Never let the truth stand in the way of a good story!

This might come as a bit of a shock to some, but things have changed! It seems that some  of the media are having a problem understanding that. It really upsets the press when change happens, as it upsets all their preconceptions and renders their pre-set texts obsolete, so reporters cannot just churn out the same old garbage - they actually have to investigate, to do research, to find out about the changes. What a shame it is that so much of the mainstream media appear to be incapable of doing that.

Not only are they incapable of doing it, but they also appear incapable of understanding information given, or answers to questions they ask. How many times have we heard a reporter state as fact the a politician said "this", when if you go back and check the source of the story the politician said "that" instead.
Reporters seem to feel that this is acceptable, that twisting someone's words, or putting a spin on it, is what reporters should do. Guess what? They are wrong!

So, if you really want to know what a politician such as Jeremy Corbyn, MP, or John McDonnell, MP, has said, why not read their own words instead of the media's spin or twisted versions of them?  Why not watch them on YouTube and actually hear what they say, rather than accept a reporter's interpretation of what they say?  You might be surprised. You might also find that you agree with Jeremy and John. Now that would make a change!

Jeremy Corbyn's priorities: http://jeremycorbyn.org.uk/priorities/
Jeremy Corbyn's articles: http://jeremycorbyn.org.uk/articles/

YouTube interview on C4 by Jon Snow, 16 Sep 2015:

John McDonnell's blog: http://www.john-mcdonnell.net/

YouTube interview on C4 by Jon Snow, 14 Sep 2015: 

What use are petitions really?

One of the things I often used to hear was, "petitions are no use, no-one takes any notice of them."  That may have been the case once, but how things have changed. Petitions have become a powerful tool for people concerned about a particular issue. The proliferation of petition sites online, such as change.org, 38degrees.org.uk, avaaz.org, sumofus.org, care2.com has enabled groups and individuals to make a difference by harnessing the power of people worldwide. Organisations which existed before the internet, such as Greenpeace.org, Amnesty.org.uk and Shelter.org.uk, have used online petitions to great effect also.

So, why do they work so well? Basically it's all about publicity. With an online community the news about an issue can go global in minutes, and as fast as the news spreads, so the petitions signatories can respond equally quickly.  The use of social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter make it easy for a petition to be shared with a huge number of people - very much a ripple effect as each person sharing it casts the ripples further from the source. The power of petitions has been recognised by charities and pressure groups, but is also widely used by individuals raising an issue that they feel strongly about.  

In the UK there is a government petition scheme which any UK citizen can initiate. Once the petition has 10,000 signatories it will be reviewed by the government Petitions Committee and a response issued. If the petition has more than 100,000 signatories it will be debated in Parliament. The biggest problem with the UK gov't scheme is that its petitions can only be signed by UK citizens, so it is of no practical use against global issues or multi-nation corporations.

That petitions do work has been seen by some spectacular climb downs over recent years. That they don't work every time is also true - some politicians seem to make an art form of ignoring them! But it is the case that without them we would have a lot less of a voice, and many injustices would not be corrected. Shaming LEGO into announcing it will not renew its links with oil company SHELL is just one of the many issues which petitioners have influenced vis the internet, another is the ban on the sale of Monsanto's Round Up in the Netherlands.  Petitions for the protection of whales, tuna, rain forests and palm oil, and many other issues have had partial or total success.

One of the most useful aspects of petitions is that they raise awareness among people who would not normally have heard of an issue. The manipulation of news stories via the mainstream media means that often the stories which raise the most public support are never read in the newspapers. Why? Perhaps vested interests. Perhaps not thought to be of sufficient interest. Perhaps media owners oppose that viewpoint. Whatever the reason, there is no doubt that petitions give a voice and a strength to ordinary people everywhere in the world. Long may that continue!

When will the media realise that repeating lies will never make them truths?

In Jan 1987 The Times ran with a story about Jeremy Corbyn giving money to an on-the-run terrorist, which was subsequently acknowledged by The Times to have been wrong. The Times issued an apology. Time passed. Today those other bastions of news, The Sun and The Mail reported the same story as was carried in the 1987 issue of The Times, despite it being proved to be wrong in 1987!

Checking the IPSO Editors' Code of Practice it seems this is a clear breach of Clause 1 Accuracy 

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published. In cases involving the Regulator, prominence should be agreed with the Regulator in advance.

So why did The Mail and The Sun print a story which The Times (owned by News UK as is The Sun) knew was factually incorrect? There is only one reason: it is yet another disgraceful attempt by the media to discredit the new leader of the Labour Party.

I would expect a correction with due prominence to be published along with an apology by both The Sun and The Mail!  My feeling is that won't happen, but shame on them both if it does not!

Out of context comment reporting shows media bias: How surprising!

All social media has been alive with activity since the Labour leadership election campaign began, but since the result last Saturday there has been an increasing focus on the lies, spin, and disinformation appearing in the media.

One Facebook member was so incensed at the video which appeared on the Conservative Party's Facebook page that used the out of context claim that Jeremy Corbyn said the death of Osama Bin Laden was a tragedy, he issued his own video (embedded below) showing the actual context in which the words Osama Bin Laden and death and tragedy appeared. Another member created the image on the right to rebut the claims appearing in the press.

It is, as you will see, not what the subsequent media hype claimed it was! Meanwhile, the original Press TV broadcast video can be seen in full here: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=056_1441034465

It just goes to show how biased and unreliable the press are and how we can be misled by reading it.

Integrity or hypocrisy: the fuss about the National Anthem

Today's media is full of the story that (shock horror) the new Labour Party leader did not sing the National Anthem during yesterday's commemorative service at St Paul's Cathedral. 

Guess what?  Neither would I if I had been there!   My reason would be that singing "God save our Gracious Queen..." when I am neither a monarchist nor a Christian would be hypocritical.  But as he is the Leader of the Labour Party, and thus the Official Opposition, he is expected to compromise his principles and lie by singing about something with which he fundamentally disagrees.

Why should that be? It is such a rare thing to find a politician who has principles and who sticks to them regardless, that the media, and sadly some of the public, apparently  cannot handle it!  Have we really been so brainwashed that we cannot recognise respect and integrity when we see it?

Jeremy Corbyn's behaviour at the service was exemplary, he stood in respectful silence during the anthem, and clearly was not the only person not singing as the photo in the Daily Telegraph shows! 

Later he paid tribute to those who died during the Battle of Britain by saying, 

"My mum served as an air raid warden and my dad in the Home Guard.

Like that whole generation, they showed tremendous courage and determination to defeat fascism.
"The heroism of the Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain is something to which we all owe an enormous debt of gratitude.
"The loss of life - both civilian and military - should be commemorated so that we both honour their lives and do all that we can to ensure future generations are spared the horrors of war."

It is interesting to compare Jeremy Corbyn's stance at the service to that of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of Defence, as reported by an  eye-witness,

"I would like to mention that during the service at St Paul's today, Jeremy Corbyn stood in dignified silence during the National Anthem, unlike the Secretary of Defence who was busy looking round and trying to catch the cameras. Thank you Jeremy for coming and paying your respects and not show boating and glad handing as Mr Cameron did. A man standing in dignified silence shows greater respect for the fallen than a noisy peacock and the PM and Defence secretary were not dignified."

The furore brings to mind an earlier occasion when the media reported inappropriate behaviour at a serious event. Do you remember the service for Nelson Mandela, at which David Cameron, Barack Obama (US President) and Helle Thorning-Schmidt (Denmark PM) were caught enjoying a selfie?  I do!

Surely Jeremy Corbyn's behaviour at the St Paul's service was far more appropriate than that displayed by David Cameron at both events?

Meanwhile, whilst everyone was being distracted by the media hype about the National Anthem, the Tory govt. voted in favour of swingeing cuts to tax credits that will cause untold hardship to those who earn the least. Perhaps the media should focus on this instead?! 

Media bias: fact or fiction?

Well who would have thought it? Less than 24 hours after the announcement of the new Leader of the Labour Party the UK's media seems to have lost its collective marbles!  Reading through some of the myriad of stories, which become ever more fanciful as time goes on, I wonder if those who write them really do believe the tripe they are spouting, or are they being (a) forced by the media owners to write it or (b) have they really been brainwashed into believing what they write?

Years ago, when I worked for a major trades union in London, I attended a good many seminars, conferences and meetings which those who worked in the media also attended as members of their own unions. Journalists, sub-editors, print workers, compositors:  they all had a good understanding of what were the real dangers to working people, and to those unable to work for whatever reason.  So what has happened in the intervening years that now journalists write the most right-wing, biased rhetoric as if it was gospel?

Have they lost their ability to think for themselves? Have they been brainwashed into believing that the interests of big businesses and arms manufacturers and banks are also their interests?  If that isn't the case then why are they doing it? I do not understand why there is such a witch hunt from working journalists against a man who stands to protect the rights and freedoms of all working and non-working people. It simply does not make sense!

Journalists you are not sheep, so please stop behaving like you are! Journalism was once a profession to be proud of. Now it is regarded by many as one to be ashamed of. Why? Because we have cottoned on to the huge bias in what you write, present and broadcast. We can see through the attacks on decent politicians, on the disabled, on welfare claimants, on refugees and asylum seekers.  You are doing the dirty work of the Tory government and their big business chums for them, but remember, you are only useful to those groups whilst you toe the line. Have an accident, fall ill, lose your job and you will become one of those vilified by the media by which you are now employed. Can you live with that? Can you ask your family to live with that?  Is there not a better way?

How about reporting the news objectively and fairly and allowing the readership to make up their own minds?   How about ceasing the intrusive and often scurrilous and unwarranted attacks on those in the public eye and their families and friends?  How about behaving like decent human beings and showing compassion to those in reduced circumstances? How about telling the truth rather than writing an article just because it will make a good story and sell papers, and make more money for the media barons?

You do not have to be a sheep. Be objective not objectionable. Why not give it a try?