Author Topic: Jeremy Corbyn for PM!!  (Read 243045 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline faithlilly

Re: Jeremy Corbyn for PM!!
« Reply #1215 on: February 02, 2020, 07:11:42 PM »
What’s science got to do with it?  I can only go on my own observations and from what I recall you never once condemned the blatant anti McCann propaganda, indeed you seemed quite chummy with some of the main protagonists at the time as I recall.  You will of course deny but we both know the truth of it.

Again...you have no idea who I am in real life. You obviously think you do but that’s quite another thing. BTW who do you think I am ?
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Jeremy Corbyn for PM!!
« Reply #1216 on: February 02, 2020, 08:15:06 PM »
Again...you have no idea who I am in real life. You obviously think you do but that’s quite another thing. BTW who do you think I am ?
If you’re trying to get me to out you then I’m afraid that won’t work.  You obviously believe I have no idea who you are, and that’s fine.  Best drop it now.
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline faithlilly

Re: Jeremy Corbyn for PM!!
« Reply #1217 on: February 02, 2020, 08:30:58 PM »
If you’re trying to get me to out you then I’m afraid that won’t work.  You obviously believe I have no idea who you are, and that’s fine.  Best drop it now.

Yes for you I’m sure that’s the best idea....least said and all that.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Miss Taken Identity

Re: Jeremy Corbyn for PM!!
« Reply #1218 on: February 03, 2020, 04:16:59 PM »
From Shahrar Ali of the Green Party.


NEWS EXCLUSIVE: 1 FEBRUARY 2020

CAMPAIGN AGAINST [ censored word]EMITISM UNDER INVESTIGATION BY CHARITIES COMMISSION FOLLOWING RAISING CONCERNS REFERRAL BY GREEN PARTY HOME AFFAIRS SPOKESPERSON

Shahrar Ali Green Party Home affairs spokesperson today confirmed that the Charities Commission is investigating the Campaign Against [ censored word]emitism (registered charity 1163790) following a six-page “Raising Concerns” Referral by him on 7 Jan 2020.

The focus of Dr Ali’s submission has been the CAA’s sustained attacks upon politicians during the general election 2019. In particular, he argued that Joe Glasman, CAA Head of Political Investigations, breached statutory charity regulations in a video of 25 Dec 2019 in which he described Corbyn as “The beast is slain,” alongside the caption, “Slaughtered!”.

The specific clauses in which Dr Ali argues the charity has been in breach of the Commission’s regulations are:

• Serious non-compliance in a charity that damages or has the potential to damage its reputation and/or the reputation of charities generally

• Material must be factually accurate and have a legitimate evidence base.

• Once an election has been called, charities that are campaigning will need to take special care to ensure their political neutrality. … A charity must never indicate to its supporters which candidate to support in an election. ... During an election period, the need for impartiality and balance is intensified, and charities must take particular care when undertaking any activities in the political arena.

• The independent nature of the charitable sector is of fundamental importance to society, and is greatly valued by the public. The guiding principle of charity law in terms of elections is that charities must be, and be seen to be, independent from party politics. Charities must not support or oppose a political party or candidate.

Shahrar Ali said, “Joe Glasman’s Christmas diatribe against Corbyn, in which he took organisational credit for frustrating his election victory, and referred to him as “beast is slain” was unconscionable. This in itself was also overt negative campaigning against a party political candidate and bringing the charitable sector into disrepute. Glasman’s statements also provide us with a strong example of the kind of unjust demonization of political figures which has no place in our political culture and is dangerous both to the target being attacked and the fight against racism itself.”

Dr Ali continued, “This is not the kind of misconduct that a registered charity should be engaging in, with impunity. We must clean up our political culture and these kind of negative campaigns must be rooted out, exposed and combatted. That is why I am pleased to report that the Charities Commission is treating my referral with the seriousness it deserves. They have confirmed that following initial assessment the matter has been escalated for further investigation. I have no doubt that the CAA should be deregistered as a charity and prevented from enjoying the unjust credibility which such status currently affords them and some seem to be hoodwinked by.”

Dr Ali said, “Having recently been cleared by the Green Party Disciplinary Committee of baseless allegations from the CAA which were turned into an official complaint by a prominent member of the Party, I would expect us to take a different approach towards this disreputable organisation, not only while the Charities Commission is investigating them for breach of charity law.”

ENDS.

Thanks for highlighting this Faith. It is an absolute disgrace using public money to vilify politicians for nefarious reasons.

"In particular, he argued that Joe Glasman, CAA Head of Political Investigations, breached statutory charity regulations in a video of 25 Dec 2019 in which he described Corbyn as “The beast is slain,” alongside the caption, “Slaughtered!”."


Sick of the political class point scoring playground behavior.
'Never underestimate the power of stupid people'... George Carlin

Offline faithlilly

Re: Jeremy Corbyn for PM!!
« Reply #1219 on: February 04, 2020, 11:02:16 AM »
https://bywire.news/articles/revealed-how-the-media-rigged-the-general-election

Revealed: How the Media Rigged the General Election
Jan 27, 2020, 7:25:00 PM

A study from Loughborough University has shone a light on how the media joined together to rig the election in favour of Boris Johnson and his Conservative Party, and against Jeremy Corbyn.

#Politics  #Top Stories  #Bywire News  #Politics  #Tech  #Uk News & Politics  #Entertainment  #Editorial & Interviews  #Labour Buzz

Article stored on the blockchain by bywire and awaiting verifcation


Britain's opposition Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn attends a general election campaign meeting in Harlow, Britain November 5, 2019. REUTERS/Hannah McKay

Michael's profile picture
FOLLOW
By Labour Buzz

 REWARD

2





4
 3 COMMENTS
Share

LONDON (Labour Buzz) - On September the 2nd last year Boris Johnson told the country he would seek a general election if parliament thwarted his Brexit schemes. It seemed a bold move, especially considering that everything else he’d touched in his brief time as prime minister, had turned to mud. But Boris had reason to be confident. His friends in the press would have his back every step of the way.

Of course, there’s nothing new there, but this time was very different as a new study from Loughborough University shows.

Negative coverage

The details of this report are damning. Loughborough’s research highlights a surge in negative coverage of the Labour party, particularly at the end of the campaign. This was hardly, ‘business as usual’. In 2019 press hostility to Labour was double that of the 2017 campaign. Meanwhile negative coverage of the Conservatives halved.

The disparity widened as the election entered its final stretch. The final week of the campaign saw hostility to Labour go into overdrive. Coverage of Labour and other opposition parties became increasingly hostile while also becoming more friendly towards the Conservatives.

 

Overall newspaper evaluations during UK general election

 

As you can see from the data, the attacks became more intense as the campaign progressed, almost as if it were a concerted and coordinated campaign.

However, things get even worse when circulation is taking into account.

 



 

These figures show that the highest circulating newspapers such as the Sun, Daily Mail and Telegraph abandoned all pretence at being an independent media outlet to become effectively part of the propaganda wing of the Conservative Party.

Boris Johnson also dominated the latter part of the election. More space was given to his platform than Jeremy Corbyn in the final week. As for other Labour politicians, most of the candidates now vying for leadership were pretty much marginalised.

Both party leaders dominated coverage of their respective parties. Johnson and Corbyn accounted for 68% and 56% of all appearances respectively, but Johnson dominated press coverage with 57% of all Conservative appearances compared to 28% for Jeremy Corbyn.

As well as dominating coverage the media also focused on his pet topic: Brexit. Interestingly, this coverage bookended the campaign, dominating the first and final weeks. However, very little of that focus was on the fiscal impact of Brexit which allowed the mantra ‘get Brexit done’ go largely unchallenged.

Broadcast bias

Few things in this report will be that surprising, but we can also look beyond the traditional right wing. Bias could be seen everywhere as Shadow Transport Secretary Andy McDonald pointed out.

“We’ve always had the print media, which is page after page after page of press barons absolutely destroying and vilifying Labour leaders from time immemorial,” he said. “What’s changed in this election is the way the broadcast media have joined in with that battle.”

This could be seen in a series of ‘mistakes’ such as removing laughter from the Prime Minister’s answer on Question Time, tamely allowing him to dodge an interview with Andrew Neil and swapping out Remembrance Day footage showing him place a wreath upside down. It could be seen in the cynical decision to alter the message of a report into false political advertising which found that 89% of Conservative adverts were false compared to 0% of Labour’s. The final report attempted to suggest all parties were equally culpable. 

Time and again, they parroted contributions from the infamous ‘Downing Street Source’ even when that source proved to be about as reliable as a Boris Johnson promise. Laura Kuensberg and Robert Peston happily regurgitated false reports about an attack on one of Matt Hancock’s aides.

Press collusion

The Loughborough report and the tone of coverage in this election should raise serious questions about the role of the press both now and into the future. It suggests a level of collusion between press and government which you’d expect to see in Russia, rather than a European liberal democracy.

From the outset the press took a clear decision that they would attack Labour, support the Conservatives, and give the prime minister an unchallenged platform, while marginalising his opposition. The game was rigged from the outset and, make no mistake, it definitely changed the result.

Labour won the argument. Surveys show that on nationalisation, taxation, the environment and even the idea of free broadband, the public broadly agreed with Labour’s manifesto, but they lost the election because people voted for something very different. They were working on the basis of an alternative reality concocted straight from the imagination of Dominic Cummings.

It was a reality which allowed Johnson to claim poverty was falling when it’s rising, that police numbers are rising rather than falling or that houses are being built which aren’t. It created a fictionalised monster of Jeremy Corbyn who the press claimed, with a straight face, represents an ‘existential crisis’ to British Jews, and it persuaded both leavers and remainers that Corbyn was somehow secretly supporting the other side.

Truth has always been a fragile creature in any election, but never before in British politics has it been absent altogether. For that we have to thank the Great British press. The question now is: will their treatment of the next Labour leader be equally deranged?

 

(Written by Tom Cropper, edited by Michael O'Sullivan)


Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Jeremy Corbyn for PM!!
« Reply #1220 on: February 04, 2020, 06:46:29 PM »
An interesting article about Bywire’s owner, and source of the article above

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/unofficial-facebook-ads-blitz-voters-in-general-election-vw3gltctg


ELECTION 2019
Unofficial Facebook ads blitz voters in general election
Millions are being targeted by activists, whose influence is growing although they avoid official scrutiny
Michael O’Sullivan with Jeremy Corbyn
Michael O’Sullivan with Jeremy Corbyn
Share




Save

A former Vote Leave official who has spent almost £20,000 on political adverts on Facebook is among activists whose under-the-radar campaigns have targeted millions of voters ahead of the general election.

Michael O’Sullivan, an Irish national and campaigner for “Lexit” — left-wing Brexit — is today revealed to be behind an effort to harvest data on voters by posing as a polling company. He has also funded political adverts that have reached up to 500,000 people on Facebook in the past fortnight. His role, which emerged in an investigation by this newspaper, reignites the debate over transparency in politics.

Individuals or groups spending more than £20,000 in the run-up to an election must register with the Electoral Commission. Those who spend less do not have to meet the same standards of openness and accountability, but they wield growing influence.

O’Sullivan, 36, was a senior digital official at Vote Leave during the EU referendum. He runs Labour Future, a Facebook page that uses Labour’s logo but was previously forced to admit it has no formal links to the party. The stated goal of the page, which has 170,000 subscribers, is to reconnect with Labour’s working-class base and return to a manufacturing economy.

Since the election was called, Labour Future has disseminated 34 pro-Corbyn and anti-Liberal Democrat ads, mostly targeting men between the ages of 55 and 64. One viral advert, which has been viewed 60,000 times, uses “crying with laughter” emojis to ridicule Jo Swinson’s chances of winning the election.


Labour Future extracts data on voters by encouraging them to complete the “Big Election Survey”, which appears to be neutral and is hosted on a website called polling.org.uk. Those who click are asked their voting intention and views on Brexit and immigration. However, the survey is run by Labour Future Ltd, the sole owner of the data.

Labour Future’s Facebook page has put out anti-Lib Dem ads mostly targeting older men
Labour Future’s Facebook page has put out anti-Lib Dem ads mostly targeting older men
The legal owner of Labour Future is Brendan Chilton, 29, a Labour councillor from Kent and founder of Labour Leave, originally bankrolled by Tory and Ukip donors. He said this year that no deal was the “best possible outcome” for the UK.

Labour Future’s funding sources are unclear. It has spent thousands of pounds over the past year, but company records say it is dormant and has no assets. It is registered at a modest residential address in Ashford, Kent, thought to be Chilton’s.

O’Sullivan also owns Bywire, a website that produces flattering coverage of Corbyn and Julian Assange. It has spent £8,000 on political adverts this year.

Political campaigns that have reached millions of people in recent weeks include one by a Tory activist who has spent thousands on a Facebook page that initially seems non-political. “Right to Rent, Right To Buy, Right To Own” presents itself as a discussion board for property owners. It is run by Jennifer Powers, a pro-Brexit campaigner and corporate lobbyist.

The ‘Right to Rent, Right to Buy, Right to Own’ page has spent £1,800 on anti-Labour adverts
The ‘Right to Rent, Right to Buy, Right to Own’ page has spent £1,800 on anti-Labour adverts
The page has spent more than £1,800 on anti-Labour adverts since the election was called, including scare stories about higher taxes and landlords losing their livelihoods “overnight” under Corbyn. Two ads targeted at men aged 25-34 have been viewed by 277,000 and 347,000 users, according to Facebook data.

Working4UK, which presents itself as a business-themed page, has put out 15 ads critical of Labour aimed at older men that have been seen between 613,000 and 734,000 times. It is run by Suraj Sharma, a Tory councillor in Bromley.

Last week a minister from the Thatcher era was found to be involved in similar practices. Richard Tracey, 76, a former sports minister, runs a page called Parents’ Choice, which has posted nine ads since the election was called. His attacks on Labour’s plans to nationalise private schools have reached more than 290,000 people.

There is no suggestion that any of the pages is co-ordinated with the main parties. But they play a role in amplifying their message, with Labour and the Conservatives restricted by spending limits.

Best for Britain, a pro-EU group, has spent £84,000 in the past week, outgunning the Conservatives on £55,000 and Labour on £43,000. According to a leaked memo, the group will spend more than £200,000 on adverts in 75 seats over the coming weeks, most of them Labour-held marginals in the northwest.

Labour Future said its adverts were paid for by small donors. “These are local activists who — like us — are passionate about seeing a Labour government . . . ByWire is Mike’s personal project and all ads are paid [for] by him.”

On the subject of the Big Election Survey, it added: “Labour Future hosts polls on a neutral website address so it does not bias respondents.”
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Jeremy Corbyn for PM!!
« Reply #1221 on: February 04, 2020, 06:50:07 PM »
Something the Bywire article failed to mention:

Newspaper negativity towards Labour continues to intensify

Newspaper negativity towards Labour has continued to intensify throughout the course of the election campaign, the latest media audit report by Loughborough University has found.

But it hasn’t been a great week for the Conservatives either. The unweighted data shows that negative coverage of the party has doubled this week compared to last, even with staunch support from some of the country’s most popular selling newspapers
https://www.lboro.ac.uk/media-centre/press-releases/2019/december/negativity-towards-labour-continues-to-intensify/
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Jeremy Corbyn for PM!!
« Reply #1222 on: February 04, 2020, 06:56:52 PM »
Finally, it’s worth noting that newspapers are under no obligation to be impartial, and if they want to throw their weight behind a politcal party then that is their right to do so.  Presumably consumers choose their newspapers based on how closely they represent their own views which is why Faithlilly doesn’t subscribe to the Telegraph and I am not a Morning Star reader.
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline faithlilly

Re: Jeremy Corbyn for PM!!
« Reply #1223 on: February 04, 2020, 07:09:04 PM »
An interesting article about Bywire’s owner, and source of the article above

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/unofficial-facebook-ads-blitz-voters-in-general-election-vw3gltctg


ELECTION 2019
Unofficial Facebook ads blitz voters in general election
Millions are being targeted by activists, whose influence is growing although they avoid official scrutiny
Michael O’Sullivan with Jeremy Corbyn
Michael O’Sullivan with Jeremy Corbyn
Share




Save

A former Vote Leave official who has spent almost £20,000 on political adverts on Facebook is among activists whose under-the-radar campaigns have targeted millions of voters ahead of the general election.

Michael O’Sullivan, an Irish national and campaigner for “Lexit” — left-wing Brexit — is today revealed to be behind an effort to harvest data on voters by posing as a polling company. He has also funded political adverts that have reached up to 500,000 people on Facebook in the past fortnight. His role, which emerged in an investigation by this newspaper, reignites the debate over transparency in politics.

Individuals or groups spending more than £20,000 in the run-up to an election must register with the Electoral Commission. Those who spend less do not have to meet the same standards of openness and accountability, but they wield growing influence.

O’Sullivan, 36, was a senior digital official at Vote Leave during the EU referendum. He runs Labour Future, a Facebook page that uses Labour’s logo but was previously forced to admit it has no formal links to the party. The stated goal of the page, which has 170,000 subscribers, is to reconnect with Labour’s working-class base and return to a manufacturing economy.

Since the election was called, Labour Future has disseminated 34 pro-Corbyn and anti-Liberal Democrat ads, mostly targeting men between the ages of 55 and 64. One viral advert, which has been viewed 60,000 times, uses “crying with laughter” emojis to ridicule Jo Swinson’s chances of winning the election.


Labour Future extracts data on voters by encouraging them to complete the “Big Election Survey”, which appears to be neutral and is hosted on a website called polling.org.uk. Those who click are asked their voting intention and views on Brexit and immigration. However, the survey is run by Labour Future Ltd, the sole owner of the data.

Labour Future’s Facebook page has put out anti-Lib Dem ads mostly targeting older men
Labour Future’s Facebook page has put out anti-Lib Dem ads mostly targeting older men
The legal owner of Labour Future is Brendan Chilton, 29, a Labour councillor from Kent and founder of Labour Leave, originally bankrolled by Tory and Ukip donors. He said this year that no deal was the “best possible outcome” for the UK.

Labour Future’s funding sources are unclear. It has spent thousands of pounds over the past year, but company records say it is dormant and has no assets. It is registered at a modest residential address in Ashford, Kent, thought to be Chilton’s.

O’Sullivan also owns Bywire, a website that produces flattering coverage of Corbyn and Julian Assange. It has spent £8,000 on political adverts this year.

Political campaigns that have reached millions of people in recent weeks include one by a Tory activist who has spent thousands on a Facebook page that initially seems non-political. “Right to Rent, Right To Buy, Right To Own” presents itself as a discussion board for property owners. It is run by Jennifer Powers, a pro-Brexit campaigner and corporate lobbyist.

The ‘Right to Rent, Right to Buy, Right to Own’ page has spent £1,800 on anti-Labour adverts
The ‘Right to Rent, Right to Buy, Right to Own’ page has spent £1,800 on anti-Labour adverts
The page has spent more than £1,800 on anti-Labour adverts since the election was called, including scare stories about higher taxes and landlords losing their livelihoods “overnight” under Corbyn. Two ads targeted at men aged 25-34 have been viewed by 277,000 and 347,000 users, according to Facebook data.

Working4UK, which presents itself as a business-themed page, has put out 15 ads critical of Labour aimed at older men that have been seen between 613,000 and 734,000 times. It is run by Suraj Sharma, a Tory councillor in Bromley.

Last week a minister from the Thatcher era was found to be involved in similar practices. Richard Tracey, 76, a former sports minister, runs a page called Parents’ Choice, which has posted nine ads since the election was called. His attacks on Labour’s plans to nationalise private schools have reached more than 290,000 people.

There is no suggestion that any of the pages is co-ordinated with the main parties. But they play a role in amplifying their message, with Labour and the Conservatives restricted by spending limits.

Best for Britain, a pro-EU group, has spent £84,000 in the past week, outgunning the Conservatives on £55,000 and Labour on £43,000. According to a leaked memo, the group will spend more than £200,000 on adverts in 75 seats over the coming weeks, most of them Labour-held marginals in the northwest.

Labour Future said its adverts were paid for by small donors. “These are local activists who — like us — are passionate about seeing a Labour government . . . ByWire is Mike’s personal project and all ads are paid [for] by him.”

On the subject of the Big Election Survey, it added: “Labour Future hosts polls on a neutral website address so it does not bias respondents.”


https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/press-hostility-labour-party-election-campaign-2017_uk_5dfb51f0e4b01834791bed1c?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvLnVrLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAF0NYiFGWK6S6cKuTANilA2aNrfN5T-t75JozHnl1X5tsSSOWG2xzosunGB5GL1SRc9_uZSowZkgAmOe43AZHlfvwnjKBvFDScOFASthVC7LBV8sA6rmx4p-eq1K0UzUl10q-8-Cei6ls158TP1Xk5wtxnMjTP1KVrZpPXGag4Ey

https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2019/11/18/establishment-press-attacks-against-corbyn-have-sunk-even-further-into-the-gutter/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/general-election-british-media-labour-tories-bias-press-polls-a9229161.html

https://www.businessinsider.com/study-broadcasters-bbc-sky-helped-boris-johnson-frame-election-brexit-2019-12?r=US&IR=T

https://www.theweek.co.uk/104428/is-the-uk-media-s-election-coverage-fair



Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline faithlilly

Re: Jeremy Corbyn for PM!!
« Reply #1224 on: February 04, 2020, 07:13:31 PM »
Finally, it’s worth noting that newspapers are under no obligation to be impartial, and if they want to throw their weight behind a politcal party then that is their right to do so.  Presumably consumers choose their newspapers based on how closely they represent their own views which is why Faithlilly doesn’t subscribe to the Telegraph and I am not a Morning Star reader.

A rather simplistic interpretation.

Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Miss Taken Identity

Re: Jeremy Corbyn for PM!!
« Reply #1225 on: February 04, 2020, 07:56:04 PM »
A rather simplistic interpretation.



I agree.

 I read all sorts online media from tabs to broadsheets just the headlines-unless something interesting is written. Many people I know at work  buy newspapers for quizzes,games and sports etc. Some love the page 3 and celebrities who forgot to wear underwear and get 'papped' oopsy.

I find it important to read all different media outlets to gain different views and opinions. My political leaning covers some bits in all political party's anyway.
'Never underestimate the power of stupid people'... George Carlin

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Jeremy Corbyn for PM!!
« Reply #1226 on: February 04, 2020, 07:56:57 PM »
A rather simplistic interpretation.
Do elaborate please.
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline faithlilly

Re: Jeremy Corbyn for PM!!
« Reply #1227 on: February 04, 2020, 08:30:29 PM »
Do elaborate please.

Many, many people never lift a newspaper and get their news either from television....who do have a duty to remain impartial...or social media. Some, like myself, embrace all three when formulating my opinions.

And while there is no imperative for newspapers to remain neutral, we shouldn’t be surprised then that those very same newspapers print stories that support their owners interests, especially financially.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Miss Taken Identity

Re: Jeremy Corbyn for PM!!
« Reply #1228 on: February 04, 2020, 08:37:21 PM »
Many, many people never lift a newspaper and get their news either from television....who do have a duty to remain impartial...or social media. Some, like myself, embrace all three when formulating my opinions.

And while there is no imperative for newspapers to remain neutral, we shouldn’t be surprised then that those very same newspapers print stories that support their owners interests, especially financially.

" Some, like myself, embrace all three when formulating my opinions.
"

As do I and many others I know. However, when we go down the road of interfering with the 'free press'  or have government creating laws to curtail support for any political party then that is a very serious step back to Stalins way of doing things.

It was the 'Sun' who claimed it was them what dun it when phoney Tony Bliar got elected! so they win some they lose some.

I am of the opinion that it was Corbyns stance on Brexit and a huge campaign unjustly fought by offended sections of the Jewish community.
'Never underestimate the power of stupid people'... George Carlin

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Jeremy Corbyn for PM!!
« Reply #1229 on: February 04, 2020, 08:40:16 PM »
Many, many people never lift a newspaper and get their news either from television....who do have a duty to remain impartial...or social media. Some, like myself, embrace all three when formulating my opinions.

And while there is no imperative for newspapers to remain neutral, we shouldn’t be surprised then that those very same newspapers print stories that support their owners interests, especially financially.
Exactly, it’s a non story.  We all know the print media is biased, we pays our money and we takes our choice.  As for the Beeb and ITV, if they are biased in favour of the Tories then I simply can’t understand why they both (the Beeb in particular) manage to make my Tory voting mum froth with rage at the appalling bias she perceives in every news programme she watches. 
« Last Edit: February 04, 2020, 09:10:37 PM by Vertigo Swirl »
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly