…when heckled by annoying woman. Film at fucking eleven. Seriously, as of this Gillian Duffy thing? I’m beginning to wonder about this election becoming far too American. Neither she nor the Prime Minister’s brief moment of temper are worth five minutes on News24, let alone all bloody day.
Edit 15:57 In fact, how cynical do we want to be? For the first time in two weeks, no-one is talking about Nick Clegg…
Filed under Content, Noise
The Sun newspaper failed to publish a YouGov poll showing that voters fear a Liberal Democrat government less than a Conservative or Labour one. […] (The Liberal Democrats have) taken comfort from YouGov’s unpublished finding that more voters would be delighted by the formation of a Liberal Democrat government (29 per cent), than by a Tory government (25 per cent) or a Labour one (18 per cent).
Only 21 per cent would be dismayed if a Liberal Democrat administration were formed, compared to 45 per cent for the Tories and 51 per cent for Labour.
In the 1990s I read the Indy as much as I read any other paper. They seemed to me to be quite independent, and I approved. I was also 16. It became apparent during the course of Back to Basics that the Indy was a fundamentally right-wing paper which talked a very good game but couldn’t back it up with impartiality.
But Simon Kelner’s slavering hacks have, over the last couple of days, performed so far out of that kennel that I might well have to buy a subscription for my new pub. There’s been a series of indications that the Indy alone of the papers usually considered as Cameron’s Crew might be thinking about regaining some honour in journalism. Then, as far as we can tell, James Murdoch decided to take a hand. The replying salvo is a vigorous expose of the counter-democratic and unethical practices of the Murdoch empire.
We all saw the delightfully inept attempt at GOP-style campaigning from the Murdoch empire and their running dogs at CCHQ. We all saw them trot out a different line from the YouGov attack poll in each paper, thus making it clear that it was a co-ordinated but unaimed assault with a single guiding will. Nick Robinson has confirmed that it was the Tories who orchestrated the media bombing campaign, which makes it pretty clear that it was also the Tories who put the attack poll in the field, using YouGov and Murdoch to do it.
Murdoch Loses Britain was a trending topic on twitter tonight. Too fucking right.
The Independent is causing feelings of respect and affection in me. I hope they can keep up the good work. Signs are good: Andrew Grice includes at the bottom of his article a step-by-step deconstruction of each headline in the smear campaign, with the true story summarised alongside. John Q.’s hat is duly tipped to a rare independent voice in the British print media.
Edit: 1357 The Indy have reprised their “Murdoch won’t decide this election” wrap-around, which precipitated this, with another, saying “Neither will Lebvedev”. Someone’s been eating his Wheaties.
Filed under Content, Signal
Well, that was a lot of blog posts. I will admit I have not read all those published by the writers I follow since I effectively went offline; that’s because you guys posted over a thousand articles in that time and much of it is no longer in any way “news”. But I did find a few things I felt rant-worthy in my trawls through the blogosphere.
Filed under Content, Signal
Not sure when I’m next going to get writing time, so a context update: this pdf report has now come out. Now we know what the orange jackets were doing, and can see why the police may have been targeting them. It’s worth reading. Considered thoughts to follow.
In other news, LibCon in making me think shocker. Sunder’s document is intelligent and well-written, and the goal is not only admirable, I think it’s necessary. But this instance of it is tied to party-political in-fighting and that shows. I’ve not got a considered response yet, but I’m working on one.
The Evening Standard are still desperately trying to dig themselves out of their fantastically bad reporting in the immediate aftermath of the police riot. More, and more, and more data has come out which illustrates that they were a, wrong and b, blood-thirsty in their early reporting. It seems their spin is to focus on the only thing they can legitimately report on without being hoist on their own petard: the hiding of identity numbers. Old news to anyone who was watching at the time, but at least the Standard will be putting a lot of people’s eyes on the problem who wouldn’t even remotely believe it if it weren’t in the Standard, the Torygraph or the Times.
Filed under Context, Signal