|
J_RBG posted:I was there for this. Loved it when Corbyn revealed he'd written poetry. He's a far better public speaker in person than on TV. His asset is his spontaneity, his willingness to just appear in public like that and in an election campaign I could see that being really really useful. e: The total number of gifts received in the song "The Twelve Days of Christmas" is 364. Guavanaut fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Jul 29, 2016 |
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 17:53 |
|
|
El Grillo posted:McDonnell's lecture series probably hasn't been reported on a lot because... it's a lecture series on the economy? Not a policy speech, a clash at PMQs or an interview with a reporter? I'm sure r4 has done something on it at some point but this if this is their attempt to put a message out about their economic policy, it's not a particularly effective way to do so. This is the right solution. The trouble with this is that right now the bulk of the PLP isn't interested in opposing the Tories they're insterested in Westminster farce. And if they WERE interested in opposing the Tories this stuff would receive less media coverage than the average cat stuck in a tree.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
J_RBG posted:Then it chucked it down so I shinned it to a pub where some people in the corner were saying racist things and reminding me of the poo poo country we live in. Alarmingly the pub was flooding in the back as I was drinking my pint.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:The trouble with this is that it's for show, and the people it's meant to enlighten won't see it, because the news tends to report PMQs as "here's one thing a person said, here's a thing the other person said", so you only see one question anyway. And that's why Cameron always had some Sick rear end Burn ready, so that the news would show that answer and make it look like the Opposition got immediately schooled and that was the end of it LemonyTang posted:https://www.facebook.com/everythingyork/photos/a.575157305887316.1073741828.575151002554613/1041706482565727/?type=3 One thing I've been thinking about for ages, and I know John Harris (of 'Anywhere but Westminster' fame, made that great speech at the Compass 'Progressive Alliance' event recently) is very keen on too, is the idea of doing US-style 'town hall' meetings. Get political leaders (Jeremy/John/shadow cabinet members) out to some of the economically disenfranchised places where Labour voters have been turned off, get them on a stage with a mic and just let them have a conversation with people. Not something heavily moderated like Question Time but a situation where people can really press for answers and politicians are really forced to listen to peoples' issues and complaints. Possibly it'd be a complete shitshow though. And maybe it'd be hard to get audiences - but maybe not if you advertised well? Hell, maybe you could even get some local TV news coverage, and initially you might get national news coverage if the leader of a party went out to do this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
This is exactly what the McDonnell New Economics tour is, and it's working. The next one is in some tiny town in Dorset and they've packed out a 400 seat venue there and probably could have sold it twice. There's a genuine popular movement building, but it's going on impossible to see in the MSM.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:One thing I've been thinking about for ages, and I know John Harris (of 'Anywhere but Westminster' fame, made that great speech at the Compass 'Progressive Alliance' event recently) is very keen on too, is the idea of doing US-style 'town hall' meetings. Get political leaders (Jeremy/John/shadow cabinet members) out to some of the economically disenfranchised places where Labour voters have been turned off, get them on a stage with a mic and just let them have a conversation with people. Not something heavily moderated like Question Time but a situation where people can really press for answers and politicians are really forced to listen to peoples' issues and complaints. Corbyn could be good at this sort of thing. A lot of politicans are so heavily trained to say certain things that they really struggle with spontaneity. They get asked a question and go into soundbite mode where there eyes glaze over and they stare into middle distance. Corbyn could smash these sorts of meetings and the structure would let him wax lyrical a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
OvineYeast posted:Having now watched all of this, what really comes across is the degree to which Jeremy Corbyn is a man interested in details and the small scale. In some ways I think him and John McDonnell would really do better in each other's jobs - McDonnell is a better communicator and perhaps a bit more into the big picture, whereas I think Corbyn's focus on the situation on the ground would be a good quality in a Chancellor. That's an interesting perspective. I agree about McDonnell, but I'm not sure I can see Corbyn as Chancellor - it's always been a post where you've really got to give the impression of competence all the time. (insert Osbourne joke here) I thought he came across fine though, not as bad as I was expecting after reading some of the other comments here about it. I was slightly surprised by the camera work though - did anyone else notice that they seemed to frame Corbyn in a style I've seen in the tabloids a lot more. Face too close to the camera, not completely in shot, making him look a bit wild and/or menacing? Owen Jones on the other hand is properly framed, with head, neck, shoulders etc. all visible. El Grillo posted:McDonnell's lecture series probably hasn't been reported on a lot because... it's a lecture series on the economy? Not a policy speech, a clash at PMQs or an interview with a reporter? I think this is perhaps treating it as shallower than it is. It's drawing experts from around the world specifically to debate what the new economic consensus might look like so that a broad and non-fringe set of politics can be presented to the public in good time for the next GE campaign. It's a fantastic idea and shows political vision IMO. I can't remember if it was here that I first read it, but someone pointed out that Labour were hosting a Nobel prize winning economist discussing how the rules of a market economy could be re-written and the only coverage that Labour got in the papers the next day were about how someone accidentally sent out a mailshot headed 'Dear First name'. I'm not surprised most people are unaware of developments like this, with the coverage they've been getting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:Yeah, so for example above when he did actually give a strong performance at PMQs, he came off better in the media. Even on the flipping Telegraph website. I don't see why I have to explain this to you, but Jeremy Corbyn does not in fact control the media with an iron hand, and as such he doesn't get to decide whether he gets to present his message on mainstream media or not. Also I seem to need to hammer home the point that it doesnt actually matter what Corbyn says or how he articulates it because his words and ideas are not reported on honestly. This shouldn't be a hard thing to grasp. That Corbyn recieves to occasional scrap of praise in the media doesn't magically erase the massive bias against him that's present every other time. Besides that your laser focus on the economy is kinda myopic, to be honest. The economy is not the be-all and end-all of political activity, and there's plenty of other fields where Tory fuckups should be challenged, and if Corbyn didn't do that the media would be talking about how he's ignoring this matter of vital importance. Again, you're asking for the impossible here and it's still extremely dishonest. El Grillo posted:I've also admitted that maybe none of this would have worked/will work, maybe it is simply impossible for him to be portrayed well in the media no matter what he does, as the LSE study suggests (though I've argued that bad media presentation and strategy has contributed, and would also argue that examples such as the one above seem to suggest this too). At that point, what the hell is the point of him being leader? If we're saying that he cannot make it work with the media; somehow, he is far far worse than Milliband in that respect. If he's reelected an nothing changes, which by most peoples' logic in this thread, is exactly what will happen. Does he just carry on shouting into his social media bubble while the party splits/dissolves around him? By this logic, the gatekeepers to who gets to wield any serious political power in the U.K. should be a handful of media billionaires, which should strike you as a greater problem since you say you're a leftist. Also you don't get to ask other people for how Corbyn should do things in order to succeed when you haven't even explained how your own proposed strategy is a feasible road to success. That way lies Pissflappery, and nobody wants that. El Grillo posted:John McDonnell said a few days ago Jeremy would resign if he lost a general election. Every indicator we have shows he is on course not just to lose such a (possibly early) election, but to lose it catastrophically. Why on earth would we just carry on with him in charge, especially when the majority of the PLP seems to have finally come round to the fact that we do need to provide a real alternative to the Tories/pure neoliberalism? I get distrust of them, I get the fact that they've shown massive incompetence themselves recently, but do they really have a choice on economic policy but to stay Left, now that May is purporting to abandon austerity entirely and start what effectively amounts to Peoples' QE (not that I trust her to do so but that's the stall she set out)? Now that every indicator, including the most massive upheaval in our politics and our economic situation for decades (Brexit), is pointing to the dire need for an alternative economic strategy going forward? I don't see why I have to explain this to you either, but neither the PLP nor the Tories have actually embraced leftist economics. If Corbyn resigns he'll be replaced by some Labour Right empty suit who will immediately start pretending that the last year didn't acually happen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Double post, sorry!
Prince John fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Jul 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:e2: I do not know this Pissflaps people speak of but am hoping I'm not turning into him. After all I did support JC previously and at the mo genuinely don't know who the hell I'm supporting (so no-one right now I guess). Greetings fellow Trotskyite entryist and totally not a paid shill for Owen Smith.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:This is exactly what the McDonnell New Economics tour is, and it's working. The next one is in some tiny town in Dorset and they've packed out a 400 seat venue there and probably could have sold it twice. It's also going to take longer than two weeks or so to have results, which is why most of the Labour apparatus will never believe in it. Can't you just do a speech, John? A speech where you talk about how serious we need to get about the immigrants?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Angepain posted:It's also going to take longer than two weeks or so to have results, which is why most of the Labour apparatus will never believe in it. It's really weird, because it's self-evident that they understand the need to play a long media game to get your message across, they've been doing it for 3 months. The only conclusion I can come to is that they genuinely don't actually WANT to fight the Tories on anything. They just want to meekly trot along behind, take their turn in government, and wait for the fat corporate board positions to roll in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:This is exactly what the McDonnell New Economics tour is, and it's working. The next one is in some tiny town in Dorset and they've packed out a 400 seat venue there and probably could have sold it twice. I guess one of the problems with this kind of thing is that you're bound to get the entire local party turning out, but will any of the people we need to persuade to vote for us come along to a Labour economics talk? Some, but I suspect not many. Making it broader, a more open format and focusing on letting people 'have their voice heard' might be a better solution for actual voter outreach. El Grillo fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Jul 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:Liskeard. Should be interesting to see how that one goes. So far they have been mostly in Labour-type places I think? Or at least places where there's a strong-enough Labour/Momentum presence to pack out these places. South East Cornwall is a pretty safe Tory seat I think. Again: they are doing that. They're doing a format of two experts give 20 minutes each of speech on a given economic theme, then open to the floor for questions. And as already noted, they certainly indicated yesterday that they'd filled all 400 seats in Liskeard and could have filled more. It's almost like they know that they're doing and are good at it. Seriously, McDonnell is a very canny guy, and I had a lot of respect for him even before seeing him in person. On reflection I'd have far preferred to see him rather than Corbyn get the nomination last year, but it was not to be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
I'm watching Newsnight right now and never mind Jeremy Corbyn, it's striking to me how terrible previous Labour leaders have been at getting their message across. The BBC is interviewing one young man who says he backs Corbyn because he's anti-austerity and willing to invest in infrastructure. In fact, the policy of the current Labour leadership is almost actually the same as it was under Miliband. Ed Miliband and Ed Balls said they would balance the books and then run a surplus on day-to-day spending but borrow to invest in infrastructure. John McDonnell has said his policy is to balance the books on day-to-day spending and borrow to invest in infrastructure. The difference is that he's not talking about a surplus, but as Miliband/Balls never said what this surplus would be, that's a much smaller difference than it may seem. It could mean they spend £1 a year less (in fact it probably means literally nothing because no Government can balance the books down to the precise £1 anyway). However, Miliband was so keen to sound tough on spending and talk about "difficult decisions" that it seems he gave his own side the impression he was going to slash and burn our public services. I had a conversation with a friend in the last leadership election who said she was voting Corbyn because for the first time in her life there was a politician who cared about equality, social justice, workers' rights and a compassionate society. I was genuinely a bit confused - even if you disagreed with them on a lot of things, did you really not think that Ed Miliband or Gordon Brown cared about those things?? But no, she didn't. Now I'm pretty sure they did in fact care (especially Brown) but they seem to have given a lot of their own supporters the impression they didn't.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
I need to learn this whole "concede the point then immediately bring up the next pedantic trouble that increasingly trends towards the everything being entirely subjective equilibrium" thing, seems hot on the streets right now
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Paxman posted:I'm watching Newsnight right now and never mind Jeremy Corbyn, it's striking to me how terrible previous Labour leaders have been at getting their message across. Milliband and co. just never actually spent any time talking actively about being anti austerity as far as I could tell. Now, that's probably for the current MSM reasons, but also partly because Milliband showed every appearance of being a very similar callow stuffed-shirt focus-group-spouter to Cameron and the Blairites. The difference with Corbyn and co. is that Corbyn got the underdog story, and Labour somehow persuaded the BBC to run the leadership hustings live. So he got the chance to show that he's actually different - that he says what he means even when it might not be popular, that he has principles on which he's willing to speak and which he's willing to defend. That's what got so many people back on board, the chance to see someone in politics who's actually talking like a person not a bit part player in Yes Minister.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Paxman posted:Now I'm pretty sure they did in fact care (especially Brown) but they seem to have given a lot of their own supporters the impression they didn't. I suppose that's the problem with letting a handful of media billionaires and tory donors determine acceptable political discourse. Controls on Immigration Bootstraps Living Within Our Means
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
It all sounds a bit like what happened with Nick Clegg in the 2010 televised debates. Did you notice the way he asked people in the audience their names and used their names when talking to them?? It's like he's a normal person! And then Brown and Cameron started copying him. The difference is that Corbyn seems to be authentically authentic, aha, rather than  authentic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
I thought "authentic" was just an adjective meaning "able to remember the audience's names", I didn't think when people wanted me to be authentic they wanted me to actually mean things
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
Illuyankas posted:Real-talk, one of the reasons I stopped following the UK megathreads (other than the terrible shitposters, of whom most seem to have left thankfully) was because it was getting terribly depressing, so I chose to take a break - made the closest I got to UK news reading the UK politoon thread - and instead started reading the US megathreads instead. Comfortably removed disasters, a completely new shitshow of politicians to laugh at, and the pleasing thought that at least it wasn't this bad back in Blighty. By 'left' uyou mean 'probated' 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Cameron and the Blairites.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Again: they are doing that. They're doing a format of two experts give 20 minutes each of speech on a given economic theme, then open to the floor for questions. And as already noted, they certainly indicated yesterday that they'd filled all 400 seats in Liskeard and could have filled more. I still think (though would like to be proved wrong, if they come out with some data on who's been attending the economics roadshow events) that we need something that directly tries to reach out to people who aren't lefties or 'current' Labour voters, hence my point on doing something a bit more open in terms of topic, as opposed to just a series on the new economics. El Grillo fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Jul 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
You need to understand that Jeremy Corbyn is our last opportunity, our last chance to institute any kind of empathetic, leftist program without a violent revolution. The Ruling Class would never allow a genuine leftist option a fair shot at an election. The only reason we had the opportunity was because the Blairites in the Labour Party, competent as ever, believed that reforming the leadership election rules would make it harder for "leftists like Ed Milliband" to win with union backing. Jeremy only got on the ballot in the first place through a combination of pity, arrogance, nostalgia and a desire to crush the left of the party as a show of force. Instead, seizing on this opportunity, the masses have coalesced around this one single crack in the wall that separates the people and their rulers, and expanded hugely - because it's the one speck of power that we were able to seize in the current day, where the world order of neoliberal capitalism controls all state power with a facade of democracy. You can see this clearly even during the leadership election last year after he got onto the ballot, when the journalists and other elites were furious with Labour MPs for allowing him onto the ballot in the first place https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fp_GoKhRT0 So basically, right now the entire ruling class is incredibly pissed off at their pawns in the Labour Party for letting this happen in the first place. The debate was already meant to have been won on things like privatisation, trident, cutting taxes, austerity - these things were not meant to be up for discussion. The conservatives would put them into practise, and the Labour party would abstain and allow it to happen. Now Jeremy and his supporters are "bullying" MPs into doing things like opposing cuts to working tax credits. So the Blairite Wing has no choice but to do whatever it takes to prevent any kind of actual leftist movement forming in Britain on behalf of their masters, that's why they're willing to tear the party apart and destroy themselves in the process. Their entire purpose was to push through the neoliberal agenda and in return receive cushy careers and speaking gigs afterwards - If actual leftism rears its head again, they're gone for good. So when you start to weigh the pros and cons of Corbyn vs Smith, or anyone else - Just remember. Corbyn was a mistake, an accident, and one that the PLP will never allow to happen again after the punishment they got from their journo+elite masters. They will lie and threaten and plead and do whatever it takes to force this last single speck of leftism out of the country forever, and once we have finally capitulated, that door will shut and the masses will be locked out from the levers of power forevermore.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Well, I mean, until hubris fucks it up again, it's a little overgenerous to suggest that there's any active and intelligent long term plan on the party of the right, they just have power and react with it, they're idiots, but powerful idiots, they will eventually gently caress up, but given that they did by letting Corbyn on the ballot we might as well push it as far as it'll go.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
It occurred to me a while ago that a big part of the media's problem with Jeremy Corbyn, and thus Jeremy Corbyn's problem with the media, is that journalists have come to see him as a pain in the arse. Sure, the Mail, Express, Sun and so forth are ideologically opposed to him, and have a vested interest in making him look awful just as they do with every Labour leader, but I think the BBC and other more central outlets have come to dislike him because he's awkward to work with. Anyone who deals with the public will have to work with awkward customers sometimes. They might be decent customers on paper, might make your organisation good money or bring you repeat business, but still you come to resent them. If you're in a retail business, they're the arseholes who stroll in five minutes before you lock up shop, browse for ages, and then pay with a fistfull of coppers. Perhaps they come off as creepy or condescending while they do it. If you're in an office, they send you bizarre, barely-comprehensible paperwork, pay you at the last minute, raise dozens of spurious queries, and generally waste your time. You can't reject their business, you just have to grin and bear it. When you get the option, these are not the people you'll want to cut any slack, or go out of your way to help. This must be how a lot of individual journalists and editors now think about Corbyn. He doesn't produce snappy soundbites, he's openly resentful about being approached by interviewers in the street, he often gives speeches without helpfully giving the media a transcript a few hours before, and he doesn't have the usual efficient, obliging press office. He doesn't even make the colourful, interesting gaffes that can be converted into easy headlines for other "unconventional" politicians (Boris, Livingstone etc). Now, of course, Corbyn has the perfect right to do all these things, and personally I love to watch him striding though a press pack with unconcealed disdain, but it's won him very few friends. It's tempting to think that journalists have a duty to treat every politician the same, and under broadcasting codes they really should, but they're also human beings with tight deadlines and woeful job security, and they have no incentive to give good press to a difficult customer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
I like Corbyn and all, but suggesting he's the last chance for a genuinely left government without violent revolution seems like hyperbole, imo
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
Galaspar posted:It occurred to me a while ago that a big part of the media's problem with Jeremy Corbyn, and thus Jeremy Corbyn's problem with the media, is that journalists have come to see him as a pain in the arse. Sure, the Mail, Express, Sun and so forth are ideologically opposed to him, and have a vested interest in making him look awful just as they do with every Labour leader, but I think the BBC and other more central outlets have come to dislike him because he's awkward to work with. Deliberate misrepresentation takes more effort and time than rote relaying of facts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
tooterfish posted:Anywhere near the river in York floods if a slightly grey cloud so much as drifts over. Mostly it's OK, this pub had a slanted back garden and was v old unfortunately. It wasn't near the river, it was just particularly concentrated heavy rain in a short space of time
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
Namtab posted:I like Corbyn and all, but suggesting he's the last chance for a genuinely left government without violent revolution seems like hyperbole, imo It's a little extreme, but not so far out. The PLP is overwhelmingly filled with people cut from the same cloth as the Tories (middle class, private education, oxbridge). If the Tories softened up a few social issues and laid out the red carpet I bet quite a lot of Labour MPs would cross over. We've gone from being a party of the working class to a party that takes the working class' money in return for lip service. If Labour turn into the US democrat party then under our de-facto 2 party system we're kinda hosed. You get the hard right or the centre right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
Namtab posted:I like Corbyn and all, but suggesting he's the last chance for a genuinely left government without violent revolution seems like hyperbole, imo Saurus also believes that Trump is best for people in America so I don't think he really "gets" how things work. Things are bad in the UK but I don't feel that the revolution is right around the corner 
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
Cabinet posted:Saurus also believes that Trump is best for people in America so I don't think he really "gets" how things work. Well not with that attitude.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
The Tories have just stripped millions of traditionally left-leaning voters from the electoral register and are instituting new boundaries in an attempt to create a permanent tory majority. Almost the entire mainstream media, including the BBC, is controlled by the ruling class who determine what the people of Britain hear and see and read when they wake up each morning. Jeremy Corbyn was not meant to have been on the leadership ballot last year, and despite his huge mandate and increasing the size of the party massively, he has faced constant attacks and criticism from a colluding press and political elite. The Ruling Class are doing everything they can to subvert democracy and make sure that any kind of leftist program isn't on offer when election time rolls around. At the very least, without a JC-led leftist Labour Party, it would require intense direct action such as general strikes to bring about and I imagine the state will respond with violence rather than yield privileges
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:That's cool (and agree on McDonnell's capabilities, though I think he's probably too dour a character for a potential PM). My point (badly made above) is that I don't know if they're getting non-Labour members in, or perhaps more relevantly non-current-Labour-voters. Obviously there will be some but I'm guessing many of that 400 tomorrow in Dorset will be the local party members, general lefty types (who haven't joined), or solid Labour voters. Don't know if they're doing local advertising for these things; hopefully, and hopefully they're keeping track of who's attending so can tell whether they're genuinely reaching new people! Probably not. But those Labour members and Labour voters will go away and talk to their coleagues and friends and families. We have (at present) 3 years to get this message out and it's going to take the whole of that time if not longer to do it. But do it we must, and do it we shall. Galaspar posted:It occurred to me a while ago that a big part of the media's problem with Jeremy Corbyn, and thus Jeremy Corbyn's problem with the media, is that journalists have come to see him as a pain in the arse. Sure, the Mail, Express, Sun and so forth are ideologically opposed to him, and have a vested interest in making him look awful just as they do with every Labour leader, but I think the BBC and other more central outlets have come to dislike him because he's awkward to work with. How would they know, they make no effort whatsoever to work with him, and make every effort to actively attack him. He could be nicer to them, but if he did, they'd only find ways to use that niceness against him. The mainstream media have no interest in Corbyn's politics being a thing for various reasons, but by and large they boil down to it being financially bad for them and them having no loving principles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Deliberate misrepresentation takes more effort and time than rote relaying of facts. Very true, but rote relaying of facts doesn't sell papers or attract telly viewers. Media articles need a certain amount of colour and spin to be interesting, and if you have a dislike for the person you're writing about, then sadly this personal input is often going to be negative.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
Cabinet posted:Saurus also believes that Trump is best for people in America so I don't think he really "gets" how things work. I was a racist twat. I apologize. I atone. I no longer support Trump, but Jill of House Stein. I was scared and stupid and I believed that my pathetic little life mattered more than the solidarity of humanity as a whole. I was wrong. Does the modern left allow forgiveness?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/OwenSmith_MP/status/759090108519907328 Ah yes, normal man Owen Smith being normal
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Galaspar posted:Very true, but rote relaying of facts doesn't sell papers or attract telly viewers. Media articles need a certain amount of colour and spin to be interesting, and if you have a dislike for the person you're writing about, then sadly this personal input is often going to be negative. But you can make a great underdog story out of Corbyn. Because, you know, his IS a great underdog story, and the British love an underdog story. If they were interested in making him into a popular political figure they could have done just that. Trivially. Just by actually reporting the facts. They're not interested in that, they're interested in denigrating him, misreporting his views, and keeping him out of any positions of real power at all possible costs. It's not because they dislike him per se, it's because he represents a massive change from the status quo in which they get to cozy up to MPs in a subsidised bar and get their stories leaked by 'sources close to the PM' rather than having to put in any work. It's because they're wildly corrupt and wildly incestuously related to the political system rather than independent reporters and monitors of it. thespaceinvader fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Jul 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
RobotNinjaHornets posted:https://twitter.com/OwenSmith_MP/status/759090108519907328 I bet he has his steak medium.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 17:53 |
|
|
Sparkling rosé, bleh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 00:26
|
|
