3 ms·

You're arguing that the media are constantly attacking the Labour party. My wife is always complaining to me about how the media are always attacking the Conser

You're arguing that the media are constantly attacking the Labour party. My wife is always complaining to me about how the media are always attacking the Conservative party. I think, given that both sides are complaining about being attacked, the media probably aren't actually that biased overall. However, what I would much prefer to see is much more moderate coverage of the different political parties. However, that would require that the political parties make moderate claims about each other, rather than just painting the other parties as the devil incarnate. At the moment, media coverage of UK politics is dominated by outrage. I get it, outrage sells news stories to a very large proportion of the population. It puts me off, and makes me distrust the news. I'd like to see more "We think this policy would be best because..." and less "OMG the other party are killing babies as we speak." Social media does not achieve this.

dean177 7y ago
> I think, given that both sides are complaining about being attacked, the media probably aren't actually that biased overall. This is a very “Judgement of Soloman” type stance to take, as it ignores the merit of the complaint each side is making.
- mnw21cam 7y ago
  Yeah, at the moment, I'm seeing the majority of the news on politics coming my way is outrage-inducing, and I by default ignore articles like that. They don't actually convey any useful information, but they sell. I think it's reasonable to assume that none of the political parties actually want to murder babies. I'm getting very little actual real reasonable information about what the politicians will actually want to do. The truth is, good things will happen and bad things will happen in the country. No political party can prevent that. They might be able to make a very small change, but that's it. They are all trying to make improvements, and they have different ideas on how to do that. Which one is right? Well, if we knew that, the parties would agree on it and argue about something else.
  - barryhoodlum 7y ago
    Trying to make improvements for who, and why? That's the important part, and why politics gets so heated. You sound like you're talking about choosing between slightly different flavours of ice cream.
    - mnw21cam 7y ago
      It's quite possible to have a heated argument without the mudslinging and dirty tactics that we are seeing now.
- makomk 7y ago
  I'm not sure there is any other stance that can be taken other than a nakedly partisan one. Each side is obviously going to think that the media is biased against them because because lies the other side believes are a lot more visible than lies they believe, because when the media sides with them it's just what they expect but when the media sides with their opponents it's shocking and anger-inducing, and so on and so forth.
k1m 7y ago
We don't have to rely on each other's opinions. There have been studies done. LSE study [1]: > The results of this study show that Jeremy Corbyn was represented unfairly by the British press through a process of vilification that went well beyond the normal limits of fair debate and disagreement in a democracy. Corbyn was often denied his own voice in the reporting on him and sources that were anti-Corbyn tended to outweigh those that support him and his positions. He was also systematically treated with scorn and ridicule in both the broadsheet and tabloid press in a way that no other political leader is or has been. Even more problematic, the British press has repeatedly associated Corbyn with terrorism and positioned him as a friend of the enemies of the UK. The result has been a failure to give the newspaper reading public a fair opportunity to form their own judgements about the leader of the country’s main opposition. Loughborough University study, as reported by Media Reform UK [2]: > Research published by Loughborough University has shown that during the first two weeks of the campaign, Labour attracted by far the most negative coverage in the national press of all the major parties. The Conservatives on the other hand, unequivocally got the most favourable coverage. We might expect that, given that most national newspapers (including the three largest titles across both print and online) have endorsed the Conservatives during successive recent elections. Media Reform UK study on claims of anti-semitism in the Labour party [3]: > Looking at the overall figures in absolute terms, The Guardian and BBC television recorded the two highest number of inaccuracies (8 and 6 respectively), followed closely by The Sun(5). Proportionate to the volume of coverage, BBC television still featured the highest rate of inaccurate reporting and this position holds when incidences of misleading coverage are included. [1] http://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communications/assets/documents/research/projects/corbyn/Cobyn-Report.pdf http://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communications/assets/documen... [2] https://www.mediareform.org.uk/featured/wheres-the-impartiality-genelec2019 https://www.mediareform.org.uk/featured/wheres-the-impartial... [3] https://www.mediareform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Labour-antisemitism-and-the-news-FINAL-CORRECTED.pdf https://www.mediareform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/La...
matthewmacleod 7y ago
My wife is always complaining to me about how the media are always attacking the Conservative party… I think, given that both sides are complaining about being attacked, the media probably aren't actually that biased overall. I once felt that this was true in the UK, particularly around the BBC. To some extent, there is still a bit of truth in it. But I don't think it would be possible to hold that view honestly any more after the current election campaign, and to do so would require willingly turning a blind eye to some particularly egregious behaviour. It's not as simple as a blatant "bias", either. The UK's tabloid press has always been pretty sketchy in this regard, and the decline of the Telegraph, which is now a blatant organ of the Conservative party, is astonishing. The current thing that's happening is more complex – there's a weird mix of credulous establishmentarianism and an inflexible media culture that's making it hard to deal with the rapid change in the methods by which information is spread. I have no idea how to deal with this, but it's actually sort of frightening to watch how much it's deteriorated in even the past few weeks.
- mnw21cam 7y ago
  I will 100% agree with you that there has been a deterioration in the quality of media reporting on politics over the last few years. However, I will argue that this is partly/mostly because the main thing the political parties are feeding the media is negative messages. I'd like to see some constructive messages instead. Even the political leaflets put into my letterbox are giving negative messages - "Anything but Boris", "I am the only candidate who can get rid of the Tories", "A vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for Corbyn", "Don't let Labour destroy our region", etc. What I wanted to see was "We recognise this particular problem (for example, underfunded NHS), and we think the way to solve it is to take this particular action. We know this will have this other knock-on effect, but we believe this is the best choice." The other thing I see in the political leaflets is of course empty promises. I think all of the parties have promised to save the NHS. None of them really say how, or why their method is better than the other parties' methods. It's just a load of mudslinging at this point. I'd seriously vote for a candidate who just said "You know, our country is pretty nicely tuned at the moment. We could spend a bit more on this, or a bit less, depending on your political philosophy. But I plan to stop changing everything all the time." As it is, I might be spoiling my ballot. I'm in a safe seat anyway.

dean177 7y ago

> I think, given that both sides are complaining about being attacked, the media probably aren't actually that biased overall. This is a very “Judgement of Soloman” type stance to take, as it ignores the merit of the complaint each side is making.

mnw21cam 7y ago
Yeah, at the moment, I'm seeing the majority of the news on politics coming my way is outrage-inducing, and I by default ignore articles like that. They don't actually convey any useful information, but they sell. I think it's reasonable to assume that none of the political parties actually want to murder babies. I'm getting very little actual real reasonable information about what the politicians will actually want to do. The truth is, good things will happen and bad things will happen in the country. No political party can prevent that. They might be able to make a very small change, but that's it. They are all trying to make improvements, and they have different ideas on how to do that. Which one is right? Well, if we knew that, the parties would agree on it and argue about something else.
- barryhoodlum 7y ago
  Trying to make improvements for who, and why? That's the important part, and why politics gets so heated. You sound like you're talking about choosing between slightly different flavours of ice cream.
  - mnw21cam 7y ago
    It's quite possible to have a heated argument without the mudslinging and dirty tactics that we are seeing now.
makomk 7y ago
I'm not sure there is any other stance that can be taken other than a nakedly partisan one. Each side is obviously going to think that the media is biased against them because because lies the other side believes are a lot more visible than lies they believe, because when the media sides with them it's just what they expect but when the media sides with their opponents it's shocking and anger-inducing, and so on and so forth.

k1m 7y ago

We don't have to rely on each other's opinions. There have been studies done. LSE study [1]: > The results of this study show that Jeremy Corbyn was represented unfairly by the British press through a process of vilification that went well beyond the normal limits of fair debate and disagreement in a democracy. Corbyn was often denied his own voice in the reporting on him and sources that were anti-Corbyn tended to outweigh those that support him and his positions. He was also systematically treated with scorn and ridicule in both the broadsheet and tabloid press in a way that no other political leader is or has been. Even more problematic, the British press has repeatedly associated Corbyn with terrorism and positioned him as a friend of the enemies of the UK. The result has been a failure to give the newspaper reading public a fair opportunity to form their own judgements about the leader of the country’s main opposition. Loughborough University study, as reported by Media Reform UK [2]: > Research published by Loughborough University has shown that during the first two weeks of the campaign, Labour attracted by far the most negative coverage in the national press of all the major parties. The Conservatives on the other hand, unequivocally got the most favourable coverage. We might expect that, given that most national newspapers (including the three largest titles across both print and online) have endorsed the Conservatives during successive recent elections. Media Reform UK study on claims of anti-semitism in the Labour party [3]: > Looking at the overall figures in absolute terms, The Guardian and BBC television recorded the two highest number of inaccuracies (8 and 6 respectively), followed closely by The Sun(5). Proportionate to the volume of coverage, BBC television still featured the highest rate of inaccurate reporting and this position holds when incidences of misleading coverage are included. [1] http://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communications/assets/documents/research/projects/corbyn/Cobyn-Report.pdf http://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communications/assets/documen... [2] https://www.mediareform.org.uk/featured/wheres-the-impartiality-genelec2019 https://www.mediareform.org.uk/featured/wheres-the-impartial... [3] https://www.mediareform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Labour-antisemitism-and-the-news-FINAL-CORRECTED.pdf https://www.mediareform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/La...

matthewmacleod 7y ago

My wife is always complaining to me about how the media are always attacking the Conservative party… I think, given that both sides are complaining about being attacked, the media probably aren't actually that biased overall. I once felt that this was true in the UK, particularly around the BBC. To some extent, there is still a bit of truth in it. But I don't think it would be possible to hold that view honestly any more after the current election campaign, and to do so would require willingly turning a blind eye to some particularly egregious behaviour. It's not as simple as a blatant "bias", either. The UK's tabloid press has always been pretty sketchy in this regard, and the decline of the Telegraph, which is now a blatant organ of the Conservative party, is astonishing. The current thing that's happening is more complex – there's a weird mix of credulous establishmentarianism and an inflexible media culture that's making it hard to deal with the rapid change in the methods by which information is spread. I have no idea how to deal with this, but it's actually sort of frightening to watch how much it's deteriorated in even the past few weeks.

mnw21cam 7y ago
I will 100% agree with you that there has been a deterioration in the quality of media reporting on politics over the last few years. However, I will argue that this is partly/mostly because the main thing the political parties are feeding the media is negative messages. I'd like to see some constructive messages instead. Even the political leaflets put into my letterbox are giving negative messages - "Anything but Boris", "I am the only candidate who can get rid of the Tories", "A vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for Corbyn", "Don't let Labour destroy our region", etc. What I wanted to see was "We recognise this particular problem (for example, underfunded NHS), and we think the way to solve it is to take this particular action. We know this will have this other knock-on effect, but we believe this is the best choice." The other thing I see in the political leaflets is of course empty promises. I think all of the parties have promised to save the NHS. None of them really say how, or why their method is better than the other parties' methods. It's just a load of mudslinging at this point. I'd seriously vote for a candidate who just said "You know, our country is pretty nicely tuned at the moment. We could spend a bit more on this, or a bit less, depending on your political philosophy. But I plan to stop changing everything all the time." As it is, I might be spoiling my ballot. I'm in a safe seat anyway.