Huffington Post in Guardian role to work with Telegraph and YouTube

Last night there was an EU Debate on YouTube linked to the Huffington Post and the Telegraph. Both websites had comment options and staff reporting. I found a lot of interest on Twitter.

Before the last election there was a proposal for a YouTube debate organised by the Telegraph and the Guardian. I don't think this ever happened. Not sure why the Huffington Post has taken over the Guardian role. Maybe they work with YouTube in the USA. Maybe they are building enough audience to convince the Telegraph they are a suitable partner in moving online. Personally I find the Huffington Post has a wider range of views while the Guardian sometimes fits the news reporting around the views of star columnists. Gradually if other people get the same impression they lose the basis of hosting a debate.

The Huffington Post has started to upload clips and the Telegraph has a two minute edit ( from 90 ) so the space for comments is there. there are many other YouTube clips that together compare well tith television in my opinion.

By the way, I thought Liz Kendall made an effective case about worker rights and the positive reasons for Remain. I still think the media treatment of Corbyn is a concern and of interest in itself. But just considering the next ten days if Liz Kendall is one of the few people the media will allow live on camera then I hope the clip of record will soon appear on YouTube.

Instant Rave

This blog is wandering off from being a sort of study of how Fleet Street is coping. It must be obvious I have my own bias. This morning not good so far so here is a rave jumble ahead of a calm post coming up.

I bought a Guardian and a Mirror to check the reporting of Jeremy Corbyn speech yesterday. Both have switched to Osborne as the main story. Only the Mirror has any direct quote from what Corbyn said, at the bottom of an inside page.

So the apparent backing off from Cameron and a window for a Labour case has lasted just a couple of days.

On 7 June Polly Toynbee wrote about there "still being time for hope"  in persuading against Brexit but she only mentioned Jeremy Corbyn towards the end -

Will enough Labour people get out there, making the case? Jeremy Corbyn’s contribution has been more saboteur than saviour, dismissing the remain case as “histrionic”, “myth-making”, “prophecies of doom”.

No mention of his arguments based on worker rights or the environment. There has been similar selective quoting by Andrew Neil. The question seems to be why Corbyn has not supported Cameron. or shared a platform. It seems to me quite reasonable for Corbyn to say that the Cameron case is not one he shares, it has not been presented well, the facts are open to question, and the scare direction has had a negative effect.

I still can't work out what Alistair Darling has got involved in. He is sharing a platform maybe but not getting much billing. The on the Today program he was not mentioned till the question came up of how Osborne would get his alarming budget through parliament with 50 Tory rebels. I have turned off the radio while writing this so make your own enquiries how this turns out.

My guess is that there was a Remain panic at the end of last week or at least a look at the polls and a decision Labour could be useful to the Remain case. But two days is not very long, especially if the newspapers ignore what is being said. I can't see how Labour will choose to stay with Osborne.

Still time for the Guardian and other media to report Corbyn directly for what he has to say. Bujt this simple option seems very unlikely.

Brexit Fleet Street doing a wonderful job

Time to catch up on some notes and jottings. Main conclusion is that the Brexit press is winning and this is largely because they are doing well at journalism as it now functions. More below on attitudes to facts and the Guardian in detail.

But recent examples are the Sun on Sunday coverage of Jeremy Corbyn and the Daily Express today refuting Cameron on pensions. The BBC Radio 4 8 o'clock press review featured the Sun report and this could easily be explained because it is interesting. There may not be an anti Corbyn bias as such in the way the TV works. I keep an open mind. They just follow a news agenda set by the print media because this is still influential and has skill in launching stories.

More later on facts. I happen to think the Sun basis is a bit shaky when it comes to facts. "The party's leader, a lifelong Eurosceptic, acts as if he would rather do anything else than campaign." That is the editorial on page 16. Report on page 11 includes nothing of what was said, the critique of the scare approach from Cameron or the importance of worker rights and the environment. But the photo is striking and the "cringeworthy" is inserted quickly. The actual show is still available on catchup, maybe skip 20 minutes if you just want to hear Jeremy Corbyn directly.

"Fury at PM's Pension threat" as Daily Express headline is followed up with Farage quotes on "blackmail" , "terrify" etc.  The website seems to have moved on already but try to get a print copy of the Express. Full of confidence.

By contrast the Guardian seems confused on what to make the main point. They are still reluctant to quote Corbyn directly so mostly support Cameron and are surprised that Labour is not backing Remain on the same basis. I am looking at the Observer and Guardian as one thing so here is Andrew Rawnsley from Sunday

Some Labour MPs cast the blame on journalists for failing to give them the means to convey their messages to the electorate. For once, I have a bit of sympathy with politicians complaining about the media. A useful study from Loughborough University calculates that Labour voices have been present in less than 4% of TV coverage of the campaign. It also finds that not a single Labour figure has made the top 10 of most frequently reported politicians. The press is a law unto itself, but the broadcasters are under an obligation to give fair airtime to the principal party of opposition.

OK so the press is a law unto itself, the only redress could be when the readers give up paying out money.  If the Remain problem is the Labour voters and Cameron has cleared the way for Labour to have more priority, what will be the evidence for this?

Guardian today has report that Brown will "lead the charge" but no report of Corbyn on Channel 4. Matthew d'Ancona writes about "making a terrible mistake" but nothing about the Labour case or worker rights. 

The Times reports that Corbyn will speak tomorrow. It will be interesting if the Guardian reports anything. They have their own ideas on who should be leader of the Labour Party and report on those they are in contact with. But if there is concern for the Remain case they might consider a special occasion.

They already have a headline on the letters page " Which party leader should take the blame for a leave vote?" when some might ask "which newspaper has failed as reporting and as opinion?" but this can come later.

The Times also reports Alan Johnson and others writing to the BBC, Sky and ITV about how the Tory psychodrama has obscured other issues. "more focused on the future of the Conservative Party than the future of the country as a whole". Can't find this in the Guardian but they have a point if the 4% figure mentioned by Andrew Rawnsley is correct.

Times also has an editorial on Corbyn as not "credible" . They claim he shows little sign of supporting Remain. This may be based on their own reporting or maybe they read the Guardian.

Meanwhile if you follow Twitter and search on #InCrowd you will find some very clear messages from Jeremy Corbyn that contrast pretty clearly from what is reported.

Strange thing on the Andrew Marr show when he suggested that numbers are just "made up" in an interview with David Cameron. Based on Steve Hilton in the Evening Standard. Apparently he used to make things up so probably this may be so for some of the claims made recently. In the Times today Steve Hilton recalls how he may have been quoted as suggesting that David Cameron is actually in favour of Brexit. there is thjen some backtracking I can't quite follow. So maybe David Cameron is actually not in favour of Remain. The Times editorial suggests the same is true for Jeremy Corbyn just as the Sun continues to claim to know what the Queen thinks even after the IPSO report.

So don't worry too much about facts, just enjoy the journalism.

Trying out Twitter to communicate with Guardian

This blog is going a bit too specific to the Guardian but this is the most surprising scene as far as I can make it out. (The Mail / Mail on Sunday difference is just strange)

Starting with the social media aspect of two chunks of opinion

(For every shrill social media warrior there are dozens of perfectly nice, normal people who backed Corbyn. They’re a lot more fun to ask.)

@gabyhinsliff

The possibility of Brexit could only have happened because of the British press – if there were no other good reason for voting to remain, the hope of denying the press their long-craved triumph on Europe would suffice for me. But Brexit may also happen because of the infantilised and destructively coarse level of debate on social media too.

@martinkettle

This just reminds me about Guardian Unlimited Talk. This was a sort of message board where Guardian readers could contribute. It was destroyed without notice and is never mentioned in the occasional history of the Guardian and social media. If I have this wrong please direct me to some current links.

Gaby Hinsleff explains how the lobby works and how there appears to be a shared view. This is not a conspiracy just an occupational concern to stay close to the movers and shakers. So the failure to report support for Corbyn during the leadership election was an understandable oversight. What concerns me at the moment is the reporting of Corbyn views on the EU referendum.

Martin Kettle in April explained why Corbyn could help the In campaign.

All of which adds up to the extraordinary truth that, for once, Cameron desperately needed Corbyn to rise to the occasion.

Today we are told that Jeremy Corbyn is backward looking and there is an apparent link to his speech on Thursday. But this turns out to be another link to the alleged booing of a journalist.

Could we start with some simple reporting of what Jeremy Corbyn has to say? The news in the paper Guardian has lots on David Miliband who has flown in from New York and probably meets the lobby criteria on who to talk to. But the mention for Jeremy Corbyn is not enough to work out what he said and it comes right at the end.

Martin Kettle view in April probably correct but now is a bit late whatever turns up. It is a fact that the current leader of the Labour Party is Jeremy Corbyn.  There is a limit on how to influence the referendum if he is not reported unless there is some negative invention. The BBC are stuck between Whittington and Osborne , hey only joking this is just a blog of course they cover the whole range of Westminster views.

Journalist opinions are wonderful. I just think the Guardian could go back to reporting.

Research through reading Guardian in print

I did wonder how the Guardian would report the speech by Jeremy Corbyn yesterday. So having spent a couple of pounds to discover I can reveal that the answer is they completely ignored it. Lots about Cameron but all I can find is a letter about the alleged smile on Corbyn's face while the audience protested at the BBC style of reporting. You would have had to be following the Twitter feed and websites to make any sense of this.

So just to recap, editorial yesterday " Too many Labour politicians, from Jeremy Corbyn down, seem too ready to sit on their hands so far", later the same day Corbyn makes speech, Guardian website attempts to make a story out of audience behaviour, then today in print no report of Corbyn speech at all. The only sense this makes is that the Guardian is determined to only report negative stories about Corbyn and to ignore anything else.

They may have complicated calculations about a restructure of the UK political system based on their own discreet conversations with most people in Westminster some of the time. But in the context of the EU debate this is very unfortunate. Cameron is sometimes reported as saying that Corbyn agrees with the In vote. But it is very rare for Corbyn reasons to be reported in any national media such as print or TV. So the debate is a contest in fear with not much positive.

By the way the letter mentions other press titles as if the Guardian were not included. Fleet Street is actually pretty solid in defending the reporting so far as if it is all entirely reasonable.

Huffington Post has space for Corbyn directly. I expect more to develop online but not sure it will be large enough in scale to change the debate.

More about Guardian

I thought I might have been a bit unfair about the Guardian yesterday so have paid more attention today. The print version has a report front page about Tim Roache and GMB concerns about Corbyn failing to make a strong enough case. An editorial shows that the Guardian was aware when this issue went to press that there was a speech intended for today. No mention of this is in the news item. Is it possible the Guardian could ask for some advance information? I very much doubt that relations are so bad this is not an option. They could always speculate on the basis of previous statements.

Today I saw some BBC news in a cafe so have checked the Guardian website

Notice that the Laura Kuenssberg issue is much more obvious than a link to the actual speech. The Guardian has a video clip showing the booing and what strikes me is that this clip also shows that Jeremy Corbyn described his speech as about worker rights. This is something that is not obvious if you follow the link in smaller type just above the video graphic.

He also laid out a series of areas where the EU had brought improvements for Britain, from setting standards for cleaner beaches to protecting workers’ rights. 

He argued that the leaders of Vote Leave would sacrifice those rights if Britain left the EU, saying: “A Tory Brexit negotiation would be a disaster for many working people in Britain.”

These are paragraphs eleven and twelve of the report. The Guardian editorial shows some worry about current polling. It is possible for Brexit to win as younger voters and Labour supporters may not bother to vote. The Guardian might consider whether it is all that likely that Labour will campaign on a Cameron platform with Cameron issues. It may be too late but there is still a case for reporting Corbyn directly for what he has to say.

By the way, I have also looked at why Labour must stop booing the media. I just think it is too late to expect much from the Fleet Street press including the Guardian. The BBC is still not in a position to question the news agenda they set. There is a parallel universe online perhaps, hard though it is to judge the scale.

Guardian still in Fleet Street

I may be beginning to understand where the Guardian is at. I don't buy it every day but am still waiting for some accurate coverage of Jeremy Corbyn. They still don't report his positive views on the EU.

Meanwhile they are finding space for views inside the Conservative Party. Ian Birrell has written about how Cameron could just get rid of the problem Brexit ministers from a new cabinet. So I think the Guardian wants to stay within Westminster. Corbyn mainly relates to supporters in the UK generally. Maybe not so interesting for print journalists. I am not sure how much Guardian income is from talks and courses in King's Cross. Maybe enough to shift the focus towards London. they did cover the joint platform for David Cameron and Sadiq Khan. There was mention of worker rights but not the same case made by Jeremy Corbyn. The Guardian polls put the two sides closer together. Surely there will come a time to report what Jeremy Corbyn actually has to say.

A Twitter search on #InCrowd finds Jeremy Corbyn as top result with a link to the Huffington Post, There is an online scene and then the Fleet Street approach which unfortunately is still setting the news agenda for the BBC and ITV. At the moment I have no idea how to compare the strength of either for voting patterns. I guess turnout could be low as the overall effect of fear on fear is very depressing.