The Labour Party - Part 2

[Arnold_Lane 0]

16 minutes ago, Flanker7 said:

Circulation Figures - However, 3 popular papers currently refuse to submit their figures -  They are all Conservative backers.

https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/most-popular-newspapers-uk-abc-monthly-circulation-figures/

So?  Newspapers are not the whole media.

 

I seem to recall that during the referendum the Daily Mail was pro-Brexit and the Mail on Sunday was pro-remain.  Murdoch owned papers also took different stances.  I agree he is a rich man and owns a lot of media outlets.  But his papers have editorial freedom.  Would you agree?

[Arnold_Lane 0]

19 hours ago, Anna B said:

1) The Brexit vote was in effect a kick in the pants for all politicians to LISTEN  to the electorate, which they were forced to do with the referendum. They weren't actually expected to vote 'out' in a million years, but did it anyway.

 

2)5 very rich men own 85% of it

 

3)You must have realised by now that for the last 40 years the world has been run by the Elite for the benefit of the Elite. the workers are only there to provide them with services, taxes and money.

 

My annotations:

 

On point 1) you imply the "elite" do not want Brexit.

 

On point 2) you claim the elite owns most of the media.  Well, can you explain:

 

Circulation of Leave newspapers - 4.8 m.

Circulation of Remain newspapers - 3 m.

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/which-newspapers-support-brexit_uk_5768fad2e4b0a4f99adc6525?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAABFW_7F8gk7nhD8Dti6_aGp3viZ41HTiFRMyHziCo9HeFI56cUuC6gaVpDiKgRFJMUwMLRduIdfimZ20COK0BX-9yjSqR7hjTZwNzPDYHp4GjOyaEPYolSXQ6lD-bYIsCmevL8vObhmcRwaq9mqtEGnD9Expfi0ogxUKc3vJZPsx

 

3)  The public voted in the same direction of the newsprint with higher circulation despite it not being what the "elite," who you claim own all the media, wanted.

 

I conclude, your argument is rubbish.

Edited November 27, 2020 by Arnold_Lane

[Flanker7 20]

18 hours ago, Anna B said:

."..................relentless character assassination, and negative media reporting and refusing him a plafrorm to explain what he was about,................"

8 minutes ago, Arnold_Lane said:

So?  Tabloids aren't the entire media.

So ?...........Because Annes point about the  negative  media is basically true. Why are you bringing  the 'Tabloids' into it? 

 

 

14 minutes ago, Arnold_Lane said:

This is a discussion forum.  I pointed out Anna was wrong.  Presenting my own policy won't make her right.  I can reply to any post any way I see fit.  In this case, I pointed out a falsehood and said there is no point discussing the rest.

You are correct and if you never expound a policy or take a position your not adding much to the discussion, other than "pointing out where the strongman stumbled."      https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7-it-is-not-the-critic-who-counts-not-the-man 

  

[Arnold_Lane 0]

1 minute ago, Flanker7 said:

 

 

You are correct and if you never expound a policy or take a position your not adding much to the discussion, other than "pointing out where the strongman stumbled."      https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7-it-is-not-the-critic-who-counts-not-the-man 

  

I only took issue with the idea that 5 men own 85% of the media.  I made no comment on the media's treatment of Corbyn because that has been discussed at length already by others.

 

I think pointing out blatant falsehoods is plenty in terms of adding to the discussion. 

 

Maybe you can help Anna with my comments in post 422?

 

 

[Flanker7 20]

9 minutes ago, Arnold_Lane said:

 

Maybe you can help Anna with my comments in post 422?

........and here's me thinking this is the Labour Party thread and about the media and Corbyn in particular.

 

If you have comments about Brexit I suggest you make them on the Brexit thread.

[Arnold_Lane 0]

45 minutes ago, Flanker7 said:

........and here's me thinking this is the Labour Party thread and about the media and Corbyn in particular.

 

If you have comments about Brexit I suggest you make them on the Brexit thread.

I don't want to talk about Brexit.  I want to point out falsehoods that others use to make their case.  I used that as an example to deconstruct  the logic behind the falsehood.  Anna was the one who raised Brexit anyway when she said it was basically two fingers to the elite.

 

I suggest you take up with the mods any issues you have regarding my criticism of claims that cannot be backed up.

Edited November 27, 2020 by Arnold_Lane

[Arnold_Lane 0]

On 30/10/2020 at 13:52, Anna B said:

He was as capable as Starmer, but the anti-semitism claims will probably stop with Starmer, not because he is any more effective at rooting them out, but because the likes of people like Margaret Hodge and her journalist/editor daughter do not have a vendetta against Starmer, and will stop endlessly stirring it up.

 

He, (Starmer) is part of their club.  

Since this is the Labour Party thread and you made a claim regarding media bias and raised the falsehood that the vast majority of the media is owned by a small number of people, can you see a parallel to this trope?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitic_canard#Controlling_the_media

 

For those that don't know - Margaret Hodge is Jewish.

Edited November 27, 2020 by Arnold_Lane

[Pettytom 1]

1 hour ago, CaptainSwing said:

Maybe that's where all those anti-semites came from.

 

After all, racial stereotyping of Jewish people does seem to be somewhat more prevalent among Tory voters at least:

 

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/c6bfihz919/CAAResults_180907_Antisemitism_website.pdf

 

And if, as is sometimes implied,  a lot of Tories were joining to act as agents provocateurs, what better way would there have been to undermine the party?

Maybe it is where they came from.
 

What did the EHRC report have to say about how they were dealt with?

Edited November 27, 2020 by Pettytom

[banjodeano 31]

This is a little bit awkward....South Thanet Labour passes Jewish member’s motion for Corbyn’s reinstatement, i bet you didnt see anything about this on the news, they probably deemed him to be the wrong type of Jew again..

https://skwawkbox.org/2020/11/28/even-a-war-criminal-like-blair-didnt-attempt-to-stop-internal-debate-in-the-party-south-thanet-labour-passes-jewish-members-motion-for-corbyns-reinstatement/

[sheffbag 229]

On 27/11/2020 at 14:58, Flanker7 said:

Re: Anna's points about the Media - She is basically right although her research seems to be a bit casual.

I don't think she's trying to fool any one.

 

This is a bit better -  dated May 6th 2015 - 

*According to the data, ‘research finds 95% of tabloid’s editorials in runup to election have been anti-Labour, with most of those directly vilifying the Labour leader‘.

http://www.albionmill.org.uk/?p=1476   * (All biographical and business information provided by Wikipedia) about 'Who owns the UK Media' which needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. However, I think its accurate in the main.

 

See above - Sheffbag seemed to be claiming all publicity is good publicity. I don't think thats right. More like the best defence is attack, and you don't have to defend any of your own policies/ideas as Arnold artfully shows.

 

 

Circulation Figures - However, 3 popular papers currently refuse to submit their figures -  They are all Conservative backers.

https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/most-popular-newspapers-uk-abc-monthly-circulation-figures/

Sheffbag isnt claming all publicity is good publicity. Sheffbag is challenging Anna's claim that Labour / Corbyn received no opportunity to present their cause / manifesto when the reality is that Labour MPs and representatives had more air time than any other party and JC made more appearances than any other MP or leader on TV. The fact that he failed to get his message across given that he had more opportunity to does not lie with the media, it lies with JC and the resto f the labour party. 

 

Does it not

 

[Flanker7 20]

7 hours ago, sheffbag said:

Sheffbag isnt claming all publicity is good publicity. Sheffbag is challenging Anna's claim that Labour / Corbyn received no opportunity to present their cause / manifesto when the reality is that Labour MPs and representatives had more air time than any other party and JC made more appearances than any other MP or leader on TV. The fact that he failed to get his message across given that he had more opportunity to does not lie with the media, it lies with JC and the resto f the labour party. 

 

Does it not

 

I searched and failed to find the 'Loughborough' report - No link given by you. 

My search , ("Loughborough University election media report") did reveal loads though. Could it be this one?

 

"Academics at Loughborough University analysed the extent to which different print outlets ran positive and negative stories about different UK political parties in the first week of the 2019 general election campaign.

They found that the Labour Party was overwhelmingly targeted with negative coverage by the papers, while in certain publications positive stories were almost exclusively reserved for Boris Johnson’s Tory party.

 

The study also showed that the most positive coverage of the Tories came from the highest circulation newspapers, with journalists at The Sun and the Daily Mail relied upon to write deferential, pro-government stories."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/general-election-british-uk-media-news-bias-tories-labour-a9209026.html

 

I note you mention 'air time' and 'all platforms'. Previously we had been talking about the print media.

I agree - Labour had its chance, twice, and blew it both times. But it will get another chance and we can only hope the Press will have 'levelled up' by then . . . . . .but I'm not holding my breath.

[banjodeano 31]

52 minutes ago, Flanker7 said:

I searched and failed to find the 'Loughborough' report - No link given by you. 

My search , ("Loughborough University election media report") did reveal loads though. Could it be this one?

 

"Academics at Loughborough University analysed the extent to which different print outlets ran positive and negative stories about different UK political parties in the first week of the 2019 general election campaign.

They found that the Labour Party was overwhelmingly targeted with negative coverage by the papers, while in certain publications positive stories were almost exclusively reserved for Boris Johnson’s Tory party.

 

The study also showed that the most positive coverage of the Tories came from the highest circulation newspapers, with journalists at The Sun and the Daily Mail relied upon to write deferential, pro-government stories."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/general-election-british-uk-media-news-bias-tories-labour-a9209026.html

 

I note you mention 'air time' and 'all platforms'. Previously we had been talking about the print media.

I agree - Labour had its chance, twice, and blew it both times. But it will get another chance and we can only hope the Press will have 'levelled up' by then . . . . . .but I'm not holding my breath.

no doubt at all the press will be a lot kinder to the now new Labour party, after all i doubt very much that under Starmer  they will be offering anything different to what the tories are offering, you will even probably get the Sun backing him like they did Tony Blair