A Reform council leader’s decision to ban his councillors from engaging with a prominent local newspaper is a “massive attack on local democracy” and a sign of things to come should the party form the next government, the outlet’s editor has warned.
It might be a good idea, might not be. But it’s not an attack on democracy. Could be an attack upon civil liberty – if you want to be extreme about it – and upon freedom of information and so on. But democracy is that we the peeps get to choose the rulers. Newspapers are not included in that.
This is also important, this distinction. Because here “democracy” is being deployed as the ultimate goal, the ultimate virtue. Which it ain’t, of course it ain’t. We limit democracy all the time – see how long it took to gain a referendum on Brexit and think how no one at all is willing to have a referendum on stringing up kiddie fiddlers. Because there are other issues too – like civil liberty, the rule of law and on and on and on. Democracy is not the ultimate virtue – it’s actually just a tool to gain those other things desired in fact.
I seem to recall that actually carrying out the result of the EU Referendum was an attack on democracy. In lefty mirror world 48% was a majority.
Mixed feelings about this. The editor’s comments clearly show her bias, despite her obviously untrue claim not to be anti-Reform. However, this sort of ban makes Reform look touchy and insecure. The way to deal with the media is to be in command of your brief, better informed than the hack (not a great challenge) and to treat them with the breezy contempt exercised by Pierre Poilievre.
Natalie is so far up herself she’s talking out of the top of her head!
Reform are a strange bunch. Some people get thrown out for minor disagreements with the leaders and others seem to be able to make up policies as they go along. Doesn’t inspire me to vote for them.
Nottingham Post, its online edition and a team of BBC-funded local democracy journalists that it manages
WTF is a local democracy journalist, and WTF are the BBC doing funding them? Great way to keep yokels on message.
When I was in the military I did a few years in a role where I had a reasonable amount of interaction with the media. My central observation is that journalists have a very elevated sense of their own importance, and seem to view themselves as some sort of Moral Guardians of the Universe. Witness the way they report on the death of journalists in conflict zones, as if it has a special significance.
You have to consider, Martin, that Reform is a refuge for the politically homeless.
It is for Conservatives who feel betrayed by the Tories and social conservative ex Labour supporters.
It doesn’t have a driving ideology except “look at the state of this place” and “can we have someone else please ?”
It will stay like that until an ideology emerges. Which may never happen of course.
A Reform, govt is going to be a right laugh.
Doesn’t inspire me to vote for them.
So who then? I’d love to vote for the Conservative Party of 1985 but that is not an electoral option. So Reform it is.
Journalism isn’t a public service it’s a business uses information as a product to sell*. If the business is packaging the product in a way harms you, why continue to supply it with the raw material for the product? What business would assist its competitors?
*It doesn’t matter how journalism is funded. Selling chip wrappers or subsidy by the BBC. It’s still a product being sold.
I’d like to see a lot more of this. The BBC is a far-left “liberal” organisation. If you’re to the “right”, it will use the information you provide it with to harm you. So why do so? Supply it to competitor who will use it more sympathetically. Don’t give it the raw material for its product. This is something Trump certainly understands.
“It doesn’t have a driving ideology except “look at the state of this place” and “can we have someone else please ?””
That’s probably enough to win an election now. I’m reserving judgement at the moment. If Reform turn out to be the best option I’ll vote for them.
“Could be an attack upon civil liberty – if you want to be extreme about it – and upon freedom of information and so on. But democracy is that we the peeps get to choose the rulers. Newspapers are not included in that.”
Newspapers are not a part of government, there is no law about having to talk to newspapers, or which newspapers to talk to.
The news media was simply useful to politicians. You want to get your arguments out there, convince people that building a high speed train set or whatever is useful, or that you’ll deal with the problem with the park, you talked to the press. But you don’t really need them now. You can write your own media, engage with voters in Facebook groups. The local newspapers are mostly dying anyway.
There’s a story on their website that tells the story:-
I replied by saying: “Our county council hustings this week has had nearly 10,000 views Lee. We don’t do these things for ourselves, we do it so that as many people as possible get to hear from the parties and to see them scrutinised on their plans and policies.”
The final word from Lee was as follows: “And my Facebook videos got 2 million views in the last week.” It was a brief social media encounter that caused both sides to get quite a lot of abuse.
There’s another thing in all of this, based on what I know from people in public life: the press are not giving anyone an unfiltered voice. They distort to what makes a good story.
There are two types of journalist in the dead-tree press. One will be found in the local rag. Somebody who can string a sentence together and take a passable snap, and who is quite prepared for the long days, weekends and crap pay in order to be a bit of a local celebrity and get invited to all The Things That Are Happening in Lower Snodsbury, Grivlesham and Middle Wang. I’ve met a handful like this, and they’re all local lads who think that their patch is the best place on earth. Look for headlines like Great Turnout at St Mary’s School Fete with a picture of three old dears hiding from the rain under a gazebo.
The rest… can afford to do serial unpaid internships in one of the most expensive cities in the world in the hope of landing a job that pays less than the median wage. Nobody goes into journalism for the money, so what is it? Fame or ideology. And because the whole industry skews heavily left, you’re not going to get fame for skewering John McDonnell, so they essentially amount to the same thing: smearing “the right”
Those journos would work out a way of turning “nice weather, isn’t it?” or “2+2=4” into something that could be used to attack a Reform councillor, so refusing to engage with them at all is the only solution. See: The Donald.
Conservatives/Labour: the deliberate destruction of the British economy and the British way of life
Reform: some of the party’s councillors are refusing to talk to the Nottingham Post
The electorate: “I’m not sure whether I can trust Reform with my vote; I’ll wait and see.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cy4dz3w34n2t
BBC verify (spits).
What online posts reveal about Minneapolis shooting suspect
An investigative article which almost surreally crowbars in a reference to the bloke using the Russian Cyrillic alphabet but completely ignores the killer trans-elephant in the room.
P.s. why “shooting suspect”? Where the hell is there any element of doubt about who did it?
Every day I hate the bbc a bit more.
“ Democracy is not the ultimate virtue – it’s actually just a tool to gain those other things desired in fact.”
It’s a tool to concentrate political power in the hands of a few – the antithesis of democracy – and then a smoke screen to hide the fact it is a tyranny with the inevitable bribery and corruption that goes with that, suppression of freedom and oppression of the non-compliant.
I defy anyone to point to a “democracy” that is not as described above.
JB, all societies have a ruling class. Democracy is a way of refreshing it and stopping it ossifying into an aristocracy. But only if it works. Representative democracy was necessary before cheap mass communications. Now, Switzerland points the way with referenda directing a political class much weaker than the norm. Possibly the best system available from a poor set of choices, as Churchill pointed out.
bloke in Spain describes the true nature of local newspapers exactly correctly. Is worth noting that independent local papers have no duty themselves to impartiality; and Boy, don’t they show it! Here on the upmarket West Lancashire coast we have our own local rags and the glorious people’s tribunes of the Liverpool Echo. Their job is to act as cheerleaders for the local Labour MPs; it certainly isn’t too”hold them to account”. They hate the Tories. And they hate Reform. They won’t give anybody a fair hearing or report honestly.
So fick ’em. Free speech includes not speaking to your enemies if you don’t wish to if they are out to get you. There are other media and you certainly will be held to account, even without helping Labour schools trying to do it.
are out
. . . the breezy contempt exercised by Pierre Poilievre.
Perhaps not the best example, Marius, since his party failed to oust the loony Liberals and he lost his seat to one (he’s just been parachuted into another seat). Care and skill are needed when dissing the media because they can quite easily make it seem like it is the viewer / listener / reader who is being dissed.
It is wrong for public bodies to control who gets public information. This makes it easier for them to hide corruption and incompetence and buy favourable coverage.
As far as I can tell they will still be holding council meeting in public and the paper hasn’t been barred from attending.
I suppose that would just mean reporting dry facts and not being able to spin gotcha questions.
And this is why I always read the comments. Excellent contributions, not entirely in agreement.
OK enough of that.
I’m with the Reform councillor. Anybody who has BBC-funded anything is going to be wildly partisan at best.
If Reform turn out to be the best option I’ll vote for them.
Superior options are looking distinctly thin on the ground at the mo’.
Norman: “Now, Switzerland points the way with referenda directing a political class much weaker than the norm….”
Yet which is now having it’s own immigrant uprising and is in flames because the Swiss police tried to impose law and order on a population that believes it should be above all that?
Julia’s comment prompted me to muse on the nature and dangers of direct democracy.
There is the concept of the ‘tyranny of the majority’s and with direct democracy we have ‘ the tyranny of the engaged’.
People will usually only vote on a subject if they have a strong feeling on the matter. So we saw with Brexit and unusually high turnout. But the turnouts for Swiss referenda are consistently below 50% and usually a lot lower.
A good example of the dangers of direct democracy occurred about 15 years ago. There was a referendum in Bavaria, devised and pushed by an activist to ban smoking in bars. No one really took the vote seriously, turnout was very low and it passed, much to the horror of punters and landlords across the kingdom. For a while the activist’s photo was stuck up in bars so that he could be thrown out if he turned up in one.
Isn’t the answer to impose a threshold before the vote passes, rather than just a majority of the turnout? Make it 50%+1 of the electorate, or something. That way at least “abstain” != “yes”.
And if that makes it that much harder to get laws passed, I see that as a feature not a bug.
To clarify, I mean 50%+1 of the eligible electorate voting in favour for the vote to pass.
Liverpool politicians won’t talk to The Sun. This government won’t talk to GB News. So why the story about who Reform won’t talk to?
– Yet which is now having it’s own immigrant uprising and is in flames because the Swiss police tried to impose law and order on a population that believes it should be above all that?
Issues addressed by forthcoming referenda might solve this problem.
– An investigative article which almost surreally crowbars in a reference to the bloke using the Russian Cyrillic alphabet but completely ignores the killer trans-elephant in the room.
That the BBC lies by ommission doesn’t make the killer’s use of Russian uninteresting. He didn’t just write some Russian, he spoke some Russian (“my brothers”). He also referred to the FSB. Given the usual leftie talking points offered up by the loon you wouldn’t be surprised to see “slava Ukraini” written on the guns. Maybe his family is Russian origin and they’ve kept the connection alive, but short of that the writing of Russian on the murder weapons in interesting. If it was Arabic script I think it would generate a great deal of interest indeed . . .
‘Reform council leader’s decision to ban his councillors from engaging with a prominent local newspaper’
This played out in the US 20 years ago with the late, great Rush Limbaugh. Giving interviews or talking to the dead-tree press ALWAYS resulted in lies, distortion, and clever editing. I expect Reform to get identical treatment, and they are doing exactly what Limbaugh did. Don’t talk to them.
Printing lies and distortion is the “massive attack on local democracy.” Reform, UNLIKE THE TORIES, is not going to play along.