Guardian borderline getting more obvious

Guardian seems to have gone completely anti social media

What, I could only wonder, were some people reading? In retrospect, I think we all know: the kind of borderline hysterical, often specious, entirely unconstructive stuff that the naivety of northern Californian billionaires has allowed to run riot.

This is John Harris about UKIP ideas continuing in UK. Thing is, social media could be promoting liberal / progressive ideas. But probably not with much cinvolvement from Guardian columnists.

Except Owen Jones. Just my impression. He seems to have more YouTube following than most Guardian projects.  Members 19,000 Owen Jones 107,000 subscribers. So there is potential in this.

So what to think? Is there a complete retreat now away from social media into a print base? Could explain why Corbyn is a border item.

Continues on Twitter.

MSM now knocking social media, trend could continue as print circulation falls.

This post more like notes, much to come back to.

What I notice is that the newspapers and now broadcast are putting more energy into disputing what turns up on social media. Could be a trend as the newspapers lose actual inluence while broadcast continues to allow them to set the news agenda.

( examples from Assad and bombing , could be other aspects of spins around Corbyn, seems to be the centre of this, see post by Owen Jones )

Jonathan Freedland writes about true and false as in facts that support the case for bombing Syria. So here it is in print that Roger Waters has made remarks about the sources of recent claims. So I guess his Twitter account is genuine. Check your own take on what is said.

Meanwhile Times has had front page on "Assad apologists" in UK universities,  see tweet . BBC World Service has BBC Trending with a similar story. They seem to share Freedland's concern that social media competes with proper journalism. Guardian in print "mysterious pro-Assad tweeter has almost as many followers as BBC Middle East Editor". You can listen here, thing is I think how total it is. Complete attack job.

I do wonder if the BBC is supposed to have different standards as the World Service. They are paid by the FCO to influence Iran. Maybe this has something to do with it.

Meanwhile continuing story with Boris on Marr show. Twice now not really asked the question obvious to anyone who can find DW on YouTube. This is not really helping the official UK case.

Staying with Freedland eventually you get the claim that Emily Thornberry has "echoed" a Russian claim. Previously I noticed that her TV appearance last w/e was not reported in Guardian so I include it here as a bit of balance. My guess is that she has significant support, somehow not reflected in a media world getting smaller. More on this when there are some clues.

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?