UKH

I mentioned the fact that Boris Johnson was a serial liar in the corporation tax thread, and coincidentally here's Peter Oborne, lifelong Conservative voter and journalist, on the subject:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/18/boris-johnson-lying-m...

He's particularly concerned with the failure of the British media to hold him to account and to challenge him on his lies. 

It's shameful and depressing.  Virtually everything that comes out of the gobshite's mouth is a lie.

what can we do? Kidnap him and stuff a carrot in his gob with superglue?

Thanks Bob for sharing. God help 99% of us if that schemer gets in.

The problem is not that he lies, but there's no sanction for his lies. Large chunks of the electorate don't seem to care and there appears to be no lwgal recourse to stop him lying, or to correct his previous lies.

The law takes a very dim view on kidnapping these days. If it had been 200 years ago and Boris was say, black, you might have got away with it.  But not now.

No, I suggest NOT voting for him would be a safer course of action.

That said, polls suggest the great British public don't agree. Seems, as a nation, we love our Boris. So who knows?  Perhaps I've misjudged the man and the sunny uplands he promises are just around the corner. We'll know soon enough.  If the next Queens speach mentions anything about a bill to bring back serfdom then the we can be pretty sure the thing about the sunny uplands was just a ruse...

On my cynical days I tend to look upon this era as the "age of lies"

On happier days I put that aside and do know that some people are searching for truth in the world. 

As you say it's the people that don't care that are the problem.  They are willing to accept lies if it furthers their personal narratives and prejudices . 

Its the media as well as (some) politicians, they peddle lies and untruths. If people are forced to base their opinions on incorrect information, then democracy doesn't stand a chance. 

Its like science, if the data you collect is wrong then your conclusions will be wrong too.

Having spent 50 years in the media, 25 of them in newspapers I can tell you it's not a failure. It's a policy

I can certainly believe that for some of our newspapers. But it seems to have got much worse recently. The BBC in particular seems to have chickened out in the face of sabre-rattling about funding over the course of this government. 

I

I agree. Channel 4 is a proud exception but others seem to have decided not to challenge the lies for fear of funding cuts or even just being denied access to ministers for comment or appearances for interviews (as has happened to Channel 4 News). Full marks to Sky's Beth Rigby for her empty chairing James Cleverley. Sadly others are not so brave.

In times past politicians had to put up with tough questioning because there was no other way of reaching millions of viewers. Now they go for soft interviews on Breakfast TV sofas or just cut out the broadcasters completely with phoney planted 'Questions from the public' on their own social media feeds.

I found this bit in the Oborne piece rather worrying:

"I have talked to senior BBC executives, and they tell me they personally think it’s wrong to expose lies told by a British prime minister because it undermines trust in British politics."

I wonder to what extent this is reflected in policy, because I can't think of any instance where lies by Johnson have been corrected or challenged. 

Overall BBC policy is set by 'senior execs' not by individual programme editors or producers. That is why the Chief Exec Tony Hall retains the title of Editor-in-Chief

I'm sure it would be possible to turn that around and deny ministers the oxygen of publicity... "Oh, you have a new policy you'd like to publicise...? You'll be wanting the assistance of a national broadcaster. Good luck with that..."

Jesus. What undermines trust in British politics is that the politicians get away with lying with complete impunity, because no-one will hold them to account for their lies.

When we take our country back into the 1950's, I hope we take our expectations of politicians back into the 1950's too, where a politician would resign if caught lying. Or philandering, come to that matter...

Yes, I realise that. I was wondering to what extent this was only a personal opinion. I just looked at Oborne's Twitter feed and he thinks it's got some policy status:

"I am pretty sure this is also formal policy. Which is why no BBC political reporter has called Johnson a liar or or made his catastrophic lack of integrity an issue since he became prime minister. Similar to the House of Commons convention that MPs can't call each other liars."

https://twitter.com/OborneTweets/status/1196742404994404352

(I noticed there that he is contributing to a dossier of Johnson and the government's lies, here if anyone's interested):

https://boris-johnson-lies.com

As Wiley points out, there are too many alternative channels these days. There's more than one source of oxygen now. 

True enough. And those channels are even less subject to scrutiny...

Who's on PM at the mo'? Evan Davies isn't it, just two hours ago whilst I was cooking tea he had Polly Toynbee on and Daniel Finkelstein discussing the debate, Toynbee said that Johnson consistently lies and repeats the lies again and again, Finkelstein agreed but suggested it would be bad tactics for Corbyn just to go on about that, and Davies let them make their points.

Do you listen Brexitcast? They talk about politicians lying on that, or fibbing or telling porkies - all of them.

I sometimes wonder about these sort of claims - I guess the BBC is my main provider of UK news and I know Johnson lies all the time. Did I get that purely from Economist subscription or from reading the Guardian online regularly? I don't think so. MAYBE if all you watch is the main evening news, or listen to Radio 4 6 oclock news, some of this stuff might seem surprising, but there is a lot more BBC output than that. I hugely enjoy lots of the news based comedy on R4, and sometimes watch similar on BBC 2 - I admit I probably enjoy it because comedians generally have similar leftwing biases that I have. But I do wonder how anyone could really say "the BBC is biased to the Tories" after listening to the Now Show, or watching the Mash Report or Mock the Week and so on a few times.

Panic over. Everything's OK. There is a new twitter feed called factcheckuk. It's address is @CCHQpress better known as the Tory party press office.

You really could not make this stuff up

Orwell did... 

"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'”

I don't think that Oborne is saying that there is nothing at all on the BBC suggesting Johnson lies. Nor is he saying the BBC is biased to the Tories. The point is that the BBC's political reporters never challenge any of the lies. Toynbee and Finkelstein et al are not BBC political reporters. 

I wonder if the age of noise might be more apt. The information age certainly seems a misnomer

Jk

Well, like I said i hear the chief political correspondent, the chief European correspondent, and the Scottish bloke and the Yorkshire bloke do it on Brexitcast all the time.

They've got Kuenssburg to cover their backs.

An antisemitism scandal has struck the Conservative Party, with two candidates facing accusations of alleged antisemitism. But instead of holding the party’s feet to the fire over its issues with racism, BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg attacked Labour instead. It’s starting to feel like there’s no crisis big enough Kuenssberg won’t overlook in service of the Conservatives.

Holocaust denial

Scottish Conservatives have withdrawn support from Aberdeen North candidate Ryan Houghton. The decision comes after the discovery of historic social media comments by the candidate of a homophobic, Islamophobic, and antisemitic nature.

I am at this very moment watching Newsnight on which Emily Maitliss is challenging James Cleverley on Johnson's lies.

I simply don't buy this BBC bias thing.

I regularly leaf through the Telegraph at work and it regularly has stuff about the BBC being biased to the left.

Tories pretend to be factchecking service during leaders' debate

Oh the Canary, what a fantastic news source. Do you think if they could get out of the pajamas and off their Twitter circle jerk they could do some real journalism (or maybe even go out leafleting for their local Labour candidate!) rather than whine on about whoever it this week who hasn't fallen into line with Momentum sufficiently. I mean does the Canary actually do ANY stories which aren't just reports of what people are saying on Twitter?

Real journalism like uncritically churning out press releases from the Conservative party like we see from the establishment media?

It always amuses me when I get stuff in my FB feed complaining about the "mainstream media" - almost always from a completely partisan organisation or individual churning out propaganda while pretending to be a news source or journalist.

They don't challenge anyone directly do they? It's not quite the same thing.

You don't need to 'buy this BBC bias thing'. Oborne is not talking about that. It's more a question of the BBC not being sufficiently challenging. 

I must say I stopped listening to the Today programme because it was so insipid, and I haven't been back since Humphries retired. 

I think it is much improved without Humphries. Nick Robinson does some excellent interviews.

I may go back to it - although there’s still the ‘Thought for the Day’ problem 😄. 

That's true!

How did you know it was the Canary?

The problem with your dismissal of the Canary, is that, where else will this be publicised?

It's about Tory AS not Labour!!

Are you saying the story about the Tory candidates is false?

If so, then why has Ryan Houghton been suspended.

If not then, why hasn't there been such a media shitstorm as there would if it were a Labour candidate?

Here's a bit of balanced reporting.

It's about the Tories and suspension of two of their candidates, look at the last paragraph.

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/tories-suspend-aberdeen-north-general-el...

Even though this is about Tories, they STILL manage a dig at Corbyn, and then they expect Labour supporters to listen to their every gripe and accusation.

Shameful is the word I'd use, if they are serious about rooting out AS in society, they should report what's happened not continually try to smear someone else.

             . . . Haha That's my cue to get up and make the porridge!

No, not at all. I'm just saying that, unlike accountable sources such as, obviously, the BBC which can more or less be relied upon for impartiality (after all they have an obligation to strive to be so), these "independent" (ie unaccountable) sources are almost always partisan and unbalanced and are often best taken with a pinch of salt.

Teeth brushing for me!

Yes but information can be both true and false , so that still holds .

It is an information age certainly .

Take a look at an old interview by Andrew Marr with Prof Noam Chomsky.

youtube.com/watch?v=9RPKH6BVcoM&

I think the problem is not so much that some interviewers don't challenge what politicians say(some don't but other give them a harder time) its that politicians repeat the rubbish and there is no come back.

I know this is never going to happen but I'd like to see all news media agree that if a question is not answered after the second time of asking then the interview ends. I've only heard of this happening once but I wonder what the response of politicians would be if it was the norm.

Unfortunately, the Tory party, or probably more correctly, Boris Johnson is becoming more and more like Donald Trump.

One I saw last month. On 29th October BJ said

"It is a week since this parliament voted, yet again, to force Brussels to keep this country in the European Union for at least another three months, at a cost of £1 billion a month.”

Ignoring that the UK gets money back from the EU under Boris's deal (and Theresa May's deal too) this money will still be be paid until December 2020. It has nothing to do with how Parliament voted.

Dave

That's fine and it is being reported on the BBC web site (so it must now be true), I've not seen it mentioned on the TV news or radio news and it's not blanket coverage for three days, so slightly different than if it were Labour candidates.

I'm pretty sure I heard it opn Radio 4.

Partisan and unbalanced yes, just like the establishment media is. At least these sites aren't trying to pretend anything otherwise. Not true to say they are unaccountable though, Skwawkbox for instance is regulated by IMPRESS, the UK’s only Leveson-compliant press regulator, whereas most of the establishment media is regulated by IPSO which is funded by its member publications.

The BBC is the only one with an obligation for impartially which is an aspect where they let us all down occasionally.

Being regulated by IMPRESS isn't a guarantee of accountability on all fronts. For instance, here's the Wikipedia summary of the Squawkbox vs. Wes Streeting adjudication:

"In November 2018, IMPRESS ruled against the blog Skwawkbox for breaching standards in its reporting on Wes Streeting MP. The complaint upheld was that the publishers did not take all reasonable steps to ensure accuracy, because Streeting had only been given four hours to respond to the blog's enquiry.[33] The panel did not make a judgment on the factual accuracy of the Skwawkbox article, stating that "The Committee was not in a position to test the veracity of the evidence provided by the Publisher".[34]"

In other words they were held to account by IMPRESS and published that judgement in line with requirements here.

https://skwawkbox.org/2018/11/27/impress-adjudication/

The point is that IMPRESS has limits, and simply signing up to IMPRESS is not a guarantee of factual accuracy. That's all. 

With my fantastically advance textual analysis skills honed over more than a decade of working as a researcher: I googled it. But I was about 80% sure it was the Canary just from its ridiculous tone and knee jerk attacks on Kuenssberg.

How about it being about antisemitism and racism in British politics more generally. You want it to be ONLY about AS from Conservative members or supporters whilst politely averting your gaze from AS from Labour members or supporters.

I'm afraid I came to my own conclusions about K without knowing what this Canary is.

Based on watching Parliament TV and being astonished at what she chose to report or omit about proceedings

And did you hear the news on R4 tonight? In the headlines of PM at 1700 was the story of the Tory candidate in Leeds who has had to stand down because of anti-Semitic comments made some time ago. I think it was there on 6 o'clock headlines too.

Anyway I'm sure the Canary is busily crafting another top investigative report as we speak based on 3 tweets from the journo's mates that say the BBC is an evil conspiracy against His Holiness St Jeremy of Islington North because although they reported that Conservative Amjad Bashir had made anti-semitic comments, the BBC hadn't added that "Boris is a ****" and that is clear indication of the corporation's pro-Tory leanings. 

It's as good a guarantee of accuracy as can be had. It's the only press regulator recognised by the government as Leveson compliant and if IMPRESS find a story to be inaccurate they can issue a fine of up to £1million.

None of the establishment media were prepared to sign up to this level of accountability, The Canary, Skwawkbox, and Evolve Politics were.

IMPRESS can’t be a guarantee of accuracy except when particular cases are referred to it. It only comes into play then.

The proof of how the Tories try to bully journalists and broadcasters to stay in line and not ask awkward questions. Reporters from the Mirror has been banned from the Tory battle bus (and the access that gives) for criticising Johnson and calling out his lies. It would be heartening if every other journo had got off the bus in solidarity - because without them traipsing round the photo ops and choreographed stunts  the bus is pointless - but I'm not holding my breath.

How else could it work? Having a police force doesn't guarantee no crime either as the police will not investigate until cases are referred to them.

The possibility of a £1million fine from a Leveson compliant regulator is a better guarantee of honest journalism from any of these small titles than has been given by any of the large establishment publications which are bankrolled by billionaires.

And your OP shows the result. The establishment media allows Tory lies to go unchecked wheras all of those lies which were highlighted in the article were called out by the honest journalists working for the properly regulated Canary, Skwawkbox, and Evolve Politics (among other titles).

I think you are all barking up the wrong tree.

You only have to look at what happened in the debate on Tuesday at the audiences reaction to two issues.

BJ on trustworthiness--- laughter. JC on the 4 day week--- laughter

The public can see through all the rubbish on both sides.

What you are lacking at the moment is a really good/competent leader, neither is really good/competent and can carry the public.That is the fundamental issue.

Squawkbox and those other titles are propagandists, not 'honest journalists'. You might find this illuminating:

https://medium.com/@pitt_bob/skwawkbox-an-embarrassment-to-the-left-47ed00a...

The last paragraph of that article sums it up -

"Skwawkbox functions as a sort of left-wing mirror image of the right-wing tabloid press".

At last there is an antidote to the establishment media's right wing distortions.

There is an important distinction though and that is that The Canary, Skwawkbox, and Evolve Politics, make their agenda clear, separate fact from opinion, and are properly regulated.

I think you're heading away from the topic of whether the media has failed to hold Tory lies to account.

I would argue though that the audience's laughter at the 4 day week is the result of 40+ years of unchallenged spin against worker's rights from the establishment media.

If the media had not held BJ to account then there would have been no laughter.

There are always political sides. There have been over the years plenty of this on the Labour side. All depends on where you sit.

One mans meat is another mans poison so to speak.

You might not like that other people just do not buy into your political view point, that is politics.

Both sides are laughing stocks at the moment.

There is a simple answer. You don't HAVE TO vote conservative whilst he and his cronies are their leadership.

Left-wing distortions aren't an antidote; they're a contribution to the problem. I want any left-wing media to be better than the establishment media in terms of factual accuracy, otherwise they have no more credibility and are equally worthless.

That people with enough interest to attend a political debate might be able to see through lies is no proof that the establishment media is holding Boris and Tory propaganda to account.

Only one political view point is given wall to wall coverage day after day by the usual news sources though. So you'll agree that the well regulated likes of The Canary, Skwawkbox, and Evolve Politics are valuable additions to our journalistic coverage then.

If you want impartiallity then I don't know where you could look. Your best strategy for balance would be to look at the establishment spin that is all around you, then to check for a counter narrative on the left wing sites. They are held to a better standard of factual accuracy, as I've been pointing out, and these are the journalists who have been consistently pointing out the lies that you were concerned about in your OP.

Easy. The BBC. No other source an an obligation to be impartial. Yes, I know that, despite their best efforts they sometimes don't quite get it right, but nothing else comes close.

You may think these left-wing sites are held to a better standard of accuracy, but I can't see it in their output, IMPRESS membership or not. As for impartiality, that's not what I was looking for. I don't expect left-wing sources to be impartial in their opinion sections but I don't want them to be indulging in the kinds of second-hand hyperbolic nonsense seen in the Canary etc. in their news reporting. 

I have found after many years of trawling media that the BBC, the Guardian, the Economist ( easily the best and the NYT gives me a surprisingly balanced centrist view.

You might be shocked if you read the Economist over a period of time as to how surprisingly anti businessss it can be at times.

I see today the conservative party are now pushing google ads for "labourmanifesto.co.uk" another conservative con job pushing Tory spin.

I'm told due to the fact it says somewhere on it that it's a tory website this is legal.

Still shows again their willingness to mislead the public.

At time of writing typing "labour" into google brings this up as the first result

I wonder how that will all work out  - the media have picked it up and are revealing it as Tory spin - hot off of the Fact check during the debate.

Either they are completely stupid - or getting found out was all part of the plan to get more clicks their way.

I have just finished reading the Labour Manifesto and the BBC's summary on their website. It is shocking how partial the so called explanation is. 

On a separate matter it surprising just how many of the BBC journalists and contributors attended top public schools and/or read PPE Oxford or something similar at places like Durham. 

Not in the slightest, I'd love both camps to receive the same vilification and publicity and scrutinty, but that isn't what happens.

Why not report them then? I doubt anyone can guarantee accuracy, but that doesn't detract from reasoning why the others haven't signed up.

It's a bit like the Sun and Hillsborough, massive front page condemnation, small buried deep inside apologies.

Surely the truth is the truth, wherever it's published?

I could probably agree that the BBC is the closest of any to impartiality but even the BBC falls a long way short. It seems to interpret impartial as meaning "centrist".

It's good that you've looked at a variety of sources but "Centrism" is a right wing ideology which includes privatised essential infrastructure, deregulation, and, historic low rates of tax for the wealthy.

The economist may well be anti business but Labour isn't. Labour's strategy is to help businesses grow and make sure that workers get their fair share of the proceeds of a thiving economy.

Or maybe it simply gives a fair hearing to a full spectrum of views (except those which society, by consensus, considers beyond the pale), so that there is, inevitably and quite rightly, an "average" centrist viewpoint - which simply means that they are doing their job.

You're seeing tabloid style headlines in those publications but you're not seeing the outright lying that the tabloids regularly get away with. 

I think you and me would both like to see a good quality left wing broadsheet newspaper but that sort of thing takes considerable resource. Only billionaires are prepared to run these publications at a loss in order to further their agenda.

I think you're confusing centrism with neo-liberalism there. 

Why do you think it's my job to regulate the left-wing blogs? Odd suggestion. 

As for 'the truth is the truth', I wish it was that simple, but it's the complexity of establishing the truth in many situations that gives the room for propaganda and fake news. The truth can be manipulated and spun.

I'm not sure why you think I don't see the outright lying in the tabloids - of course I do.

I agree in principle about a good quality left wing newspaper being desirable, but the days when a daily broadsheet can be established are long gone. And even an online paper with good journalism is expensive to support. 

"Centrism" today is support for policies within the bounds of the neoliberal status quo.

It's not reporting fairly. Just yesterday the BBC took down a video of Priti Patel blaming poverty on the victims of Tory policies. Luckily the Guardian has saved it.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2019/nov/21/its-not-the-governme...

The BBC has considered the story newsworthy but buried it when the video was seen to be spreading virally. This is the third time I can think of where the BBC has actively covered up stories that would be harrmful to the Tories in this election campaign.

They are active defenders of the status quo with a "centrist" viewpoint but, like Swinson, they would rather put Boris into no.10 than Corbyn.

Classic comment...centrism.. being a right wing ideology. Class.Just love these type of mumbo jumbo statements.Very enteratining.

I see little in Labours strategy that encourages entrepreneurial Britain.

Maybe other stories are considered more newsworthy. There was very little yesterday on the impeachment of Trump other than the live hearing.This depsite the fact that it was a former UK citizen as one of the star witnesses.

Would you consider the Scottish government centrist?

Who exactly is the "they" at the BBC who are carrying out this plan? If you could give me the names, I'm sure I can find their email addresses myself.

No - that's a recent left construction touted by the likes of Owen Jones as a way to smear and disarm attempts to construct some kind of central party. 

Wikipedia:

"In politics, centrism—the centre (British/Canadian/New Zealand/Australian English) or the center (American English)—is a political outlook or specific position that involves acceptance or support of a balance of a degree of social equality and a degree of social hierarchy, while opposing political changes which would result in a significant shift of society strongly to either the left or the right.[1]

Centre-left and centre-right politics both involve a general association with centrism combined with leaning somewhat to their respective sides of the spectrum."

Did you read the 'Green Industrial Revolution' stuff? 

There's an inherent contradiction in that definition though.

This is the politics of Corbyn and the Labour left who want to roll back the excesses of today's neoliberal orthodoxy by investing in our economy to support business and ensure that the proceeds of wealth are distributed fairly.

This part seems to be the position of todays self declared "centrists". Today we have a right wing neoliberal orthodoxy where austerity, privatization, low rates of tax on the wealthy are seen as the norm to be defended against the people who would be considered centrists by the first part of the definition.

The richest one percent of the UK population own more than 20 times more wealth than the poorest 20 percent combined and the gulf is increasing while today's "centrists" oppose political changes which would result in the significant shift of society which is needed to restore any balance of a degree of social equality and a degree of social hierarchy.