/ Is Ken Loach mad?

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
krikoman - on 07:46 Wed
Sorry it's the Canary, but sometimes things never get a mention elsewhere.

http://www.thecanary.co/2016/09/20/ken-loach-just-proved-beyond-doubt-bbc-brainwashing-british-publi...

does he have a point?
Greasy Prusiks on 08:27 Wed
In reply to krikoman:

I think he proves that the BBC don't always present the news with the slant he'd like, beyond that... not a lot.
Postmanpat on 08:52 Wed
In reply to krikoman:

Is the pope a catholic? Some good films, though.
lummox - on 08:57 Wed
In reply to krikoman:
Analysis of the U.K print, web and television media has shown that coverage of Corbyn has been almost entirely negative. The BBC's chief political correspondent is a Tory. The head of BBC News is ex Times and a great chum of the Murdoch clan.

Loach is barking.
Post edited at 09:03
krikoman - on 09:02 Wed
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

> I think he proves that the BBC don't always present the news with the slant he'd like, beyond that... not a lot.

By slant, do you mean the truth?
Postmanpat on 09:03 Wed
In reply to lummox:

> Analysis of the U.K print, web and television media has shown that coverage of Corbyn has been almost entirely negative. The BBC's chief political correspondent is a Tory. The head of BBC News is ex Sky and a great chum of the Murdoch clan.

> Loach is barking.

I think this is the "Overton window" in action. The mainstream media, especially the BBC, reflects what it regards as the mainstream. Neither Corbyn nor Farage have been regarded as within the window (probably wrongly as it turned out in Farage's case) so the BBC either under covers them or treats them as freaks.

They used to do the same to market economics and its proponents.
krikoman - on 09:04 Wed
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Is the pope a catholic? Some good films, though.

One of my favourite directors. (blimey it's almost like we agree on something - I'm off to have a word with myself)

Greasy Prusiks on 09:42 Wed
In reply to krikoman:
I do mean slant. Slant is the way in which you report on an issue. For example "Junior doctors continue fight against imposed contracts" and "Junior doctors walk out from patients" both say exactly the same thing but paint it in a very different light. They're both true but have a different slant. A headline that was untrue would be "Junior doctors don't go on strike", it's provably false.


It's worth noting that the research from the media reform coalition was conducted over 10 days which coincided with the shadow cabinet resignations. I'd argue there's a clear case for this having biased it's results as it's very difficult to report on that event as anything other than a negative from corbyns perspective.
Post edited at 09:44
andyfallsoff - on 10:15 Wed
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

Agree with this. Ironically, the media reform coalition report was itself written in language which showed a lot of bias towards a finding that Corbyn had been unfairly treated... The methodology didn't seem as rigourous as I would have expected from a serious academic report either. Which is not to say that Corbyn doesn't come up against some media bias, I'd say he certainly does - but that it might not be as widespread as that report tries to make out (or as people are claiming that report proves)
Dave Garnett - on 10:21 Wed
In reply to lummox:

> Analysis of the U.K print, web and television media has shown that coverage of Corbyn has been almost entirely negative. The BBC's chief political correspondent is a Tory. The head of BBC News is ex Times and a great chum of the Murdoch clan.

Right. And when he's repeatedly invited, Corbyn refuses to go on the Today programme. Nick Robinson had to doorstep him at a rally to get him to say anything they could put in the 8.10 slot the other morning. The BBC is bending over backwards to be fair to him but he's too holy to risk facing Robinson or, god forbid, Humphries, in a fair discussion.

He's only interested in preaching to the choir. It's all he's ever done.

lummox - on 10:32 Wed
In reply to Dave Garnett:

Have you read the analysis of media coverage of Corbyn ? It is consistently, unrelentingly negative. Across all channels.
Postmanpat on 10:44 Wed
In reply to lummox:
> Have you read the analysis of media coverage of Corbyn ? It is consistently, unrelentingly negative. Across all channels.

Yes, but Corbyn doesn't help himself by adopting a tetchy holier than thou attitude which basically comes over as "I'm not going to stoop to talking to you (the media)". Like it or not, even in the internet age, the main way the public engages with politicians is through the mainstream media, so Corbyn comes over as not being prepared to stoop to the level of talking to the public.

Using McDonnell to act as (a very articulate) frontman, just strengthens the suspicion that Corbyn's strings are being pulled by others.
Post edited at 10:45
krikoman - on 10:49 Wed
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> The BBC is bending over backwards to be fair to him but he's too holy to risk facing Robinson or, god forbid, Humphries, in a fair discussion.


And the reporting of his policies has happened where? No where because it been, "Owen Smith has found a cat that licked it's arse, Owen blames Jeremy for the lack of cat arse toilet paper and says Labour is losing votes because of it."
lummox - on 10:52 Wed
In reply to Postmanpat:

Corbyn would not get any positive press from your fellow travellers in the right wing media. Under any circumstances. We both know that. It's not being tetchy, just realistic.
Postmanpat on 10:57 Wed
In reply to lummox:
> Corbyn would not get any positive press from your fellow travellers in the right wing media. Under any circumstances. We both know that. It's not being tetchy, just realistic.

McDonnell gets plenty of coverage and handles it very well. Yes, he still gets panned in the editorials etc , but he is given every chance to explain his position.

UKIP and Farage have had the same treatment. So did Thatcher in the early days, from the BBC. I suspect the SNP did way back when. Indeed they claim they still do.
Post edited at 10:59
MG - on 11:38 Wed
In reply to lummox:

> Corbyn would not get any positive press from your fellow travellers in the right wing media. Under any circumstances. We both know that. It's not being tetchy, just realistic.

I don't think that's true - he just falls into elephant traps of his own making on a weekly basis. For example, Loach complains the NHS press conference wasn't covered properly because the key question was on "traingate". Well, if Corbyn hadn't tried a stupid stunt and then cocked it up, thus exposing the hypocrisy of claims about being straightforward, that wouldn't have been the key question. Ditto for any number of other examples.
krikoman - on 12:16 Wed
In reply to MG:

> I don't think that's true - he just falls into elephant traps of his own making on a weekly basis. For example, Loach complains the NHS press conference wasn't covered properly because the key question was on "traingate". Well, if Corbyn hadn't tried a stupid stunt and then cocked it up, thus exposing the hypocrisy of claims about being straightforward, that wouldn't have been the key question. Ditto for any number of other examples.

Is this the same trains which while it had plenty of empty seats, all of them reserved. Imagine what the press would have made of that, Corbyn steals reserved seat; communist bastard!!

Or the same train where most times it's standing room only?
Dave Garnett - on 13:13 Wed
In reply to lummox:
> Have you read the analysis of media coverage of Corbyn ? It is consistently, unrelentingly negative. Across all channels.

You don't know what negative reporting is. Ask Hilary Clinton.

What you mean is the coverage isn't uncritically supportive. I realise this isn't what he's used to but he's trying to move into the real world now and this is what happens.
Post edited at 13:14
MG - on 13:17 Wed
In reply to krikoman:
> Is this the same trains which while it had plenty of empty seats, all of them reserved. Imagine what the press would have made of that, Corbyn steals reserved seat; communist bastard!!

They weren't all reserved. In any case, sitting on a reserved seat that isn't taken is fine. There would have been no issue. It was his own blundering incompetence that blew up in his face. Again.
Post edited at 13:27
lummox - on 13:20 Wed
In reply to Dave Garnett:

Unlike you to be sarcastic. No Dave, funnily enough I don't expect Rothermere, Dacre, Murdoch et al to be supportive of Corbyn. However, the unrelenting, pathetic nature of much of the coverage doesn't encourage mature debate does it ?

Do you remember poppies, Corbyn not bowing low enough, not singing loudly enough ?

Postmanpat on 13:25 Wed
In reply to lummox:


> Do you remember poppies, Corbyn not bowing low enough, not singing loudly enough ?

And Cameron's pig gate? And Theresa's May's shoes? And George and MAndy and the Russian oligarch?
It's not unique to Corbyn.

I agree that the MSM has it in for Corbyn but if he chooses to supply open goals they'll kick the ball in.
planetmarshall on 13:25 Wed
In reply to Dave Garnett:
> What you mean is the coverage isn't uncritically supportive.

That's the crux of it. I think this is all anyone means when they claim that the media is 'biased', regardless of what frequency of the political spectrum they come from. They don't want objective debate, or critical analysis. They want echo chambers, because that's what they're used to in the prefiltered environment of social media.

As the BBC seems to get regularly accused of bias from all quarters, I'd say it's an indication they've got the balance about right.
Post edited at 13:27
Dave Garnett - on 13:30 Wed
In reply to lummox:

Sorry to be tetchy but this business of Corbyn being so thin-skinned and unable to handle a straight question with a half-credible answer and then blaming the media is starting to get on my nerves.

Did you hear what he said to Nick Robinson the other morning?

If all the media, not just the usual right wing rags are 'against' him, then universal bias is one possible explanation. Another is that they are right.
andyfallsoff - on 13:34 Wed
In reply to planetmarshall:

I read the media reform report, even that doesn't say the news he gets is unremittingly negative. It says that 50 - something% is negative, and of that, only 20-something % was in the category that it claims shows bias. Unsurprisingly, the figures are worst in the Express, which is more or less consistently negative (with a high proportion of bias shown).

lummox - on 13:41 Wed
In reply to Dave Garnett:

You don't want to know what I shout at Nick Robinson in the morning... I agree that Corbyn could really do with some more effective media training but I really don't believe he would be afforded the opportunity to present his views even if he was in one of Cameron's four grand suits and with brillcreem in his hair.

Smith has pushed very similar ideas- ending austerity, increased spending on infrastructure/NHS, total opposition to grammar schools etc. but doesn't get the same vitriolic response.
neilh - on 14:13 Wed
In reply to lummox:

Part of Corbyns charm is the way he handles the BBC .He could easily give less abrasive answers and with a bit of cunning turn it round to his policies.But you almost instantly know he is going to make some cutting comment.

If he gets in as PM, is he then going to close down the BBC?

Reminds me of Alex Ferguson refusing to engage with the BBC.

Smith has an advantge - a Welsh voice which is softer and easier on the ear- plus he just does not seem to get riled.
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> If all the media, not just the usual right wing rags are 'against' him, then universal bias is one possible explanation. Another is that they are right.

Of course they could be generally right - that Corbyn/his views are bad or that he's incompetent - but also bias.

Seems pretty clear to me that 1. he's incompetent 2. the media are bias against him.

Not to sure about his actual political views. Some good. Some bad. None given an objective hearing in the media.
In reply to krikoman:

On BBC bias. One problem is that they factor in what the private media reports on when choosing what they'll report on. I guess they see this as away of avoiding bias - I think it's a clear cause of bias. The BBC could and, I think, should improve UK media generally by acting as a counterweight against some of the bad incentives the private press have.
MG - on 14:27 Wed
In reply to neilh:
> Part of Corbyns charm is the way he handles the BBC .He could easily give less abrasive answers and with a bit of cunning turn it round to his policies.But you almost instantly know he is going to make some cutting comment.

Exactly. The "Traingate" question at the NHS briefing is an obvious case. Rather than show irritation and sarcastically tell the reporter to ask a different question, he should have simply stated what happened and moved on. That would have closed the incident. As it was, he prolonged the reporting by ensuring his tetchiness was all over the news, drowning out whatever it was he did say about the NHS.
Post edited at 14:33
krikoman - on 15:17 Wed
In reply to planetmarshall:

> That's the crux of it. I think this is all anyone means when they claim that the media is 'biased', regardless of what frequency of the political spectrum they come from. They don't want objective debate, or critical analysis.

Unfortunately that's exactly what I do what, but hardly ever get it from the BBC any more. I was first aware of it during the bombing of Gaza in 2004, channel 4's reporting was far superior and less one sided.

Since then I've noted it more and more, with the same stock, and disparaging phrases, wheeled out time and time again. "window gate" being a prime example which was mentioned months after it happened and it's still not be proven if it was apolitical statement or pure vandalism, yet for at least a month a mention of Corbyn also had a mention of the window shoehorned in too.

Still to this day, we hearing nothing about Israeli's killing 13 and 14 year old children or the further expansion of Israeli settlements.

planetmarshall on 15:57 Wed
In reply to krikoman:

> Unfortunately that's exactly what I do what, but hardly ever get it from the BBC any more. I was first aware of it during the bombing of Gaza in 2004, channel 4's reporting was far superior and less one sided.

...

> Still to this day, we hearing nothing about Israeli's killing 13 and 14 year old children or the further expansion of Israeli settlements.

Well this is a case in point. During the 2014 conflict the BBC was accused, simultaneously, of having both a pro-Israel and anti-Israel bias. I suspect what both sides would have preferred was, as alluded to above, entirely uncritical coverage supporting their particular viewpoint.

KevinD - on 16:02 Wed
In reply to planetmarshall:

> I suspect what both sides would have preferred was, as alluded to above, entirely uncritical coverage supporting their particular viewpoint.

Or it could be one side or another was upset they didnt get completely uncritical coverage.
To take an easier example.
The BBC can cover homeopathy and give equal time to both sides. Both sides would then complain about it being biased since the coverage sits in the middle.
In this case, of course, it should just be laughing at homeopathy.
wbo - on 16:49 Wed
In reply to krikoman: i will preface this by saying my politics are left leaning and shock horror, I think the bees are relatively unbiased if increasingly superficial. But

I have zero sympathy for Jeremy Corbyn suffering in the press because that is a very important part of the job. He has to do it effectively, and if journo's are horrid and ask him frightful questions, tough. Go away, come back, and explain it more and better. He's not just the secretary of the party explaining arcane policy to the party members, he is the most important person in the Labour Party to explain and sell policy.

Dave Garnett - on 16:57 Wed
In reply to lummox:

> You don't want to know what I shout at Nick Robinson in the morning... I agree that Corbyn could really do with some more effective media training but I really don't believe he would be afforded the opportunity to present his views...

But he's repeatedly offered the opportunity to present his views. Do you think the BBC isn't aware of the accusations of bias, Nick Robinson especially (although I honestly don't know why)? I suspect it was no accident that Robinson, after having Corbyn refuse to talk to him in the studio, went out specifically to talk to him. And, sure enough, after a perfectly reasonable interview, Corbyn just had to be sarcastic about the BBC and the Today programme. Sure, "it isn't the only radio programme" but it is one that sets the agenda, one widely listened to by politically literate voters and one that most politicians fight to get onto. I know he's making a virtue of doing things differently but if that includes turning his back on such a high profile platform it reinforces the impression that he's only interested in talking to people who already agree with him.


Postmanpat on 17:44 Wed
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

> On BBC bias. One problem is that they factor in what the private media reports on when choosing what they'll report on. I guess they see this as away of avoiding bias - I think it's a clear cause of bias. The BBC could and, I think, should improve UK media generally by acting as a counterweight against some of the bad incentives the private press have.

That's usually the explanation given for their left wing bias
In reply to Postmanpat:
Really? I know the right thinks the BBC is biased to the left, but I didn't know they gave that reason. I thought even those on the right would accept that the press is a bit right wing.

Left - guardian, independent, mirror, the national

Right - times, telegraph, mail, express, sun, record

ps - I trust this is within scope
Post edited at 18:22
Postmanpat on 19:12 Wed
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

> Really? I know the right thinks the BBC is biased to the left, but I didn't know they gave that reason. I thought even those on the right would accept that the press is a bit right wing.

> Left - guardian, independent, mirror, the national

> Right - times, telegraph, mail, express, sun, record

> ps - I trust this is within scope

It is the justification given by defenders of the BBC for its "left liberal bias" . Personally I don't think its mainstream political and current affairs programmes have a left wing bias anymore.

A lot of its other output, however, comedy, drama, "magazine programmes", even sport assume and promote a set of "liberal values" which probably grate with large segments of the population.
neilh - on 19:37 Wed
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

Ft. The economist?
winhill - on 19:41 Wed
In reply to lummox:

> Analysis of the U.K print, web and television media has shown that coverage of Corbyn has been almost entirely negative.

"Almost entirely negative", I'd like to see some evidence for this.

As it is the BBC does have a left of centre bias, it frequently assumes a left position on things like race and sexism without explaining that it is using biased or contested terms.

Of course it is perfectly possible (and accurate) to say that the BBC has a left bias AND is consistently negative about Corbyn, it would be difficult not to with Corbyn being such a useless cnut.

He even managed to fcuk up the Mumsnet Biscuit Test he's so feeble.

"I'm totally anti-sugar on health grounds, so eat very few biscuits," replied Mr Corbyn. "But if forced to accept one, it's always a pleasure to have a shortbread."

What a beautifully, even quintessentially, Corbynish answer that is. I could almost hear his spin doctors' roars of encouragement.

"That's the stuff, Jez. Innocent question about your favourite biscuit - kick it off with a bit of prim moral disapproval, alienate the audience nice and early. 'Corbyn Shames Mums for Scoffing Biscuits' - that's the kind of headline we're looking for in tomorrow's tabloids. Also, make everyone wonder what on earth you put in your jam, if you hate sugar so much, given that you list your favourite hobby as jam-making. Baffle them further with the weird implication that someone might 'force' you to eat a biscuit, as if Mary Berry is holding you at gunpoint. Then, after all that circuitous waffle, finally get round to giving the answer you could have just given straight off. Textbook."

Sadly, Mumsnet users were unimpressed. "That's the most miserable response to the biscuit question I've ever read," sighed one. "Forced to eat a biscuit you're politically opposed to."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/19/miserable-jeremy-corbyn-takes-the-famous-mumsnet-biscuit-...

John2 - on 20:08 Wed
In reply to Postmanpat:

The most obvious example of the BBC not being biased to the left is Alistair Campbell's furious reaction to Andrew Gilligan's report accusing the people who produced the dodgy dossier on the reasons for entering the Iraq war of having 'sexed it up'. Gilligan was sacked for having produced an essentially accurate report.
KevinD - on 20:12 Wed
In reply to winhill:

> As it is the BBC does have a left of centre bias

I would like to see some evidence for that. You seem to be confusing socially liberal with left of centre.
planetmarshall on 20:13 Wed
In reply to winhill:

> As it is the BBC does have a left of centre bias, it frequently assumes a left position on things like race and sexism...

I'm not sure what sensible position can be taken on racism and sexism that isn't "these are unequivocally bad things", regardless of which side of the political spectrum you come from.
Yanis Nayu - on 20:18 Wed
In reply to krikoman:

The standard of journalism is risibly low in this country.
In reply to neilh:

them too!

but honourable mention for martin wolf in the ft
winhill - on 20:38 Wed
In reply to KevinD:

> I would like to see some evidence for that. You seem to be confusing socially liberal with left of centre.

What?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre-left_politics
In reply to Postmanpat:

Yeah, agree the stuff that isn't news or politics probably leans a bit left. The "we're just doing what the private sector does" works a bit better for that than it does for news and politics, though.
sg - on 21:30 Wed
In reply to John2:

I think the Campbell / Gilligan affair contrasts so clearly with the Labour's current approach to the media that it explains the whole issue in this thread. Corbyn doesn't play the media game, when that's the only game in town. The mainstream media needs to be directed and spun, otherwise you're just like flotsam at their mercy.

I realise Malcolm Tucker / Campbell had the slight advantage that their leader was happy to suck up to the right wing print media and I'm glad Corbyn doesn't do that, but if you can't get yourself on the BBC making the case then you've only got yourself to blame for coming out second best.

Forget brexit - the number of policy announcements the tories made in the first 6 months after winning last year was unbearable and hardly any of them countered with an opposition blast. Easy wins every time. The reason the PLP can't stick Corbyn is because he doesn't get out there and do the job, when it's more needed that ever. When HH announces grammar expansion he can't just think that a slightly improve PMQs performance is enough - he should be clamouring to get on every TV and radio station and laying it on thick.

If only momentum and everyone around him understood that 'a new politics' can't mean just ignoring the mainstream I'd be more prepared to be onside; as it is labour is probably in a worse position than ever and I know it was bad in the 70s.

planetmarshall on 21:43 Wed
In reply to sg:

> Forget brexit...

Oh, if only we could. If ever a competent opposition was needed, it's now. While Labour tears itself apart, the Tories' inevitable Brexit-cockup-of-the-day goes unchallenged. Corbyn seems far more concerned with solidifying his position than doing what's best for his Party, or his country. He's proving to be as self obsessed as ever Blair was.

Big Ger - on 22:30 Wed
In reply to planetmarshall:

> I'm not sure what sensible position can be taken on racism and sexism that isn't "these are unequivocally bad things", regardless of which side of the political spectrum you come from.

Doesn't that depend on who is defining an act or statement as "racist"?

KevinD - on 23:24 Wed
In reply to winhill:

> What?


and the relevance of that to race and sexism is, what exactly?
Some on the left can be racists and sexists as are some on the right. Its not a distinguishing feature of any particular group outside of certain parts of far right for racism.

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.