News reporting-bias or just sensationalist?

It is all just deflection tactics by the biased press - concentrate on KL and all the other stuff will be forgotten for a while . Bet Jeremy Hunt is heaving a sigh of relief .

Well I suppose we could all ask why a particular ' story/debacle takes a lead headline , in the past, to date and in the future.

The question could be asked why 'Horsegate' became a lead story , no doubt this question could apply there. Did it really warrant such coverage when no doubt there were far more pressing issues going on. No point complaining it's how it is.

Just because as individuals we don't like a story that does not chime with our personal views we will never see lead stories that we as individuals believe should make front page news. Just because as individuals we decide a story is 'trivial/rubbish' there will be others who will not find the same story 'trivial/rubbish'

That is life!

The press loves any sort of political scandal/gossip-worthy item and it would happen irrespective of which party the person in question belonged to. KL is a well-known political figure , whether he holds power or not.

Could people please stop trying to deflect this thread into what KL said and concentrate on why this is the main item of news whilst the education system, two unprecedented strikes by professional bodies and a revolt by many local authorities remain secondary items. KL is not an elected politician so although he has influence within the Labour party he certainly does not have power.

All I can say in 'All Honesty' is if you haven't read stories in a right wing papers/media concerning the Doctors Strike, Government plans for Academies, Head Teachers Strikes you have elected to ignore them. Do we need links?

As I have posted already on the Livingstone thread. Livingstone is an old labourite and has interesting political history with his chosen political alliances. He, like others of his political persuasion, have been more at odds with the Parliamentary Labour Party than aligning with it, that remains the same to date. As for 'Holding No Power' he was on the side lines until Corbyn and Mc Donnell brought him back into the inner circle and have been content presumably for him to speak to the media.. I don't think that was much of a surprise as they have been closely connected over the years and share common ground/platforms/allegiances.

Livingstone was given the role of Co-Convenor on Labours Defence Policy Review in his capacity as a member of Labours National Executive Committee. They side lined him on the Defence Policy Review Committee but he is a on the the NEC, that is not to my mind 'Holding No Power'.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/15/ken-livingstone-sidelined-labour-defence-policy-review-emily-thornberry

Repeat of a post on another thread, yes, because the OP covers the Ken Livingstone Question and points raised already on another thread.

Thanks JessM I am concerned that some things are being hyped up. In looking at what Zac Goldsmith said I don't want to discuss the subject just why the press feels KL is more newsworthy and hasn't pursued ZG with the same vigour.

Sorry Bags I thought this was a thread about the press? There is another thread about KL isn't there?

Exactly so thatbags, attempting to deflect the disgust at KL' remarks by pointing out unpleasant comments by other people, is just what quite a few people ARE doing. Cries of denial, burying heads in sand and conspiracy theories are just what the Labour Part needs.... Not!

As good a reason as any for avoiding the DM in any of its forms.

Attempting to deflect the disgust at KL's comments by pointing out other unpleasant comments by other people is in the same league imo as what the papers do.

If ZG makes racist comments, that's bad, but it doesn't excuse any other person's racist comments.

I think it would be a clear case of freedom of speech if KL had made his comments in a private capacity and not as a prominent (well known) member of the Labour Party. Privately he can think and say what he likes but I think it quite right that the Labour Party has a long hard think about the kind of people it wants as members. Someone who conflates leading the Holocaust with Zionism is not the right sort in the opinion of many people in the Labour Party and many who were members.

That is disgusting. But I don't suppose anyone in the media will pick it up and pursue Zac Goldsmith around London asking him to apologise.

Things get nastier! Today in a tirade by Goldsmith, printed in the Mail-online, they actually use a photograph of the 7/7 bus bombing! This is clearly implying that the Labour candidate is a terrorist sympathiser. Khan is a respected Labour politician who worked closely with Ed Miliband - neither a terrorist nor some kind of rabid sympathiser for the extreme left (also implied). I'm sure the Mail know exactly what they are doing and know that they will get complaints - but hey, the election will be long past by the time the complaints are looked at and offensive tricks like this might get a few Zac fans out to vote.

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3567537/On-Thursday-really-going-hand-world-s-greatest-city-Labour-party-thinks-terrorists-friends-passionate-plea-ZAC-GOLDSMITH-four-days-Mayoral-election.html

Especially bearing in mind that the man in question has no power and is not standing for any position.

But the amount of time given to the really important issues is very limited whereas the discussion, press hounding, reporting and TV coverage for one man's words is very long. Why?

Most of the print media is controlled by Tory supporters. The TV etc tends to follow where it leads unfortunately.
Meanwhile no apology in the house from Goldsmith for the unpleasant and racist campaign he's been running in London.

I have been aware of all that you cite, Trisher, listening to the radio news. And, dare I say it, the broadsheets although I accept that I have to open the paper and go beyond the front page headlines (but I do that anyway)
Journalists know that headlines/scandals/controversies/royals/and sometimes cute fluffy animal stories sell newspapers but we can look beyond those headlines .

And since when was sensationalism in parts of the media news?

Shrug moment.

Saw on Twotter this morning that some satiric comments of Boris Johnson's that some say are racist are being circulated in the media too. Is that showing bias?

The other news items you mention are also being reported, trisher. Surely the press's job is to report as much as possible of all happenings that might be of interest to their readers and viewers?