Thursday, April 05, 2018

limited Corbyn reporting in context of Boris "loose language"

Quick post as need space longer than a tweet. Links to other tweets re BBC Today coverage this morning re Boris, Corbyn and Salisbury. My interest, paricularly since weekend, in how the BBC news works with newspapers. There seems to be a strong bias against Corbyn. I have found an interview with Diane Abbott from yesterday and based on rweets I seem to have missed an item on Today since I stopped listening.

But anyway, now got my Guardian in print. Pages 6 and 7. Analysis of Boris "loose language". If you read carefully there is a paragraph quoting Corbyn balanced by a Boris claim that Corbyn had "chosen to side with Russia's spin machine".

Is the official leader of the opposition supposed to comment on the competence of ministers?
What is a newspaper to report?

What I find is that Corbyn seems to do well at PMQ on the occasions when nothing is reported in newspapers. Check on YouTube. Cannot say I do this every time. Just my take.

So possibly Corbyn has a point at this time.

How strong is the editor guideline not to report Corbyn unless it appears negative? Could explain how Brexit happened. Continues in another blog but not today, something else to do. Some Labour views were reported during referendum as lite versions of Cameron, but who did they convince?

Monday, March 19, 2018

Free Speech Online Guardian / OhmyNews timetravel

The Guardian is strongly into opinion and reporting on Facebook and other social media.

My problem is that they rarely show their own legitimate interest in revenue from advertising or explain what they plan as online.

There are issues with the tech giants but somehow social media continues, with much less hatred and vitriol than you might guess from just reading the newspapers.

Recently TV seems to have joined in. BBC concerned art scale of budgets based in USA. Last night BBC Trending very concerned about hate music on YouTube. They have a point but I feel like going back to discussions around the time citizen journalism first appeared.

Future posts for when that was. Meanwhile yet again Guardian Unlimited Talk, why trashed without warning? why never in any history? talk about airbrush the photo? continues previously but still worth a mention.

I will be going back to what I can find.

Meanwhile no YouTube RED in UK. Production in USA much easier. Ads still very annoying. Subs a better option. see previous posts. UK has better chance in future as part of global media. Jane Austin movies have mostly been done.

Not sure what happened to OhmyNews. English version closed. Japan version closed though it had resources. Continues on YouTube but not in English. Clues please. Blog as podcast? sound welcome as I am thinking about radio.

Monday, March 12, 2018

Background on future story , UK press confidence levels from public

Lots of stuff treading water at the moment. My guess is this is a stable situation for a while. Too may pressures for much to change quickly. The newspaper journalists ar too concerned with press liberty to accept government regulation. So even if the right newspapers are dodgy the Guardian etc will not mix it. ( Also some TV seems to worry about web so more aligned with newspapers than previously)

Meanwhile print circulation still declines, less funding for reporting, my guess there will be a claimed story without much basis. Regulation may come from a Conservative Gov. or maybe not so much. Most comment will come from social media.

Recently Channel 4 worked closely with Daily Mail to reveal Fascist past of Mosley family. Seems timed to block any adverse comment on stopping #Levesen2. Today Roy Greenslade in Guardian so much anti Mosley that he has almost no space for recent Byline stories on Sunday Times. there is a bit of explanation though on how Leveson came about. Something to come back to.


Byline story on Sunday Times and Labour during Blair gov. this could be an issue if something else came up. Mandelson and others wanted to stay close to Cameron in referendum. Opposed Corbyn leadership till recent general election. Stay close to newspapers if possible. Is there some situation in which they would back Corbyn and mix it?

Friday, March 02, 2018

Guardian on Leveson continued

Now found a bit from the factual reporting, follows opinion in previous post

Hancock said that “the world has changed” since Leveson 1 and that the press is under threat from new digital forces that require “urgent” attention. Traditional publishers are struggling to make up the loss of revenue from the decline in popularity of printed press with digital income. In 2015, for every £100 newspapers lost in print revenue, newspapers only gained £3 in digital revenue. More than 200 local newspapers have closed since 2005. Google and Facebook control more than 60% of the UK digital ad market, with as much as 90% of all new online ad spend going to the two giants. Hancock said the “largely unregulated” social media world threatened high quality journalism with issues including clickbait, fake news, malicious disinformation and online abuse. “These are today’s challenges and this is where we need to focus,” he said.

Sorry, this "high quality journalism" in print and "malicious disinformation" online is just a bit lacking in nuance.

No wonder the Guardian never welcomed contributions from readers as in Guardian Unlimited Talk, now no longer mentioned. See previous posts.

Guardian sticks with other newspapers on #Leveson2

Newspapers today face an existential threat due to a combination of social, technical and economic factors. Their circulation has fallen by a third since the Leveson inquiry. In the last decade hundreds of newspapers have closed. Digital disordering of news has sucked revenues out of print. While more people than ever have access to newspaper content, it is the platforms like Facebook that have hoovered up the profits. Tech giants stood by as the information economy became contaminated by fake news and malicious foreign actors. Proceeding with Leveson 2 would raise the threat of press regulation while there is no sign of a regulatory framework for Silicon Valley firms that would make the polluter pay.

Copied from website

seems to mean, newspapers are wonderful, lots of problems, leave us alone.

is it possible that fake news comes from newspapers?

what happened in the referendum?

Main energy comes from Mail, Telegraph, Sun/Times. Links Conservatives /Brexit. Could this be an accident waiting to happen?

Reporting most likely now from outside UK.

No sign of any credible web strategy from any newspaper. Looks like continued declining print sales, older audience, less advertising, less resource for reporting. So mostly recycled opinion for whoever still accepts this sort of thing.

Former Guardian readers may be spread out a bit online.

Friday, February 23, 2018

notes re Gaby Hindliff take on Corbyn and media, help please re TV

Just retweeted a couple of comments on Gaby Hinsliff take on Corbyn. Requires a bit more space.

Seems to be just the soft end of fleet Street, maybe not as blunt as the ones that started the spy story, but heading in the same direction.

what we’ve always known: that Corbyn’s lifelong distaste for US foreign policy, together with an apparent willingness to overlook the failings of regimes that are not the US, have led to him attracting the attentions of distinctly shady characters at times.

This is some sort of balance, newspapers may have lies but they may be proof of the same sort of thing we knew anyway.

Corbyn is accused of trying to get Facebook views, then this is equated with a culture war approach. who started this?

Writing soon after Corbyn was first elected as Labour leader, Gaby Hinslif wrote that the media did not hate Corbyn, it is more "complicated".

in retrospect we could have been more curious about why those who backed him did so; we should be asking even now whether and why they still feel the same. (For every shrill social media warrior there are dozens of perfectly nice, normal people who backed Corbyn. They’re a lot more fun to ask.)

So this issue with social media has been around for a while.

My impression is that the opposition to the newspaper smear attempt has been mostly from social media. The BBC did not repeat it but I would like help on a timeline. Andrew Neil on TV about a week in ( may be wrong about this ) one tweet from Nick Robinson.

Any help on this most welcome. There should be more to come.

bit of balance

If Corbyn simply meant that, in an age when the under-40s increasingly get their news from social media, the Mail and the Sun and the Telegraph are losing what little power to sway elections they once had, then he’s right. The tectonic plates are shifting, although worryingly the far right has benefited as much as the left from the new platforms opening up.

This is the actual news angle. Surely TV and radio could comment on this? Guardian too print based to consider it.

She then continues with the culture war bit as if only social media is hate fuel, the newspaper age was entirely civil or something.

No need for evidence of Russian bots to see the links Trump and Brexit. Mostly from UK newspapers. Corbyn not reported during referendum. See other posts, Fleet Street in Europe and cyberspace blog.

Robert Peston tweeted about TV "impartiality" so Corbyn should go on ITV to answer questions. Maybe he or someone from TV could help me with some questions I have mentioned a few times.

At end of referendum lots of blame Corbyn statements, well prepared. BBC reports two heckles, tweet world reports one connected to Portland and one to Lib Dems. Seems plausible to me. No counter statement as far as I know, but no BBC apology either.

During referendum Corbyn appears on Last Gasp but Channel 4 blocks him from putting full clip on his own YouTube channel. Why? He made a persuasive case pro EU.

If anyone wants to persuade Corbyn to make a more clear cut case pro EU, why not report what he actually said during referendum?

maybe off topic.

Main point. This smear attempt failed. Social media getting stronger. TV and radio have nothing to lose longterm from reporting facts about newspapers.

Thursday, February 22, 2018

Guardian sensible but hidden away, surely TV and Radio can report on newspapers?

More turns up about Corbyn and stories in Mail Telegraph Sun Express.

Stasi file check reveals nothing at all. etc.

Surely the story is now about the newspapers?

Dan Sabbagh suggests this is about the age of social media. Labour can choose to mix it with newspapers because the video of Corbyn direct to camera is available online. this is a welcome development, Guardian print journalists being more or less reasonable on what is happening. ( probably tomorrow another horror story on how social media rots the brain)

Roy Greenslade suggests Corbyn that the statement "change is coming" is "the most explicit attack by a senior politician in modern times on the philosophical underpinning of press ownership". Seems to be the danger that Leveson 2 might happen rather than be cancelled or ignored. Oh dear.

Should Corbyn mention that press owners live abroad? Not very complicated. Channel Islands part of UK culture, what to worry about? Murdoch was Australian now lives mostly in USA. Global Britain fits in fine.

Not sure if Greenslade comments will be in print. Mostly reasonable, at least describes what newspapers are doing.

Robert Peston has tweeted about TV "impartiality" , what facts can he check out?  Most likely newspapers will stick together but eventually TV and radio may comment.

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

Roy Greenslade and Trinity Mirror

This post just a moan but there is a hook for something.

Tabloid Guardian still hard to navigate. The sections do not all out of each other.

Media section now a page in the main bit, towards the back.

Seems to be a different blog each week, Roy Greenslade maybe once a month.

In this one the Trinity / Express story is at the end.

Worry about the journalists who may be redundant if  say Sunday People merged with Daily Star Sunday. But what politics covers both sets of readers? and also how will the print work?

No mention here of how Guardian finances work with Trinity Mirror. Is the Guardian enough to fill the print capacity given what rate of decline for Trinity titles?

Why would Desmond get cash and the pension fund get shares in Trinity? Maybe this is a story somewhere or maybe journalists are saving it for a future enquiry.