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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment