We all want and need a strong and a critical media, but maybe we do not need an attack dog that kills off anyone who challenges the status quo.
Over half of the news articles were critical or antagonistic in tone, compared to two thirds of all editorials and opinion pieces ( Reuters )
In many democracies across the world new political leaders get a so-called honeymoon period. As our analysis of the journalistic representation of Jeremy Corbyn’s first two months as party leader in eight national newspapers demonstrates, this did not apply to Corbyn. Our rigorous and statistically representative analysis concluded that when it comes to the coverage of Corbyn in his role as leader of the opposition, the majority of the press did not act as a critical watchdog of the powers that be, but rather more often as an antagonistic attackdog.
Over half of the news articles were critical or antagonistic in tone, compared to two thirds of all editorials and opinion pieces. Besides the almost total lack of support in the latter, especially in the rightwing media, the high level of negativity in the news reporting struck us as noteworthy here. According to the Independent Press Standards Organization (IPSO), newspapers are obliged to ‘make a clear distinction between comment, conjecture and fact’ and this also did not apply to Corbyn. Furthermore, Corbyn’s voice is often absent in the reporting on him, and when it is present it is often presented in a highly distorted way. In terms of the news sources used in the articles, the civil war within Labour is very enthusiastically amplified. In most newspapers, including The Daily Mirror and The Independent, Labour voices that are anti-Corbyn outweigh those that are pro-Corbyn.
In addition to this, a prevalent way to deride Corbyn is through scorn and ridicule. Three in ten news stories, opinion pieces, or letters to the editor mock Corbyn or scoff at his ideas, his personal life, his looks and/or his lifestyle. Besides these character assassinations, some of the popular mantras repeated over and over again in connection with Corbyn are: that he is unelectable, that his ideas are unrealistic and loony, and that he is unpatriotic. Most problematic in this regard, according to us, is the persistent association of Corbyn with terrorism. In some newspapers, for example in The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Express or The Sun, between 15 and 20 per cent of their Corbyn-related coverage associates him with IRA, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and/or terrorism. Linked to this, we see that over one fifth of all articles denote him as a danger or as dangerous, a frame that David Cameron was also keen to feed.
The rough treatment by the British newspapers of (Labour) politicians is, of course, not an entirely new phenomenon in the UK (think Neil Kinnock and Ed Miliband), but I would argue that this was nowhere near as destructive, as vicious and as antagonistic as is the case now with Corbyn. Many in our team of researchers are not British and compared to the media in our own countries we were also all quite astonished by the systematic and way in which Corbyn is being actively delegitimised by the media; this is unworthy of a democracy. We all want and need a strong and a critical media, a watchdog of the powers that be, but maybe we do not need an attack dog who kills off anyone who challenges the status quo and dares to suggest we need a different kind of politics.
In my view, this exposes some serious shortcomings and problematic tendencies in the reporting on Corbyn and of politics in general. Inevitably, all this brings into the fray the issue of concentrated media ownership in the UK, and intrinsically linked to this the undeniable fact that the British newspaper landscape is heavily skewed to the right (although it must be acknowledged that Corbyn has also received quite some flak from the left-leaning newspapers).
In this regard, it would be healthy and urgent, I think, to reflect more on how increased media power should be counter-balanced by a higher degree of democratic responsibility from the part of the media and journalists. Surveys consistently show that a very large majority of UK citizens (and by extension newspaper and TV audiences) do not trust politicians and journalists at all – a mere 20-25 per cent of people believe that journalists and politicians tell the truth. Journalists – and the media organisations they represent – have an ethical and dare I say democratic obligation to address this high degree of distrust.
What the majority of reactions to our report on social media and on the site of The Independent in the mean time show is many citizens – even those that do not support Corbyn – feel that the media in general is failing them in terms of correctly and fairly representing the elected leader of the opposition.
Bart Cammaerts is an Associate Professor and PhD Director at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
never did have a place in the party. What do you call being the party leader then? He may not be what a minority want as a leader but he has increased party membership HUGELY. My local party LOVES him.
Make way for the new (despite his age).
Gagajo, the context was we were talking about the party's roots and past. The fact that momentum managed, by means of centrism, to corrupt the selection process to get elected ther most disloyal MP in the house is not a measure of his real worthiness nor is it a a measure of how pleasing and personable he is.
I don't know. I've always voted Labour (apart from in the MEP elections when I voted Lib Dem as a tactical vote (for what good it did where I live). I used to be a member of the LP, but let it slide a while ago, for reasons entirely unrelated to Corbyn. Friends of mine who are active in the LP, however, aren't enamoured of him at all, and say that there is bullying and anti-semitism. Anti-semitism not from Corbyn , but from others who haven't been checked by him, and bullying against anyone who doesn't agree with Corbyn.
Nevertheless, I would rather have him as PM than Johnson any day of the week. I think his policies are sound, and even if he is single minded about pushing them forward, he is totally eclipsed in the bullying stakes by Johnson, surely?
I am not surprised by the results of the research, though. The bias of the UK press is appalling, and pretty much always has been, I think. Does anyone remember the work of the Glasgow Media Group back in the day? There is nothing like that now (that I know of, anyway), which I think is a shame, as they were very good at rooting out systemic bias. They would certainly have flushed out the matey 'Boris/Bojo' way in which the PM is described, for instance, as opposed to everyone else, who gets Mr/Mrs or Surname.
I read something yesterday (Jonathan Freidland in the Guardian, I think - my phone is struggling to get a signal, so I'll try to find the link tomorrow if anyone wants it) which said that it is only people who are particularly interested in news and politics who are affected by most of the published stories, and they have usually made up their minds anyway.
Most people watch the TV News, and aren't glued to the BBC Parliament channel, or obsessively watching Twitter and following opinion leaders, so they see summaries that are mediated by programme makers.
The example he gave was Johnson's speech to the Police Cadets on Friday. I was watching it live on the BBC News Channel, and it was dreadful. Absolutely awful. He appeared to have left his speech behind, forgot the police caution that a (feeble) joke relied on, and was embarrassing even to me, and I can't bear the man. The BBC News, however, showed him standing in front of a group of police, and reported that he had said he was going to deliver Brexit on 31st October - the same soundbite as usual. It gave a very different impression, and is likely to have a positive, rather than negative impact on Johnson. His brother's resignation, on the other hand, is much more damaging, as it is a single topic, unambiguous, and most people can identify with sibling disagreements.
Is it surprising, therefore, that messages get lost? Not everyone has time (or inclination) to watch hours of live coverage, or research every report they read, so mostly we do rely on summaries.
I don't know what we can do about the bias, though, unfortunately. Insisting on anything to do with the press is potentially dodgy, and anyway, a lot of it is subjective.
Damned auto correct..... Entryism not centrism
Photograph 1 - 2019
Photograph 2 - 1992
Not clever. Beyond childish. But effective.
I missed the last couple of posts when writing my last ramble 
.
By entryism, absthame, do you mean the £3 membership? If not. ignore me; but if so, I can’t see why that was wrong. I think that people with no money should have as much right to join a political party as anyone else, and the LP (particularly Momentum) speaks more for them than any of the other parties.
Don't forget that many those £3 were paid by momentum and others on behalf of the applicants. Virtually a return to the 18th century practices of buying votes.
Well that’s one way to look at it, true. I don’t think that many people can be bribed with three quid, though - specially when all it gets you is a vote for a leader. If people didn’t want to vote for Corbyn they wouldn’t have - the membership wasn’t conditional on a Corbyn vote.
There's been entryism in both the Labour and Conservative parties. Entryism is quite simply buying membership to influence decisions. The membership of political parties is very low, so a thousand or so extra members makes a big difference.
We've seen with the election of Johnson as leader of the Conservatives how the votes of a handful of people can make a huge difference to everybody in the country.
I'm not taking sides here, because it's happening in both Conservative and Labour parties, but people need to be aware that various groups can use legal means to take control in a way which most would consider undemocratic.
None of those critical of Corbyn have a clue about Labour policies.
If they did that is what they would attack as that is what will make a difference to their lives, not who is leader.
So Johnson as leader will not make a difference to our lives !
His policies of course will. But him as a person not at all..
Jo Maugham QC
@JolyonMaugham
The Charlatan's attack on Parliamentary democracy and the rule of law is far more offensive to One Nation Tory values than Corbyn's politics are to those of Labour.
'One Nation Tories' who continue to support Johnson really need to ask themselves who they think they're kidding.
His policies? Not Tory policies?
Corbyn policies not Labour policies?
Um, yes
I have noticed that most of the papers seem to choose the most miserable or crafty photos of him they can find to illustrate their comments.
ps the OP is a 'copy&paste'.
The OP does give a reference.
Why do you think Corbyn is misrepresented? He is presented exactly as he is.
Ignorant, poorly educated, little interest outside the pursuit and imposition of Marxism, and an unhealthy interest in terrorists.
Oh for gods sake, eazybee, 'an unhealthy interest in terrorists'? Pathetic comment. Ignorant of reality too. Try harder.
Excellent Post GagaJo and theses that agree with you. The MSM is very biased and not trusted it's about time people knew about it. A researched Piece.
At least thousands of people have registered to vote lots of them younger people.
I hope people especially older people realise that what they read in MSM can't be trusted to be impartial and look at the polices of leaders of a party before they give their vote.
The very real and unfounded bias against Corbyn on this thread illustrates exactly how powerful the right wing media are and how people accept what is fed to them.
He has been a Labour MP with exactly the same values which have always underpinned his whole career. Beliefs in equality, in peace, in public ownership and in ordinary people. Beliefs which have been Labour principles since the party was first founded.
He has been awarded two International Peace Prizes because of his work to combat terrorism and establish peace processes.
I agree trisher well said. I will vote for Labour as always especially with the many fantastic polices and the green revolution. Saving our NHS from privatisation
He was present at a wreath laying ceremony for terrorists who murdered Olympic athletes, this is not a labour principle
or the actions of a pacifist.
Granted he didn’t lie and say it wasn’t true , well he couldn’t because there were photographs, so he said
‘I don’t know if I was involved ‘.
How can anyone defend this ?
We are not well served by the MSM in this country. The majority of the press in particular have always been Tory supporters.
Broadly speaking, we have the Mail, Express, Sun, Telegraph and Times ranged to the right of the political spectrum, and the Mirror, Guardian and Observer on the left.
That may be well and good, provided everyone understands the game. The problem is that not everyone does.
It seems to me that most people are far too ready to believe word for word what they read in 'their' section of the press, and to decry anything with a different view.
What a pity we are not taught critical reading and thinking rather earlier than at university.
I’ve said before on other threads that I have no problem with right/left wing newspapers as I read several on both sides and know when I’m being ‘sold’ and not just told. Listening to different news sources and knowing their leanings also gives balance which is lacking in partisan beliefs, of which there are so many posters on GN.
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.
