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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Excellent piece but scary.
Great analysis - essentially the RWM is slowly moulding society for its own ends. Look up Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of Habitus.
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
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.
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.