The Labour Party. All discussion here please

[Guest makapaka]

2 minutes ago, Arnold_Lane said:

I understand what you are saying.  It's easy to criticise.

Exactly.

 

and I get there are things to criticise also. 
 

 

[Michael_W 11]

On 02/07/2020 at 18:54, Halibut said:

You have a horribly cynical attitude to teachers Michael; having worked in schools for the best part of a decade I know plenty of them.

Without exception, those that I know have been working as hard as they can, whether from home trying to carry on with distance learning, or those that have stayed in school working with keyworker kids. They worry, they care deeply about the children they work with and the last few months have been anything other than the easy time of it you're suggesting.

I know my other half has worked in school for the last twenty years, cynical me ?    Too bloody right I am !

[Anna B 1,401]

On 02/07/2020 at 16:11, altus said:

Apart from a few resolutely anti Labour papers (who'd report absolutely anything if it could be twisted to show Labour in a bad light) and one local to her constituency has any publication of note reported it?

 

Is it actually newsworthy?

It's not the number of 'anti-Labour' newspapers that's important, but the size of their circulation. I would hazard a guess that the 'reporting' and opinions of the Daily Mail reaches far more people than the Guardian. 

 

Nor does a retraction or apology, squirreled away at the bottom of an inside page, equal the half page innacurate Headline emblazened on the front page of the Daily Mail, readable from the far side of the garage forecourt. 

 

When it comes to the media, it is not an even playing field. 

[ECCOnoob 1,020]

37 minutes ago, Anna B said:

It's not the number of 'anti-Labour' newspapers that's important, but the size of their circulation. I would hazard a guess that the 'reporting' and opinions of the Daily Mail reaches far more people than the Guardian. 

 

Nor does a retraction or apology, squirreled away at the bottom of an inside page, equal the half page innacurate Headline emblazened on the front page of the Daily Mail, readable from the far side of the garage forecourt. 

 

When it comes to the media, it is not an even playing field. 

There has to be a bit of a chicken and egg scenario here though.

 

The massive circulation of the, let's say more right wing, press didn't happen by accident.  The fact is we consumers choose to buy certain papers over others.  We consumers choose what we click on the internet.

 

With exception of the BBC the majority of media is a business like any other.   If the guardian etc what to get their supposedly more superior and important message out there they need to stop bemoaning about some unfair bias and learn how to appeal to the mass consumers.

[Halibut 12]

16 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

  If the guardian etc what to get their supposedly more superior and important message out there they need to stop bemoaning about some unfair bias and learn how to appeal to the mass consumers.

Maybe they have integrity...

[ECCOnoob 1,020]

I'm not suggesting that they don't.  What I am suggesting is that they need to figure out how to get their message across to the wider population.  They need to learn about how to sell their product better to attract more readership.  All well and good having integrity and vastly superior message if nobody actually reads it.

 

This echoes a lot with the Labour party itself. Instead of burying their heads in the sand and bemoaning about media bias and political unfairness why don't they actually pull their finger out and put the effort into appealing to the wider electorate so they can win a majority.   All very well crying that your policies are better and you know best but if you are not in power nobody's listening. 

[alchresearch 214]

6 hours ago, Halibut said:

Maybe they have integrity...

Maybe they're not taken seriously enough. Can't think why:

 

'Upward-thrusting buildings ejaculating into the sky' – do cities have to be so sexist?

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2020/jul/06/upward-thrusting-buildings-ejaculating-cities-sexist-leslie-kern-phallic-feminist-city-toxic-masculinity

[Halibut 12]

6 minutes ago, alchresearch said:

Maybe they're not taken seriously enough. Can't think why:

 

'Upward-thrusting buildings ejaculating into the sky' – do cities have to be so sexist?

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2020/jul/06/upward-thrusting-buildings-ejaculating-cities-sexist-leslie-kern-phallic-feminist-city-toxic-masculinity

Feeling threatened?😆

[alchresearch 214]

Its hard to have any respect for The Guardian with rubbish like this:

 

'Imagine the state we’d be in if Corbyn had been in charge': the view from the 'red wall'

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/08/imagine-the-state-wed-be-in-if-corbyn-had-been-in-charge-the-view-from-the-red-wall

 

The "red wall" they speak of is the Lancashire town of Leigh - the town which returned Andy Burnham as MP since 2001, so the place is hardly full of far left reds.

[Halibut 12]

2 hours ago, alchresearch said:

Its hard to have any respect for The Guardian with rubbish like this:

 

'Imagine the state we’d be in if Corbyn had been in charge': the view from the 'red wall'

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/08/imagine-the-state-wed-be-in-if-corbyn-had-been-in-charge-the-view-from-the-red-wall

 

The "red wall" they speak of is the Lancashire town of Leigh - the town which returned Andy Burnham as MP since 2001, so the place is hardly full of far left reds.

What, specifically - and I mean specifically, is it that makes you think it's rubbish? It's largely made up of the views people who live there. Are their opinions all 'rubbish' or is it something else?

[Mister Gee 812]

.........................

Edited July 12, 2020 by Mister Gee

[Anna B 1,401]

On 10/07/2020 at 09:17, ECCOnoob said:

I'm not suggesting that they don't.  What I am suggesting is that they need to figure out how to get their message across to the wider population.  They need to learn about how to sell their product better to attract more readership.  All well and good having integrity and vastly superior message if nobody actually reads it.

 

This echoes a lot with the Labour party itself. Instead of burying their heads in the sand and bemoaning about media bias and political unfairness why don't they actually pull their finger out and put the effort into appealing to the wider electorate so they can win a majority.   All very well crying that your policies are better and you know best but if you are not in power nobody's listening. 

When the media is in the hands of a few super powerful media moguls who dictate the political stance of a whole raft of the media, it is exceedingly difficult to get round it, which is why allowing certain individuals to amass total dominance of the media is so wrong. 

(He who controls the media controls the minds of the masses... - Malcolm X)

 

Did you never wonder why Jeremy Corbyn had to resort to Social Media to get his message across? (- It's the reason why he was so popular with young people,) And drag himself round the country putting on public meetings in towns  and cities which attracted thousands, to get his message out? There was an almost total blackout on Corbyn and colleagues.

He was not invited on political TV programmes, instead they asked the Blairite brigade for comments, and even wheeled out old hasbeen Blair too to pontificate, never Corbyn. 

 

Only when an election was declared did the media rules of equal airtime come into play, and even then the verbose Boris managed to hijack the election into a rematch on Brexit, (he was going to 'Get Brexit done' remember? With his 'ovenready' deal - what happened to that?) Boris refused to answer questions on almost anything else and got away with it, including his refusal to be interviewed by forensic political Rottweiler, Andrew Neil, who would undoubtedly have exposed his shortcomings.