policy that is likely to reduce the quality and availability of university places in this country.

I think the main issues here regarding political bias are:

1. The sheer volume of political control of the mass media on 'advising' voters how to vote. If we accept that most readers are to an extent influenced by the concentrated, repeated and quite urgent arguments made for/against the different political parties, then let's look at how far this 'control' might go. Of the mass newspapers here is how they breakdown with political support and readership:

The Guardian Labour (although lib dem in 2010) 300k readers
FT Conservatives 400k
Telegraph Tories 700k
The Sun Tories 3 million
Mail Tories 2, 120k
Express Tories 700k
Mirror Labour 1, 200k
Times Tories 500k
Daily Star Tories (albeit very slyly!) 800k

That by my reckoning means that there are 8 million 200 thousand people who receive sustained political arguments advising them to vote Conservative versus 1 million and 500 thousand who receive labour political 'advisement'.

If we further accept that these newspapers are owned by just a handful of businessmen who in themselves are very fearful of any government that might threaten even a small cut of their (and their funding big business advertisers) profits, then you have a very effective historically effective 'machine' that aims to persuade a huge % of the voting public to vote conservative.

Is that a fair, balanced press? Are we all happy with that?

2) The examples you give, of some right wing newspapers attacking Cameron, Heath and Green and the other fella - is that the best you can do? These conservative newspapers offer a systematic personality slaughter of not just Corbyn but any Labour leader that does not explicitly distance themselves from threatening corporate wealth and any semblance of even slight wealth redistribution (hence how Murdoch accepted Blair and smoothed his way into the role). Some ran half of their newspapers in election week with pictures of Corbyn caricatured as the devil, hands around terrorists. And all you can offer as a way of making it appear that they treat parties equally is that they have gone for a PM at the time (Cameron) on a scandal, but CRUCIALLY only 4 months after his safe re-election as PM and therefore not a scandal to ever shake the establishment was it?, a dead former leader from decades ago and a relatively insignificant, easily replaceable MP who had been caught with ****o on his PC. Do you really think this compares? If Green had been Corbyn, with a bit of ****o on his PC instead of "Shed Weekly" or with his old fella in a hog's gob, do you think we'd have heard the end of it at the time that matters, in the run up to election? Come on lad, you're bright enough to know that these were mere 'storms in easily managed tea cups' and no threat at all to the Conservative led establishment.

I have a couple of ideas for how a 'free press' could be more satisfactorily managed in what struggles to think of itself as a democracy but gotta go now - daughter bedtime. Tata

[KerrAvon]

I think the main issues here regarding political bias are:

1. The sheer volume of political control of the mass media on 'advising' voters how to vote. If we accept that most readers are to an extent influenced by the concentrated, repeated and quite urgent arguments made for/against the different political parties, then let's look at how far this 'control' might go. Of the mass newspapers here is how they breakdown with political support and readership:

The Guardian Labour (although lib dem in 2010) 300k readers
FT Conservatives 400k
Telegraph Tories 700k
The Sun Tories 3 million
Mail Tories 2, 120k
Express Tories 700k
Mirror Labour 1, 200k
Times Tories 500k
Daily Star Tories (albeit very slyly!) 800k

That by my reckoning means that there are 8 million 200 thousand people who receive sustained political arguments advising them to vote Conservative versus 1 million and 500 thousand who receive labour political 'advisement'.

If we further accept that these newspapers are owned by just a handful of businessmen who in themselves are very fearful of any government that might threaten even a small cut of their (and their funding big business advertisers) profits, then you have a very effective historically effective 'machine' that aims to persuade a huge % of the voting public to vote conservative.

Is that a fair, balanced press? Are we all happy with that?

2) The examples you give, of some right wing newspapers attacking Cameron, Heath and Green and the other fella - is that the best you can do? These conservative newspapers offer a systematic personality slaughter of not just Corbyn but any Labour leader that does not explicitly distance themselves from threatening corporate wealth and any semblance of even slight wealth redistribution (hence how Murdoch accepted Blair and smoothed his way into the role). Some ran half of their newspapers in election week with pictures of Corbyn caricatured as the devil, hands around terrorists. And all you can offer as a way of making it appear that they treat parties equally is that they have gone for a PM at the time (Cameron) on a scandal, but CRUCIALLY only 4 months after his safe re-election as PM and therefore not a scandal to ever shake the establishment was it?, a dead former leader from decades ago and a relatively insignificant, easily replaceable MP who had been caught with ****o on his PC. Do you really think this compares? If Green had been Corbyn, with a bit of ****o on his PC instead of "Shed Weekly" or with his old fella in a hog's gob, do you think we'd have heard the end of it at the time that matters, in the run up to election? Come on lad, you're bright enough to know that these were mere 'storms in easily managed tea cups' and no threat at all to the Conservative led establishment.

I have a couple of ideas for how a 'free press' could be more satisfactorily managed in what struggles to think of itself as a democracy but gotta go now - daughter bedtime. Tata

Firstly, I don't accept the premise that most readers are to an extent influenced by the concentrated, repeated and quite urgent arguments made for/against the different political parties. Frankly, I think it slightly desperate of you to try to argue that they are. As I have explained previously, I am of the view that people choose their media source to suit their pre-existing leanings. As I asked young Gisjbert before he picked up his ball and ran off to the corner of the playground with it: How often do you read the Daily Mail and would it turn you into a right winger if you did? It is clear from your latest response to gf that you have read the Daily Mail article that he referred to (putting money into their coffers by clicking on the link). Is that something that you regularly do and does it make you want to vote Tory when you do?

If more people want to buy The Sun rather than the Daily Mirror, that’s their choice, raging, just as the editorial position of those papers is the choice of their proprietors and editorial teams. Where does the concept of ‘fairness’ come into it? I’d love to know how you would seek to override those choices.

How people voted in the election was their choice too.

As you’ve pointed out previously, when Momentum aren’t chanting The Greater Leader’s name in Grime clubs, they have a pretty slick digital operation going. The Tories’ digital presence, on the other hand, is utterly lame. So is that unfair in your view or is Labour merely using an advantage they they have?

I’m loving the way that you think it CRUCIAL that the media had a feeding frenzy around the pig’s head allegations four months after the election and, as I understand it, are seeking to argue that timing was carefully selected. In reality, the reason for the timing is that it coincided with the publication of the book in which the allegation was made…

I confess that you have the advantage on me in that I rarely read the print media these days and didn’t at all in the run up to the election. Do you have examples that you can link to of pictures of The Great Leader caricatured as the devil, hands around terrorists? And are you saying that the pictures of his hands around terrorist were photoshopped? Or are you exaggerating?

In reality, The Great Leader turns inconvenient stories about him in the press to his advantage by painting himself as the victim, as he did with his response to the Czech stories. It’s a strategy that comes straight out of the Trump playbook and fair play to him, it’s a neat bit of politicking.

I’m looking forward to your ideas upon how the free press can be managed. A Ministry of Truth?

[Slimchance]

I think the main issues here regarding political bias are:

1. The sheer volume of political control of the mass media on 'advising' voters how to vote. If we accept that most readers are to an extent influenced by the concentrated, repeated and quite urgent arguments made for/against the different political parties, then let's look at how far this 'control' might go. Of the mass newspapers here is how they breakdown with political support and readership:

The Guardian Labour (although lib dem in 2010) 300k readers
FT Conservatives 400k
Telegraph Tories 700k
The Sun Tories 3 million
Mail Tories 2, 120k
Express Tories 700k
Mirror Labour 1, 200k
Times Tories 500k
Daily Star Tories (albeit very slyly!) 800k

That by my reckoning means that there are 8 million 200 thousand people who receive sustained political arguments advising them to vote Conservative versus 1 million and 500 thousand who receive labour political 'advisement'.

If we further accept that these newspapers are owned by just a handful of businessmen who in themselves are very fearful of any government that might threaten even a small cut of their (and their funding big business advertisers) profits, then you have a very effective historically effective 'machine' that aims to persuade a huge % of the voting public to vote conservative.

Is that a fair, balanced press? Are we all happy with that?

2) The examples you give, of some right wing newspapers attacking Cameron, Heath and Green and the other fella - is that the best you can do? These conservative newspapers offer a systematic personality slaughter of not just Corbyn but any Labour leader that does not explicitly distance themselves from threatening corporate wealth and any semblance of even slight wealth redistribution (hence how Murdoch accepted Blair and smoothed his way into the role). Some ran half of their newspapers in election week with pictures of Corbyn caricatured as the devil, hands around terrorists. And all you can offer as a way of making it appear that they treat parties equally is that they have gone for a PM at the time (Cameron) on a scandal, but CRUCIALLY only 4 months after his safe re-election as PM and therefore not a scandal to ever shake the establishment was it?, a dead former leader from decades ago and a relatively insignificant, easily replaceable MP who had been caught with ****o on his PC. Do you really think this compares? If Green had been Corbyn, with a bit of ****o on his PC instead of "Shed Weekly" or with his old fella in a hog's gob, do you think we'd have heard the end of it at the time that matters, in the run up to election? Come on lad, you're bright enough to know that these were mere 'storms in easily managed tea cups' and no threat at all to the Conservative led establishment.

I have a couple of ideas for how a 'free press' could be more satisfactorily managed in what struggles to think of itself as a democracy but gotta go now - daughter bedtime. Tata

Fake statistics yet again.

Why have you not included the circulation of The Morning Star, whose sales must have increased by many millions due to ALL the NEW born again Lefties that our Great Leader has brainwashed....sorry recruited.