Mainstream media bias

For anyone wondering how on earth people like Johnson get elected, and why on earth working class voters would continue to vote in the Tories...

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/n...g3_VSygykp7OdlYUV1UFT163vYxDtC8joNUhnoYlECb2Y



Research conducted by the Independent in 2016 after Corbyn’s first two months as party leader found that 75 per cent of press coverage misrepresented the Labour leader.

The 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.

According to the latest polls 47 per cent would prefer Boris Johnson as Prime Minister compared to just 16 per cent who said the same of Jeremy Corbyn. That’s up six points from last month for the PM and clearly tallies with the positive media sentiment he has been enjoying from the media.

And while the Labour party is engulfed by an antisemitism storm in the run-up to the election, little is said of the Conservative’s Islamaphobia issue, or even that it is likely suppressing a report into Russian interference until after the general election.

 

Well.... how about the BBC breakfast TV presenter Louise Minchin stating that Rees_Mogg APPEARED to make those comments about the dead souls in the Grenfell tower disaster !!!! Appeared ***..... what kind of "balanced' reporting is that ????

The media drove me into joining the Labour party as in all my years I had never joined any party but the coverage of Corbyn for the leader position kicked me. I am now helping canvass as I am completely brassed off with being told what leader I should be allowed to have for a supposed socialist party by Murdoch press etc.

Oh I know.... we must not have a leader who, the opposite parties delight in blackguarding so they can have a say in who leads Labour. I am proud to say that I detested and distrusted Tony Blair and was proved right.

 

Given that Johnson wants the election to be about getting Brexit done, if there was evidence of Russian interference in the referendum in the report, he's bound to suppress its publication until after the election. It doesn't need spelling out.

 

Apparently the BBC get a roughly equal number of complaints that they are biased in each direction.

 

So that makes that comment ok does it ????

Maybe you would like to supply a comparable one illustrating how left wing biased it is ????

 

I haven’t trusted the media in years

 

Radio 4 PM today around 5:15 describing a John McDonnell speech as [paraphrasing] "the most important speech so far" ... and instead it was just a meandering, rambling string of student politics.

Post #4 did no such thing.

 

Post #4 made a statement and did not back it up. Your "example" or should I say opinion doesn't come anywhere close to the comment trying to exonerate Rees-Mogg.

 

John Two Homes McDonnell!

"Do as we say not as we do".

 

I wasn't aware that the Labour party wish to disallow 2nd home ownership?? Do you not listen to what Jeremy Corbyn has to say? He is saying that the wealthy should pay a fair proportion of tax. If a person earns a great deal of money then they can afford to pay more than someone on a low wage or... are you in favour of these greedy bar stewards who earn "bonuses" in the 6 figure range for doing the jobs they are very very well paid for ?????

 

A website (are they biased?) has written a piece -

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/n...g3_VSygykp7OdlYUV1UFT163vYxDtC8joNUhnoYlECb2Y

quoting research carried out by Loughborough University -

https://www.lboro.ac.uk/news-events/general-election/report-1/

which was analysed and quoted in an op-ed piece in the Independent newspaper by -

Bart Cammaerts is an Associate Professor and PhD Director at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-comm...nts/research/projects/corbyn/Cobyn-Report.pdf

(Any one know if/how he’s biased?)

and says -

“Furthermore, our statistical analysis found an association between media organization and tone. Especially, the right- wing newspapers have very little or almost nothing positive to say about Corbyn and the antagonistic tone is also much more pronounced in these newspapers (see Figure 1). The degree of positive exposure in the left wing and centrist press is a bit higher, but it would be fair to say that also there the support for Jeremy Corbyn is at best lukewarm. Despite this, however, we noticed in The Guardian, The Daily Mirror and The Independent a remarkably less antagonistic tone and positioning compared to the right wing newspapers.“

- that newspapers have right wing, centrist and left wing bias.

Hardly a killer argument for a right wing media conspiracy. I’ll bore you all with with my opinion of their methodology if requested.

 

I was wrong to say the op-ed was published in the Independent "newspaper" - it was, of course, on the website.

The research is weighted by (hard copy) newspaper sales - an increasingly irrelevant way to access news and analysis.

 

We are slowly adopting an American-style news media and approach to politics.

That's not a good thing

I watched Fox News every day for 44 months – here's what I learned

 

Wealth is not taxed. What is Corbyn proposing for them?

 

People are likely to buy newspapers that reflect their own views and to reject those that conflict with them. In the same way they will follow people they agree with on Twitter or Facebook.
BBC and ITV among others have a duty of balance, however, and are at least on occasion held to account.
Both Corbyn and Johnson have had bad press over their character flaws and political errors.
I'm not all that convinced of significant broadcast bias, but of course newspapers are biased! That's why they sell. (And possibly why the Morning Star has v low circulation?)

 

Well @LondonCanary the evidence is well documented re the amount of benefit fraud paling in comparison with tax evasion.
Maybe if the wealthy paid the tax due...let alone some additional tax - because they can afford to.... there would be more money for all the areas which have been repeatedly cut in the years of "austerity for the poor and mid-waged".

I repeat that there is something morally and completely wrong with anyone - ANYONE - earning as a bonus on top of their already substantially higher pay/salary of more than an annual judged "living wage".

 

see, I remember the coverage of Corbyn after he was elected, I wouldn't describe it as negative, that is very subjective.

 

That's a touch aggressive. I was only trying to make the point that there is a perceived bias on both sides, reflected in the number of complaints received by the BBC, which are roughly equal in number, that is, half saying the BBC is biased against the left, and half saying it's biased against the right. I made no reference to the comment, I was just making a more general comment about perceived media bias, which appeared to be what the OP wanted to discuss.

 

The polls are currently indicating that the Labour party with its Marxist/Trotskyist leadership will be hammered in the election. I presume that is why some of their supporters are a little tetchy.

 

Aye but it means if they lose by not quite as much as currently projected then they can all claim it's a sign of what a great leader Jezza is and how it was really a Labour win.