Gurdian plus some of Sunday Times

There was a Guardian story online about the finances of UK unis but I don't think it was in print. Somehow it seem more is online than in print.

However there are stories in Sunday Times that might have been in Guardian. Mix of alarm that mobile phones are used in schools and celebration that social media supports classic media such as books and bookshops. 

News review page 21 Norway's schools get kids off phones without hang-ups. Phones locked up at the strat of the school day. But then page 3 TikTok teens flock to Edwardian bookshop - today's adolescants prefer Daunts in Marylebone to a trip to Oxford Street. 

Back to Norway, column 5 - "The pupils are also adamant that phones help them learn. Mina citesTikTok videos that jazz up "boring" science projcts,whileWesam goes to YouTube for explainers on difficult equations."

Head teacher Heidi Augestad says "It's too harsh to tell them they are wrong, but they are".

Also in Sunday Times Business section a story about UK retail , page 6. Between 2018 and 2023 there was a collapse of two thirds in value of UK shopping centres. This was during and after lockdown. Back to Norway and comment from puils-

"When we were at home the whole time we were mostlt learningon ourphones" says Mina "You expect us to stop when the coronavirus is over?"

https://youtu.be/FfrP2SO_IoU?si=2Aar-chsHHJITXla   learner voice

This video was uplodaded ahead of BETT 2024. BETT is not really a show for mobile phones though there is now a stronger section for FE and HE as well as schools.

So somehow in the near future it seems possible that learners will arrive at university able to use a mobile phone, even AI. though the phones will have been locked away during school.

The campus is then back to normal. Nothing happened to campus valuations between 2018 and 2023. That is as reported in Guardian and Sunday Times.Links /  page numbers please if this is unfair or out of date. 

Screenshot Check from Twitter

 Today another Guardian opinion knocking Twitter and social media in general. I check the author and find there is still a Twitter option - Moya Lothian-McLean . Here are a couple of screen shots, first one from her tweet.

Notice the crop so it is harder to find the original. Now my screenshot of a response to this.

My question is what evidence is there that the Guardian opinion has not been read before the tweet was sent? There are several screenshots with quotes that have been selected, probably based on some sort of judgement.

The original tweet was from Colin Hall ( @Ultra_Fox ) . He has a picture of Jeremy Corbyn so may have been influenced by the claim of Twitter influencing delusions on Corbyn chances in 2019 election. The print media were solid for #LiarJohnson and turned out to have more influence on the proper telly.

Anyway I am not going to waste much space on comparing social media and newspapers for objectivity. Today in print I bought a Guardian and a Telegraph. You can do your own research.

Main point still about print decline and how some model of hybrid might work. Checking the Press Gazette I find March 22nd numbers for print circulation. Mail is below a million and less than the Metro. 

The interesting bit is in a note below the table-

The above figures do not include the Sun, Times and Telegraph titles which have all chosen to keep their ABC circulations private since the start of 2020. The Guardian and Observer joined them in September 2021.

Then there are various charts that show a trend towards zero some would say.

What is the point of filling up newspapers with knocking copy on social media? Only 28% of UK read Twitter ( half way down second column if you are skipping, no source given ) but some rely on this for opinions and information otherwise hard to find. 

Mar 31  Replying to  @carolecadwalla

Here on Twitter, Farage isn't given a platform. He's given a grilling. Here we maintain an archive of all the things these grifters ever said. Here, where Russian wages its hybrid warfare, we see what's in plain sight. We don't just recognise hybrid warfare, we wage our own. 

Something may turn up later in print if legal constraints change. But it will continue to be the case that journalism needs a hybrid model.

Guardian editorial on shift to online learning

 The situation on UK campus has got attention from journalists. Possibility of students not being allowed to travel home for Xmas is a headline item. Guardian has reported at length and today has an editorial, lengthy quote below - 

Now universities, as well as ministers, stand accused of recruiting students on a false prospectus, because of their reliance on the income from rents.

But a shift to online learning is only at best a partial solution. Students in Manchester and elsewhere are not thought to have caught the virus in lectures, but through social contacts. This contact with peers is part of the reason most people go to university, and would not automatically cease because in-person teaching has. Besides, many art, science and other courses require specialist equipment and can’t be taught remotely. There is also the question of knock-on effects for schools and colleges, because if lecture theatres are judged too dangerous to work and study in, where does that leave teachers and schools?

Final figures on the take-up of university places are not yet known. But predictions that the recruitment of international students would collapse due to Covid have not come true. This worst-case scenario having been avoided, universities must do all they can to ensure that students get the education they deserve, as well as obeying pandemic rules put in place to protect us all. But the greatest responsibility, as ever, lies with the government, whose job it is to make the test-and-trace system work. The future, as well as the present, depends on it.

This is not yet looking at the longer term issues. If online learning is accepted then will there be the same need for so many buildings? There is not just an issue of refunds because of a "false prospectus". If course mostly or partly online could it be cheaper? I still think the Guardian has a block on this sort of issue as there is a related conversation about news and print. There is still no rethink about Futurelearn and MOOC platforms. Peter Wilby might reconsider his take on Peter Horrocks and lecture on Fortress University. see previous posts.

While on repeating previous claims, just to explain some of my concern is from living in Exeter where the centre is now taken over by student accommodation . I cannot find any research on future numbers expected to be near campus most of the year. There are many other UK urban spaces with a similar situation. Guardian will report on UK. Meanwhile i will try to find out more about Exeter. Some of the buildings look solid enough to still be there 20 year time. How much HE will then be mostly online? The question is more or less allowed now in a newspaper.

Unlimited talk continues

In the Guardian today Nesrine Malik writes about the "cancel culture" and the dangers faced by Guardian columnists. I am most concered about the Fox #planetFOX attack on Jo Biden. Seems urgent to opposet this at every chance. Retweet #CNN for example.

But the Guardian concerns seem to prolong their struggle with the readers as they realise the web is read / write. Jeff Jarvis pointed this out a while ago but there is no longer a Media page so no reason to include his words in Guardian scope. Malik observes a wall between "discourse makers and discourse consumers" that dates from the model of print. She claims the public space has been digitised in the last decade but I think it was well advanced before then.

Guardian Unlimited Talk closed down in 2011, one Friday lunchtime. Guardian readers had ben able to start a topic and add comments. Staff never joined in.

Reporting on the MOOC /  social learning has been limited and hostile when in print. Peter Horrocks interview around Futurelearn contributed to pressure forcing him to resign. Guardian now moving online with format of star speaker and lecture. Not sure how this will work. They will probably go back to celeb events whenever normal is normal.

Before he worked for OU Peter Horrocks worked for BBC World Service. In his lecture at Durham on the Fortress University he also spoke about Fortress Journalism . I sort of remember discussions 5 -10 years ago when BBC and other news organisations claimed to consider models of citizen journalism or something similar. Maybe before that, OhmyNews in English not sure when

Will find out more dates. Meanwhile print journalism seems even more shut down than ever seemed possible.

Jack Schofield dates

Still thinking about when the Guardian began to think of the web and tech as negative. Current take very anti online. Went back to news story when Jack Schofield died earlier this year. Found dates

First column  1983

Computer Guardian   1985

Online  1994


Ask Jack  2000


Not sure when Online supplement closed . Media in 2011 but cannot find much else online.

Without a strong tech presence the drift of journalism back to print culture is a strong trend.

Roy Greenslade on print news, will it survive current crisis? probably not.

Have now found a blog from Roy Greenslade. Not in print by the way. At least I checked a print version of the Guardian. So this is the only newspaper I get, delivered every day. The news is online only though. Greenslade confirms what seems a reasonable guess.

Newsprint, the transmission of news by ink on paper, might not recover from the contagion in what could eventually be seen as a transformational moment for the 380-year British newspaper history.

Links to Press Gazette with interesting stats on online growth but not much about print. FT doing well for online subs, they do have valuable content.

Just to repeat some previous questions

If accepted that news moves online, why not report similar developments in education? Interview with Peter Horrocks and general take on the MOOC could be updated.

Citizen Journalism as in OhMynews also could be reconsidered. If there is no budget for reporting then trusting the audience could be an option. By the way , what happened with Guardian Unlimited Talk? Trashed one Friday lunchtime with no option for reader writers to backup their copy. What was that about? Jeff Jarvis, is he very expensive to continue a column?

more later

Continues on Hello Spiders

blog about unis and Guardian reporting will be on Hello Spiders blog

More on Guardian / intro on UK unis

Another Monday without anything on Media in the print version of Guardian. Long ago there were always several pages. Recently more or less a blog so one person on holiday blows it out. My conclusion -  the value offer is getting worse. Straight line projection of OFCOM numbers on newspaper decline suggests print could vanish within five years. Or it could be quicker. the product is not funded to get any better. Readers may notice. There could be a collapse.

The Reader's Editor is concerned about Trump and welcomes thinkers outside the news cycle and the "Twitter stormfronts".  They offer hope if journalists give them voice. My take is this implies that twitter offers no hope at all. There are only proper journalists to be considered. As far as I can make out the numbers on Guardian Media Group the UK print is in decline including the advertising. If the Guardian becomes mostly online and depends on sponsors for support will they eventually reconsider the model of journalism based on the restrictions of print. The web is read / write. See previous posts and links. ( Bring back Jeff Jarvis, there must be a budget somewhere. )

Then there is a briefing on university degrees. UK about to have a few weeks of clearing, recruit students for new year. Similar content in pullout on Saturday. Thing is, not much on of online degrees, or mixing MOOC with employment. Here is the paragraph ( almost the last one )

The academic route isn’t for everyone. There are plenty of alternatives, including distance learning and online courses, which can be done remotely and part-time. Further education colleges offer higher apprenticeships and foundation degrees, which combine academic and vocational study.

The Saturday version had lots of page ads from UK unis so the emphasis on campus is easy to understand. But this is part of the "Journal" middle bit of the print Guardian. It could have a bit more reporting. Continues in next post.

If the Guardian had a good look at what is happening with EdTech they may have to rethink what is happening with news.

Guardian Media Group has a problem with Corbyn and social media

Needs more space than just a tweet.

Observer yesterday bit of a worry. Another story on Labour and antisemitism , this time based on report about social media. Please make your own checks, opinion is variable. But mine is that the Guardian Media Group is out of balance. I rarely find anything supporting Corbyn or direct quotes. Again do your own check.

Online version has photo of Tom Watson. Print version has photo of Rachel Riley , described as "Countdown presenter who has spoken out on the issue" . This understates the situation as far as I can tell. Print version Aug 4th, this tweet from Aug 2nd.

Surely the attack on the Canary is part of the story? Why ignore it in the report?

Background is the continuing decline of print circulations, the age profile of existing print subscribers, the growing use of social media for news (OFCOM report ).

The Observer story is just missing things out.

By the way, no Media Guardian today in the print version. Another £2.20 spent on false information. Maybe tomorrow there will be a banner on the front to let us know if the education people are on holiday as well.

Many years ago Guardian Unlimited Talk was trashed without warning. My guess is that pro print journalists just do not like the idea of the readers making a comment. Meanwhile various forms of news social media have gained in strength. My guess is this will continue. Comment welcome.

Labour antisemitism reporting, USA policy context

Have stayed clear of this as very complicated, but recent story too far gone to ignore. I often think the Guardian agenda opposed to Corbyn is such that the antisemitism issue has more attention than news values would suggest. But his may just be me.

Still, latest example here link to Guardian story on Pompeo . Fit narrative of UK concern with LAbour and antisemitism. But fails to mention context of meeting about Israel and Palestine. See story in Medium. Similar problem with report in Express.

So how will this develop? Could be more pressure from Pompeo and Trump. But press reports should mention USA policy on Israel and Palestine. Another example of UK press just a bit limited to UK. Twitter could find more context.

Comment welcome if i missed another story in Guardian or Express.

Why no by-election ?

Putting this here because Guardian is most obvious link newspapers and recent resignations from Labour Party.

There is a report on an inside page that in a northern constituency some would welcome a by election. But this issue not in an "analysis" or editorial.

I dropped the #FBPE tag when it became so strident and obviously anti Corbyn. There is a reason for the discussion inside the Labour Party to respond to concerns that caused people to support Brexit. Just turning up the volume is not a way to persuade.

So now in the context of a Brexit crisis over the next few weeks some have decided that another split is useful in some way. If the idea is to force another referendum why do they not want more elections? They could raise the issue.

My guess it would be too easy for Leave to describe them as elite big city people, cut off from most opinion. Corbyn could do well not just on the same issues as last election but offering some version of an agreement with EU.

Am I off topic yet for this blog? Supposed to be about the Guardian, not just my opinions. May have reached a point when the mishmash of centre whatever the columnists have put together ceases to make any sense at all. Surely there was a time when G supported Labour? Maybe false memory. Anyway, will link this on Fleet Street in Europe and Cyberspace.

Hello Roy Greenslade , shared story possible on Student Accommodation

Reading today about state of local newspapers in Guardian. Roy Greenslade doubts that support from BBC and tech giants will solve the problem of declining sales. Similar situation for national newspapers, see ABC.

However no mention of citizen journalism or how the public / readers may contribute. The only model is for full time journalists. Debate around this has been going on a while. I guess there will have to be a more obvious crisis till change is considered.

As well as this blog I contribute to radio shows on Phonic FM, local community signal in Exeter ( 106.8 ) We talk about student accommodation, now taking over the city centre.

Blogging unlikely to get a BBC sub, but we could share some info. Our guess is that it could be a bubble. There may be a national trend based on switching some funds from London flats. Could the Guardian know more about this?

Also what will happen with online learning? Will so many students be on or near campus at any one time? Some form of blended learning probable. So far as I know there are no numbers published by University of Exeter for estimate in 5 or 10 years ahead. The Guardian education pages often dismiss the MOOC and related tech. But other views exist. Guess the investment in student accommodation is based on 20 years or so?

So clearly this blog post has a lot of guess in it. But could be based on a recent walk in Exeter at any time. Could be a swap with another locality. Would Roy Greenslade on a Monday talk to someone on a Tuesday and recycle some clues?

After Corbyn in Edinburgh scope of blog beyond content, now context

I have updated my pinned tweet to link to  a blog post
explaining how I see things fit together. Corbyn Edinburgh
speech on media seems to me to mark a point at which
there is more going on. Not just Labour trying to get a message
through UK media. There is a connection between Labour
and a large audience online, mostly younger than
the newspapers support.

Current guess is that Guardian / Observer is most likely going
to stick with other newspapers and knock Corbyn in a softer
sort of style. Not sure why. Like Mirror, could get an audience
if they worked with Labour a bit more, but seem stuck on a
Centrist approach that may or may not attract enthusiasm
at scale.

Couple of examples.

Twitter is a boot stamping on the face of irony

Says Matthew d’Ancona with reason for today to reject Corbyn.
Photo from Edinburgh but no mention of
what Corbyn actually said.

More grumbles about Twitter from John Harris, worried about
the shrill belligerence of the Corbyn hardcore. I notice there is
rarely any recognition that quite a lot of Twitter users may be
casual supporters of Corbyn or just sometime Labour voters.
Rarely represented in the Guardian columns.

And another thing

William Keegan on Brexit. He is impatient with Labour MPs
who represent Leave constituencies “( sometimes this would
be put in the context of wanting to honour the views of their
constituents, you understand). “  Irony alert.
To be clear I think Keegan is saying “Forget about the people
who might or might not vote Labour. Observer readers in the
City and South West London are getting annoyed.”
Meanwhile I think there is a genuine conversation inside Labour.

Somehow in several paragraphs about the Durham miners
Keegan avoids any mention of recent Corbyn speech on
industrial policy. Just as he was not reported during referendum
when off message from Cameron script.

See other posts, I am just repeating stuff.
But scope just expanded to wider context of
newspapers, not just the content.

update on Corbyn and Guardian

See previous post. Now through Twitter news about a new party , with link to "chicken coup" .  (their term) 26 June 2016

couple of things

The first to break cover were Margaret Hodge and Ann Coffey, two experienced backbenchers, who tabled a motion of no confidence in Corbyn to be discussed at a meeting of the parliamentary Labour party on Monday. 

Don't remember this being much mentioned recently.

During that calm call, Benn told his boss that he no longer had confidence in him to lead the Labour party and could not continue to serve in the shadow cabinet under him. The only thing he denied was having leaked details of the insurrection to the Observer. Corbyn sacked him straightaway.

Contrasts with later versions about "Benn sacked in middle of the night". If a party leader is told about a lack of confidence what is expected? If Benn knew nothing about press briefing ( Sunday times as well as Observer ) someone else did it? someone at Guardian Media Group may know where a story comes from. Anyway this is just a blog, sort of thing will clear up sometime. Just my impression lots of contact between media and PLP, probably much the same then as now.

 a small group of Labour MPs and advisers had been telling journalists for months to “expect movement” against Corbyn on 24 June.

any guess as to who? which journalists?

and what actually happened during the referendum? Did Corbyn control much of the office machine? who made the decision for Lord Darling to share a platform? see previous posts

Probably the details will continue as mystery. But this blog wil make some guess just to speed up new posts with some background. see also Fleet Street in Europe and Cyberspace.

Paul Chadwick on Corbyn

Today in print Paul Chadwick in Open Door on how Guardian readers complain about reporting on Jeremy Corbyn. He hopes there will be a slowing down in a mix of "imprecision, incivility and presumption of bad faith". He is trying to find out what the complaints may be about. They are now a "steady trickle" but not back to mid 2016. there was a lull after the "strong performance" in 2017 election. Presumably the complaints follow some pattern in Guardian content. Just my guess "incivility" is not random.

Some issues can wait till IPSO reports, though I notice very little comment in the Guardian about other newspapers.

On other pages Lord Adonis , page 8, has a lot of space to claim that Labour policy on Brexit must change. Towards the end there is mention that "party strategists" calculate they have remain support so "prospects are reliant on "working class leave voters". There is more background to this. During the referendum Corbyn did not just repeat the alarmist City supporting lines that Cameron was pushing. He did not share a platform as suggested by Lord Mandelson. My impression ( see blog Fleet Street in Europe and Cyberspace ) was that Corbyn made a solid case based on worker rights, environment etc. Not well reported, not much supported by those MPs who very quickly started a blame game soon after.

It could be that Guardian readers are not upset about anything specific, just an accumulation. there was a change in attitude after 2017 election but this seems to have slipped away. To be fair Hilary Wainwright ( Opinion p4) mentions speech at Durham Miners Gala but no detail on industrial strategy, regional policy, topics that Corbyn has consistently promoted during the referendum and since.

Many Guardian readers can remember what happened over about two or three years, more vaguely for longer. the Guardian could be a bit more obvious what it thinks it was doing. Also what the PLP and media connections were doing. There is a lot of stuff we are not told.

My guess is that after last week issue the New European will not get many new readers from potential Corbyn fans, since he is leader of a large party this may be a significant part of potential income and influence. I happen to think stopping Brexit is important, more important than knocking Corbyn so I am just confused as to what they are on about.

Possibly going off topic now, but hope this helps Paul Chadwick.

using @guardian on Twitter, cannot find Guardian open door.

Guardian could be positive feedback with social media

Zoe Williams starts with advice not to join Twitter. Maybe the Guardian editor line is that all opinion has to be hostile to social media. But anyway she continues to suggest that " we could build an ethical code collectively" so there is some hope for the people lost in Twitter.

Previously Zoe Williams wrote about the Sunday Politics on BBC in a way that may chime with some on Twitter.

In the Corbyn era, many in the Labour party complained about the lack of balance, particularly on the Sunday Politics, the show’s weekend edition, where it was not unusual to have a panel of three journalists, one from the far right (the Express or the Telegraph), one from the “centre”, which broadly meant also supporting the government, and one from the “centre left”, who hated the leader of the Labour party more than the other two put together. 

Thing is, this "centre left" point of view might be close enough to the Guardian. Some of us can remember how Corbyn has been covered in the newspaper.

Monday, Roy Greenslade started by facing up to a few facts. He considers how much or little has changed with print journalism since the internet arrived and people like Jeff Jarvis started writing about citizen journalism.

So, how did we, the MSM professionals, react? Did we change? Did we clean up our act? Did we take those thousands of critical below-the-line comments to heart? My reading of the national morning newspapers over the past decade suggests not. Newspaper publishers and editors have continued to believe they are the political, social and cultural agenda-setters. Despite the fact that newsprint sales have fallen by more than 50% since the turn of the millennium, they have been consoled by huge online numbers.

My guess is that existing newspapers are very unlikely to change their model now. Something else could come later that realises the web is read / write. Will there be a news event as circulation falls another 50%. Possibly just lower costs, more shocking opinion.

Greenslade claims that the online alternative to MSM is now "a nasty, brutish, hysterical, intolerant mob" but I wonder if this is true? Maybe some of the people known as the people who previously paid for newspapers can continue as reasonably polite occasional retweeters of various links.

Roy Greenslade convincing on Trump and UK newspapers

Today Roy Greenslade comments on the way that some UK newspapers have supported Donald Trump during his recent visit.  Greenslade suggests this "can be traced to Boris Johnson’s claim five weeks ago that Trump could handle Brexit better than May". My impression is that the change is also part of the consequences of May taking a firmer line on the consequences of Brexit. The newspapers have had to face up to complexity and some loss of momentum. Trump has provided some energy over 48 hours that is not yet much examined, at least in the news world.

Newspapers are already switching to a betrayal story about Brexit to explain the lack of delivery. Sunday Express front page for example. Connecting to Trump  style as a solution may appeal as a story. I have dropped the #tag #BlameTheresatheAppeaser as #Betrayal and #May finds enough now on twitter to track what is happening.

On the opinion pages, Matthew d'Ancona considers the current problems for Theresa May and concludes with an alarming possibility.

Never underestimate the populist right, especially when being assisted by US and Russian sympathisers. Its principal protagonists have curated the “Brexit betrayal myth”: the claim that the British volk has been let down by a craven elite of multiculturalists and theatre-goers. Some of their number argue that Ukip should be revived under Nigel Farage. But the more dangerous plan is to colonise the battered Tory movement in the years to come – like a facehugger from Alien – flooding local associations with like-minded members, and turning the party of Disraeli, Macmillan and Churchill into a Trumpite nationalist force.

Some Conservatives may want to keep some distance from UKIP but there was some overlap in themes as reported by newspapers during the referendum. See another blog Fleet Street in Europe and Cyberspace. Blog started before referendum so there are some links there.

I think it much more possible that UK newspapers that have promoted Brexit will now include Trump and supporters, maybe Boris maybe Farage. Roy Greenslade comments-

The Little Englander philosophy of the Brexit-backing press dovetails with build-the-wall, protectionist Trumpism.
In spite of the waning circulation of the national press, the populism it shares with its new poster boy, Trump, is on the rise: and it’s no exaggeration to suggest their philosophy amounts to a very real danger to democracy.

The press circulation is not only waning but concentrated with an older demographic. The BBC and other broadcast media tend to accept the news agenda from print and this may continue whatever happens to circulation. The Guardian should be supported in the print world as long as it lasts. Online there may be a wider range of styles. The Guardian believes in proper journalists and rarely credits a tweet with much sense. But there could be some connection around this sort of thing.

Social Media policy is coming from USA

Emily Bell writes about bias on Twitter and Facebook, seems to think the robots will not be up to doing an editor job. See previous posts for my views on Guardian Unlimited Talk and how the Guardian journalists blew out the potential of social media a while ago. More soon on citizen journalism and an update on OhmyNews.

But meanwhile this week is a good chance to check for USA situation sets things up for UK. We have some discussions on Brexit and a visit from Trump. Opinions vary on whether a lack of civility is a natural consequence of the web or whether Trump / Brexit introduced a new approach. Emily Bell seems to start with the authorities / Republican Party as compared with the liberals in the public who may make a large share of the posts. My guess is that in UK the journalists mostly report the Westminster situation, discussion inside the Conservative Party. Not so much reporting on Corbyn and supporters in social media. I still read the print Guardian most days so may have this wrong, maybe you find something else somewhere.

So some of the words / terms

toxic discourse (for instance at Twitter) 

platform enabling a far right presidency to consistently attack established democratic principles such as those of a free press 

human curators suppressed ratings for far-right news sources  

furore in the right-adjacent ranks 

violate hate-speech standards. It should be classified as fake news

Bell reports on some meetings that people from tech companies have had. Probability is that UK policy will follow.

On Dateline London this Saturday David Aaronovitch suggested that the UK right had normalised much new in recent years. This came up in conversation with Alex Deane and followed discussion about Brexit. I notice that UK tweets are often picking up on themes from the USA, not just retweets. Since the newspaper loss of influence became more obvious with the 2017 election there has been more activity with accounts such as Breitbart London, Westmonster and Leave.EU .  Possibly moreso this week.

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.