Just done a post in blog about Reading the Guradian.
Responds to Open Door today looking for reasons why readers complain about G take on Corbyn.
Mostly, I mention the way they use opposition to Brexit as a way to knock Corbyn, not covering what he has actually said. So I would like to go back to what happened during the referendum, how that was reported, the "soft coup" whatever you want to call it, how the G opinion supported this.
there is going to be news over the next few months but how did Brexit happen? Quite possibly the pressures and situations around now are similar to then. Many of the same people.
Today news Guardian mentions Labour strategic concern with working class voters who supported Leave. From the space given to Lord Adonis this is not a concern they consider news for the people they think are readers. Was it much the same during referendum? Corbyn arguments aimed at Labour voters or lost Labour voters. Alan Johnson, Lord Mandelson and others supporting lines from Cameron. Newspapers ignoring Corbyn or getting briefed for a blame game. Speculation obviously but there may be info somewhere.
Just that the Brexit decision seems so strange there must be an explanation as to why the media did such a bad job at explaining the downside. Failure to report what Corbyn was saying is part of this, so need to explore why knocking Corbyn is such a priority.
Monday 20 August 2018
Monday 13 August 2018
Links on Boris , Sky , and Tweet pressure
Trying to track what turns up on Twitter.
Starts with comment on Sky blog by Lewis Goodall about class in Britain, how it allows views such as from Boris to go unchallenged.
But the episode adverts to something else, something which though not shifting in the mantle of our politics, has long been an irreducible, solid part of its core: all that is important in these matters in Britain, is that you are powerful - that you can say what you like, as long as you're posh.
Evidence then from a wide range of media support.
Then you get @mediaGuido objecting and then @montie who remarks "Big Questions here for @SkyNewsHead"
So by the way, there have been recent statements by Rowan Atkinson and others about the value of free speech. So how often should line management get involved with opinion for journalists?
Anyway, my main question is still on looking back to the referendum and what happened. What was Boris allowed to get away with? Was there any journalism as in questions or review as to what he was saying and did it make sense? My memory suggests probably not.
Boris situation continues, maybe further clues as to who might have done better reporting and what actually happened.
=====================
Meanwhile I think Sky is able to resist this kind of pressure. BBC seems to think they have a duty to support HMG so EU is something of an enemy. Sky more likley to report facts such as lorries near Dover.
Starts with comment on Sky blog by Lewis Goodall about class in Britain, how it allows views such as from Boris to go unchallenged.
But the episode adverts to something else, something which though not shifting in the mantle of our politics, has long been an irreducible, solid part of its core: all that is important in these matters in Britain, is that you are powerful - that you can say what you like, as long as you're posh.
Evidence then from a wide range of media support.
Then you get @mediaGuido objecting and then @montie who remarks "Big Questions here for @SkyNewsHead"
So by the way, there have been recent statements by Rowan Atkinson and others about the value of free speech. So how often should line management get involved with opinion for journalists?
Anyway, my main question is still on looking back to the referendum and what happened. What was Boris allowed to get away with? Was there any journalism as in questions or review as to what he was saying and did it make sense? My memory suggests probably not.
Boris situation continues, maybe further clues as to who might have done better reporting and what actually happened.
=====================
Meanwhile I think Sky is able to resist this kind of pressure. BBC seems to think they have a duty to support HMG so EU is something of an enemy. Sky more likley to report facts such as lorries near Dover.
Tim, I think @ofcom need to investigate Sky News bias. When was the last time you saw Faisal Islam cover a positive Brexit story? How about Conway? Boulton? Allegretti?
This might work on the BBC. Something Brexit positive turns up so they have to find some balance?
Sunday 12 August 2018
Draft for current Futurelearn course on British Empire
I am well into the time this course but dipping in and out. I did it previously in 2017. ( The stats on dropouts for a MOOC often ignore how people can dip back in again later or find something similar)
I think this is needed towards the end of August. Comments and suggestions welcome. Should be 300 words, getting too long already.
Blog is the first draft of journalism, history some weeks later. (Continental Drift book found in Blackwell's bookshop under Politics, not History)
I think this is needed towards the end of August. Comments and suggestions welcome. Should be 300 words, getting too long already.
Blog is the first draft of journalism, history some weeks later. (Continental Drift book found in Blackwell's bookshop under Politics, not History)
Legacy of British Empire
( draft for current course , updated from previous course Feb 2017 )
The present situation is part of European history and empires, the Dutch and Portuguese included. The financial aspect of the British Empire is now part of the USA dollar situation. So there is a wider context than first appears.
Public opinion is influenced by empire, notions of jingoism (UK) and exceptionalism (USA) for example. These seem to be less rational than could be shown as related to anything specific. Hitchcock remade the 39 Steps as North by North West , there was not much need to describe the external threat.
History as a subject can cross over with journalism or just speculation. The book Continental Drift by Benjamin Grob-Fitzgibbon describes UK policy on Europe up to the time of John Major. It shows how attitudes to Empire led to expectations of a role in Europe that turned out to be quite different to reality. The move towards leaving Europe has been based on an idea of “post-Geography” . Brexiteers such as Liam Fox see buccaneers as a role model. In the last year as the arrangements with the EU seem to be more complex than first claimed there has been a switch to more emphasis on issues around race and identity. Boris Johnson is now working with Steve Bannon on concerns around Islam.
How much sense the claims about the economy will make remains to be seen. It is possible that the British government is deluded, as are most of the newspapers and the public. Will a global market be less of a threat for the “just about managing”? It is not yet possible to discuss this as history but whatever happens will be explained as part of a longer story. Possibly the post imperial idea of a Global Britain will fail but the blame will be sorted out by a retreat to a culture that could still be explained through imperial history.
Some links to clarify what was in my original text, based on comments
"post-Geography" is a term used by Liam Fox. It might be futurist but I think it looks back to a previous time for UK options.
https://www.ft.com/content/e456c008-8642-11e6-8897-2359a58ac7a5
Hitchcock continued Buchan themes in film from novels. The course included the adventure stories in print. Hitchcock developed repeated ideas in USA from UK and they fit with Empire and Cold War.
More about Continental Drift
Intro as free PDF
Full info
You have to fill in the gaps towards the end. But it is clear enough about the Empire expectations post WW2 and the early approach to Europe from Heath and Wilson.
========
Back to Corbyn and Referendum - What Happened?
Current phase of tweets etc around Corbyn and racism is taking up too much time to check out facts. Still important but I think I will go back to the referendum time and try to work out more about what happened. It may turn out to be one continuing story.
Stephen Bush in the Sunday Times speculates that some centrist Labour MPs have changed their point of view. Just after Corbyn was elected leader they thought there was enough time to wait for him to fail. But recently there are more Corbyn supporters joining as members. So some sort of new party is possible.
I am trying to find out more about "United For Change" . I am following them on Twitter. No clues yet on who is connected.
But what about "Saving Labour" ? This was a massive social media presence during the second leadership election. Still not much info on who was organising it. The main decisions about how Labour was organised for the referendum were taken before Corbyn became leader. It appears he did not have complete influence on the statements being made. the "blame Corbyn" trope came in a press release very rapidly after the result. Mandelson was quite keen to follow the Cameron lead even though upset by a lack of defence against misinformation. When the latter polls looked dodgy Cameron made space for Labour which turned out to include Lord Darling sharing a platform with Osborne. My guess is this was less convincing than had Corbyn been better reported for arguments based on worker rights and environment.
So I hope to go back to some of this. There may be clues on which MPs and journalists were concerned with different outcomes.
Continuing queries
Channel 4 blocked Corbyn from using complete clips from Last Resort. why? Anyone got a copy?
Thing is, for those worried about Brexit, and Corbyn "Fudge" as claimed by @BBCnews paper review yesterday evening, what he said in referendum is worth quoting. He did campaign for Remain, whatever version of history suits the people who need an issue to contest around him.
Two heckles reported by BBC seem to be not from upset Labour supporters but from Lib Dems and Portland. Has this been checked out? Where is Newsnight getting info or leads?
The Shadow Cabinet resignations started with reports in Observer and Sunday Times that Hilary Benn had no confidence in Corbyn. No way he could continue though this was later reported as "sacked in the middle of the night". What was the source of the story?
new one
Gavin Esler recently writing about the poor reporting on Brexit so far. He probably cannot go into detail about the BBC but maybe info will emerge around how things worked out. I got the impression that there was pressure from both sides in government. So reports tended to be a collection of conflicting statements with no way to judge any assessment. Left little space for Corbyn or other views.
Seems much the same at the moment. Reading the Observer today you would think that this week Corbyn has no way to exist. But probably something continues.
Stephen Bush in the Sunday Times speculates that some centrist Labour MPs have changed their point of view. Just after Corbyn was elected leader they thought there was enough time to wait for him to fail. But recently there are more Corbyn supporters joining as members. So some sort of new party is possible.
I am trying to find out more about "United For Change" . I am following them on Twitter. No clues yet on who is connected.
But what about "Saving Labour" ? This was a massive social media presence during the second leadership election. Still not much info on who was organising it. The main decisions about how Labour was organised for the referendum were taken before Corbyn became leader. It appears he did not have complete influence on the statements being made. the "blame Corbyn" trope came in a press release very rapidly after the result. Mandelson was quite keen to follow the Cameron lead even though upset by a lack of defence against misinformation. When the latter polls looked dodgy Cameron made space for Labour which turned out to include Lord Darling sharing a platform with Osborne. My guess is this was less convincing than had Corbyn been better reported for arguments based on worker rights and environment.
So I hope to go back to some of this. There may be clues on which MPs and journalists were concerned with different outcomes.
Continuing queries
Channel 4 blocked Corbyn from using complete clips from Last Resort. why? Anyone got a copy?
Thing is, for those worried about Brexit, and Corbyn "Fudge" as claimed by @BBCnews paper review yesterday evening, what he said in referendum is worth quoting. He did campaign for Remain, whatever version of history suits the people who need an issue to contest around him.
Two heckles reported by BBC seem to be not from upset Labour supporters but from Lib Dems and Portland. Has this been checked out? Where is Newsnight getting info or leads?
The Shadow Cabinet resignations started with reports in Observer and Sunday Times that Hilary Benn had no confidence in Corbyn. No way he could continue though this was later reported as "sacked in the middle of the night". What was the source of the story?
new one
Gavin Esler recently writing about the poor reporting on Brexit so far. He probably cannot go into detail about the BBC but maybe info will emerge around how things worked out. I got the impression that there was pressure from both sides in government. So reports tended to be a collection of conflicting statements with no way to judge any assessment. Left little space for Corbyn or other views.
Seems much the same at the moment. Reading the Observer today you would think that this week Corbyn has no way to exist. But probably something continues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)