ot jeremy corbyn

[Slimchance]

My god slimchance another kempo incarnation it's like dawn of the dead on here.

Attack the argument not the person.

[rolymiller]

By the way I think his constant personal attacks on immigrants is far more offensive mr kempo. Stupid boy.

[Slimchance]

By the way I think his constant personal attacks on immigrants is far more offensive mr kempo. Stupid boy.

How can they be personal attacks on immigrants, as immigrants is a general term ?

[KerrAvon]

I've tried to tell him the same thing, but I don't think he can see the distinction.

[rolymiller]

Why are you talking to yourself kempo you need to see a doctor. Whoops you are one eh? You've been sussed get used to it.

[KerrAvon]

Lol. Is there anyone that you don't think is kempo?

[rolymiller]

No the tell tale signs come from those who post unsubstantiated right wing crap and have obviously never been to amillers game in their lives. Don't think gf is a clone because he can obviously name 3 miller's players. Right wing nasty yes but kempo clone no.

[rolymiller]

Fortunately their are only a few whofit that bill on here. you should know who they are eh?

[KerrAvon]

Blimey Kerr, surprised I have to give elementary media studies lessons. Are you saying that what you are reading is an altogether unbalanced, even handed review of Abbott's announcement that informs the readers without any attempt to play on and exacerbate their existing fears?

I'm sure that at the very least you are aware that the most powerful elements in a persuasive news item, one with an agenda, is to summarise the key point(s) in the headline and strap lines, to try and make it so that the readers, many of whom will not read further into the article, will absorb the point or the argument that you as a writer wishes to make, with no real effort on their part. It's pretty basic stuff - all news people know this.

So what was the headline:

Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott says Labour will let MORE immigrants into Britain if they get into Number 10


Look at the capital letters on MORE. Why do you think they have done that Kerr? What do you think the average Mail reader will make of that? Is that a fair reflection of the content of Abbott's announcement?

And then the three strap lines underneath the heading:

- Diane Abbott said Labour would let child refugees bring parents to the UK
- She said they would also end policy of deporting children when they turn 18
- The Conservatives have pledged to get immigration down to tens of thousands

Points 1 and 2 are factually accurate but what of point 3? True that the Tories have pledged to get immigration down to tens of thousands and true that right at the bottom of the article it states that they have yet to do so. But they well know that most readers will have made their minds up about the article, have all of the info they need from the title and the three straps: Labour are going to let MORE immigrants into the country and the implication is that the Tories are the party that's going to do something about that. So the clear inference is: the Labour party are going to let even MORE immigrants into the country, and we know you hate that kind of thing, so VOTE TORY!

Our media studies students can read political bias in news article structure Kerr. Surprised you apparently can't!

Bit rushed - up to me ears!

Anyone who suggests that the Mail isn't biased and that the articles that it publishes don't reflect that would be slightly bonkers - possibly more so than young Gisjbert appears to be - but your suggestion of 'sickening spin' is, being as kind as I can be, a gross exaggeration.

The capitalisation of MORE, emphasises the editorial stance of that paper and of the Mail reading audience it seeks to persuade to buy copy.

As you concede, the article is factually correct, including the failure of the Tories to meet their hopeless tens of thousands target, which has been well publicised in the supposedly hopelessly biased media.

Does it come to this then, that you are upset that the Mail ran a factually correct article about a Labour policy announcement, but capitalised a word in the headline? And the capitalisation of the word MORE amounts to sickening spin?

I await your ideas for 'managing' the free press and links to pre-election images of The Great Leader' as a devil hand in hand with terrorists with renewed interest.

[Amanda_Hugg_n_Kiss]

Educated or not, I’m really struggling to follow the point that you are trying to make, Amanda. It may be me, but let’s wind it back to see if we can get on track:

In post 17, I observed that: He also seems to be fond of talking to Hamas and Hezbollah, but seems to have very little contact with the Israeli government.

In post 48, you responded by saying: I wouldn't want anything to do with Israeli Government either, you only have to look at the death toll they're by far the bigger terrorists, it's being friends with them that makes you a terrorist sympathiser.

In post 50, I repled: So are you saying that The Great Leader was right to have nothing to do with the Israelis because they drop bombs and shell people, but it was ok for him to talk to Hamas and Hezbollah and refer to them as friends even though they set off bombs on buses etc. and fire rockets onto random targets in Israeli towns?

Your response in post 51 was: Clearly not.

I’m simply asking what you meant by ‘clearly not’.

Distilled down, the issue is this: The Great Leader invited representatives of Hamas and Hezbollah to Westminster and referred to them as friends when he did. Hamas and Hezbollah are organisations that are committed to the destruction of Israel (irrespective of the views of its 8.5 million inhabitants) and which have engaged in bombings, assassinations and the indiscriminate firing of rockets into Israeli towns. So how is it that you feel that The Great Leader was justified in not wanting much to do with Israel, but raise no criticism of his dealings with his friends in Hamas and Hezbollah? Maybe you do, but I’ve missed them.

The spin being put out on behalf of the Great Leader now is that he was talking to Sinn Fein (but not pIRA – lol) to pursue peace and was talking to Hamas and Hezbollah for the same reason. I think that is as demonstrably nonsensical as the notion that he had secrets to give to the Czechs in the 80s. How can you be a peace broker when you demonstrate support for the aims of one side of a conflict (in the case of the Great Leader, for the reunification of Ireland and for the Palestinian cause) and by only talking to one side? It makes no sense.

I have no issue with The Great Leader holding the views that he does on the reunification of Ireland and for the Palestinian cause. It may be that his views and mine are not a million miles apart upon them; it is the re-writing of history to try to paint over the inconvenience of his past words and actions of the slating of the media for reporting them that troubles me.

I said clearly not because I was clearly not saying what you wrote in post 50. Funny how you use the word 'spin' because you seem pretty good at it. I was saying what the post said, Mostly pointing out the hypocrisy in the terrorist sympathiser slur.
I didn't say anything much about Corbyn.