The Lifeboat News
[ Message Archive | The Lifeboat News ]

    Viner must be proud... Archived Message

    Posted by Raskolnikov on October 8, 2019, 1:11 pm

    Reading through "Bad News For Labour" and came across these interesting snippets; this is on the subject of the IHRA definitions of anti-semitism and how the media all pretended they were universally accepted where in reality there were only eight countries that had done so:

    What was perhaps most significant about the coverage was the relative, and in some cases complete, invisibility of sources outspokenly critical of the IHRA definition, or defensive of Labour's proposals. The Guardian online was a particularly problematic example in this respect, given its disporoportionate coverage of the issue relative to others within the sample. Overall, sources critical of Labour's proposed amendments to its code of conduct were three times more likely to be quoted in Guardian news reports compared to those defensive of the Party on this issue, or critical of the IHRA definition.

    There was, however, some variance within the sample. The Independent, for instance, producved the second highest number of news reports focused on thsi issue, but was considerably more balanced in its sourcing compared to the Guardia. Here, quoted sources attacking the proposals out-numbered those defending them by 1.8 to 1. Even the Sun's online coverage was more balancaed than the guardian's on this measure, with 2.8 quoted sources attacking the Party for each on edefending it.

    "Bad New For Labour", p. 92,93.

    Outshone by the sun. What a great triumph you've been as an editor.

    Also, later from the same source:

    One of the most striking and unexpected findings concerned the difference in performance between the online and television news coverage of this issue. Online, the ratio between sources attacking and defending the Party was 2.6 to 1. In contrast, television news programmes were nearly four times more likely to feature souirces attacking the Party compared to those defending it. Far from offering a more balanced alternative to their commercial rivals, BBC anchors and presenters were notably partisan in their treatment of sources. In particular, the claims of those attacking Labour on this issue were routinely accepted almost entirely without challenge, while those few contesting voices given airtime were subjected to sustained and agressive questioning.

    "Bad New For Labour", p. 95,96.

    I am Jack's complete lack of ####ing surprise on all counts.

    The book is excellent and well worth picking up. It has the same scientific rigour that the other "Bad News" books applied to their subjects and leaves the witchhunters and hasbara trolls no wiggle room at all. The BiBiC and the fraudian get particularly mauled throughout.

    Message Thread: