Category Archives: Media
Readers respond to the last post – Media 75:
One says that Sky mentioned this poll on Monday and a political commentator used the majority approval result to rubbish Corbyn.
Business Insider is more subtle: whilst acknowledging the correct result, it depreciates it by comparing it with a poll held twelve months ago, heading this with the reflection that party members are beginning to turn on JC.
Another question was about who was polled and Business Insider gave a lead to YouGov’s agency, Election Data, who explains:
Having been responsible for the YouGov’s Labour leadership polling over the last 18 months, Election Data has asked me to shed some light on how YouGov is consistently able to accurately reflect the membership in these niche elections. Read on here. For YouGov’s Labour leadership polls, they use a number of important demographics:
- Social Grade
- Vote in the 2016 Labour leadership election
- Membership length
When you look at the full tables, you will note that there are significant differences amongst some of these groups; members who joined before and after Corbyn’s leadership are, for example, very different in their strength of support for Jeremy. This is why it is so important to get the relative sizes of these groups right for each of the bullet points above. If they’re wrong, the overall sample will be wrong and your results will not be accurate of the membership as a whole.
The Metro (hard copy only),scandalously does not mention the majority approval/trust rating, leading its readers to infer from Corbyn’s less favourable votes on other issues that he has completely lost the support of party members. Its headline: “Half of Labour members ‘want Corbyn to quit’ “ – but no mention of over half who trust and support him. It then goes on to speculate about possible successors. A reader’s advice:
–Ask your readers to complain to the Sun or any of the other papers who have carried the false story about JC’s tax returns and ask for an apology and correction.
–And flood the frankly useless IPSO (regulator which is said to ‘uphold high standards of journalism’) with complaints and see if they actually do anything or just prove themselves a total waste of time that Hacked Off always said they would be.
If any reader really needs explanations for the hostility and misrepresentations surrounding Jeremy Corbyn, emanating from vested interests, they will be summarised in the next post on this site ‘Broken Britain’.
Even YouGov buries this unpopular finding today in its extensive array of small-print spreadsheet pages, instead preferring to focus on another section of the poll.
At present, only Peter Edwards of Labour List reports, reluctantly no doubt, that Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters (‘camp’) will be cheered by the results of a 1,100 person poll carried out by YouGov for Election Data.
A 52% majority say they will definitely or “probably” back him in any future vote.
Peter Edwards more happily directs readers to the 46% who say they will vote against the “veteran socialist” – youthful Edwards-speak for ‘has been’?
But he sourly admits that “the leader is clearly ahead on the candidate for whom activists would consider backing”.
Let’s end positively: the intelligent articulate independent minded Peter Oborne (with reference to the Syria vote) remarked on Corbyn in words which are here paraphrased and applied more generally:
Despite bitter hostility from many on his own side he stands his ground and courteously sets out his honest doubts . . . the only politician who deserves to emerge with an enhanced reputation – Jeremy Corbyn.
There is no denying that he emerges as a man of moral courage, integrity and principle. Mr Corbyn performs the role which every leader of the Opposition is expected to perform, according to British constitutional textbooks: he held the Government to account.
At last we have an Opposition leader who does his job by opposing the government and asking the right questions with increasing vigour. Throughout the debates, Jeremy Corbyn is calm, resolute and precise — especially creditable given that he was unsupported by some disloyal Labour MPs.
Saturday 4th March
The BBC reported that Jeremy Corbyn called for the government to provide more funding for the health service in next week’s Budget. Speaking to the protesters in Parliament Square, he said: “The NHS is in crisis because of the underfunding in social care and the people not getting the care and support they need. It is not the fault of the staff. It is the fault of a government who have made a political choice.”
The protest organisers say the government’s proposed Sustainability Transformation Plans (STPs) across the NHS in England are a “smokescreen for further cuts” and the “latest instruments of privatisation”. These proposals involve the complete closure of some hospitals and the centralising of some services such as A&E and stroke care on fewer sites.
Deputy chairman of the British Medical Association council Dr David Wrigley said the march was “a cry for help for anyone who uses the NHS” which was “in such a desperate situation. We need to highlight it. As a doctor I see day to day the serious pressures in the NHS due to the funding cuts from the government”.
Saturday 4th March: at 6pm
The Independent featured Ben Bradshaw (former minister) praising Blair and blaming Corbyn’s leadership – ‘the one issue on the doorstep’
Saturday 4th March 11pm (updated 4am on 5th)
“Unlike other politicians who spend weekends with corporate lobbyists &wealthy donors, John McDonnell is out on the street 4 the #OurNHS demo”
Sunday 5th March 4am
The Sunday Express: Corbyn in crisis – and no doubt more will come
Saturday 4th March 11pm (updated 4am on 5th)
The Daily Mail usefully quotes Ken Loach explaining why these particular MPs are disgruntled: “It was their Labour Party, not Corbyn’s, that lost Scotland, lost two elections and has seen Labour’s vote shrink inexorably. Yet they retain a sense of entitlement to lead.”
Strangest of all, the Times and FT (online editions) decide not to mention the demonstration.
The Times online did not carry its usual daily onslaught on Corbyn and the Financial Times online which regularly publishes biassed articles about JC – often by Jim Pickard – has no reference, merely a bland, skimpy article by David Laws: “UK reaches socially acceptable limits of austerity . . . the NHS needs a settlement which allows for rising demand and an ageing population”.
Their carefully selected and daily shown photographs and cartoons of the Labour Party leader are not to be seen? What does this mean?
The Times offered a fragment of truth: “Len McCluskey said that Mr Corbyn and John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, were “not egomaniacs” and would not try to “cling on” at the head of the party” – admirable – woven into a web of insinuations, carefully selected quotes and wishful thinking.
Unite’s McCluskey offered a full rebuttal and reaffirmed support for Jeremy Corbyn on Twitter:
“As well as my full support Jeremy Corbyn has support of our elected executive who actually make decisions for Unite. As we said this morning ignore the media spin and read beyond headlines!”
His reward: the ‘failed plotters’ are hoping to unseat him and replace him by a more amenable general secretary.
Post truth: ‘for the birds’ ?
With thanks to Tom Rigby (above) – known for his effective advocacy on behalf of farmers poisoned by use of government-required organophosphate sheep dips (latest reference) – who often offers worthwhile Twitter feeds. Today one led to a rare challenge to the widespread acceptance of assertions that we live in a “post-truth” world.
He links to an article by Robert Fisk (‘always worth reading’) who bluntly asserts: “We do not live in a “post-truth” world, neither in the Middle East nor in the West – nor in Russia, for that matter. We live in a world of lies. And we always have lived in a world of lies”.
Rune Møller Stahl’s PhD fellow at University of Copenhagen, Department of Political Science and Bue Rübner Hansen is a postdoctoral fellow at Aarhus University, Denmark explore the subject in Jacobin: a voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics and culture.
Stahl and Hansen use the term ‘liberals’ in a way that needs further definition.
Far removed from the admirable political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality, an online search (including Wiki) offers the explanation that Liberal writers start from the belief that economic liberalism’s values — the right to private property, the valorization of self-interest, and formal freedom without material equality — best describe human nature.
To explain what happened in the United Kingdom and the United States this year these writers all agree that voters and politicians increasingly deny facts, manipulate the truth, and prefer emotion to expertise .They ask how voters could defy the warnings of so many pundits, wonks, and fact-checkers?
Almost unanimously, they answered that we live in an age characterized by post-factual politics and noted that, pushed by major media organizations like Forbes and the New York Times, “post-truth” recently became Oxford Dictionaries’ new word of the year.
Stahl and Hansen sardonically observe that the liberal media don’t seem to know how we entered this post-fact world or when the factual age, which must have preceded it, ended, asking “Was it in the 2000s, when the whole world debated imaginary weapons of mass destruction before being conned into war?”
Historical points made in Jacobin:
- In the 1990s centrist technocrats like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair ‘pioneered . . . a false progressivism that was premised on profitability and stopped short of any proposal the political center might object to, no matter how just’.
- The right-wing fringe led by Fox News, conspiracy theorists, and televangelists remained marginal until 9/11/01 threw the United States — liberal and conservative alike — into a patriotic mass hysteria that culminated in two poorly planned wars.
- But historical events started calling liberal truths into question. The 2008 financial crash revealed the failure of liberal economics. Occupy and Black Lives Matter threw light on structural problems that triangulation and managerialism not only can’t address but refuse to.
In sum, they end that it’s time to stop blaming (the current version of) fake news and realize why so many believe it: the simple reason is that the mainstream of the political class have squandered people’s trust, by not having their best interests at heart. Stahl and Hansen believe that only a democratic revival will challenge authoritarianism and liberal managerialism and combat the regressives who now run their country – and ours.
RMT report: “Only a fool would suggest that drivers can drive a train while sorting out drunken and/or antisocial behaviour in the carriages behind them”
The Department for Transport wants a significant expansion of Driver Only Operation (DOO), introducing it on the Northern and Great Western franchises, with a target of around 50%.
Laura Kuenssberg (impartial BBC) reports that the ambition is to bring down the cost of rail travel for the tax payer and the train passenger, whereas most will agree that the ambition is to increase shareholder dividends. Fares will continue to rise.
She asks “Why all this fuss over doors on the packed commuter lines between London and the South Coast, when agreements on the same issue have been reached in other parts of the country?”
This is about safety, Laura. The RMT report: ‘The safety-critical role of the guard: a dossier on driver-only operation’ delivers a strong argument.
Laura again: “But hang on, driver-only trains have been used on different services around the country for three decades”.
Yes, and the unions hope to make all these services safer.
Paul Prentice, in his thoughtful Rail Magazine article, debates the pros and (considerable) cons of the argument, ending, “there remain (even in the eyes of the most ardent DOO supporters) security risks for the train’s passengers without another member of staff present, be they called guards, conductors or train managers”.
Read about this example of an incident on a DOO train.
Since January 2011 there have been 10 serious incidents at the Passenger/Train Interface [PTI] that have been or are being subjected to investigation by the UK’s National Investigation Body the Rail Accident Investigation Branch
80% of these incidents have involved services being operated in Driver Only Operation [DOO] without a second on-board safety critical worker, a guard or train manager.
The list of RAIB investigations in the Southern Region is as follows (a detailed description of each is also given):
Later in the report there are many accounts of serious incidents in different parts of the country.
Thousands of passengers have already opposed the government and the rail operator plans to de-skill and scrap guards. The campaign has been backed by numerous local councillors, transport bodies, passenger groups, disability groups and MPs.
At a time of increasing security threats and growing anti-social behaviour, which is reflected in growing levels of racially motivated abuse, violence and sexual assault, the presence of the guard is of growing importance not less. Some police and crime commissioners have also expressed concern about plans that could leave passengers on trains on their own – apart from the person actually driving the train.
Guards fill that important role in helping to moderate behaviour on trains. Many services, particularly during evenings and weekend have become little more than ‘bars on wheels’ and have seen a dramatic increase in drunken behaviour. British Transport Police (BTP) resources are being increasingly focused around major stations and many stations. This leads, in an emergency, to the police being called upon and they too are facing real pressure and the threat of further cuts. If there is a guard aboard they can often manage the situation without further assistance. But when operating in DOO mode this cannot happen. Without seeking either a positive or a negative view.
Andy McDonald, the shadow transport minister recalls a recent incident involving a freight train driver who died: “He went into one signal section between two towns, but never came out the other end. Found slumped alone over the controls in his cab, it took 40 minutes for paramedics to arrive. There was nobody to assist him on the train.”
RAIL asked drivers to anonymously express their feelings about DOO.
One response: “train drivers are only human and just as susceptible to sudden ill health as everyone else. And things can go wrong in the cab, in remote spots away from any other human contact”.
Another speculated on what might happen if a driver was killed or incapacitated on a busy main line service, perhaps by an object coming through the windscreen and impaling him before he has the chance to hit the all-important emergency red button in the cab: “It won’t take long before somebody pulls an emergency door release and people spill out onto the track, only to be mown down by passing trains that haven’t been alerted because all the signaller has deduced is that a service has been a long time in section”.
As Paul Prentice says, for a range of reasons: ”There are security risks for the train’s passengers without another member of staff present, be they called guards, conductors or train managers”. Is this acceptable?
As journalist David Hencke reminds us:
“One of the oldest tricks in the Whitehall playbook is to use a major event as cover to publish unpalatable or embarrassing news.
“It means the media are diverted by the event and don’t notice the announcement or report”.
In his recent post Hencke noted that the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury use of the US elections to hide two bad news stories.
On the day before Trump‘s victory, the Ministry of Defence slipped in a very embarrassing announcement about war veterans pensions and disability payments (£438,193,000 in the Armed Forces Pensions and Compensation scheme) for which the Treasury had apparently not budgeted, commenting: “As a result they will have to raid the contingency reserve for emergency payments to make sure these veterans have the money”.
On ‘results day’, the National Audit Office’s less than glowing report on the new Defence Equipment and Support agency was released to the media. Though the agency was set up to address MoD cost overruns on equipment, bad spending decisions and lack of control, the NAO has qualified its accounts and made profound and widely based criticisms of its performance
On the day of publication, few noticed that Amyas Morse, the Comptroller and Auditor General, reported: “The DE&S has again been unable to provide sufficient evidence to support certain costs, or demonstrate that all costs it has incurred have been included in the financial statements. The C&AG has therefore limited the scope of his audit opinion . . . I believe this situation has arisen because the Agency’s financial management systems, processes and controls for these transactions and balances are not yet sufficiently well developed to meet the Agency’s needs.”
Hencke also reports that Anne Marie Trevelyan, Conservative MP for Berwick on Tweed and a member of the Public Accounts Committee, said: “At a time when we are seeing a lot of change in the Ministry of Defence, causing a great deal of anxiety for those who are serving, it is very disappointing to see Defence Equipment & Support has not got to grips with financial management”.
See also Hencke’s news article for Tribune magazine.
Media 68: social media militarising the young and pacifying the attacked: ‘a vital tool for the armed forces’
AKA Hell’s kitchen?
The blurb: “Social media has become an increasingly vital tool for the armed forces in the 21st Century.
“Not only in order to reach out to a wider and younger audience globally for recruitment and information purposes but as a new front in warfare. What soldiers, airmen and sailors post online can be crucial to winning the hearts and minds of local populations, weakening the enemy’s narrative and as an instrument in the proliferation of cyber warfare”.
The SMi PR group held its 6th Annual Social Media Within The Defence and Military Sector in the Holiday Inn, Bloomsbury earlier this week.
- to present the latest concepts and ideas on how to enhance the outreach of the military in the digital sphere,
- the integration of social media activities within the whole spectrum of operations conducted by the military both at home and abroad,
- to hear from some of the leading voices of social media within the industry and NATO and allied militaries,to focus on the effects of social media on and off the battlefield through training and application,
- to learn from the commercial sector on how to create an effective social media strategy,
- to learn from the military about how they are utilizing digital media channels to project their activities to a wider audience,
- to discover how social media is intertwining with other aspects of warfare to create a multi-levelled war zone both in the real world and the virtual one
- and to discover how popular social media brands operate with militaries in a defence environment
The only named sponsor: Thales, the French multinational company that designs and builds electrical systems and provides services for the aerospace, defence, ground transportation and security market.
COMING SOON, SMi CONFERENCES ON MORE OPEN OPPRESSION
Future armoured vehicles – used to quell dissident or invaded populations
And military airlift and air to air refuelling – to facilitate bombing them