Andrew Marr has gone too far away from news

Just repeating from previous post but yet again the aim of knocking Corbyn has got in the way of any sort of sensible journalism.

Marr finds a tape from 2011 and describes it as "recent". No mention of Chatham House speech this week till Emily Thornberry mentions it. They clog up the time with versions from the past. Best to follow official Corbyn on YouTube.

On the papers, Observer journalist suggests supermarket prices result from pound devaluation, Sun journalist says just supermarkets being naughty. Once upon a time the TV / radio jiournalists were supposed to comment on this sort of thing. Now they seem to either have news that includes opposite facts in the same item or to have found a quote from long ago that suits their plan for the week anyway.

I listened to BBC World Service last night then fell asleep again so not sure of names. But here is a link to a podcast I will check later. Supposed to sum up the news for the week. Reported admits he cannot remember much detail from similar clips for previous election. No mention of Corbyn at Chatham House. Maybe the news would be interesting if based on what actually happens. Yes, Corbyn views evolve, but this may be news.

I am beginning to wonder about the BBC and war. Interesting documentary on BBC4 telly , probably still there, on how the news operation was improved during WW2, then expanded with the invasion of Europe. There may be something about the culture that is built around war reporting or context setting or something. They don't like the negotiating style that Corbyn suggests. When the dinner leaks came out Marr said "they started it" and was right behind the Downing Street bashing Brussels. I still think it significant this came to an apparent extreme just ahead of the local elections.

The World Service was once the Empire Service in the 30s . Maybe the ideas around "Empire 2" make sense to them. There has not been much scrutiny of what Brexit means during this election. My impression, less than in the weeks before. "I am a difficult woman" quotes seem to be enough for the public to get the drift and the journalists are not making any comment.

UK Media miss out on Brexit election story, help please

This post is on a few things that seem to be missing. Just my take, may seem a bit of a rave but see previous posts for sources. I may just be repeating things.

Jeremy Corbyn is not well reported. I may go back to the referendum and try to work out how often the media / Remain supporters were more worried about knocking Corbyn than checking out the points he made. Recently his speech at Chatham House not reported at all in Guardian as far as I can tell today. I have uploaded a clip from Today ( BBC Radio 4) that seems to have been based on an advance text. Full clip comes from RT so thanks for this. we need comment from somewhere on the range of reporting available.

See also the Prime Minister and her appeal to the patriotic working class.

So far it has to be accepted that the Teresa May approach is working very well and the press are doing a wonderful job. But the details of what it is she wants to negotiate are still vague. Maybe this will change next week.

After the referendum there were questions raised about the UK media. Newspapers are expected to be partisan and TV / radio are supposed to be balanced. Is analysis supposed to appear when something is not making sense?

May decided to call an election in the middle of negotiations. Arguments around "leaks" could get worse. Is this intended? If not was it foreseen? Is it the plan to eat the cake first and then demand a trade deal anyway? What difference is there to Corbyn view on jobs and industry?

RT or someone please ask the question. Chances of UK media getting an answer to a question is quite low as asking the question would have to happen first.

More on Corbyn tilt

I still think that Corbyn yesterday was opening up a possibility of an option very different to the May offer. It is clear enough he has a priority for jobs and the economy rather than limits on immigration. But today there is hardly any of this coming through. Channel 4 News last night emphasis on muddle in a very short item. Mail editorial just mentions the number of questions and "utter confusion". Guardian has nothing at all that I can find, even in an editorial about Corbyn.

I still wonder about the Remain lobby. they could work with Corbyn and explore the differences with May. They seem more concerned to just bash Corbyn without examining what he is saying.

May is getting away with claims to be the better negotiator without revealing what she wants to negotiate. Is it to leave the market then expect the same benefits somehow else? Corbyn clearly sees that someting must be discussed to protect jobs and economy. There seems to be no questioning on May or Conservatives as to any detail of their position. Negotiation in secret was the claim but she has decided on an election in the middle of all this and some would expect a full discussion.

Also still not much comment on why the election was decided on. Negotiations will be upset by the tone of the election. "They started it" says Andrew Marr about the leaks and comments from the dinner. But it seems to have been timed to escalate for the local elections. I bought a Telegraph to check their reporting on Corbyn. Found a Con Coughlin article about Macron and his "anti-British vendetta". I can't see how this sort of line can be mellowed back after the election. Do they want a sudden exit with no deal? Would someone at least ask the question?

BBC may ignore their own scoop, Corbyn tilt on not Brexit

Alex Forsyth on BBC News TV channel suggested it was a sign of more muddle but I think the Corbyn take on Brexit negotiation is a bit of hard news well worth exploring. I have never believed the claims that Corbyn was not pro Remain during the referendum. See previous posts. It is fair enough that Labour accepts the referendum while pushing for market access. It seems to me to be wrong to claim that Labour and Tory policy on Brexit is the same. As claimed by Andrew Marr when interviewing Corbyn and also by John Pienaar on Radio 5 Live this morning. Pretty clear that May is concerned about immigration, repeating promises that so far are unlikely to be kept but presumably remain a priority. Corbyn mentions industry, jobs, market access. When he talks about discussions the next question could be what else he might agree to in order to get market access.

Unfortunately the reporting from Remain sources looks unlikely to follow this up. The Guardian website is looking for more muddle evidence.

InFacts has just ignored it as far as I can tell. I can only conclude that knocking Corbyn is the main concern. For the 48% to change anything they need to be persuasive. There is a debate inside the Labour Party at a local level. It needs some space, some reasonable reporting, and probably more time than available in the next few weeks.

Anyway back on the main topic of this blog. The main Fleet Street newspapers are doing really well. Guardian result Remain voters shift to don't know and confused, maybe this is what they intend not sure. Long shot, FT may share Corbyn concern for jobs and provide some accurate reporting of what he says together with analysis.

Meanwhile still no comment I can find on why the election is happening or whether anyone thought about the downside of the Brussels bashing let loose in the papers and Downing Street.

Buzzfeed checks on print media during the UK election

I have followed up on the Andrew Marr Show story from Buzzfeed about pro Labour stories on UK Facebook. Main story HERE links to another on "Alt-Left sites" and one on Corbyn not helping some print journalists with access to events.

Suggest you follow Buzzfeed for more on this. My guess is that social media are still not strong enough to counteract the Fleet Street influence. But there could be a dent over the next month that showed up on a larger scale l;ater.

Meanwhile I do think confidence in newspapers and TV may have challenges. In Exeter we had a wrap around advert for the Conservatives in our local paper on the morning of the local elections. All quite legal apparently but I worry for what happens to local news as fewer people buy such publications.

Why did May start an election in middle of negotiations?

The negotiations are getting more difficult as more strident views are expressed. Not long ago May said another Scotland referendum was not at the "right time" as it would destabilise talks. So whay have an election? Is it intended to get a harder result?

I notice Andrew Marr is not asking this question. But it may come up. My guess is that debate in the Commons is just as possible with a large majority as with a small one so I don't think the result will make a lot of difference to what the government can do.  Towards the end of this clip an attack on European sources getting into the UK election. What else can happen with one called at this time? At least this question should be asked.

Catchup / my own views

I have not posted much recently but this is clearly a new phase in how Fleet street covers Europe. Part of my hesitation has been that my own bias may be too obvious for the reporting to be credible. So here is a bit of background.

I still think Brexit is a disaster for the UK. Policy may well change again and a new membership proposal could follow. But this will not happen till the damage is more obvious. I think Labour is right not to reject the referendum result. But the way the Lib Dems and some media have been pushing things has not had much benefit. some Labour voters have switched but no enough for there to be more LibDem MPs. Debate inside the Labour Party has not been reported and there has not been space for policy to be explained. The Guardian for example has lots of Remain opinion but impatience with Labour. I don't think there will be a challenge to Brexit unless there is an argument from the left that makes sense to most people.

More later on the Reading the Guardian blog. These posts are a bit all over the place but there will be catchup.

Obviously Corbyn is part of this. Some people seem so concerned to damage him that the case against Brexit is damaged incidentally. It will be interesting to see what happens on TV as he makes a case in his own words. YouTube clips may be more reliable than as selected on news channels. I notice on BBC Radio 4 Today that Laura Kuenssberg has twice claimed that some say Jeremy Corbyn is liked less the more he is known. My counter evidence is the Sky News lengthy discussion towards the end of the referendum and the Last Leg show. Claim that 7 out of 10 was unsupportive is refuted in context. Channel 4 refused permission for Corbyn to upload complete clip to his own YouTube Channel.

I am going back to previous posts, but may be worth repeating as the referendum history can maybe be checked in the conventions of an election. Labour is allowed to talk directly and Corbyn is in more control than previously.