My only concern with Bert is his refusal to accept that any of us are capable of evaluating messages and filtering out the spin.

You've made a good case for the unfair nature of Corbyn's reporting, but you have not mentioned the totally unfair nature of the bombardment that Nigel Farage has taken from the media!

Not only that, he has had to put up with being shouted down whilst campaigning by left wing activists and even had a quiet family Sunday lunch in a pub invaded by scumbags that cannot campaign peaceably or in a socially acceptable fashion.

I don't remember you or anyone else making an impassioned plea on Nigel Farage's behalf?

Just accept, that any message imparted into the arena will have some sort of spin on it, and if you want to get nearer to the truth, read a few different sources and make your own mind up as to who is most likely to be the most honest.

What percentage of the population read / watch / listen to a wide range of information sources for balance? I doubt it's very high.

Look at the important debate on immigration. The way it's reported by sections of the media is done so in an inflammatory way to raise heckles thus fuelling unnecessary repercussions. A massive increase in islamophobic attacks on ordinary law abiding people is one example.

The issue about bombing Syria is a very important one. So why is the focus on division in political parties rather than the pros and cons of launching airstrikes?

The thing is Nick you are taking the approach that you and your beliefs are right. We all do, so anyone who disagrees is naïve, stupid, illinformed etc

When was the last time anyone actually changed their mind after reading anything in General Talk? Their views may softened slightly if you're lucky.

As for Corbyn, he is an unmitigated disaster but I think most people have quickly seen through the not so hidden agenda of much of the press. His problem is he seems unable to anticipate the s*** storm that follows after stunts like Mao's book

....................................................
Yes,the travails of the honest and non venal and genuine and uncorrupted by lust for power politician when up against "politics as we know it" and the "search for the banal, slagging and scare mongering rather than shining a light and exposing iniquity" that is at the heart of so much modern day media political copverage.

So,yes oh so predictable and,whether you admire Corbyn or think him a wally, also such a sad indictment of the way we normally do things politically and in the press,and of those calling for/wishing for "lets get back to normal".For some, that might be the real "unmitigated disaster".

Anyway,not to worry,we'll soon be back to the usual bunch of "w*n*ers of all political hues dominating political discourse...and those who slag Corbyn on here constantly can rest happy again,seemingly unaware that in some ways it might be said the joke's ultimately on them.

Edited by legaleagle (28 Nov 2015 12.43pm)

Towards any voter. The message post election was that the electorate didn't understand the issues. Much like many of posts on here, "you disagree with me so you obviously don't understand".

That brings us back to Nick's original question, yes Bert was right about the media, he was wrong to take try and take the moral high ground assuming that anyone who disagrees with him gets their opinion from last nights chip paper.

Edited by Y Ddraig Goch (28 Nov 2015 1.32pm)

If you feel Farage has been unfairly "targeted" by the press,that would seem to me to be a reason for supporting the general thrust of my argument...

It is,however, worth bearing in mind when you write of Farage's unfair( in your view) treatment,that that is in a context of constant spin in full support of his prime chose policy stance in the last 12 months,immigration...where you might be hard pressed to argue the press has (in general) done other than accord with the general spin Farage puts on immigration-related issues...

Contrast with Corbyn,where personality and policies arguably both are generally now subject to a constant "negative spin"...

What percentage of the population read / watch / listen to a wide range of information sources for balance? I doubt it's very high.

Look at the important debate on immigration. The way it's reported by sections of the media is done so in an inflammatory way to raise heckles thus fuelling unnecessary repercussions. A massive increase in islamophobic attacks on ordinary law abiding people is one example.

The issue about bombing Syria is a very important one. So why is the focus on division in political parties rather than the pros and cons of launching airstrikes?