General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

quokula

Deleted User wrote: »

Personally, I don't think there's an effective bias. Perhaps statistically, but I'd need to dissect the research for myself. For what I see, there is more negative aspects of a Labour campaign and so I don't necessarily think it's the media's fault given they have so much more meat to handle compared to the Tories.

Furthermore, I asked that question rhetorically to show that, if indeed the bias was on the other foot, I seriously doubt that posters on here would be complaining that Labour have received too much media bias and that the Tories should have their fair share.

Is anyone willing to admit that they would not be reacting in the same way if the bias was on the other foot?

If that is so, then your problem isn't with the bias, it's the fact you don't have it.

And hypocrisy that makes the situation.

You don't see anyone here quoting the online news outlets like the Canary or Evolve politics which are about as untruthful as the mainstream papers, but left leaning.

Most people would rather see some unbiased truth and integrity. There are examples of that - Lewis Goodall, Peter Oborne, John Snow off the top of my head - but they are wildly outnumbered by the right wing rags.

sid waddell

Deleted User wrote: »

Personally, I don't think there's an effective bias.

Loughborough University laid it out for you in easy to understand bar chart form, and you've just dismissed it. That shows how interested in objective truth you are.

When I talk of the Tories trying to create a scenario where objective truth becomes meaningless, that absolutely applies to their online supporters as well.

The deep similarity between online Tory supporters and online Trump supporters in their methods couldn't be more obvious.

It involves systematic destruction of objective truth in favour of a reality where all truths are subjective, ie. where there is no objective truth.

The implications for that are frightening - it's the basis Putin works off and has mastered.

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Personally, I don't think there's an effective bias. Perhaps statistically, but I'd need to dissect the research for myself. For what I see, there is more negative aspects of a Labour campaign and so I don't necessarily think it's the media's fault given they have so much more meat to handle compared to the Tories.

Furthermore, I asked that question rhetorically to show that, if indeed the bias was on the other foot, I seriously doubt that posters on here would be complaining that Labour have received too much media bias and that the Tories should have their fair share.

Is anyone willing to admit that they would not be reacting in the same way if the bias was on the other foot?

If that is so, then your problem isn't with the bias, it's the fact you don't have it.

And hypocrisy that makes the situation.

I would not be happy if the bias was so obviously marked on the other side. In fact i would be angry about it. Why wouldnt i be? I have been reading newspapers all my life and value quality and independence far higher than i do any political allegiance. Why on earth would i ever be willing to compromise that?

quokula

sid waddell wrote: »

Loughborough University laid it out for you in easy to understand bar chart form, and you've just dismissed it. That shows how interested in objective truth you are.

When I talk of the Tories trying to create a scenario where objective truth becomes meaningless, that absolutely applies to their online supporters as well.

The deep similarity between online Tory supporters and online Trump supporters in their methods couldn't be more obvious.

It involves systematic destruction of objective truth in favour of a reality where all truths are subjective, ie. where there is no objective truth.

The implications for that are frightening - it's the basis Putin works off and has mastered.

Very true - if you haven't seen it the documentary Hypernormalisation by Adam Curtis, which can be found on Youtube, lays this out brilliantly - it was produced in 2016 to show how Putin's strategy was being employed by Trump, but it applies perfectly to the Tories and the UK media too.

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I would not be happy if the bias was so obviously marked on the other side. In fact i would be angry about it. Why wouldnt i be? I have been reading newspapers all my life and value quality and independence far higher than i do any political allegiance. Why on earth would i ever be willing to compromise that?

It's very easy to say that, but if your political persuasion is attracting more favourable media attention, I think the number of people who would end up complaining about it would be very few.

Perhaps you are the exception, but I doubt there would be a mass movement on social media for the Tories to have more positive coverage / media attention.

Joe_ Public

Eskimo makes a reasonable point about tories negative campaign making it harder to scrutinise. Thats true and watching bbc politics live this morning was a good illustration.

They spent majority of show taking labours policies on the poor apart with two tory leaning economic reporters on the panel against the union rep Frances OGrady who i thought was excellent in the circumstances. Jo Coburn also interviewed John McDonnell and gave him a hard but fair enough grilling.

Then near the end they turned to the tories and dissected a couple of their policies for a while but without the same vigour. Coburn explained they'd asked for a tory rep but none was available.

I'm not saying thats overt bias, but it's all leading one way and perhaps the bbc should be more aware of it.

bren2001

Deleted User wrote: »

It's very easy to say that, but if your political persuasion is attracting more favourable media attention, I think the number of people who would end up complaining about it would be very few.

Perhaps you are the exception, but I doubt there would be a mass movement on social media for the Tories to have more positive coverage / media attention.

I'm not saying I'd get caught up in some mass movement about it if the papers were siding with Labour. However, I would (at the very least) accept that it was wrong and doesn't conform to the ideology of a democratic society.

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's very easy to say that, but if your political persuasion is attracting more favourable media attention, I think the number of people who would end up complaining about it would be very few.

Perhaps you are the exception, but I doubt there would be a mass movement on social media for the Tories to have more positive coverage / media attention.

I dont read the mirror and very rarely read the likes of owen jones in the guardian because i dont see the point of just nodding my head at every line.

Instead i always look at the times, a paper i loathe really, but there are a couple like Rachel Sylvester and Danny Finkelstein who i find engaging and intelligent. Stephen Bush, john Harris, Anand menon - people who are not pro labour or pro corbyn anyway, but who come with a neutral approach trying to cut through the spin and jargon. Mad concept i know, maybe that does make me an exception.

Slowyourrole

CelticRambler wrote: »

Accidentally catching Johnson's press conference at NATO earlier, I was struck by one particular aspect of this election: Johnson appears to have completely written off both the DUP and the Lib Dems as potential king-makers - he is 100% committed to the idea of the next government (or oppostion) being a Labour-SNP coalition. In itself, that has to be seen an incredible success for Scotland, and it's almost disappointing that the SNP didn't decide to field candidates south of the border!

He won't get his Brexit without a majority.

prawnsambo

Reported in The Independent that Dominic Cummings has been spotted at the NATO summit, accompanying Boris Johnson. So he hasn't gone away as has been suggested.

sid waddell

sid waddell wrote: »

Loughborough University laid it out for you in easy to understand bar chart form, and you've just dismissed it. That shows how interested in objective truth you are.

When I talk of the Tories trying to create a scenario where objective truth becomes meaningless, that absolutely applies to their online supporters as well.

The deep similarity between online Tory supporters and online Trump supporters in their methods couldn't be more obvious.

It involves systematic destruction of objective truth in favour of a reality where all truths are subjective, ie. where there is no objective truth.

The implications for that are frightening - it's the basis Putin works off and has mastered.

****ing hell, from the Loughborough university site you linked to, it actually caveats the findings:

This is not solely a measure of overt support or criticism by a journalist of a party (although these instances would be included in the count). It is a broader measure of the extent to which newspapers report on issues/ comments/ developments that have positive or negative implications for parties. We only coded these instances where these were overtly referred to in the piece

bren2001

bren2001 wrote: »

I'm not saying I'd get caught up in some mass movement about it if the papers were siding with Labour. However, I would (at the very least) accept that it was wrong and doesn't conform to the ideology of a democratic society.

if you read the Mail, then the chances are you are never going to vote Labour. If you read the Guardian, the chances are you are never going to vote Conservative.

If you are a pro labour Guardian reader and decide to take a peak at the Mail, you will start screaming bias, because it is. The opposite is also true and comes more from someone reading something they don't agree with than any deep rooted conspiracy theory.

Joe_ Public

As a guardian/observer reader i wouldnt be overstating the pro labour bias in recent years. Though its probably a more anti corbyn thing to be exact, but the sister papers have been quite tough on them for past couple of years. Jonathan Freedland, Nick Cohen, Simon Jenkins among the papers' fraternity with a sustained anti corbyn bent. Zoe Williams was even writing corbyns political obituary just a few weeks back. Polly Toynbee has been fiercely critical on occasion too. You have the likes of owen jones on the pro side, but the weight of opinion is quite heavily on the opposing side from my observation. Not screaming blue murder about it, just the way i see things there.

sid waddell

Aegir wrote: »

****ing hell, from the Loughborough university site you linked to, it actually caveats the findings:

That actually proves the pro-Tory bias even more - story selection and framing are the key issues in media bias.

Professor Moriarty

The idea that the British print media is anything other than predominantly right-wing, pro Brexit and pro Tory is laughable.

sid waddell

Aegir wrote: »

if you read the Mail, then the chances are you are never going to vote Labour. If you read the Guardian, the chances are you are never going to vote Conservative.

If you are a pro labour Guardian reader and decide to take a peak at the Mail, you will start screaming bias, because it is. The opposite is also true and comes more from someone reading something they don't agree with than any deep rooted conspiracy theory.

The Guardian and the Daily Mail are not equivalent.

You could reasonably class The Daily Mail and The Morning Star as pretty much equivalent in tone, if not sales.

Sand

sid waddell wrote: »

Loughborough University laid it out for you in easy to understand bar chart form, and you've just dismissed it. That shows how interested in objective truth you are.

When I talk of the Tories trying to create a scenario where objective truth becomes meaningless, that absolutely applies to their online supporters as well.

The deep similarity between online Tory supporters and online Trump supporters in their methods couldn't be more obvious.

It involves systematic destruction of objective truth in favour of a reality where all truths are subjective, ie. where there is no objective truth.

The implications for that are frightening - it's the basis Putin works off and has mastered.

But that philosophy is nothing new. For decades, progressive/liberal causes have relentlessly attacked the idea that there can be an objective, settled truth. This is summarised in the common political 'wisdom' that one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. This idea of reality being whatever the individual perceives it being as has deeply saturated our societies. It's now seen as rude to interrupt someone else's subjective reality with objective facts. Its almost seen as unsophisticated to even propose that there is a single narrative for any event which everyone must accept as true.

Subjective reality was a useful tool when liberals were undermining and attacking the old establishment. Now liberals are the establishment. Now they must face the consequences of bombarding society for decades that there is no single truth, that all establishment power is lying to you. All the Conservatives (and despite the name they are intensely liberal), Trump, Putin and every other political group out there is doing is just a continuation of what has been done for decades. Wars begin when you will, but they do not end when you please.

Sam Russell

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Reading the posts about a state owned pharma manufacturer making drugs for the NHS reminds me a bit of the thread we had here a few years ago about the suggestion that the Irish government should have taken over the Dell plant and started making computers.

This sort of stuff is real 1970s Labour.
Government owning everything including manufacturing.
It's not a million miles from the USSR.

That ship has sailed, leave the manufacturing to the experts.

Surely the intention is not to make all drugs for the NHS, but based on Pareto analysis, just make the 20% that make up the 80% cost. (Now the likelyhood is that 10% make up 90% of the cost). Now they would not start will all of them, but a subset that are easy to make, and worth it from a cast saving perspective. As competence builds, expand the number produced.

It sounds like a viable project and could be successful, particularly if it were done in conjunction with a pharma company making similar drugs now.

The big danger for the NHS is a trade deal that extends the life of patents. That is a permanent extra cost to the NHS that does not benefit the UK at all.

Letwin_Larry

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The idea that the British print media is anything other than predominantly right-wing, pro Brexit and pro Tory is laughable.

you got the The Mirror, The Guardian, The Independent.
i don't think you can describe them as right wing by any stretch.

hotmail.com

Lib Dem policy seems to have changed from revoke to referendum according to the interview tonight from their leader.

prawnsambo

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

you got the The Mirror, The Guardian, The Independent.
i don't think you can describe them as right wing by any stretch.

Weighted by circulation, they are.

prawnsambo

hotmail.com wrote: »

Lib Dem policy seems to have changed from revoke to referendum according to the interview tonight from their leader.

Yeah, was discussed up thread. Think they changed around September.

hotmail.com

prawnsambo wrote: »

Yeah, was discussed up thread. Think they changed around September.

Their manifesto says different.

Letwin_Larry

hotmail.com wrote: »

Lib Dem policy seems to have changed from revoke to referendum according to the interview tonight from their leader.

so much for them being a clear choice.

prawnsambo

hotmail.com wrote: »

Their manifesto says different.

Was wrong on September, much more recent. This from The Times a week ago.

quokula

They only introduced the revoke policy in September. They’ve been rowing back from it over the last week or two as it’s proven to be a major vote loser vs the far more pragmatic second referendum proposal from Labour.

prawnsambo

quokula wrote: »

They only introduced the revoke policy in September. They’ve been rowing back from it over the last week or two as it’s proven to be a major vote loser vs the far more pragmatic second referendum proposal from Labour.

The revoke policy goes back a lot longer than that. It was part of their European Election manifesto.

hotmail.com

prawnsambo wrote: »

Was wrong on September, much more recent. This from The Times a week ago.

But you said this was discussed already ?

I suppose we all get forgetful.

And the interview tonight appeared to publicly confirm their position on revoke has evolved.

Too little, too late for the Lib Dems. Had they not entered the coalition in 2010, they would be sitting fine now. The same thing happened with Labour here.

quokula

prawnsambo wrote: »

The revoke policy goes back a lot longer than that. It was part of their European Election manifesto.

No it was announced at their party conference on 15th September. Prior to that their position was a second referendum.

prawnsambo

hotmail.com wrote: »

But you said this was discussed already ?

I suppose we all get forgetful.

And the interview tonight appeared to publicly confirm their position on revoke has evolved.

Too little, too late for the Lib Dems. Had they not entered the coalition in 2010, they would be sitting fine now. The same thing happened with Labour here.

Old age.


To be fair, somebody else said September. Didn't check it until now. Turns out they were talking about the revoke policy. Which was also wrong. This place is going to the dogs.