All things Labour Party

[Seaford Saint]

Quite by chance this appeared on my Facebook....The British press "systematically undermined" Jeremy Corbyn with an onslaught of negative media coverage in his first week as Labour leader, new research has claimed.

 

The Media Reform Coalition analysed nearly 500 pieces across eight national newspapers, including The Sun, The Times, Guardian and Daily Mail, and found 60% of their articles were 'negative', meaning they were openly hostile or expressed animosity or ridicule.

 

Out of the 494 articles across the papers during Corbyn's first seven days at leader, 60% (296 articles) were negative, with only 13% positive stories (65 articles) and 27% taking a "neutral" stance (133 articles), the report says.

 

t was released by the Media Reform Coalition, a group of academics, media campaigners and civil society groups which claims not to be linked to any political party.

 

In the days after he was selected, Corbyn was criticised for his controversial shadow cabinet appointments, policies that were at odds with the views of many of the party's leading figures, his decision not to sing the national anthem and his poor relationship with the media after pulling out of an interview on the Andrew Marr show.

 

The Sun, its sister paper The Sun on Sunday, and The Daily Mail published the highest ratio of 'negative' stories about the new leader, according to the report, with 91% of each newspaper's coverage considered critical.

The Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph follow with 83% of its coverage deemed negative, while 71% of stories published about Corbyn in The Times and Sunday Times were 'negative'.

 

By contrast, just 11% of articles in the Guardian newspaper were 'negative'.

 

News articles, in which the media ostensibly do not editorialise, were actually the most critical of Corbyn, the report says.

 

Out of 292 news pieces, 181 were judged negative, while 92 were 'neutral' and just 19 'positive', the report found.

 

"One might expect news items, as opposed to comment and editorial pieces, to take a more balanced approach but in fact the opposite is true. A mere 6% of stories classed as news (19 out of 292) were positive, versus 61% negative stories and 32% taking a neutral stance."

 

"This ‘default’ position is particularly significant given how these stories make up the bulk of the coverage during Corbyn’s first week".

[CB Fry]

Quite by chance this appeared on my Facebook....The British press "systematically undermined" Jeremy Corbyn with an onslaught of negative media coverage in his first week as Labour leader, new research has claimed.

 

The Media Reform Coalition analysed nearly 500 pieces across eight national newspapers, including The Sun, The Times, Guardian and Daily Mail, and found 60% of their articles were 'negative', meaning they were openly hostile or expressed animosity or ridicule.

 

Out of the 494 articles across the papers during Corbyn's first seven days at leader, 60% (296 articles) were negative, with only 13% positive stories (65 articles) and 27% taking a "neutral" stance (133 articles), the report says.

 

t was released by the Media Reform Coalition, a group of academics, media campaigners and civil society groups which claims not to be linked to any political party.

 

In the days after he was selected, Corbyn was criticised for his controversial shadow cabinet appointments, policies that were at odds with the views of many of the party's leading figures, his decision not to sing the national anthem and his poor relationship with the media after pulling out of an interview on the Andrew Marr show.

 

The Sun, its sister paper The Sun on Sunday, and The Daily Mail published the highest ratio of 'negative' stories about the new leader, according to the report, with 91% of each newspaper's coverage considered critical.

The Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph follow with 83% of its coverage deemed negative, while 71% of stories published about Corbyn in The Times and Sunday Times were 'negative'.

 

By contrast, just 11% of articles in the Guardian newspaper were 'negative'.

 

News articles, in which the media ostensibly do not editorialise, were actually the most critical of Corbyn, the report says.

 

Out of 292 news pieces, 181 were judged negative, while 92 were 'neutral' and just 19 'positive', the report found.

 

"One might expect news items, as opposed to comment and editorial pieces, to take a more balanced approach but in fact the opposite is true. A mere 6% of stories classed as news (19 out of 292) were positive, versus 61% negative stories and 32% taking a neutral stance."

 

"This ‘default’ position is particularly significant given how these stories make up the bulk of the coverage during Corbyn’s first week".

That's mainly because he hasn't done anything good.

[hypochondriac]

No-one mentioned being in Murdoch's pocket. The point, apparently lost on you, was that Harding has a history of working for right of centre publications. He is also on record as making the BBC newsroom more Israel friendly and has a decades long friendship with Osborne. Real friendships are not broken by one disagreement .

 

Are you suggesting the BBC is right wing??? Bloody hell...

[buctootim]

John Cole or Andrew Marr would describe that utter effing shambles of a reshuffle in exactly that same way.

 

Corbyn, by some considerable distance is the most pathetic leader of a major political party in my lifetime. They say he has no credibility because he doesn't.

 

And let's not gloss over the fact that Seamus Milne has been asking Laura for advice on how to communicate Labour's message better. But yeah, it's her that's out of her depth.

 

Kuesenburg's piece was littered with value judgements, opinions rather than fact, something neither Marr or Cole would have done. Either Kusenburg isnt up to it or the BBC has lost its way, possibly both.

 

None of the candidates who stood in the recent Labour leadership contest were electable. Three were centrist Blairite lite without sufficient credibility or ability and then there was Corbyn, who at least offered a choice, a different option. He has made it possible to actually discuss issues like nuclear disarmanament, not going to war every time we're asked, and how our foreign policy to contributes to the problems we later face. I have never thought Corbyn would still be Labour leader at the General Election. However Labour will benefit from his groundwork in opening up the party and breaking a few recent self imposed taboos. As a result the next leader will be stronger and more able than any of Burnham, Cooper, Corbyn or Kendall and not saddled with an outdated but untouchable agenda / manifesto.

 

The real issue for me is much wider than Corbyn. Its the media's willingness to dump any pretence of balance or even fair reporting of facts. It is something even Foot or Major never faced to same degree and is genuinely worrying for democracy, for the reasons Johnnyboy gave above.

Edited 8 January, 2016 by buctootim

[Jonnyboy]

That's mainly because he hasn't done anything good.

 

What earth shattering "good" is he supposed to do within a week of office?

[hypochondriac]

That's mainly because he hasn't done anything good.

 

No no it can't be that. It's the media that are hopelessly biased and we are all falling for it. Must be.

[buctootim]

Are you suggesting the BBC is right wing??? Bloody hell...

 

Not in the main, but they've lost balance and introduced opinion into what is supposed to be strictly factual - the news.

[Seaford Saint]

That's mainly because he hasn't done anything good.

 

Nothing at all? Not a thing?

[CB Fry]

What earth shattering "good" is he supposed to do within a week of office?

The minute he took office he was not the choice of his direct reports and even of those from the PLP who nominated him, several renounced their decision in very very strong terms.

 

"Labour parlimentary party rejoices at election of brilliant leader" was obviously the headline should have been but the evil meeja with their lies and agenda obviously made something else up.

 

Since then it's been one car crash after another, so not really sure how the press can be blamed for reporting that relentless cavalcade of clusterf uckage.

[shurlock]

Kuenssberg is a woeful journo -shrill, reductive and trite. Almost miss Nick Robinson.

[Jonnyboy]

Apart from the strongest by-election win for Labour in decades, and the shifting of the centre ground to the left.

If the Labour leader was currently from the right side of the party and in favour of all Osborne's cuts there's no way people like Boris Johnson would've called for a slowdown or halt on such things as child tax credits. Just by being elected and being himself, Corbyn has helped the poorer half in this country.

[Jonnyboy]

No no it can't be that. It's the media that are hopelessly biased and we are all falling for it. Must be.

 

And people are never influenced by the media. That's why global advertising spend is over half a TRILLION dollars. They just love giving that money away.

[CB Fry]

Apart from the strongest by-election win for Labour in decades, and the shifting of the centre ground to the left.

If the Labour leader was currently from the right side of the party and in favour of all Osborne's cuts there's no way people like Boris Johnson would've called for a slowdown or halt on such things as child tax credits. Just by being elected and being himself, Corbyn has helped the poorer half in this country.

 

Dear me.

 

Oldham has been Labour, non stop, since 1970. Really not the strongest by election win for decades. Really, really not.

 

And the House of Lords did for Osborne, while the idiot John McDonnell managed to make him and his red book the story instead of skewering the Tories. A pathetic shambles.

[Seaford Saint]

Dear me.

 

Oldham has been Labour, non stop, since 1970. Really not the strongest by election win for decades. Really, really not.

 

And the House of Lords did for Osborne, while the idiot John McDonnell managed to make him and his red book the story instead of skewering the Tories. A pathetic shambles.

 

John McDonnell and his red book? A crap political stunt it was but you explain to me how it is that we have to ask the Chinese to design and build us a power station. How far has this country fallen? Why can't we build our own?

[Batman]

John McDonnell and his red book? A crap political stunt it was but you explain to me how it is that we have to ask the Chinese to design and build us a power station. How far has this country fallen? Why can't we build our own?

 

Because for so long, nuclear power was bad and there was no desire to build anything to do with nuclear fission

[Jonnyboy]

Dear me.

 

Oldham has been Labour, non stop, since 1970. Really not the strongest by election win for decades. Really, really not.

 

And the House of Lords did for Osborne, while the idiot John McDonnell managed to make him and his red book the story instead of skewering the Tories. A pathetic shambles.

 

Out of interest, who would you rather have as Prime Minister, David Cameron or Jeremy Corbyn?

[hypochondriac]

Out of interest, who would you rather have as Prime Minister, David Cameron or Jeremy Corbyn?

 

Do the policies come with them? If so Cameron 100% and the British public clearly believe that as well. Corbyn and some of his barmy ideas will never be prime minister and thank goodness for that. Lets hope that someone like Hilary Benn can take over at some point and maybe labour will be electable again.

[Seaford Saint]

The BBC coordinated the live on-air resignation of shadow cabinet member Stephen Doughty in advance. This was revealed by Andrew Alexander, an output editor for the Daily and Sunday Politics series, in a post on the BBC Academy website. The post has now been conveniently deleted. However, a cached version is available here – for now. It reads:

 

Just before 9am we learned from Laura Kuenssberg, who comes on the programme every Wednesday ahead of PMQs, that she was speaking to one junior shadow minister who was considering resigning. I wonder, mused our presenter Andrew Neil, if they would consider doing it live on the show?

A public resignation right before PMQs would do the most damage to Jeremy Corbyn, as was acknowledged a high profile supporting twitter account.

[CB Fry]

Out of interest, who would you rather have as Prime Minister, David Cameron or Jeremy Corbyn?

I've voted Labour at every election since I was old enough from 1997 onwards but Cameron all day long. Corbyn utterly unqualified to run anything or already proven incapable of making a decision about anything and surrounds himself with cretins like Milne and the questionable STW Coalition.

 

It's a pointless question anyway, because Corbyn will never be PM and his shambolic version of the Labour party means at least 15 years of Conservative government.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I've voted Labour at every election since I was old enough from 1997 onwards but Cameron all day long. Corbyn utterly unqualified to run anything or already proven incapable of making a decision about anything and surrounds himself with cretins like Milne and the questionable STW Coalition.

 

It's a pointless question anyway, because Corbyn will never be PM and his shambolic version of the Labour party means at least 15 years of Conservative government.

 

The thing that his supporters don't seem to get is the complete incompetence of the man . Forget the fact that to win an election he needs to win Tory /Lab marginals , he's made balls up after balls up . Abandoned principle after principle & generally set the Labour Party back years . At least Foot was a serious political figure , even Livingstone was competent but wrong , this chump is just a student politician that never grew up . Anyone who thinks he'll do the lefts cause any good is deluded .

[CB Fry]

The BBC coordinated the live on-air resignation of shadow cabinet member Stephen Doughty in advance. This was revealed by Andrew Alexander, an output editor for the Daily and Sunday Politics series, in a post on the BBC Academy website. The post has now been conveniently deleted. However, a cached version is available here – for now. It reads:

 

Just before 9am we learned from Laura Kuenssberg, who comes on the programme every Wednesday ahead of PMQs, that she was speaking to one junior shadow minister who was considering resigning. I wonder, mused our presenter Andrew Neil, if they would consider doing it live on the show?

A public resignation right before PMQs would do the most damage to Jeremy Corbyn, as was acknowledged a high profile supporting twitter account.

 

Why have you butchered the quote - where does the BBC blog mention "doing the most damage to Jeremy Corbyn"? It doesn't.

 

This is the actual quote:

 

“Just before 9am we learned from Laura Kuenssberg, who comes on the programme every Wednesday ahead of PMQs, that she was speaking to one junior shadow minister who was considering resigning. I wonder, mused our presenter Andrew Neil, if they would consider doing it live on the show?

 

The question was put to Laura, who thought it was a great idea. Considering it a long shot we carried on the usual work of building the show, and continued speaking to Labour MPs who were confirming reports of a string of shadow ministers considering their positions.

 

Within the hour we heard that Laura had sealed the deal: the shadow foreign minister Stephen Doughty would resign live in the studio.

 

Although he himself would probably acknowledge he isn’t a household name, we knew his resignation just before PMQs would be a dramatic moment with big political impact.”

 

Doughty tweeted himself his reasons and far from being a helpless pawn in the BBC's propaganda plan decided to do the right thing before Corbyn's army of smearing, press briefing, rumour mongers start attacking him. Which they then did.

 

It's hilarious the Corbynista bleating about the horrible biased media when it is Corbyn's main man Seamus Milne who has spent the last few weeks briefing poison about members of the shadow cabinet and trailing people being sacked for weeks.

 

The spite from the likes of Ken and John McDonnell, plus Diane Abbott lying about the resignees on Newsnight, just give a far better insight to the reality of the "new politics" of this odd bunch.

 

The doe-eyed saps who think Corbyn is some whiter-than-white combination of Obi Wan and Christ the Redeemer will, in time, learn where the bile is really coming from. Paranoia, retrenchment, laced with bumbling incompetence, which leads to lashing out, bluster and gibberish (hello Diane Abbott).

 

But yeah, it's Laura Kuenssberg who is out of her depth.

[CB Fry]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/collegeofjournalism/entries/82a00c77-c0cc-4e79-99ca-25e9c21d01a7

 

Here's the cached page of the blog.

[Seaford Saint]

Why have you butchered the quote - where does the BBC blog mention "doing the most damage to Jeremy Corbyn"? It doesn't.

 

This is the actual quote:

 

“Just before 9am we learned from Laura Kuenssberg, who comes on the programme every Wednesday ahead of PMQs, that she was speaking to one junior shadow minister who was considering resigning. I wonder, mused our presenter Andrew Neil, if they would consider doing it live on the show?

 

The question was put to Laura, who thought it was a great idea. Considering it a long shot we carried on the usual work of building the show, and continued speaking to Labour MPs who were confirming reports of a string of shadow ministers considering their positions.

 

Within the hour we heard that Laura had sealed the deal: the shadow foreign minister Stephen Doughty would resign live in the studio.

 

Although he himself would probably acknowledge he isn’t a household name, we knew his resignation just before PMQs would be a dramatic moment with big political impact.”

 

Doughty tweeted himself his reasons and far from being a helpless pawn in the BBC's propaganda plan decided to do the right thing before Corbyn's army of smearing, press briefing, rumour mongers start attacking him. Which they then did.

 

It's hilarious the Corbynista bleating about the horrible biased media when it is Corbyn's main man Seamus Milne who has spent the last few weeks briefing poison about members of the shadow cabinet and trailing people being sacked for weeks.

 

The spite from the likes of Ken and John McDonnell, plus Diane Abbott lying about the resignees on Newsnight, just give a far better insight to the reality of the "new politics" of this odd bunch.

 

The doe-eyed saps who think Corbyn is some whiter-than-white combination of Obi Wan and Christ the Redeemer will, in time, learn where the bile is really coming from. Paranoia, retrenchment, laced with bumbling incompetence, which leads to lashing out, bluster and gibberish (hello Diane Abbott).

 

But yeah, it's Laura Kuenssberg who is out of her depth.

 

I did not alter the quote but cut and paste something I read...the perils of the internet, sadly.

[Jonnyboy]

I've voted Labour at every election since I was old enough from 1997 onwards but Cameron all day long. Corbyn utterly unqualified to run anything or already proven incapable of making a decision about anything and surrounds himself with cretins like Milne and the questionable STW Coalition.

 

It's a pointless question anyway, because Corbyn will never be PM and his shambolic version of the Labour party means at least 15 years of Conservative government.

 

Case closed.

[CB Fry]

Case closed.

What case? It's been very clear what my view on Corbyn is for the entire duration of this thread, so gawd knows what you think you've revealed.

 

I don't want him as leader of the Labour party. Why? Because I want a f ucking Labour government as soon as possible.

[Jonnyboy]

What case? It's been very clear what my view on Corbyn is for the entire duration of this thread, so gawd knows what you think you've revealed.

 

I don't want him as leader of the Labour party. Why? Because I want a f ucking Labour government as soon as possible.

 

You just said you'd rather have DC than JC as PM, therefore you care more about the person at the top than the party in government.

[CB Fry]

You just said you'd rather have DC than JC as PM, therefore you care more about the person at the top than the party in government.

I care about competent leadership, and Corbyn is not a competent leader as proven by thirty odd years of leading nothing or making any decisions about anything.

 

You didn't ask me what party I want in government so probably best not to put words in my mouth, okay?

[Jonnyboy]

I care about competent leadership, and Corbyn is not a competent leader as proven by thirty odd years of leading nothing or making any decisions about anything.

 

You didn't ask me what party I want in government so probably best not to put words in my mouth, okay?

 

Errr.... your last post: "I want a Labour government as soon as possible."

[CB Fry]

Errr.... your last post: "I want a Labour government as soon as possible."

Correct. So what's your "case" that you've so brilliantly closed, Poirot?

[Jonnyboy]

Correct. So what's your "case" that you've so brilliantly closed, Poirot?

 

That your political position is basically Tory Lite, and you voted Blair everytime because the Daily Mail found him quite dishy.

[Batman]

That your political position is basically Tory Lite, and you voted Blair everytime because the Daily Mail found him quite dishy.

 

why do you have to be one or the other.

why cant you vote for what ever party serves you best.?

[CB Fry]

That your political position is basically Tory Lite, and you voted Blair everytime because the Daily Mail found him quite dishy.

Okay then.

 

You were crowing about how Comrade Corbyn did such a good job in saving child tax credits for the nation earlier up thread.

 

You think Child tax credits are a good thing then? Interesting.

[CB Fry]

why do you have to be one or the other.

why cant you vote for what ever party serves you best.?

I'm also trying to work out how I voted for "Blair" in 2010 and 2015, but Johnnyboy is struggling on this thread, it's fair to say.

[Jonnyboy]

I'm also trying to work out how I voted for "Blair" in 2010 and 2015, but Johnnyboy is struggling on this thread, it's fair to say.

 

I'm still trying to work out how a Ed Miliband voter can prefer a Tory government to a JC lead Labour government.

[Batman]

I'm still trying to work out how a Ed Miliband voter can prefer a Tory government to a JC lead Labour government.

 

because a tory government might be better for their family than a corbyn one?

many people just dont follow a party regardless

[buctootim]

because a tory government might be better for their family than a corbyn one?

many people just dont follow a party regardless

 

So voting is only about self interest? Cant say I'm shocked by that sentiment from you.

[buctootim]

I'm also trying to work out how I voted for "Blair" in 2010 and 2015, but Johnnyboy is struggling on this thread, it's fair to say.

 

I think he's pretty much nailed it. Melodramatics over Corbyn are making your posts inconsistent at best.

[Batman]

So voting is only about self interest? Cant say I'm shocked by that sentiment from you.

 

Yep. What works for me and my family first.

[CB Fry]

I think he's pretty much nailed it. Melodramatics over Corbyn are making your posts inconsistent at best.

So me saying I don't want Corbyn anywhere near the leadership of the Labour party but would want him as Prime Minister would be more consistent, would it? Okay then.

 

Stick to whining about the howwible old right wing biased BBC, Tim. I am sure Nigel Farage would wholeheartedly agree.

[CB Fry]

I'm still trying to work out how a Ed Miliband voter can prefer a Tory government to a JC lead Labour government.

There isn't ever going to be a Corbyn led Labour government. Ever. Get used to it.

[buctootim]

Are you suggesting the BBC is right wing??? Bloody hell...

 

Not in the main, but they've lost balance and introduced opinion into what is supposed to be strictly factual - the news.

 

Stick to whining about the howwible old right wing biased BBC, Tim.

 

Is it a reading disorder, or a comprehension one?

[CB Fry]

Is it a reading disorder, or a comprehension one?

Okay then. Stop whining that the most shambolic reshuffle in British political history was reported as such.

[aintforever]

I'm still trying to work out how a Ed Miliband voter can prefer a Tory government to a JC lead Labour government.

 

Not sure why. I hate the Tories and all they stand for with a passion, but I would have to think twice before giving him the keys to no10. I agree with some of his policies but certain things, like his hug a terrorist approach, make him simply unelectable.

[sadoldgit]

Yep. What works for me and my family first.

 

Sometimes what is best for you is not what is best for YOU, if you get my drift.

[Verbal]

Oh dear, your liberalism seems to have eaten itself. The world according to Verbal - Reports I agree with are entirely balanced. Reports I disagree with are preposterous, cretinous and Pravda like. I think I can see why your producing career bailed on you.

 

I've just noticed this. You're perfectly entitled to criticise my political position, just as I think you are a gullible patsy in an irrelevant and cretinous cult that was once a major political party. However, making stupid and ignorant comments about others' professional careers is out of order.

[JackFrost]

There isn't ever going to be a Corbyn led Labour government. Ever. Get used to it.

 

Yup.

 

But the problem goes far beyond Corbyn.

 

Corbyn is only there because they have no one else to turn to. No one else is there. And the reason there is no one else is because the current Labour Party has no identity, serves no purpose and has little or no philosophy of any substance. The cult of Blairism inevitably died (The more Blairite the candidate was at the leadership contest, the worse they did) and it's left a party which is little more than a cluster**** of left-wingers and career politicians pretending their remotely interested in the working class.

 

When you have the BBC legitimately asking Dennis Skinner if he's getting a role in the shadow cabinet you know the party's ****ed.

[trousers]

Looks like the BBC are going to great lengths to even up the anti-party leader bias...

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-slammed-live-on-tv-by-andrew-marr-show-band-squeeze-a6804751.html

[buctootim]

Looks like the BBC are going to great lengths to even up the anti-party leader bias...

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-slammed-live-on-tv-by-andrew-marr-show-band-squeeze-a6804751.html

 

By having Cameron on but not the other party leaders you mean?

[Verbal]

Looks like the BBC are going to great lengths to even up the anti-party leader bias...

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-slammed-live-on-tv-by-andrew-marr-show-band-squeeze-a6804751.html

 

They're not. The doe-eyed cultists have whisked themselves into a frenzy about how the 'Tory media' have only singled out Corbyn and his Trotskyist clique for unprecedented critical attention - as if PigGate never happened. The Guardian is if anything subject to more of a meltdown by these conspiracist dimwits. But the very research they quote that's supposed to demonstrate a media conspiracy estimates the 'negative' news coverage in the Guardian at a whole 11%.

[CB Fry]

By having Cameron on but not the other party leaders you mean?

Corbyn bottled out of the Marr interview that was planned the day after he was elected leader. The poor lamb only had weeks to prepare for it so must have been such a shock when it was sprung on him.