National Newspapers editorial policy

[dsr]

Anyone who wants to talk about national newspapers, do so on here. Do not use the Covid-19 thread, because that is for covid-10 news. Understood?

[Devils_Advocate]

That thread hasn't been Covid-19 news for a long time. Its been a lot of endless squabbling and d*ck waving about who was right and who was wrong with some absolute non factual rubbish posted along the way

In short the thread had become garbage long before any political discussion came into it

If you want to have a thread just for posts you are interested in then start your own messageboard

[Greenmile]

Anyone who wants to talk about national newspapers, do so on here. Do not use the Covid-19 thread, because that is for covid-10 news. Understood?

Do indeed to run all of my posts past you for permission first, or just ones about national newspapers?

[FactualFrank]

The Covid-19 thread became garbage pretty much from page one.

[thatdberight]

The Covid-19 thread became garbage pretty much from page one.

Which is as it should be on a random internet message board where there are no barriers to entry.

[Greenmile]

Perhaps the OP could set up some kind of hotline, where we can report folk who defy his orders, and they can be sent somewhere for re-education.

[Jakubclaret]

That thread hasn't been Covid-19 news for a long time. Its been a lot of endless squabbling and d*ck waving about who was right and who was wrong with some absolute non factual rubbish posted along the way

In short the thread had become garbage long before any political discussion came into it

If you want to have a thread just for posts you are interested in then start your own messageboard

If was useful & informative initially in its early stages with a small band of posters discussing Covid-19 till about a mth ago coinciding with the virus intensifying, when it's been hijacked by another band politicising the thread, it's noticeable since then a few posters have dropped off or don't post as often on there.

[ksrclaret]

Warning - this thread is likely to be extremely boring because dsr has started it. Anyone struggling to sleep would be advised to read this before bed.

[IanMcL]

This thread should only ge for Covid 19 official comment!



There we are. Just as authoritative...for no purpose!

[yTib]

dsr has always been rather pompous.

[dsr]

dsr has always been rather pompous.

Hark at him! I can just imagine the snooty nose in the air when you type it - "DSR has always been raaather pompous". Pretentious? Toi?

[kritichris]

This thread is boring without pictorial editorial content.

[yTib]

Hark at him! I can just imagine the snooty nose in the air when you type it - "DSR has always been raaather pompous". Pretentious? Toi?

i see the endorsement from ringo there.

what a team!

[AndrewJB]

No surprise at this. I wonder if the rightwing press will report it?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 62456.html

[AndrewJB]

Dig deep, and spend it on a coffee:
https://www.gofundme.com/f/save-the-sun ... hare-sheet

[Damo]

20200414_020856.jpg (533.3 KiB) Viewed 3111 times

[thatdberight]

No surprise at this. I wonder if the rightwing press will report it?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 62456.html

They should do because it's interesting. It would be more interesting if the source of the report, its reason for existence and the process that was gone through to create it were known.

[thatdberight]

20200414_020856.jpg

Are they just parodying The Guardian now?

[Damo]

Are they just parodying The Guardian now?

https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2020/ ... ssion=true

[CombatClaret]

The Five Types of Telegraph Coronavirus Headline

1) Downplay

downplay.jpg (57.38 KiB) Viewed 2886 times

2) EU Bashing

EU bashing.jpg (54.49 KiB) Viewed 2886 times

3) Culture Wars

CW.jpg (124.95 KiB) Viewed 2886 times

[CombatClaret]

Jingoism

jingoism.jpg (192.85 KiB) Viewed 2881 times

Miscellaneous, unclassifiable nonsense

Miscellaneous, unclassifiable nonsense.jpg (185.2 KiB) Viewed 2881 times

[Devils_Advocate]

You should have just stuck with Damo's chandelier story Combat. It originated from the Daily Mail along with a similar story about a woman in a relationship with the Statue of Liberty

[thatdberight]

#6.

The ones nobody much reads.

Screenshot_20200414-123428.jpg (31.5 KiB) Viewed 2853 times

[Damo]

You should have just stuck with Damo's chandelier story Combat. It originated from the Daily Mail along with a similar story about a woman in a relationship with the Statue of Liberty

Amazing how much those 2 newspapers have in common

[Devils_Advocate]

Amazing how much those 2 newspapers have in common

Not really. One is reporting the outcome of the IPSO complaint on some tacky article. The other ran the tacky story that led to the complaint so not quite the same

[Devils_Advocate]

#6.

The ones nobody much reads.

Screenshot_20200414-123428.jpg

https://whatsnewinpublishing.com/how-pe ... -findings/

[aggi]

20200414_020856.jpg

That was actually a better article that I expected.

[dsr]

The Five Types of Telegraph Coronavirus Headline

1...

Of course, when you completely ignore those that criticise the government, it turns your list from a potential critique to a biased bit of nonsense.

[thatdberight]

https://whatsnewinpublishing.com/how-pe ... -findings/

Good point. I didn't read the detail - sorry - but I presume by giving it away for free, that's keeping their digital reach high. I certainly know I'm much more likely to click through and read (and the predictably dismiss! ) a Guardian article than a Telegraph or Times. Because I can.

[Damo]

Not really. One is reporting the outcome of the IPSO complaint on some tacky article. The other ran the tacky story that led to the complaint so not quite the same

And yet, the centrist media seem to have totally ignored it

[Devils_Advocate]

And yet, the centrist media seem to have totally ignored it

Out of interest who do you class as the centrist media?

[Damo]

Out of interest who do you class as the centrist media?

In terms of newspapers, the Times, the financial times, the observer off the top of my head

[Devils_Advocate]

In terms of newspapers, the Times, the financial times, the observer off the top of my head

Cheers Id agree about the FT and the observer (though the Observer slightly leans left imo).

The times is a decent paper and factual but I would class it on a par with the Independent with ones editorial right of centre and the other left of centre. Id be happy to include both as centrist but wouldnt be including one and not the other

[Damo]

Cheers Id agree about the FT and the observer (though the Observer slightly leans left imo).

The times is a decent paper and factual but I would class it on a par with the Independent with ones editorial right of centre and the other left of centre. Id be happy to include both as centrist but wouldnt be including one and not the other

Opinions and @rseholes and all that, but I'd say the times has a better mix of left and right views.
I'd say the i is probably about as centrist as the telegraph.
I'd class those both as off center at the opposite end of the spectrum

[Paul Waine]

No surprise at this. I wonder if the rightwing press will report it?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 62456.html

I saw this in The Times on Monday. The only bit I missed was that this was a report into the 2017 GE. I'll go back at read The Times report again to check whether this was my "skim read" or whether The Times was also expecting this to be a report on the investigation on why JC lost the 2019 GE.

However, I'm not placing The Times in the "rightwing press" category. From some of your previous posts, Andrew, I'd expect that The Times is "rightwing" for your purposes.

EDIT: So, re-read The Times: Antisemitism ‘smear campaign’ by allies of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn

Seems I didn't miss the GE 2017 reference in the article. Just "right v left" factionalism in Labour HQ. Wasn't JC made to face a second election contest as leader? Who knew there were some in Labour party who didn't support his leadership?

[Devils_Advocate]

Opinions and @rseholes and all that, but I'd say the times has a better mix of left and right views.
I'd say the i is probably about as centrist as the telegraph.
I'd class those both as off center at the opposite end of the spectrum

The Telegraph is a strange one (I'd prob look at it a lot but for the paywall) cos when it is good it has some superb journalism and some really interesting stuff for the guy who does the daily Covid stats stuff is brilliant and the insight is fantastic and completely neutral

When it is bad though it is horrendous and some of the opinion pieces it allows from people like Toby Young are just complete propaganda and vile and for that reason it just loses a lot of credibility with me.

I must admit I dont read the Independent much these days as I find its website and popups to annoying and hard work to bother

[thatdberight]

Cheers Id agree about the FT and the observer (though the Observer slightly leans left imo).

The times is a decent paper and factual but I would class it on a par with the Independent with ones editorial right of centre and the other left of centre. Id be happy to include both as centrist but wouldnt be including one and not the other

It may not surprise you to learn I cancelled my subscription to The Times because it is too left-leaning for my tastes.

[AndrewJB]

I saw this in The Times on Monday. The only bit I missed was that this was a report into the 2017 GE. I'll go back at read The Times report again to check whether this was my "skim read" or whether The Times was also expecting this to be a report on the investigation on why JC lost the 2019 GE.

However, I'm not placing The Times in the "rightwing press" category. From some of your previous posts, Andrew, I'd expect that The Times is "rightwing" for your purposes.

EDIT: So, re-read The Times: Antisemitism ‘smear campaign’ by allies of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn

Seems I didn't miss the GE 2017 reference in the article. Just "right v left" factionalism in Labour HQ. Wasn't JC made to face a second election contest as leader? Who knew there were some in Labour party who didn't support his leadership?

When the story is about the discovery of WhatsApp postings showing a group of people at Labour HQ going so far as to wanting (and working toward) a Labour defeat in the election (in addition to a host of other things), and the Times calls it a Corbynist smear. Okay...

[thatdberight]

When the story is about the discovery of WhatsApp postings showing a group of people at Labour HQ going so far as to wanting (and working toward) a Labour defeat in the election (in addition to a host of other things), and the Times calls it a Corbynist smear. Okay...

Any organisation is entitled to expect its officers and employees to work for it - not against it. I do feel concern for political parties: their importance to our country is hugely overweight against the number of people involved so "entryism" is always a possible issue. But, since no-one had kicked Corbyn out of the party, his views must have been within the spectrum and therefore if his faction held sway through legitimate means, it wasn't for dissenters to deliberately sabotage that while pretending to be loyal to the new leadership.

Those that did (have names been named?) don't look good.

[AndrewJB]

Any organisation is entitled to expect its officers and employees to work for it - not against it. I do feel concern for political parties: their importance to our country is hugely overweight against the number of people involved so "entryism" is always a possible issue. But, since no-one had kicked Corbyn out of the party, his views must have been within the spectrum and therefore if his faction held sway through legitimate means, it wasn't for dissenters to deliberately sabotage that while pretending to be loyal to the new leadership.

Those that did (have names been named?) don't look good.

Those right wingers had their chance during the leadership election to air their concerns about Corbyn. If the membership still chose him, then the right wingers lost the argument, and it was their choice then to get behind the party, retire to just being a member, or resign. Forming a secret internal opposition showed contempt for the members. And I’d say this regardless of the party in question.

[Paul Waine]

When the story is about the discovery of WhatsApp postings showing a group of people at Labour HQ going so far as to wanting (and working toward) a Labour defeat in the election (in addition to a host of other things), and the Times calls it a Corbynist smear. Okay...

Hi Andrew,

First few paras of Times article:

"Jeremy Corbyn’s allies have been accused of a last-minute bid to “smear whistleblowers” and “discredit allegations” of antisemitism in the Labour Party during his tenure.

An extensive internal investigation carried out during the final month of Mr Corbyn’s reign concluded that antisemitism was not properly dealt with because of factional hostility towards the former Labour leader.

Critics of Mr Corbyn have rubbished the dossier as “an attempt to imagine a vast anti-Corbyn conspiracy” and called for it to be sent to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), which is investigating Labour for antisemitism.

The report, leaked to Sky News, claims to have found “no evidence” of antisemitism complaints being treated differently to any other type of complaint, or of current or former staff being “motivated by antisemitic intent”.

Instead, it concluded that a “hyper-factional atmosphere” at Labour HQ and lack of “robust processes, systems, training, education and effective line management” prevented any effective handling of the issue."

*****************

"Those right wingers had their chance during the leadership election to air their concerns about Corbyn. If the membership still chose him, then the right wingers lost the argument, and it was their choice then to get behind the party, retire to just being a member, or resign. Forming a secret internal opposition showed contempt for the members. And I’d say this regardless of the party in question."

So, members of the Labour party are "right wingers" in your view. Is that also official Labour party view, or just the corbynist faction?

We know that some members of the Labour party spoke against electing Labour to gov't in Dec19. We know that some were de-selected by their constituencies and so didn't stand.

Am I correct that we also know that "momentum" did a lot of behind the scenes manoeuvring? Should we be surprised if some with other views did similar?

[AndrewJB]

Hi Andrew,

First few paras of Times article:

"Jeremy Corbyn’s allies have been accused of a last-minute bid to “smear whistleblowers” and “discredit allegations” of antisemitism in the Labour Party during his tenure.

An extensive internal investigation carried out during the final month of Mr Corbyn’s reign concluded that antisemitism was not properly dealt with because of factional hostility towards the former Labour leader.

Critics of Mr Corbyn have rubbished the dossier as “an attempt to imagine a vast anti-Corbyn conspiracy” and called for it to be sent to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), which is investigating Labour for antisemitism.

The report, leaked to Sky News, claims to have found “no evidence” of antisemitism complaints being treated differently to any other type of complaint, or of current or former staff being “motivated by antisemitic intent”.

Instead, it concluded that a “hyper-factional atmosphere” at Labour HQ and lack of “robust processes, systems, training, education and effective line management” prevented any effective handling of the issue."

*****************

"Those right wingers had their chance during the leadership election to air their concerns about Corbyn. If the membership still chose him, then the right wingers lost the argument, and it was their choice then to get behind the party, retire to just being a member, or resign. Forming a secret internal opposition showed contempt for the members. And I’d say this regardless of the party in question."

So, members of the Labour party are "right wingers" in your view. Is that also official Labour party view, or just the corbynist faction?

We know that some members of the Labour party spoke against electing Labour to gov't in Dec19. We know that some were de-selected by their constituencies and so didn't stand.

Am I correct that we also know that "momentum" did a lot of behind the scenes manoeuvring? Should we be surprised if some with other views did similar?

It’s what I was saying. In the first few paragraphs the rightwing Labour people are given the chance to discredit the investigation by describing it as a smear on them.

What I’m talking about regarding the WhatsApp group is people in Labour HQ actively working to lose the election, and showing disappointment when Labour’s results were a marked improvement on 2015. They were people unable to win the debate by fair means, attempting to do so by foul means.

[AndrewJB]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... lout-rich-

A good argument to freeze the economy rather than trying to continue through the crisis.

[KateR]

Christine Berry is a researcher, writer and consultant. She is the author of People Get Ready! Preparing For a Corbyn Government, kind of gives you a hint what to expect, she has been wrong before as an expert influencer so not a lot of credible input for me, but that's just me.

[dsr]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... lout-rich-

A good argument to freeze the economy rather than trying to continue through the crisis.

I know you're obsessed with this idea of temporarily abolishing currency and abolishing trade, and living as a "subsistence" country with no imports and no exports (at least, that's the obvious corollary of having no currency).

But what would we eat?

(Incidentally, I doubt that article can be considered a "good argument" for anything. A woman who can keep a straight face while describing this coronavirus event as a windfall for property owners, because they are saving money by not going theatres, bars, and restaurants, has clearly allowed hatred of wealth to blind her to all common sense. I'm surprised she doesn't go on to mention the football, pubs, and greasy spoons frequented by the poor people that she can only imagine because she doesn't know them.)

(Incidentally too, why does a certain type of left winger have such contempt for the "working classes"? Why does she not think that saving money is a windfall for them as well? Why does a writer earlier today say that the proposed A level system is unfair because working class students can't afford a year out because they haven't got middle class parents to support them? Why assume that working class people instantly chuck their kids onto the street at 18 and won't let them live at home? Why assume that being poor means being cruel to your children? "Working class" people are just as likely to be good or bad, kind or miserable, as "middle class" people.)

[Paul Waine]

It’s what I was saying. In the first few paragraphs the rightwing Labour people are given the chance to discredit the investigation by describing it as a smear on them.

What I’m talking about regarding the WhatsApp group is people in Labour HQ actively working to lose the election, and showing disappointment when Labour’s results were a marked improvement on 2015. They were people unable to win the debate by fair means, attempting to do so by foul means.

and the report in today's The Times: Leaked report shows bitter Labour Party splits

Sir Keir Starmer launched an investigation last night into a leaked report on Labour’s handling of complaints that appears to lay bare the bitter splits within the party under the leadership of his predecessor Jeremy Corbyn.

The dossier is thought to have been compiled by left-wing internal party figures. It includes a series of vitriolic anti-Corbynite messages, which the report claims were private WhatsApp communications between centrist staff who worked at party headquarters. It suggests these underscore its conclusion that the left-wing party leadership was hindered from effectively tackling antisemitism — and other disciplinary matters — by ideological infighting.

In a joint statement released by Sir Keir and Angela Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, the pair said that the investigation would examine three areas around the leaked report: “First, the background and circumstances in which the report was commissioned and the process involved. Second, the contents and wider culture and practices referred to in the report. Third, the circumstances in which the report was put into the public domain.”

It is understood that an independent commissioner will be appointed to conduct the review.

Their intervention came as it emerged that centrist staff named in the report plan to sue its unnamed authors, and whoever leaked it, for libel. Allegations of data protection breaches were also levied.

The report published alleged transcripts of private WhatsApp conversations in which Corbynites were branded “nutters” and a senior female Corbyn loyalist was described as “crazy” and a “bitch face cow”.

It was originally due to be passed to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is investigating Labour, but the party’s lawyers advised against its submission fearing it could damage the wider case, according to Sky News.

Last May the equalities watchdog placed the party under formal investigation over whether it had unlawfully discriminated against, harassed or victimised people because they are Jewish.

Some Labour figures sought yesterday to paper over the past divisions revealed in the report, urging colleagues to avoid an internal row in the midst of a global health crisis.

Chris Bryant, the MP for Rhondda, said on Twitter: “At a time like this it would be utterly self-indulgent for anyone in the Labour Party to engage in a bout of internecine blood letting.”

However, others demanded action. John Spellar, a centrist, said on social media: “How about an inquiry into how it [the report] was leaked and by who?”

The left-wing MPs Ian Lavery and Jon Trickett called for “a transparent process to investigate the conduct alleged in the leaked document”.

[Paul Waine]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... lout-rich-

A good argument to freeze the economy rather than trying to continue through the crisis.

What can I say, Andrew? I'm convinced? The argument is well made?

Seems as good a place as any to post a report in today's The Times: North Korea’s rubber stamp parliament gets rare telling‑off

North Korea’s toothless parliament has been given a rare public rebuke for “serious mistakes” in its handling of the country’s slowly liberalising economy.

The Supreme People’s Assembly, which usually meets once or twice a year, never debates or contests decisions by the core leadership, and the state media hints only occasionally at discord and failure within the government. However, a statement to the assembly said that “serious mistakes were found in the work of the cabinet last year” and spoke of “some drawbacks in executing the state budget”.

A Korean Central News Agency report but hinted that this was connected to experiments with free market capitalism, which have accelerated under Kim Jong-un. “The shortcomings teach a serious lesson . . . that the overall economy would stop short of making a dynamic advance unless they provide revolutionary operation and command from the stand of taking responsibility for their revolutionary tasks before the party and the people,” the report said.

For decades workers, whether farmers or bureaucrats, surrendered all they produced to the government to be rewarded with fixed rations under the state distribution system. In recent years, though, many state-owned enterprises have been allowed to sell their goods on the free market, setting prices, paying workers according to productivity and reinvesting profits.

The references to increased central command suggest that such laissez faire may be again be brought under the aegis of the central government.

[AndrewJB]

I know you're obsessed with this idea of temporarily abolishing currency and abolishing trade, and living as a "subsistence" country with no imports and no exports (at least, that's the obvious corollary of having no currency).

But what would we eat?

(Incidentally, I doubt that article can be considered a "good argument" for anything. A woman who can keep a straight face while describing this coronavirus event as a windfall for property owners, because they are saving money by not going theatres, bars, and restaurants, has clearly allowed hatred of wealth to blind her to all common sense. I'm surprised she doesn't go on to mention the football, pubs, and greasy spoons frequented by the poor people that she can only imagine because she doesn't know them.)

(Incidentally too, why does a certain type of left winger have such contempt for the "working classes"? Why does she not think that saving money is a windfall for them as well? Why does a writer earlier today say that the proposed A level system is unfair because working class students can't afford a year out because they haven't got middle class parents to support them? Why assume that working class people instantly chuck their kids onto the street at 18 and won't let them live at home? Why assume that being poor means being cruel to your children? "Working class" people are just as likely to be good or bad, kind or miserable, as "middle class" people.)

Why don’t you debate the things I’ve said, rather than telling me what I think, and then debating against that?

[Greenmile]

dsr dishonestly misrepresenting an article about economic inequality perpetuated by the Tories as an attack on the working class?

Here’s my surprised face

[dsr]

Why don’t you debate the things I’ve said, rather than telling me what I think, and then debating against that?

OK then, what you have said is that you will freeze Sterling and replace it with a new currency for the duration. I have more than once asked how you are going to import stuff if we have no currency worth anything. What's the answer?