Or rather "not in the news"

This link explains a great deal about decisions which are taken by the BBC.

www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/7978695/Mark-Thompson-BBC-chief-talks-to-No-10-about-selling-the-cuts.html

In short, the anti-austerity march WAS "in the news".

I'm not one of those millions, just btw, but I heard about that too without having a TV in the house and never listening to BBC radio news either.

Because, hollyd, whether we like it or not, millions and millions of people are interested in what Suarez and other footballers do.

Just been to your link too, when. Hmm, anything that calls itself Revolution News immediately makes me wary. Revolutions are a notoriously vicious way of doing politics.

sunseeker

I understand there are time limits on what can be reported on a short news programme, but I would rather have seen coverage of the march than some of the padding that is used in some news programmes

Precisely. The BBC found the time to report, and show an interview, regarding Luis Suarez (a footballer) biting another footballer on the shoulder during a game and that this is the third time he's done it, he needs psychological help, blah blah blah - how is that in the public interest? Does anyone really care? I would rather have heard the news regarding the protest march - then again, I doubt the government would want other people getting ideas ...

I read the whole article. The bits I liked best? The last sentence, which suggests quite rightly that not everyone is impressed by Russell Brand and his silly anarchism, and the top comment that I saw by someone called BAH:

BAH • 2 days ago
BBC News this morning told me about the height of the grass on a Wimbledon tennis court.

Chuckle.

It's an interesting take on the ineffectiveness of marches and their non-newsworthiness, whether one agrees with that view or not. I'm on the fence on that one.

Some unsubstantiated comments in that article, Ana and the claim that the tweets contained pictures from a different march (trees not in leaf - couldn't see as the link from the article didn't work) aren't borne out in the link I posted before yours. As you can see for yourself, all the trees in the pictures are in full leaf.

Interesting article here, although it may raise a few hackles!

media didn't ignore austerity march...

I'm puzzled about this, though. A copy of a BBC News tweet about the march that this article claims was subsequently deleted:

revolution-news.com/london-calling-massive-public-assembly-austerity-cuts-updates/

There must be lots of happenings, important and otherwise, that the BBC does not report. Doesn't mean they didn't happen "according to the BBC".

eloethan, I agree with what you say about censorship – though I think I would call it suppression rather than censorship because I understand censorship to be more about suppressing what is already published – but what I said is still true: the absence of a news report is not the same as saying something didn't happen. Besides, the march was reported elsewhere. One doesn't have to rely on the BBC to find things out.

I agree that the BBC has a troubling tendency to various biases.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xpp1Fw3Elbo#t=45

I support the marchers though on this occasion I did not attend. I am in a fortunate situation, which I do not take for granted, that I am financially secure and though my bills are all a bit higher than before 'austerity' has not impinged on my very much at all.

However that does not stop me carig about the political decisions that are being made that, I believe, are using the current economic situation to benefit one section of society at the expense of others.

As JaneA has illustrated the whole 'outsourcing' of traditionally LA/PCT/central government control is at an additional cost and not taken on by companies for altruistic reasons but for profit. It is not just the profit that is being given to private industry but also control. That is also a huge gamble with the electortes' interests.

Spot on Eloethan and Penstemmon. Suppression of information is a form of censorship.

Aka you said 'We all know about austerity measures and we all agree they are hurting almost everyone in different ways'

This is not untrue, but I wonder what you mean by 'in different ways'.

Some people now find it difficult to keep a roof over their heads and feed themselves.

Some people are cutting down on holidays.

Some people probably can't run their private jets so often.

And some people are actually benefitting from the present financial crisis because they have kept their jobs and the present low rate of interest means their mortgage repayments have been hugely reduced.

Of course, if a person believes we are all more or less equally affected by the austerity measures, then you would not expect them to be sympathetic to The People's Assembly March.

thatbags do you really find the suggestion that someone is 'resorting to lying' outrageous? I'm just interested because this thread is basically about what is worthy of outrage and what isn't.

I think spinning is a better word than lying anyway (speaking generally).

I am glad to read that you have complained to the BBC Eloethan As Penstemmon says omission in reporting is a form of censorship. Why should any media group be able to dictate to the rest of us what we should read or see.

The Hacked Off group are trying to gag the press and whilst I have no interest it what some "celebrity" is doing or saying, once you start to ban the press from printing one thing it is opening the door to censorship. I understand there are time limits on what can be reported on a short news programme, but I would rather have seen coverage of the march than some of the padding that is used in some news programmes.

I so agree Eloethan that omission in reporting is as much 'censorship' as not being allowed to report. It is a form of political control. Because the peaceful protest was not given huge coverage (if any!)many of the electorate will be unaware that there are people who feel strongly enough to give up personal time to make a democratic protest on this issue. Amongst those unaware of the march will be a significant number who support the views of the protesters. By not mediating this the BBC et al are contributing to promoting the view that 'austerity' is accepted as a given and necessary situation. ie support the staus quo.

Sunseeker I have complained to the BBC about the lack of coverage, and MiceElf rcently posted on here that she has complained.

thatbags When the Chinese media, for instance, ignores public protests, comments are made about how the general population is being kept in the dark due to the absence of "democracy/openess". Censorship isn't just about biased reporting or editing, it is also about what is chosen to receive coverage and what is not.

However, as many of you know, I support free speech and that means one sometimes has to listen to things one thinks outrageous.

I think using a phrase about gransnetters "resorting to lying" is outrageous.

I don't think aka has said anything outrageous.

In the interest of accuracy, the fact that the BBC doesn't report something is not the same as the BBC saying that something didn't happen.

Writing to the editors of news programmes is a good idea if one feels the BBC news does not cover things it should. I am altogether too cynical about the BBC to bother doing that.

Before reading this thread I was unaware of the Peoples Assembly but will certainly now look them up.

It appears the OP was concerned at the lack of coverage of the march (I certainly heard nothing about it). Surely this complaint should be directed at the media? If only a small proportion of those who were on the march wrote to the BBC and other news stations it could ensure coverage of future marches.

But the need for a fair kind of austerity is there at the moment, no matter what caused the recession. (And it was, in part at least, caused by people overstretching themselves financially and greedy bankers encouraging them)

If the government had done this when they first came to power, austerity would not have been needed, and we would not have been thought of as a tax haven. The NHS would not be in the state it is in.

Well said durhamjen

Thanks GrannyTwice.
I wish I could go on marches still. I've done my share, but daren't any more because of illness. However, I try to let people know about them and give money and time to get the word out.
It's obvious from Eloethan's OP that there was not enough publicity before and after the march.
Anyone in Durham, the Jarrow march goes through Chester-le- Street and Ferryhill. Anyone else, there's a map on the website showing you which way it goes to London. They'll need help and support, both physical and monetary all the way. You can sign up on the website.

"It is a question of credibility. How is it possible for legislators to talk about recovery when they speak without understanding the real misery that austerity has caused to 21st century society? How could they really know what ordinary folk feel?....They are statistically always part of the top 1% of society. Besides, even if they come into government with modest means, they always leave rich.
Considering the hardships that have been endured by the poor and the sacrifices made by the middle classes since the 2008 meltdown, there has been little compassion offered by governments to their people. Instead every Western country has voted for austerity over comprehensive tax reform, because the latter would affect their corporate friends' bottom line."

Quotation from Harry's Last Stand.
This is why people march, Aka. To show solidarity with those who are affected by austerity.