The Labour Party. All discussion here please

[GhostRiders]

 

At the risk of repeating myself ...:

 

https://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/pdf/JeremyCorbyn/Cobyn-Report-FINAL.pdf

 

As this question keeps coming up repeatedly you might actually try reading the above study.

 

You might also like to try putting 'Jeremy Corbyn media bias' into Google and read some of the interesting articles that come up.

 

And has already been established, which this study in no way, shape or form addresses could be said of many, perhaps even ANY other politician of any party.

 

All this proves is the nature of the UK media, not that they are unfairly bias against Jeremy Corbyn, and we get to that word again, and for the risk of repeating MYSELF, COMPARATIVELY.

 

That word is very, very important, because all you're doing is cherry picking anti Corbyn stuff. Ironically very similar to the charge you're levelling against the media.

[catpus]

Catpus didn't mention the sort of politician who would sell his soul to the devil for career advancement - perhaps they should of if that's what they really meant. They did mention politicians working to give themselves a good pension pot. With 35 years as an MP in a very safe seat Corbyn would be looking forward to a pension of between £50K and 67K a year if he retired tomorrow.

 

You are deliberately obfuscating. You are not a child, and understand perfectly well what I meant. As Anne did.

Career Politicians are those who have their eye on a lucrative job 'after' they have paved the way for their Families. Corporate cronies and vampire bankers to make a killing...As Thatcher did with her gun running son, as Blair did with JP Morgan, and Cleggie did for services rendered to Cameron... And what did they do for US the people who actually pay their wages? If I bothered to research I think it would be very difficult to find more than a couple of handful of those who were not on the make, one way or another. Nothing to do with a pension pot, and well you know it.

Do you know how Corbyn claimed in expenses, last year?

Research it...

 

---------- Post added 10-05-2018 at 19:20 ----------

 

And has already been established, which this study in no way, shape or form addresses could be said of many, perhaps even ANY other politician of any party.

 

All this proves is the nature of the UK media, not that they are unfairly bias against Jeremy Corbyn, and we get to that word again, and for the risk of repeating MYSELF, COMPARATIVELY.

 

That word is very, very important, because all you're doing is cherry picking anti Corbyn stuff. Ironically very similar to the charge you're levelling against the media.

 

Cherry picking? Do you even know the meaning of this phrase?

To pick the best of!

There are no best Pro Corbyn headlines... every single one is biased and moronic.

 

Take the latest offering from The Express.

>>>Rather than reporting on the massive protest in London yesterday where tens of thousands of people came together to demand the government put a halt to their ever-creeping privatisation of the NHS, the Express decided that Jeremy Corbyn being taken to work in a Ford Galaxy car..... provided by The Government Car Service.... is the most important story in the country right now??

Furthermore, the Express have shown their own incredibly blatant pro-Tory bias by choosing to single out the Labour leader despite the fact that the Conservative Chancellor Phillip Hammond regularly requisitioned RAF jets to take him from London to Manchester, and that Theresa May gets chauffeured around in a Jaguar XJ Sentinel supercharged 5.0 litre V8 that does a pitiful amount of miles to the gallon. <<<

https://evolvepolitics.com/weve-seen-some-anti-corbyn-headlines-before-but-todays-express-is-a-whole-new-world-of-stupid/

Edited May 10, 2018 by catpus
edit

[altus]

You are deliberately obfuscating. You are not a child, and understand perfectly well what I meant. As Anne did.

Career Politicians are those who have their eye on a lucrative job 'after' they have paved the way for their Families. Corporate cronies and vampire bankers to make a killing.

I understood what you meant - I also understood you used the wrong term for it. Career politicians are those who spend all their working lives in the political sector.

 

People who become MPs for a while as a stepping stone to getting lucrative posts in the private sector are something else. They don't spend their whole careers as politicians so the term 'career politician' doesn't apply to them.

[ANGELFIRE1]

In a biased press/media which deliberately hunts out anti-Corbyn opinion and spin, why does this surprise you? It's exactly what you'd expect and what I've been saying.

 

Which is why people who investigate stories such as these and write rebuttals find they have no voice in the mainstream media. (I've tried. I write many letters to newspapers, some even get printed, but never one defending Mr Corbyn.)

 

Many of your chosen quotes are opinion, not facts. Besides Jeremy Corbyn's politics are often subtle and complex and need context to appreciate them, whereas the press likes using a giant sledgehammer to brainwash the idiots. It not only has no respect for Jeremy Corbyn, it has no respect for the electorate.

 

I'd be more impressed if you could find me one, just one, article in the mainstream media, (let's start with the Daily Mail:roll:) that doesn't slag him off.

 

 

Please assure me that you have no faith in Abbott running ANY Government department. As for her been Home Secretary - Jaysus give me strength.

 

Angel1

[GhostRiders]

You are deliberately obfuscating. You are not a child, and understand perfectly well what I meant. As Anne did.

Career Politicians are those who have their eye on a lucrative job 'after' they have paved the way for their Families. Corporate cronies and vampire bankers to make a killing...As Thatcher did with her gun running son, as Blair did with JP Morgan, and Cleggie did for services rendered to Cameron... And what did they do for US the people who actually pay their wages? If I bothered to research I think it would be very difficult to find more than a couple of handful of those who were not on the make, one way or another. Nothing to do with a pension pot, and well you know it.

Do you know how Corbyn claimed in expenses, last year?

Research it...

 

---------- Post added 10-05-2018 at 19:20 ----------

 

 

Cherry picking? Do you even know the meaning of this phrase?

To pick the best of!

There are no best Pro Corbyn headlines... every single one is biased and moronic.

 

Take the latest offering from The Express.

>>>Rather than reporting on the massive protest in London yesterday where tens of thousands of people came together to demand the government put a halt to their ever-creeping privatisation of the NHS, the Express decided that Jeremy Corbyn being taken to work in a Ford Galaxy car..... provided by The Government Car Service.... is the most important story in the country right now??

Furthermore, the Express have shown their own incredibly blatant pro-Tory bias by choosing to single out the Labour leader despite the fact that the Conservative Chancellor Phillip Hammond regularly requisitioned RAF jets to take him from London to Manchester, and that Theresa May gets chauffeured around in a Jaguar XJ Sentinel supercharged 5.0 litre V8 that does a pitiful amount of miles to the gallon. <<<

https://evolvepolitics.com/weve-seen-some-anti-corbyn-headlines-before-but-todays-express-is-a-whole-new-world-of-stupid/

 

Cherry picking.

 

Anti Corbyn stuff.

 

Read what I said. Anna seemed to have the same difficulty reading the words I had written.

 

I never, ever, for one second mentioned a pro Corbyn headline. Did I?

 

That would be a no then.

 

AS I have already stated, countless times to be fair, is that I am not saying that there is no anti Corbyn press. What I HAVE said, and for fear of repeating myself again, is that I haven't found a major difference between anti Corbyn and anti other politician media.

 

The report that Anna provided (which, tbf is BY FAR the best attempt I have seen from any Corbyn supporter to legitimise the 'anti Corbyn media' rhetoric) is useless as a stand alone piece of evidence because it is not COMPARATIVE. It shows only that there is SOME negativity towards Corbyn in the media. I do not, nor have I ever denied this. The problem with it, and it is a massive, very important problem, is that it doesn't compare the negative media towards Corbyn to the negative media of other named politicians.

 

To do this it would have to use different source material because the sources used do not claim to be unbiased. Some of them are known not to be party neutral. Now having read the report I'm sure it's author's would take that into account should they undertake a similar, comparative report, because the report, for what it was, was very good. And imo provided reasonable evidence for what it set out to achieve.

 

So yes, cherry picking.

 

If you insist on arguing at least read the words written before you jump on your high horse.

[Anna B]

Cherry picking.

 

Anti Corbyn stuff.

 

Read what I said. Anna seemed to have the same difficulty reading the words I had written.

 

I never, ever, for one second mentioned a pro Corbyn headline. Did I?

 

That would be a no then.

 

AS I have already stated, countless times to be fair, is that I am not saying that there is no anti Corbyn press. What I HAVE said, and for fear of repeating myself again, is that I haven't found a major difference between anti Corbyn and anti other politician media.

 

The report that Anna provided (which, tbf is BY FAR the best attempt I have seen from any Corbyn supporter to legitimise the 'anti Corbyn media' rhetoric) is useless as a stand alone piece of evidence because it is not COMPARATIVE. It shows only that there is SOME negativity towards Corbyn in the media. I do not, nor have I ever denied this. The problem with it, and it is a massive, very important problem, is that it doesn't compare the negative media towards Corbyn to the negative media of other named politicians.

 

To do this it would have to use different source material because the sources used do not claim to be unbiased. Some of them are known not to be party neutral. Now having read the report I'm sure it's author's would take that into account should they undertake a similar, comparative report, because the report, for what it was, was very good. And imo provided reasonable evidence for what it set out to achieve.

 

So yes, cherry picking.

 

If you insist on arguing at least read the words written before you jump on your high horse.

 

The point is that in the popular press there are no positive headlines, which is why I threw out the challenge for someone to find me one, so biased is the media.

 

If you read the introduction to the LSE report, it was written and compiled specifically because of perceived media bias, to prove whether it was so.

 

It found catagorically that it was. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/june2017/2017/05/are-media-biased-against-jeremy-corbyn-just-look-how-theresa-may-s

 

There is plenty of other evidence that it is so.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-media-bias-labour-mainstream-press-lse-study-misrepresentation-we-cant-ignore-bias-

 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/des-freedman-justin-schlosberg/jeremy-corbyn-impartiality-and-media-misrepresentationa7144381.html

 

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/june2017/2017/05/are-media-biased-against-jeremy-corbyn-just-look-how-theresa-may-s

 

Go ahead by all means and compare it with reporting on other parties, but you will find they get much more even handed headlines, both good and bad.

 

There is a clear vendetta by the Establishment to vilify Jeremy Corbyn and assassinate his character. This is understandable when you consider the Establishment has had it all their own way for so long, and have no wish to see a 'jumped up little backbench politician' upset the system that serves them (not us) so well. It is no coincidence that the rich have got richer while the poor have got poorer, it is policy. They (not us) really are all in it together, (to misquote David Cameron.)

 

Hence Jeremy Corbyn's battle cry 'A party for the many not the few.' Not as catchy I'll admit, but accurate.

 

It's sad that ordinary people cannot see how they are being duped by the likes of the Daily Mail..

[GhostRiders]

The point is that in the popular press there are no positive headlines, which is why I threw out the challenge for someone to find me one, so biased is the media.

 

If you read the introduction to the LSE report, it was written and compiled specifically because of perceived media bias, to prove whether it was so.

 

It found catagorically that it was. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/june2017/2017/05/are-media-biased-against-jeremy-corbyn-just-look-how-theresa-may-s

 

There is plenty of other evidence that it is so.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-media-bias-labour-mainstream-press-lse-study-misrepresentation-we-cant-ignore-bias-

 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/des-freedman-justin-schlosberg/jeremy-corbyn-impartiality-and-media-misrepresentationa7144381.html

 

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/june2017/2017/05/are-media-biased-against-jeremy-corbyn-just-look-how-theresa-may-s

 

Go ahead by all means and compare it with reporting on other parties, but you will find they get much more even handed headlines, both good and bad.

 

There is a clear vendetta by the Establishment to vilify Jeremy Corbyn and assassinate his character. This is understandable when you consider the Establishment has had it all their own way for so long, and have no wish to see a 'jumped up little backbench politician' upset the system that serves them (not us) so well. It is no coincidence that the rich have got richer while the poor have got poorer, it is policy. They (not us) really are all in it together, (to misquote David Cameron.)

 

Hence Jeremy Corbyn's battle cry 'A party for the many not the few.' Not as catchy I'll admit, but accurate.

 

It's sad that ordinary people cannot see how they are being duped by the likes of the Daily Mail..

 

I'm an ordinary person.

 

I'm not being duped by the Daily Mail. I don't read the mainstream press. I only started looking at the media (not just newspapers) treatment of politicians since our previous conversation the other week.

 

I'm reasonably intelligent. I admit politics isn't in general my field, but I do enough comparison in the areas I do have an interest in to be confident enough in myself that I do it as unbiased as possible.

 

I have not seen any 'special' treatment of Corbyn. I have seen lots of Corbyn supporters highlighting (cherry picking) or even exaggerating the negative treatment of Labour, and Corbyn (usually depending on whether it's the press or other Labour Party members respectively)

 

As I've said, and it seems others on this thread agree, that Corbyn supporters are so focused on their blind defence of him that they simply refuse that he is anything other than perfect.

 

What's so offensive is that you (Corbyn supporters) seem to think that if we don't share your opinion of him that we must somehow be being duped by a negative media campaign.

 

Has it not occurred to you that people can actually make their own minds up without being 'brainwashed' that they just don't see Corbyn as this special saviour of British politics?

[hackey lad]

I'm an ordinary person.

 

I'm not being duped by the Daily Mail. I don't read the mainstream press. I only started looking at the media (not just newspapers) treatment of politicians since our previous conversation the other week.

 

I'm reasonably intelligent. I admit politics isn't in general my field, but I do enough comparison in the areas I do have an interest in to be confident enough in myself that I do it as unbiased as possible.

 

I have not seen any 'special' treatment of Corbyn. I have seen lots of Corbyn supporters highlighting (cherry picking) or even exaggerating the negative treatment of Labour, and Corbyn (usually depending on whether it's the press or other Labour Party members respectively)

 

As I've said, and it seems others on this thread agree, that Corbyn supporters are so focused on their blind defence of him that they simply refuse that he is anything other than perfect.

 

What's so offensive is that you (Corbyn supporters) seem to think that if we don't share your opinion of him that we must somehow be being duped by a negative media campaign.

 

Has it not occurred to you that people can actually make their own minds up without being 'brainwashed' that they just don't see Corbyn as this special saviour of British politics?

 

:thumbsup: but you must be brainwashed

[catpus]

I understood what you meant - I also understood you used the wrong term for it. Career politicians are those who spend all their working lives in the political sector.

 

People who become MPs for a while as a stepping stone to getting lucrative posts in the private sector are something else. They don't spend their whole careers as politicians so the term 'career politician' doesn't apply to them.

 

So - what do you call and MP who uses his position as a stepping stone to a more lucrative post??

[hackey lad]

So - what do you call and MP who uses his position as a stepping stone to a more lucrative post??

 

Congratulations on your shortest ever post on here