Michael Foot was a family friend, he was a good man and unlike Corbyn patriotic . But the 1983 election was a disaster
and it took 14 years for the Labour Party to become electable.
Neil Kinnock did much to rebuild the badly damaged party.
Gransnet forums
News & politics
Independent: Our report found that 75% of press coverage misrepresents Jeremy Corbyn – we can't ignore media bias anymore
(121 Posts)We all want and need a strong and a critical media, but maybe we do not need an attack dog that kills off anyone who challenges the status quo.
Over half of the news articles were critical or antagonistic in tone, compared to two thirds of all editorials and opinion pieces ( Reuters )
In many democracies across the world new political leaders get a so-called honeymoon period. As our analysis of the journalistic representation of Jeremy Corbyn’s first two months as party leader in eight national newspapers demonstrates, this did not apply to Corbyn. Our rigorous and statistically representative analysis concluded that when it comes to the coverage of Corbyn in his role as leader of the opposition, the majority of the press did not act as a critical watchdog of the powers that be, but rather more often as an antagonistic attackdog.
Over half of the news articles were critical or antagonistic in tone, compared to two thirds of all editorials and opinion pieces. Besides the almost total lack of support in the latter, especially in the rightwing media, the high level of negativity in the news reporting struck us as noteworthy here. According to the Independent Press Standards Organization (IPSO), newspapers are obliged to ‘make a clear distinction between comment, conjecture and fact’ and this also did not apply to Corbyn. Furthermore, Corbyn’s voice is often absent in the reporting on him, and when it is present it is often presented in a highly distorted way. In terms of the news sources used in the articles, the civil war within Labour is very enthusiastically amplified. In most newspapers, including The Daily Mirror and The Independent, Labour voices that are anti-Corbyn outweigh those that are pro-Corbyn.
In addition to this, a prevalent way to deride Corbyn is through scorn and ridicule. Three in ten news stories, opinion pieces, or letters to the editor mock Corbyn or scoff at his ideas, his personal life, his looks and/or his lifestyle. Besides these character assassinations, some of the popular mantras repeated over and over again in connection with Corbyn are: that he is unelectable, that his ideas are unrealistic and loony, and that he is unpatriotic. Most problematic in this regard, according to us, is the persistent association of Corbyn with terrorism. In some newspapers, for example in The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Express or The Sun, between 15 and 20 per cent of their Corbyn-related coverage associates him with IRA, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and/or terrorism. Linked to this, we see that over one fifth of all articles denote him as a danger or as dangerous, a frame that David Cameron was also keen to feed.
The rough treatment by the British newspapers of (Labour) politicians is, of course, not an entirely new phenomenon in the UK (think Neil Kinnock and Ed Miliband), but I would argue that this was nowhere near as destructive, as vicious and as antagonistic as is the case now with Corbyn. Many in our team of researchers are not British and compared to the media in our own countries we were also all quite astonished by the systematic and way in which Corbyn is being actively delegitimised by the media; this is unworthy of a democracy. We all want and need a strong and a critical media, a watchdog of the powers that be, but maybe we do not need an attack dog who kills off anyone who challenges the status quo and dares to suggest we need a different kind of politics.
In my view, this exposes some serious shortcomings and problematic tendencies in the reporting on Corbyn and of politics in general. Inevitably, all this brings into the fray the issue of concentrated media ownership in the UK, and intrinsically linked to this the undeniable fact that the British newspaper landscape is heavily skewed to the right (although it must be acknowledged that Corbyn has also received quite some flak from the left-leaning newspapers).
In this regard, it would be healthy and urgent, I think, to reflect more on how increased media power should be counter-balanced by a higher degree of democratic responsibility from the part of the media and journalists. Surveys consistently show that a very large majority of UK citizens (and by extension newspaper and TV audiences) do not trust politicians and journalists at all – a mere 20-25 per cent of people believe that journalists and politicians tell the truth. Journalists – and the media organisations they represent – have an ethical and dare I say democratic obligation to address this high degree of distrust.
What the majority of reactions to our report on social media and on the site of The Independent in the mean time show is many citizens – even those that do not support Corbyn – feel that the media in general is failing them in terms of correctly and fairly representing the elected leader of the opposition.
Bart Cammaerts is an Associate Professor and PhD Director at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
I agree with you absthame. Labour should be wiping the floor with the Conservatives, but Corbyn is a gift to them.
I have no doubt that Corbyn is a nice chap and probably a good constituency MP, but he just doesn't have it in him to be PM.
There are two groups of people who make my blood pressure rise - hardline Brexiters and anti-Blairites. Both groups come up with utter cr*p and I wonder how much is from bots.
growstuff Well I'm an anti-Blairite. The man may have started off with good intentions (although that's debatable) but he became Bush's poodle. Took the country into an illegal war, caused chaos in the Middle East which is still suffering and then proceded to make a fortune out of offering to bring them peace. Margaret Thatcher descibed him as her greatest legacy and I think that's true. The few good things he did have been outweighed by the cost of the problems he left. And arguably the reason we have Corbyn now is because the vast majority of Labour people never want to be led by a shape-shifting, PR man again, so they chose someone who has always been open and honest and stuck to his principles.
Ahhh, so many seem to forget that in politics the outcome of individual skirmishes and battles does not win the wars of elections. Those final battles or wars stand by themselves.
Ps Anniebach I agree 100% with you
But will they vote for the alternative?
I'm well aware of the mistakes Blair made, but to dismiss what he did achieve and what he says now, which is what some anti-Blairites do, is foolish.
PS. I should have added anti-Corbynites to my list. I don't like any one-sided smearing.
We appear to have leaders of both Conservatives and Labour, who have been selected by small groups of people. Meanwhile, the vast majority of people (the voters) have given up wondering what the hell is going on and feel alienated. They just want politicians who will help them get on with their lives. It's no wonder they're turning to the smaller parties.
The reason we have Corbyn now is members who voted for him didn’t know how devious he is. Why did the labour MP’s
hold a vote of no confidence in him and we had a second leadership contest, by then Momentum were working in the universities, whooping up the young who have no knowledge of what happened in the seventies and early eighties. They protrayed Corbyn as a man for the young , no university fees,
pay off students loans and who can forget - free music lessons
and free musical instruments for all schools .
Good labour MP’s didn’t want him, the unions did !
I agree [growstuff] we have finished up with two main political parties who are more interested in satisfying a narrowly based membership than seeking the approval of the electorate.
Only the electorate can bestow upon a party the power to fulfill their party 's aims, aspirations and policies.
God save us from the zeal of neive idealists and give us idealists tempered by real experience and life.
Why did Labour MPs hold a vote of no confidence in Corbyn?- Simple they were anxious to keep their power in the party and not hand it over to the grassroots party members. Many of them were also Blairites.
The situation as regard student fees and debt his actual words were
“First of all, we want to get rid of student fees altogether ...
We’ll do it as soon as we get in, and we’ll then introduce legislation to ensure that any student going from the 2017-18 academic year will not pay fees. They will pay them, but we’ll rebate them when we’ve got the legislation through – that’s fundamentally the principle behind it.
“Yes, there is a block of those that currently have a massive debt, and I’m looking at ways that we could reduce that, ameliorate that, lengthen the period of paying it off, or some other means of reducing that debt burden ...
^“I don’t have the simple answer for it at this stage – I don’t think anybody would expect me to, because this election was called unexpectedly; we had two weeks to prepare all of this
Many were Blairites ?
The same Blair who was the only labour leader to win three
consecutive general elections and without the unions or Momentum fighting for him. It was the voters across the country who wanted him and voted for him, no desk in labour HQ for a union leader unlike MacClusky with Corbyn.
Annie of course he did unfortunately he also lost the Labour party the support of thousands of people when he waged a illegal war.
As for the unions well he certainly listened to them and invited them to Downing Street
The prime minister replied to criticisms that his government had not brought benefits for workers by saying: "Don't let anyone pretend this is not a Labour government delivering for working people... We are on your side." He cited the introduction of a minimum wage and other measures aimed at helping families.
He denied that Labour had sidelined the trade union movement since it came to power. "For the first time in 20 years, trade union leaders came into Downing Street; they are consulted, they are listened to, just as the CBI are. No favours, but fairness. Equality. What we promised.
I see that Ken Clarke would vote for Corbyn to become leader of an interim government.
He is preferable to no deal said KC
I agree with Ken Clarke, if that's what it takes. I still probably wouldn't support Corbyn in an election, in which Brexit wasn't an issue - and I doubt very much whether Ken Clarke would either.
PS. I wouldn't vote for Ken Clarke anyway, but this is politics. Rudd, Stewart, Johnson jnr and all the rest of them are still Tories and I wouldn't vote for any of them, unless it served a very specific purpose.
I think many students have begun to see through the con, which abolishing student fees is.
Growstuff, in what way do you mean that abolishing student fees is a con?
1 The vast majority of students will never pay off their debts. Those who go into well-paid jobs will pay more.
2 Universities themselves will be poorer and will find it difficult to maintain quality.
3 A significant proportion of young people don't go to university and don't have the benefit of a state-subsidised higher education.
4 Student fees are a subsidy for the mainly middle classes, who have already made a success of 5-18 education (and pre-school). Money would be better diverted to supporting poorer pupils at the beginning of their education, to ensure that all have equality of opportunity.
5 Some of the money spent on universities should be diverted to high quality apprenticeships.
6 Fees aren't the most important issue. The abolition of non-repayable grants to poorer students is much more important.
7 Corbyn can't come up with a definite answer to those who already have big loans and those who have paid off their loans in the past, which is likely to cause resentment.
The above is just off the top of my head and in no particular order of importance. My problem with Labour is that they sometimes really don't seem to think through unintended consequences, for the sake of a headline-making promise.
The Tories' latest idea to reduce the maximum loan to £6,000 but extend the period of repayment will cost the poor far more than the current system, but seems to have escaped Labour.
Yes trisher. Every government talks to unions, note
‘No favours’
Blair won the 3rd election in 2005
Pantglas1 said "I’ve said before on other threads that I have no problem with right/left wing newspapers as I read several on both sides and know when I’m being ‘sold’ and not just told. Listening to different news sources and knowing their leanings also gives balance which is lacking in partisan beliefs, of which there are so many posters on GN."
I seem to recall when another poster once said she read several newspapers and then made up her own mind she was asked why she read newspapers which didn't agree with her views!
I watched the 4 contenders for the 2015 LP leadership election without having a particular favourite. I knew little about Corbyn, didn't mind Andy Burnham but he just kept talking about public sector workers (forgetting all those other poorly paid workers in the private sector). Yvette Cooper seemed ineffectual and Liz Kendall seemed too entitled. Anyway, Corbyn won 59.5% of the vote.
I was shocked at the response from the Blairites and took more notice of Corbyn and decided that he was a breath of fresh air. So I joined the LP (£30.00) and am still a member. He won the 2016 election with 61.6% of the vote.
Corbyn was responsible for the increase in members to over 500,000 and, although some members have left, it is still above that figure. At the 2017 election Labour gained 30 seats. Not enough and many thought that it should have been more, given the result of the 2016 referendum.
People complain that he is not PM material - we need a strong leader, who must be charismatic. But look what happens when we have a strong leader - Thatcher took us into the Falklands war (thought by many to be totally unnecessary) and Blair into the Iraq war. When Blair became PM, LP membership was 400,000 but dropped to 190,000 by the end of 2004. And as for having a charismatic PM we only have to see how disastrous Johnson has become to realise that we don't need another one of those.
We are not just governed by a PM, we have a cabinet, usually made up of members who have slightly different views, unlike the current cabinet which seems to be made up mainly of Ayn Rand followers.
Johnson charismatic?
I don't think he is but I've always thought that I was in a minority.
Some people seem to think Johnson is charismatic. I assume it was a joke, but some posters even on Gransnet said they wanted Johnson's babies. Why on earth would somebody write that, if they didn't at least approve of him? 
Corbyn's brother, Piers, has come out against Jeremy C. Plus he is a scientist and refutes the whole concept of global warming.
The media have covered extensively Jeremy Corbyn’s Sky News interview in which he was pressed over his meetings with members of the IRA. The stories range from “Corbyn’s kick in the teeth for IRA victims: Labour leader refuses five times to unequivocally condemn IRA”, in the Daily Mail, to the more caveated “Corbyn pressed over IRA comments”, on BBC News online.
Yet, for many reasons, Corbyn is uniquely unsuitable to be prime minister. This is someone who accepted money from Iran to present on the government-affiliated channel Press TV and who invited Linda Quigley and Gerry MacLochlainn, both convicted of activity connected to the Irish Republican Army, to Parliament just two weeks after the IRA had killed five people and almost assassinated the British prime minister in the 1984 Brighton bombing.
Then, there is his long-held contempt for NATO and his admiration of far-left revolutionaries such as Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez (reflected in the advisors and political allies closest to him, who include a self-identified Marxist, a decades-long member of the British Communist Party, and a defender of Joseph Stalin). Over the course of his 35-year-long career, he has taken every opportunity to prove his disdain for the West and his admiration for the people that seek to destroy us.
You like this man ?????
MaiseD
yes that's right I am a total idiot and ignorant of how the Govt works!
You are being very rude to me Why?
I have never voted Tory and never will.
Corbyn is weak and lazy too probably. he could have worked up more opposition with diff groups of people and got in the way but no too much trouble.
It is the perfect cop out to say what could Labour do they were not in power.....and that is because they have lost their supporters.
for many reasons, and I am not going to write out a list I don't have the energy.
I know people who were avid Labour and now cannot be supporters.
One of the reasons has been the anti-semitism and Corbyn's lack of concern and actions.
I am not happy being insulted on this thread.....I guess it's just that Corbynites don't like their leader being criticised!
My brain is not as good as it used to be but I can have an opinion without being called ignorant and other remarks made .
The Labour party have failed and their failure has allowed the Tories to ride roughshod over the poor weak and vulnerable.
Blair was never really a Labour was he? He tricked us all. and many of the messes we are in are down to him and Brown.
Trisher I have never voted Tory........in case you think I have.
Join the conversation
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »