General Election, December 2019

[johnr]

But that's the problem. She's been characterised as such and, consequently, all her output is assumed to be suspect, which is grossly unfair.

She was booed by the audience when she tried to ask Corbyn a question today at a Labour event, a "perfectly legitimate question" according to the Daily Mirror Political Editor. Her treatment looks like bullying to me and I'm a little surprised that so many OTFers go along with it.

Booing - by a few idiots as far as I could hear, though sounded more like groaning than booing - of a question/questioner is wrong, stupid, bad manners, and pointless. It shouldn't happen.

How should people, who think that the BBC and other broadcast media have been misrepresenting them for years now (at their own expense), register their displeasure? If they tweet, that's seen as bullying too. And they can't verbalise it in public. So, what? Just put up with it? Write to the BBC (and get a stock reply)? Not complain at all?

[Ginger Yellow]

ng down was public but her reasons were not. LK, as a journalist, tried to find out what they were and was told, by Morgan or someone close to her, that they were personal rather than policy, which she then tweeted out. Morgan subsequently publicly confirmed this.

The stated reasons are the spin. I mean, it's pretty much the definition of spin - someone telling you why they think something happened, rather than what happened.

[ursus arctos]

They don’t have the lobby system in the US, but I don’t believe it has resulted in greater transparency about politics for the public.

I wouldn't go that far.

It isn't as formalised here, but we certainly have very prominent journalists who are very willing to engage in stenography for favoured sources (and have had such people forever).

NS is of course entitled to his point of view, but I find the idea that each incident has to be examined without any reference to context or patterns of behaviour to be particularly dangerous in a world in which the current leaders of each of our countries are seemingly incapable of telling the truth.

[George C.]

She reminds a bit of Condolcezza Rice, who as American Foreign Minister seemed to think she was Dubya's significant other rather than an over-promoted stooge. Never trust anyone who can't spell their own name. Or pronounce it (see current thread on footbaler Richard Keogh)

As opposed to someone who just can't spell...

[George C.]

It's got something to do with honestly appraising what she's said rather than disregarding her every utterance as that of a Tory apologist.

Says a Tory apologist...

[Duncan Gardner]

Fcuk aff, Gonzi

[George C.]

Fcuk aff, Gonzi

Says the Illiterate fool.

[Walt Flanagans Dog]

The lobby system is one part of the picture, but that doesn't explain/excuse the tweets such as "This is him here", and the relentlessly positive spin on the government position.

[Nocturnal Submission]

Booing - by a few idiots as far as I could hear, though sounded more like groaning than booing - of a question/questioner is wrong, stupid, bad manners, and pointless. It shouldn't happen.

How should people, who think that the BBC and other broadcast media have been misrepresenting them for years now (at their own expense), register their displeasure? If they tweet, that's seen as bullying too. And they can't verbalise it in public. So, what? Just put up with it? Write to the BBC (and get a stock reply)? Not complain at all?

Well put.

I've got no problem with people complaining about perceived political bias. I perceive it all the time though I've yet to make a formal complaint, mainly because I'm aware that everyone with even a scintilla of intelligence will have a set of political views and the broadcasters' politics and current affairs teams more than most. The question is the effort they make to suppress that bias and try to be even-handed.

[Nocturnal Submission]

The stated reasons are the spin. I mean, it's pretty much the definition of spin - someone telling you why they think something happened, rather than what happened.

Are journalists only supposed to report facts and never provide their interpretation or analysis? I mean, most seem to.

[Nocturnal Submission]

I wouldn't go that far.

It isn't as formalised here, but we certainly have very prominent journalists who are very willing to engage in stenography for favoured sources (and have had such people forever).

NS is of course entitled to his point of view, but I find the idea that each incident has to be examined without any reference to context or patterns of behaviour to be particularly dangerous in a world in which the current leaders of each of our countries are seemingly incapable of telling the truth.

I'm not sure that the world is going to collapse it we judge different instances on their merits and I'm not sure that it will be saved if we view them all through a fixed prism.

[Nocturnal Submission]

Says a Tory apologist...

I realise that it will be fierce struggle against your innate nature, but do try not to be silly, Gonzo.

[Lucy Waterman]

The lobby system is one part of the picture, but that doesn't explain/excuse the tweets such as "This is him here", and the relentlessly positive spin on the government position.

What’s the “this is him here” thing? Is that Omar?

[Ginger Yellow]

Are journalists only supposed to report facts and never provide their interpretation or analysis? I mean, most seem to.

But she's not. That's my objection (which, to be clear, doesn't mean I think she should be bullied or even ridiculed really). She's parroting what she's been told, which is one thing when the source is on the record. But when a source is off the record, you necessarily are using editorial judgment when you decide to publish - "I understand" is implicitly saying "I think this is true".

And I don't think it's the reporter's job to endorse spin. that said, if she were to own it, I'd have more respect for it:

[Nefertiti2]

Then there''s the well-established "toady system" where BBC journalists who were privately educated treat Conservatives (usually also privately educated) as the natural party of governments and Conservative MP's as their peers or betters whilst treating Labour with disdain.

[Snake Plissken]

Well, the news that Morgan was standing down was public but her reasons were not. LK, as a journalist, tried to find out what they were and was told, by Morgan or someone close to her, that they were personal rather than policy, which she then tweeted out. Morgan subsequently publicly confirmed this.

I'm really not seeing the spin.

The reasons were public because LauraK tweeted the entire letter before tweeting the spin.

[Nocturnal Submission]

But she's not. That's my objection (which, to be clear, doesn't mean I think she should be bullied or even ridiculed really). She's parroting what she's been told, which is one thing when the source is on the record. But when a source is off the record, you necessarily are using editorial judgment when you decide to publish - "I understand" is implicitly saying "I think this is true".

And I don't think it's the reporter's job to endorse spin. that said, if she were to own it, I'd have more respect for it:

I don't think that we're going to see eye-to-eye on this one GY so probably best to let it lie, suffice to say that I completely agree with you that reporters shouldn't repeat spin other than to point out to the public that spinning is exactly what is going on.

[Nefertiti2]

Meanwhile when Corbyn says “ I just ask our media as good journalists to just report what we say”

he is piled on by journalists who claim he saying he shouldn’t be subject to question or analysis.

thet Know exactly what they’re doing here ( and it’s not “ being good journalists”)

[URL]https://twitter.com/flying_rodent/status/1189914092036927488?s=21[/URL]

then there’s this

[URL]https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1189862023045222401?s=21[/URL]

[Walt Flanagans Dog]

What’s the “this is him here” thing? Is that Omar?

Yes (had to check the name but yes, the hospital parent).

[Lucy Waterman]

I think “I understand” means “this is what I’ve been told”. I don’t see how LK would know whether it’s true or not.

[Nocturnal Submission]

The reasons were public because LauraK tweeted the entire letter before tweeting the spin.

Given the contents of the letter, how did LK "spin" its contents?

[Lucy Waterman]

Yes (had to check the name but yes, the hospital parent).

I went to uni with Omar, I guess that’s a “lame to fame”. He subsequently praised LK for operating “without fear or favour”, didn’t he?

[Ginger Yellow]

Given the contents of the letter, how did LK "spin" its contents?

"Nicky Morgan has resigned" - news
"Nicky Morgan has sent a resignation letter citing x and y" - news
"I understand Nicky Morgan's resignation was for personal reasons" - spin

Note, not LK's spin, but an endorsement of NM's spin.

[Nefertiti2]

https://twitter.com/entschwindet/status/1189817425786818560?s=20

[Lucy Waterman]

Why would people tell LK things if she was going to overtly present them as being lies, regardless of whether that was actually the case? This is an argument against off the record briefings, not LK. And off the record briefings help us know what is actually going on.