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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.