Thank you. Conversely LibDems on the doorstep are told that nobody ever hears about us. Is it any wonder why? We don’t attract sensationalist media because we tend not to be sensationalist. We are just getting on with small workaday things that make local people’s lives a bit better. Yet when our leader tries harmless stunts in order to try and garner some media attention, he’s berated for that. 🤷🏽♀️
Yes. Sadly part of the media game plan seems to be that party A with substantial seats should have minimal coverage, whereas party B, with hardly any seats, should have endless coverage. The defence is that party B is topping the polls which raises the question of self-fulfilling prophecies - arguably, it was intense media exposure that pushed up B's polling in the first place. But this is then used to justify further intense exposure .... It's certainly not a level playing field and the LibDems clearly suffer within the system.
Fun stunts designed to show his human side. No harm in that. Think of the number of celebs who do similar things for charity.
Compare and contrast that famous man of the people rarely without a pint and a ciggie in his mitts. (I have to say here that the number of people I know who spend their time with pints and ciggies is dwindling rapidly as that lifestyle kills them off ahead of their natural time.)
Very necessary piece there even if I am reluctant to agree on the Starmer should go angle. My personal feeling on Burnham is that he is being bigged up by the same press who see him as someone they can move on to next and an easier target- the signs are there already. Starmer should have moved on the press but appointed the light weight Nandy and thus Johnson’s skewering of BBC bias remains in place
Forgive me but we've known this was coming for well over 20 years. In that time the avenues that have opened up to communicate with the electorate have expanded enormously, as has the expertise required to exploit those routes.
Why then can those with an interest in change not harness those avenues during the run up and post election? Do the elected somehow think the war is over post election? Certainly Starmer did, hence his downfall imho.
To be prime minister today takes a bloody savvy social media strategies.
- One to quietly & factually counter RWM bullshit.
- one to quietly and persistently tell the nation what's actually going on
- one to signpost what is planned and why
- one to promote all of the above
Doing the above will, over time, hopefully provide some form of datum for truth
Labour don't help themselves as their comms about the things they have done well are lost in the blizzard of RW drivel. And drivel it really is at times, even from some of the mid-range papers. To change this, press reform-with-a-small-r will need to happen, with rules about who can own UK media and what tactics they can use to find news and make it readable. That won't be popular, to be honest. But personally I've had it with "populists" supposing to speak for me while doing absolutely sweet FA to improve my life and lot. I'd rather have effective politicians whose efforts are concentrated on helping those who need and keeping the national fabric running for the good of the nation. For the good of the people who elected them, in other words.
100%. It's a multi-cause thing - the press damning Labour, but Labour, as you say, not helping themselves either. Also, the party lacked either the courage or understanding, or both, to improve matters by e.g. tighening press regulation.
A way of operating can be 'barely conscious' though I should perhaps have said 'of which they are barely conscious'. The 'pigeon' point was a joke (re pun on left-wing) but never mind. I think you need commas before and after 'in particular' btw.
Read “Politics and the English Language.” No, on second thoughts, don’t just read it. Memorise it, and especially his six rules. It might give you the beginnings of some dim realisation of just how barbarous (to use Orwell’s word) this piece is, although your response is itself so dim that I wouldn’t put money on it.
Whoever thought “This nihilistic modus operandi is barely conscious amongst the political commentariat” was good writing needs to read some Orwell, and in particular his essay “Politics and the English Language.” And, really, “left wing clay pigeons”? Do they fly in desperately descending circles?
Even though I agree with much of it, I found this all but unreadable.
Great analysis - essentially the RWM is slowly moulding society for its own ends. Look up Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of Habitus.
Thank you. Conversely LibDems on the doorstep are told that nobody ever hears about us. Is it any wonder why? We don’t attract sensationalist media because we tend not to be sensationalist. We are just getting on with small workaday things that make local people’s lives a bit better. Yet when our leader tries harmless stunts in order to try and garner some media attention, he’s berated for that. 🤷🏽♀️
Yes. Sadly part of the media game plan seems to be that party A with substantial seats should have minimal coverage, whereas party B, with hardly any seats, should have endless coverage. The defence is that party B is topping the polls which raises the question of self-fulfilling prophecies - arguably, it was intense media exposure that pushed up B's polling in the first place. But this is then used to justify further intense exposure .... It's certainly not a level playing field and the LibDems clearly suffer within the system.
Fun stunts designed to show his human side. No harm in that. Think of the number of celebs who do similar things for charity.
Compare and contrast that famous man of the people rarely without a pint and a ciggie in his mitts. (I have to say here that the number of people I know who spend their time with pints and ciggies is dwindling rapidly as that lifestyle kills them off ahead of their natural time.)
Excellent piece but scary.
Very necessary piece there even if I am reluctant to agree on the Starmer should go angle. My personal feeling on Burnham is that he is being bigged up by the same press who see him as someone they can move on to next and an easier target- the signs are there already. Starmer should have moved on the press but appointed the light weight Nandy and thus Johnson’s skewering of BBC bias remains in place
Forgive me but we've known this was coming for well over 20 years. In that time the avenues that have opened up to communicate with the electorate have expanded enormously, as has the expertise required to exploit those routes.
Why then can those with an interest in change not harness those avenues during the run up and post election? Do the elected somehow think the war is over post election? Certainly Starmer did, hence his downfall imho.
To be prime minister today takes a bloody savvy social media strategies.
- One to quietly & factually counter RWM bullshit.
- one to quietly and persistently tell the nation what's actually going on
- one to signpost what is planned and why
- one to promote all of the above
Doing the above will, over time, hopefully provide some form of datum for truth
Unf I'll not be around to see it tho...
Labour don't help themselves as their comms about the things they have done well are lost in the blizzard of RW drivel. And drivel it really is at times, even from some of the mid-range papers. To change this, press reform-with-a-small-r will need to happen, with rules about who can own UK media and what tactics they can use to find news and make it readable. That won't be popular, to be honest. But personally I've had it with "populists" supposing to speak for me while doing absolutely sweet FA to improve my life and lot. I'd rather have effective politicians whose efforts are concentrated on helping those who need and keeping the national fabric running for the good of the nation. For the good of the people who elected them, in other words.
100%. It's a multi-cause thing - the press damning Labour, but Labour, as you say, not helping themselves either. Also, the party lacked either the courage or understanding, or both, to improve matters by e.g. tighening press regulation.
You shoul give Manufacturing Consent (Chomsky and Herman)a read. A bit dated but the model still applies
A way of operating can be 'barely conscious' though I should perhaps have said 'of which they are barely conscious'. The 'pigeon' point was a joke (re pun on left-wing) but never mind. I think you need commas before and after 'in particular' btw.
Read “Politics and the English Language.” No, on second thoughts, don’t just read it. Memorise it, and especially his six rules. It might give you the beginnings of some dim realisation of just how barbarous (to use Orwell’s word) this piece is, although your response is itself so dim that I wouldn’t put money on it.
Whoever thought “This nihilistic modus operandi is barely conscious amongst the political commentariat” was good writing needs to read some Orwell, and in particular his essay “Politics and the English Language.” And, really, “left wing clay pigeons”? Do they fly in desperately descending circles?
Even though I agree with much of it, I found this all but unreadable.