You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > The unfree press
November 15 2019 6.40pm

The unfree press

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 > Last

 

View Bill E Pilgrim's Profile Bill E Pilgrim Flag New Addington 07 Nov 19 8.39pm Send a Private Message to Bill E Pilgrim Add Bill E Pilgrim as a friend

Unfree Media State Stenography And Shameful Silence
97 November 2019)

A recent viral clip of Jeremy Corbyn featured vital truths about the corporate media that ought to be at the forefront of public consciousness in the approach to the UK General Election on December 12. The clip began:

'A free press is essential to our democracy. But much of our press isn't very free at all.'

Corbyn continued:

'Just three companies control 71 per cent of national newspaper circulation and five companies control 81 per cent of local newspaper circulation.

'This unhealthy sway of a few corporations and billionaires shapes and skews the priorities and worldview of powerful sections of the media.

'And it doesn't stop with the newspapers, on and offline. Print too often sets the broadcast agenda, even though it is wedded so firmly to the Tories politically and to corporate interests more generally.'

Corbyn's words were not from a recent speech. They were actually delivered as part of his Alternative Mactaggart Lecture at the Edinburgh TV Festival in August 2018. But they remain as relevant as ever; hence being picked up anew by 'Tory Fibs', a grassroots socialist Twitter account.

Corbyn shone on a spotlight on the BBC:

'the BBC should be freed of government control, democratised and made representative of the country it serves to help it do that.

'The BBC is meant to be independent, but its charter grants governments the power to appoint the chair and four directors of the board and set the level of the licence fee.'

As regular readers will be well aware, Media Lens has long highlighted the BBC's lack of independence and, more particularly, the insidious role of BBC News in protecting the establishment, promoting deference to the royal family and class system, as well as deflecting scrutiny of state and corporate crimes.

Corbyn concluded on the state of the media today:

'We need to set journalists and citizens free to hold power to account, by breaking the grip of tech giants and billionaires on our media.'

All this is arguably never more evident than when a General Election is looming. Right now, established power is fighting tooth and nail to maintain its control on society. Corporate media, including gatekeepers like the BBC and the Guardian - 'thus far and no farther', in the words of Noam Chomsky - play a central role in maintaining the destructive status quo.

Filtering Facts
The state-corporate management and manipulation of 'the news' relies on a subtle filtering process whereby leading journalists select consciously or otherwise - which facts are 'fit' to be reported, and which can or should be ignored.

Consider an item on BBC News at Ten last Thursday when political editor Laura Kuenssberg reported Boris Johnson's visit to Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge. She presented the Prime Minister in a favourable light, having amiable encounters with people in Addenbrooke's. What the BBC did not show were the jeers of staff and patients ringing in Johnson's ears as he left the hospital. Nor did Kuenssberg report on the young medical student who was 'pushed aside by [a] Boris Johnson aide' while attempting to challenge Johnson on the NHS and the climate crisis. Julia Simons, who is training at the hospital to become a doctor, called his visit a 'PR stunt'.

We challenged the BBC political editor via Twitter:
'Hello @bbclaurak,

'Why did your @BBCNews at Ten piece on Boris Johnson's visit to a Cambridge hospital omit the part where he left with jeers from staff and patients ringing in his ears?'

Our tweet was 'liked' and retweeted hundreds of times, but there was no reply from Kuenssberg. Her Twitter bio states:

'I know it's fashionable, but even in 2019 there is nothing big or clever about shooting the messenger - tweets or retweets here aren't necessarily my view'

But, by heavily filtering the facts that Kuenssberg selects to tweet or retweet, 'the messenger' has transformed into an echo chamber and amplifier of government propaganda. This phenomenon of state stenography which, of course, is far from new - was highlighted in an excellent article recently by Peter Oborne, former chief political commentator of the Daily Telegraph. Under the title, 'British journalists have become part of Johnson's fake news machine', Oborne argued that:

'From the Mail, The Times to the BBC and ITN, everyone is peddling Downing Street's lies and smears. They're turning their readers into dupes.'

As Oborne noted, 'mainstream' political journalism too often relies upon whatever 'a senior No 10 source' says:

'This modus operandi, which allow pro-government narratives to enter the public domain unmediated by proper interrogation, has become routine among political reporters since Johnson and his Vote Leave media team entered Downing Street.'

Oborne observed:

'There is an implicit deal. In return for access and information (much of it false) the political media spins a pro-government narrative.'

As a recent example, Oborne pointed to the government's deceitful response to the leaked 'Yellowhammer dossier' setting out the damaging consequences of a no-deal Brexit on the UK a news story that 'deeply embarrassed' Boris Johnson and senior ministers. Downing Street responded by feeding a false claim to compliant journalists that the leak happened on Theresa May's watch; and that Remain-supporting ex-ministers led by Philip Hammond, Chancellor of the Exchequer in May's Cabinet, were responsible. Newspapers were full of convenient headlines and stories about the alleged leakers, distracting attention from the damaging analysis of the leaked dossier itself. As Oborne noted, it turned out that the leaked document was dated nine days after Johnson came to power: the leak had occurred under his watch, not May's.

This issue of journalist access in return for maintaining a power-friendly narrative has long been known. The media's heavy reliance on state and corporate sources is one of the five 'news filters' along with corporate ownership, advertising, flak and 'anti-Communism' - in the propaganda model of the media introduced by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky in 'Manufacturing Consent' 1988

Focusing on the country's two main political editors the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg and Robert Peston of ITV News Oborne added:

'Political editors are so pleased to be given "insider" or "exclusive" information that they report it without challenge or question.'

Oborne, as a senior journalist with experience and clout, was afforded follow-up media interviews to make his case. Perhaps the most noteworthy example was his fiery appearance on Radio 2 where he was interviewed by Amol Rajan, a former editor of the oligarch-owned Independent and now the BBC's media editor. You do not get to such exalted positions in the corporate media, as Rajan has done, by being a thorn in the side of the establishment. In a remarkable exchange, not only did Oborne name and shame major political editors for cosying up to power, he directly, and correctly, accused Rajan of the same.

Oborne commented:

'You, yourself, when you were Independent editor, notoriously sucked up to power. You are a client journalist yourself...you were a crony journalist yourself. It's time this system was exploded'.

Rajan blustered:

'It's unbecoming of you, Peter, it's unbecoming.'
When Oborne added that Rajan had also 'failed to notice' stories as BBC media editor, there was a brief stunned silence.

In 2014, when Rajan was the Independent's editor, he boasted of 'our proud record on coverage of Iraq'. We responded at the time:

'Sorry, we have analysed the Independent's performance closely. Your record was and is shameful. Where to start?'

Rajan did not reply. It was around this time that he blocked us on Twitter.

This article is taken from Media Lens (note there are links to background/reference material on the original that have not copied over. There is a link to the site below where you can read the article and see the links.

[Link]

Edited by Bill E Pilgrim (07 Nov 2019 8.41pm)

Edited by Bill E Pilgrim (07 Nov 2019 8.42pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View PalazioVecchio's Profile PalazioVecchio Flag south pole 07 Nov 19 8.44pm Send a Private Message to PalazioVecchio Add PalazioVecchio as a friend

the same Jeremy Corbyn who de-platforms anybody who says stuff he disagrees with ?


not exactly a democrat, is he ?

 


from the Etihad, Emirates, Molyneux, London Stadium & Anfield to Old Trafford.....Raptors on the Road

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 07 Nov 19 8.52pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by Bill E Pilgrim

Unfree Media State Stenography And Shameful Silence
97 November 2019)

A recent viral clip of Jeremy Corbyn featured vital truths about the corporate media that ought to be at the forefront of public consciousness in the approach to the UK General Election on December 12. The clip began:

'A free press is essential to our democracy. But much of our press isn't very free at all.'

Corbyn continued:

'Just three companies control 71 per cent of national newspaper circulation and five companies control 81 per cent of local newspaper circulation.

'This unhealthy sway of a few corporations and billionaires shapes and skews the priorities and worldview of powerful sections of the media.

'And it doesn't stop with the newspapers, on and offline. Print too often sets the broadcast agenda, even though it is wedded so firmly to the Tories politically and to corporate interests more generally.'

Corbyn's words were not from a recent speech. They were actually delivered as part of his Alternative Mactaggart Lecture at the Edinburgh TV Festival in August 2018. But they remain as relevant as ever; hence being picked up anew by 'Tory Fibs', a grassroots socialist Twitter account.

Corbyn shone on a spotlight on the BBC:

'the BBC should be freed of government control, democratised and made representative of the country it serves to help it do that.

'The BBC is meant to be independent, but its charter grants governments the power to appoint the chair and four directors of the board and set the level of the licence fee.'

As regular readers will be well aware, Media Lens has long highlighted the BBC's lack of independence and, more particularly, the insidious role of BBC News in protecting the establishment, promoting deference to the royal family and class system, as well as deflecting scrutiny of state and corporate crimes.

Corbyn concluded on the state of the media today:

'We need to set journalists and citizens free to hold power to account, by breaking the grip of tech giants and billionaires on our media.'

All this is arguably never more evident than when a General Election is looming. Right now, established power is fighting tooth and nail to maintain its control on society. Corporate media, including gatekeepers like the BBC and the Guardian - 'thus far and no farther', in the words of Noam Chomsky - play a central role in maintaining the destructive status quo.

Filtering Facts
The state-corporate management and manipulation of 'the news' relies on a subtle filtering process whereby leading journalists select consciously or otherwise - which facts are 'fit' to be reported, and which can or should be ignored.

Consider an item on BBC News at Ten last Thursday when political editor Laura Kuenssberg reported Boris Johnson's visit to Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge. She presented the Prime Minister in a favourable light, having amiable encounters with people in Addenbrooke's. What the BBC did not show were the jeers of staff and patients ringing in Johnson's ears as he left the hospital. Nor did Kuenssberg report on the young medical student who was 'pushed aside by [a] Boris Johnson aide' while attempting to challenge Johnson on the NHS and the climate crisis. Julia Simons, who is training at the hospital to become a doctor, called his visit a 'PR stunt'.

We challenged the BBC political editor via Twitter:
'Hello @bbclaurak,

'Why did your @BBCNews at Ten piece on Boris Johnson's visit to a Cambridge hospital omit the part where he left with jeers from staff and patients ringing in his ears?'

Our tweet was 'liked' and retweeted hundreds of times, but there was no reply from Kuenssberg. Her Twitter bio states:

'I know it's fashionable, but even in 2019 there is nothing big or clever about shooting the messenger - tweets or retweets here aren't necessarily my view'

But, by heavily filtering the facts that Kuenssberg selects to tweet or retweet, 'the messenger' has transformed into an echo chamber and amplifier of government propaganda. This phenomenon of state stenography which, of course, is far from new - was highlighted in an excellent article recently by Peter Oborne, former chief political commentator of the Daily Telegraph. Under the title, 'British journalists have become part of Johnson's fake news machine', Oborne argued that:

'From the Mail, The Times to the BBC and ITN, everyone is peddling Downing Street's lies and smears. They're turning their readers into dupes.'

As Oborne noted, 'mainstream' political journalism too often relies upon whatever 'a senior No 10 source' says:

'This modus operandi, which allow pro-government narratives to enter the public domain unmediated by proper interrogation, has become routine among political reporters since Johnson and his Vote Leave media team entered Downing Street.'

Oborne observed:

'There is an implicit deal. In return for access and information (much of it false) the political media spins a pro-government narrative.'

As a recent example, Oborne pointed to the government's deceitful response to the leaked 'Yellowhammer dossier' setting out the damaging consequences of a no-deal Brexit on the UK a news story that 'deeply embarrassed' Boris Johnson and senior ministers. Downing Street responded by feeding a false claim to compliant journalists that the leak happened on Theresa May's watch; and that Remain-supporting ex-ministers led by Philip Hammond, Chancellor of the Exchequer in May's Cabinet, were responsible. Newspapers were full of convenient headlines and stories about the alleged leakers, distracting attention from the damaging analysis of the leaked dossier itself. As Oborne noted, it turned out that the leaked document was dated nine days after Johnson came to power: the leak had occurred under his watch, not May's.

This issue of journalist access in return for maintaining a power-friendly narrative has long been known. The media's heavy reliance on state and corporate sources is one of the five 'news filters' along with corporate ownership, advertising, flak and 'anti-Communism' - in the propaganda model of the media introduced by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky in 'Manufacturing Consent' 1988

Focusing on the country's two main political editors the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg and Robert Peston of ITV News Oborne added:

'Political editors are so pleased to be given "insider" or "exclusive" information that they report it without challenge or question.'

Oborne, as a senior journalist with experience and clout, was afforded follow-up media interviews to make his case. Perhaps the most noteworthy example was his fiery appearance on Radio 2 where he was interviewed by Amol Rajan, a former editor of the oligarch-owned Independent and now the BBC's media editor. You do not get to such exalted positions in the corporate media, as Rajan has done, by being a thorn in the side of the establishment. In a remarkable exchange, not only did Oborne name and shame major political editors for cosying up to power, he directly, and correctly, accused Rajan of the same.

Oborne commented:

'You, yourself, when you were Independent editor, notoriously sucked up to power. You are a client journalist yourself...you were a crony journalist yourself. It's time this system was exploded'.

Rajan blustered:

'It's unbecoming of you, Peter, it's unbecoming.'
When Oborne added that Rajan had also 'failed to notice' stories as BBC media editor, there was a brief stunned silence.

In 2014, when Rajan was the Independent's editor, he boasted of 'our proud record on coverage of Iraq'. We responded at the time:

'Sorry, we have analysed the Independent's performance closely. Your record was and is shameful. Where to start?'

Rajan did not reply. It was around this time that he blocked us on Twitter.

This article is taken from Media Lens (note there are links to background/reference material on the original that have not copied over. There is a link to the site below where you can read the article and see the links.

[Link]

Edited by Bill E Pilgrim (07 Nov 2019 8.41pm)

Edited by Bill E Pilgrim (07 Nov 2019 8.42pm)

You must live in an alternative universe bruv.

The newspapers are fairly equal on bias and the visual media is blatantly left biased.

Change your red tinted glasses.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View YT's Profile YT Flag Oxford 07 Nov 19 8.59pm Send a Private Message to YT Add YT as a friend

Who actually reads newspapers or newspaper-driven online stuff these days? I'm confident in saying that where I work, a good 9 out of 10 don't.

 


Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag Wisbech, England 07 Nov 19 8.59pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

It does make you smile when the supporters of Marxists complain about a lack of freedom.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View silvertop's Profile silvertop Flag bristol 07 Nov 19 9.03pm Send a Private Message to silvertop Add silvertop as a friend

The most interesting part of this tedious diatribe is that the left genuinely believes that the BBC is pro Tory. With you right wingers holding the equally genuine opinion that the bias flows the other way you might argue that p1ssing both sides off in equal measure actually demonstrates balance.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View chris123's Profile chris123 Flag hove actually 07 Nov 19 9.03pm Send a Private Message to chris123 Add chris123 as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

It does make you smile when the supporters of Marxists complain about a lack of freedom.

The Telegraph is up for sale.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag Wisbech, England 07 Nov 19 9.17pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by silvertop

The most interesting part of this tedious diatribe is that the left genuinely believes that the BBC is pro Tory. With you right wingers holding the equally genuine opinion that the bias flows the other way you might argue that p1ssing both sides off in equal measure actually demonstrates balance.

The most I can say is that the BBC isn't 'pro Corbyn'.

It's generally neo liberal left, which is too right wing for Corbyn but more distance from anyone who'd call themselves a Tory.

And a light year from a social conservative like me.

I'm not sure I'd call that balance exactly.


Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Nov 2019 9.19pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Midlands Eagle's Profile Midlands Eagle Flag 08 Nov 19 6.30am Send a Private Message to Midlands Eagle Add Midlands Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Bill E Pilgrim


As regular readers will be well aware, Media Lens has long highlighted the BBC's lack of independence and, more particularly, the insidious role of BBC News in protecting the establishment, promoting deference to the royal family and class system, as well as deflecting scrutiny of state and corporate crimes.

What bollox. The BBC spends a lot of time covering royal events because the public like to see them which is hardly promoting deference and as regards deflecting scrutiny of state crimes I already posted a few days ago that I thought that the BBC went over the top in their continued questioning of the Prime Minister as to whether he had an affair with Jennifer Acuri

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Midlands Eagle's Profile Midlands Eagle Flag 08 Nov 19 8.02am Send a Private Message to Midlands Eagle Add Midlands Eagle as a friend

And there's more as Jimmy Cricket might have said

Last night John McDonnell was asked if the statement by ex Labour MP Ian Austin that all Labour supporters should vote Conservative as Corbyn was unfit to be Prime Minister was damaging to the Labour Party to which he replied that it wasn't as Austin was an ex MP who was now employed by the Tories.

Not one of Corbyn's supposed Tory biased BBC reporters picked him up on this statement which was patently untrue.

Austin has been used as a trade envoy whipping up trade for the UK alongside other labour MPs and peers and the position is unpaid as well as non political

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag Wisbech, England 08 Nov 19 8.16am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by Midlands Eagle

And there's more as Jimmy Cricket might have said

Last night John McDonnell was asked if the statement by ex Labour MP Ian Austin that all Labour supporters should vote Conservative as Corbyn was unfit to be Prime Minister was damaging to the Labour Party to which he replied that it wasn't as Austin was an ex MP who was now employed by the Tories.

Not one of Corbyn's supposed Tory biased BBC reporters picked him up on this statement which was patently untrue.

Austin has been used as a trade envoy whipping up trade for the UK alongside other labour MPs and peers and the position is unpaid as well as non political

Yeah, but these activists only care about the lies when the other side does it.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Bill E Pilgrim's Profile Bill E Pilgrim Flag New Addington 08 Nov 19 5.07pm Send a Private Message to Bill E Pilgrim Add Bill E Pilgrim as a friend

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

You must live in an alternative universe bruv.

The newspapers are fairly equal on bias and the visual media is blatantly left biased.

Change your red tinted glasses.

I certainly live in an alternative universe to you, Hrolf. It's a universe where opinion is evidence Based

Yeah evidence based - Woooaaa Crazzy!!!!

Its full of stuff like this:

[Link]

and this

[Link]


 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 > Last

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > The unfree press