Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Corbyn & Cabinet in the Media

killer b said:
It isn't a different question - you know what the answer is. That's what makes this happening a problem ffs.
Click to expand...
Of course it is. I'm sure they'd have loved to do it to the Tories if they'd had the chance when Blair was PM.

Blaming Kuenssberg just lets Doughty off the hook
 
Last edited:
The bbc has a statutory duty to be politically impartial - newspapers do not. Kuenssberg and the editorial team were acting like they were working for the latter. In arranging for mr flounce to resign live on air - just before pmqs - is conniving with someone else's political agenda - i.e to cause maximum embarrassment to Corbyn. They then gloated about it afterwards on a blog.
The BBC is not supposed to shape the news - if their politics team dont like that then they should work for a media outlet without those restrictions.
No fucking way would they do that to the tories and they would not have dreamed of doing it to Blair.
Remember we pay for these cunts to behave like this.
 
Last edited:
This is the deleted BBC blog post - spot the impartiality -

"Just before 9am we learned from Laura Kuenssberg, 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.

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

.... we knew his resignation just before PMQs would be a dramatic moment with big political impact... our only fear was that he might pull his punches when the moment came.

When it did, with about five minutes to go before PMQs, he was precise, measured and quietly devastating.

As Andrew Neil handed from the studio to the Commons chamber we took a moment to watch the story ripple out across news outlets and social media. Within minutes we heard David Cameron refer to the resignation during his exchanges with Jeremy Corbyn."
Click to expand...

How is that impartial? Its clearly seeking to shape the news rather than report it - and to the severe detriment of Corbyn.
The relationship between politicians and the media is a fucking oxbridge chumocracy and they all hate corbyn cos hes outside - and threatens - their privallaged, self perpetuating bubble and their policing of acceptable political discourse.
 
Sack the lot of them, and have a bloke just reading out clippings from yesterday's papers. It's the only safe way forward.
 
gosub said:
Sack the lot of them, and have a bloke just reading out clippings from yesterday's papers. It's the only safe way forward.
Click to expand...

So you're cool with a publicly funded news broadcaster concocting a media stunt "for a big political impact" - that's intended to undermine the leader of the opposition?
 
Yep. and equally cool with when they do ones that embarrass Leaders of other parties, which they do.


eta and it wasn't concocting ", it was a real story.
 
Last edited:
The news cycle is the the news cycle. And no amount of making journos stand around in the rain is going to change that. We as a nation are not going to switch to hanging around til gone midnight to find out what Jeremy has done now. Not that far up thread, somebody was trying to say the relationship couldn't be worse.......Long way down to go yet.
 
gosub said:
Yep. and equally cool with when they do ones that embarrass Leaders of other parties, which they do.
Click to expand...

You really think they would have done this to the tories? You're having a laugh - they would have been sacked before you could say "charter renewal". Its not the "news cycle" its the BBC deliberating helping create a politically charged news event.

I really cant think of a precedent for this.
 
Kaka Tim said:
You really think they would have done this to the tories? You're having a laugh - they would have been sacked before you could say "charter renewal". Its not the "news cycle" its the BBC deliberating helping create a politically charged news event.

I really cant think of a precedent for this.
Click to expand...
Thats coz no other fucker has ever decided to be doing his hiring & firing 12 hours before PMQ's
 
Last edited:
belboid said:
why not? No one has actually come up with anything coherent. She didn't manipulate him, she didn't make him do something he wasn't going to do anyway. Journalists negotiate exclusives all the time, it's part of the job.
Click to expand...
Well if it is simply part of the job why did the BBC delete the blog post about it? Surely that shows that (despite their denials) they had some idea that this was more than simply reporting the news.
 
redsquirrel said:
Well if it is simply part of the job why did the BBC delete the blog post about it? Surely that shows that (despite their denials) they had some idea that this was more than simply reporting the news.
Click to expand...

Coz its a training part of the website, the bit where the sticky tape shows. And they realized it was going to end up being a story. That, making the news, rather than reporting it, is apparently against guidelines. Due to the way caching works, once published, they would have been better off leaving it up there.
Putting it (the blog) up so close the event, while things are raw, was a mistake. But so was the formal complaint Labour issued. Makes them look double daft, one on the issue of how the media operate and two for getting more column inches (not in a good way) about the reshuffle.
 
Last edited:
To blog or not to blog? that’s the (deleted) question

Interesting blog by a former BBC editor. I agree (in part)...engineering the resignation on air in itself isnt an issue. Thats a media scoop. Happens all the time. Its the now defunct blog and it's wording I have an issue with. Its not within the remit of the BBC to time a story for maximum political impact so close to PMQs. Intentionally or not (either way doesnt look good) the resignation impacted PMQs and gifted Cameron an unfair advantage. Corbyn knew he was going prior to PMQs but had no idea he would do so publicly and just before PMQs

What I want to know was how was Cameron aware and not corbyn? Surely in thie day and age with MPs on twitter and other forms of social media how come corbyn wasnt aware?
 
Kaka Tim said:
The bbc has a statutory duty to be politically impartial - newspapers do not. Kuenssberg and the editorial team were acting like they were working for the latter. In arranging for mr flounce to resign live on air - just before pmqs - is conniving with someone else's political agenda - i.e to cause maximum embarrassment to Corbyn. They then gloated about it afterwards on a blog.
The BBC is not supposed to shape the news - if their politics team dont like that then they should work for a media outlet without those restrictions.
No fucking way would they do that to the tories and they would not have dreamed of doing it to Blair.
Remember we pay for these cunts to behave like this.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Time to privatize the fuckers.
 
Blue on blue, red on red. Welcome to the year of great schisms… | Andrew Rawnsley

The prime minister would have taken more of a hit to his authority for his concession to the Tory Outers had the opposition been in any position to ridicule David Cameron for being unable to impose himself on his party. Labour is far too consumed by its own divisions to be able to mount a critique of anyone else’s leadership. There are many of them, but the most fissile split on the immediate horizon is over the nuclear deterrent. That is what Jeremy Corbyn’s acrimonious and slow-motion reshuffle was really all about.

This was slightly obscured by the ice-picking of Michael Dugher and Pat McFadden for alleged acts of disloyalty against the Great Helmsman of Islington. When he sacked Mr McFadden by phone, the Labour leader said he was particularly angry with the Wolverhampton MP for remarks he made condemning Isis for the Paris massacres. It is apparently now a thought crime in the Labour party to suggest that terrorists ought to be held responsible for their actions.
Click to expand...
 
its the way the article lazily goes down the Stalin of Islington line that does it for me. In other news, Nick Cohen wrote a piece today that wasn't about corbyn and what a shit he is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rob Ray
The collapsing media landscape
2
Replies
47
Views
2K
hitmouse
hitmouse
frogwoman
  • Poll
What is the first serious Labour scandal gonna be?
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
191
Views
8K
Serge Forward
Serge Forward
tim
Anyone worried about the UK becoming a one party state?
2
Replies
54
Views
2K
Kid_Eternity
Kid_Eternity
Fez909
Positives about the next Labour government
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
178
Views
8K
Silas Loom
Silas Loom
P
In Blackpool South, did people vote because they are head over heals with Labour
Replies
27
Views
997
A380
A380
Back
Top Bottom