Request for online interview, fair use flexibility, and heckle report case studies

OK this blog is getting more like a rave but still more or less on topic. The story of Fleet Street during the EU referendum may turn out to be a mirror image of the story of Jeremy Corbyn, There could be at least three versions already being crafted. A defence version from supporters of Corbyn in the coming leadership election, the attack version from MPs who would accept the decision if Corbyn was elected once more  so this version could be softer and later revise, and then again the attack version from those MPs who would not accept any vote decision and would leave for another SDP or join the Liberals direct saving a lot of wasted time.

Sorry, you will just have to sort out the bias from the facts for yourselves.

Not sure who reads this anyway. A few according to stats but they may be robots. My questions and tweets may not get any response but at least they serve as notes to come back to when the answers crop up somewhere else.

Sticking to the main story, how was it decided that Alistair Darling share a platform with George Osborne and that Gordon Brown should front the phase described as the Labour window in the Cameron schedule? Maybe the BBC has the emails. The impression I get is that many senior party figures have been phoning the leader office with suggestions and their advice not always welcomed. But somehow decisions were made which may or may not have been the first idea that Corbyn supported. So is there any info about this or how the "punishment budget" went down with the youth vote or Labour heartland ?

More recent / current.

Last night I watched Jeremy Corbyn live on Sky and switched to BBC News when they faded him out. The first BBC comment was about the heckle. Also heckle report on the World Tonight on radio. Heckle reports are rare so I am curious as to how this happens. Heckle makes the case that Corbyn was weak in referendum campaign. Same point put to Corbyn supporter on BBC Radio 4. But earlier of Today prog Dianne Abbott was prevented from refuting this sort of thing because we a re "moving on". If the BBC allows people to assert that Corbyn was weak during the EU referendum they should at least allow some time for discussion of the facts. Just my opinion.

Meanwhile on Twitter there is growing concern about Portland Communications. there may be a link with a previous heckle, with Tony Blair, and the destabilisation of the Labour Party. Who knows? But without some fact checking from mainstream media and /or public statements by Portland Communications the developing story on Twitter will gain credibility.

The problem is that now any heckle is suspicious for some. So far not much info about the heckle yesterday evening as reported by the BBC. But maybe someone will look into it. Meanwhile there is again some Twitter interest.

By the way, I am not listening to the Today prog just now, trying to concentrate and avoid typos. I probably will turn on the radio soon. But often I am just trying to work out the spin. For all the dross on Twitter it is still possible one or two tweets turn out to be true.

Anyway, much media is now available for remix or linking. I hope the conversation continues without the mainstream media blocking the archive ( Corbyn prevented from using a Channel 4 clip on his own YouTube channel is rare example otherwise )

Also please send links to reports of heckling. Any studies of how often a heckle is reported? Is there a PR guide on how to promote a heckle?

Buzzfeed is on the case #plot #coup #Corbyn #Blair #Chilcot

I am now running about a day late as I am catching up with other things.

But BuzzFeed is keeping up. Tweets search find this

Jim Waterson ‏@jimwaterson  3h3 hours ago3 hours agoThis theory that the anti-Corbyn coup is the work of Portland Communications is absolutely blowing up on Facebook.

Links to Canary story that looks to be well researched. The claim is that Portland Communications is organising more than just a video or a heckle. This might explain why the Parliamentary Labour Party seems to behave with on challenging leader and prefers to vote in secret. It might just be background PR drift without a known leader or plan. who knows but something will become clear soon.

Also on Twitter a clip from the Sunday Politics yesterday. Paul Mason talks about a Blairite coup and seems to know something. Having now watched it all I notice Jo Coburn asks about the Corbyn weakness during the referendum as if iot was a fact. The Today prog refused Dianne Abbott a chance to refute this. Now Cameron has blamed Corbyn in the Commons. Will the BBC allow some space to investigate what actually happened?

Sorry if this blog is becoming a bit partisan. It started as a comment on what happened during the referendum. Now that story is disputed so the blog is about versions of what was covered in the earlier posts.

Paul Mason suggests that Corbyn was opposed to the decision that Alistair Darling share a platform with George Osborne. Maybe someone at the BBC has copies of the emails. As memory serves the consequence was that Osborne used Darling as a defence when the Today prog pointed out that the Brexit Tory MPs would oppose any such budget. So they seemed to be the NHS supporters and Labour the backers of the "catastrophists" as Corby has described them.

Gordon Brown writes in the Guardian

Yet every time migration threatened to become a headline issue, the remain campaign escalated the rhetoric about post-EU doom, and so the extravagant leave claims about migration went unanswered.

Well, is there any research on how the public or Labour voters responded to Alistair Darling? Labour is in trouble but not everything can be the fault of Jeremy Corbyn. See previous posts for why I think his strength in social media is better than the newspapers suppose. Time will tell, quite soon.

Chilcot report mentioned in Commons but no link yet to Labour Leadership Election. My guess is that Corbyn will still be leader when the report is published.

Joke, please don't rubbish blogs just because of this post

It is just a coincidence. I was trying to think why the Labour coup came at this time. There has been a tweet pointing out that the Chilcot Report is due out soon and that Corbyn will not back off from issues around war crimes should they be in the news.

I was wondering about the Parliamentary Labour Party. Why do they meet in secret? Is there a leader or organisation for what has gone on? I was trying to find the exact quote from the Godfather when who should come on Sky but Jack Straw....

Our true enemy has not yet shown his face

As in the title above, this is not a plot claim just a ramble about things as they turn up.

By the way, Straw has a definite go at Corbyn with stories of scripts muddled in the wind and rain. The myth ( my word, just my guess ) of Corbyn's bad campaign is just being repeated even if the Today prog will not allow time to refute it.

Google search on the quote also turns up this from YouTube, a scene set obviously nowhere near Westminster.

Video clips for review and comment

Fact and opinion are getting mixed up but I can't see how to avoid this. If you have a different take there should still be something in this blog to contribute to the evidence. We have reached the phase where the story of media and the referendum is being revised as part of continuing ploitics. Personally I think Jeremy Corbyn has constructive things to say. Also by looking at social media I guess that his campaign was more effective than believed by most people in Westminster or working on newspapers. Time will tell.

I have borrowed a couple of clips for upload to YouiTube. It seems the attack on Corbyn is well supported by the news agenda.

Between 1.26 and 1.33 short clip of Jeremy Corbyn and heckle blaming him for the EU referendum result. It has been reported by WikiLeaks that the heckler is a PR professional called
Tom Mauchline.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archiv...

On the clip it is stated that Corbyn's performance was "underpowered" , no opinion source quoted just a BBC fact.
At some point in time there will be a study of media and the EU referendum. Blog started as Fleet Street in Europe and Cyberspace. this blog will be updated as history is revised. One guess is that Corbyn did quite well in reaching a youth audience and others on social media. this could be tested soon in a leadership election.

Comments welcome. especially links to mainstream media fact checking of the WikiLeaks story. The promotional tweet has 1,172 retweets and  658 likes but the story is not showing up on newspaper websites as far as I can tell at this time.

Dianne Abbott is moved on by Sarah Montague from discussing the Corbyn campaign during the EU referendum  Full clip as mp3 from BBC Radio 4 website, link below. At some time in the future the nature of the media coverage of the referendum will be studied at length. See blog Fleet Street in Europe and Cyberspace for my take, This edit by @will789gb for review and comment. Whether Corbyn connected with a yout / social media audience would be tested by a leadership election , quite possible at the time thjis is written.,

direct link

more mp3 from Today

It seems the BBC follow the Fleet Street news agenda. The reality of Corbyn's campaign is something to come back to.

Meanwhile earlier this evening on Sky News there was trade union speaker defending Corbyn and James Lyons from the Sunday Times speaking against. Not quoting sources , just his own opinion. He may well have spoken to the MPs meeting in secret but I think this role used to be unusual. Then again Fleet Street could soon be running the country as the only political organisation with any stability.

New Phase , misc queries , Guardian

This blog is in a new phase, mostly going back over the information so far. There seems to be  a lot of revision to how things are presented. Or how it seemed at the time.

For example Boris in the Telegraph

It is said that those who voted Leave were mainly driven by anxieties about immigration. I do not believe that is so.

We can go back and look at the newspapers and try to understand what happened.

My own bias is that this result is a mistake. There will be a cost and a revised decision later. It may take many years.

At the moment there seems to be some drift in government but the newspapers are clearly running the country as much as anybody. To understand Boris you have to buy the Telegraph. It still may leave some mystery. Apparently the German BDI has stated that the UK will still have access to the single market. Possibly the retreat has already started from what many people thought was on offer when they voted.

Some queries.

Previous post mentioned a WikiLeaks story about a video heckle of Jeremy Corbyn. I have just done a search on Twitter for "Tom Mauchline heckle"  . It only finds one tweet,

 When lone heckle gets this much media, we smell a rat. Stinker shill:Tom Mauchline, Alistair Campbell's goon.

Apologies for the word "goon". Yes social media can get heated, but then again I cannot find any coverage in mainstream media of whether the claims in WikiLeaks may be true. The clip was used on Newsnight in a Brexit special on Saturday. No mention of the Corbyn speech the same day. So this is a possible case study for digital storytelling. Evan Davis was part of a panel in Exeter during the Radio 1 Academy. Since this blog is now going back in time as well as staying current I will try to find out more about what digital storytelling means.

You would have thought a short interview with Lord Mandelson would be more in the Newsnight style.

Second query, still no response or comment on whay Channel 4 blocked Jeremy Corbyn Official Channel from using his own words on YouTube. With all respect for the last laugh there can be no more obvious evidence for Corbyn dedication to the Remain cause than to be covered in goo, crawl through mud and suffer every Saturday night indignity only to be left without even a clip he can try to promote for himself. Media bias or what?

By the way, he did not advocate uncontrolled immigration. He pointed out that the EU is very unlikely to offer access to their market without free movement of people. Honesty may be a good longterm approach.

I will be moving comment about the Guardian to another blog - Read G . This has been dormant for a while. Mostly about citizen journalism and the way the Guardian has responded. I realise my response to the Guardian is taking up space in this blog out of proportion to the main issues. So in future I can concentrate on the main aspect of Fleet Street - total Brexit and definitely in control.


Final query just in case somebody knows the answer. Lucy Bell MP told the Today program that she resigned because Benn was sacked and that there is no coup plot. Guardian reports ( page 2 ) that 9.59 on Saturday was the time for a report in the Observer. By the way much the same in Sunday Times. Guardian also reports claim by Benn  that he was not the source of the story. So how do these things happen? I get the early versions of print stories in Exeter. Later versions started with the sacking. From the earlier versions I don't see how any party leader could allow the level of dissent implied and it turns out the journalists were not making it up on this occasion. I strongly suggest that Lucy Bell MP takes a look. Also anyone with clues please send a link. Maybe there is a leaked email known to the BBC.

Social Media and Mainstream Media, different takes on Corbyn leadership

Up early for a Sunday, alarmed by the radio. Have now bought an Observer and Sunday Times. They are not quite as reported on the BBC. Both have reporting of moves by Hilary Benn but not the sacking. I cannot see from the stories what else Corbyn could do. the info must have come from somewhere even if Benn was "unavailable for comment".

Peter Preston in Observer defends the tole of newspapers against the assumed attack that several of them are controlled by the very rich and they have influenced the voters with stories about immigration for example. He has some numbers about how voting and source of news varies by age. He thinks the views of newspaper readers have been formed before they read anything. I think we should come back to this later when there is more info on how opinion shifted in the various pahases of the debate and how this might reflect the stories of the day.

He questions the role of TV, claiming that the policy of balance prevented much critique of what was being claimed. I don't see why newspapers should not have that role also. They are not just there to reflect the bias of readers.

Looking at Twitter I find a WikiLeaks tweet about the heckler video from yesterday. The headline is "How the news agenda is set" .

What makes a single individual heckling a politician newsworthy? There are dozens such examples every single day that are not newsworthy.
The answer is simple. Normally the hecklers are promoting an anti-establishment view, so it does not get reported. Whereas this heckler was promoting the number one priority of the establishment and mainstream media, to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn. So this heckler, uniquely, is front page news and his words are repeated at great length in the Guardian and throughout the broadcast media.
The impression is deliberately given that he reflects general disgust from young people, and particularly gay young people, at Corbyn over the EU referendum. The very enthusiastic reception for Corbyn at Gay Pride is not reported.
Nor is the fact that the incident was not a chance one. The “heckler” is Tom Mauchline, a PR professional for PR firm Portland Communications, a dedicated Blairite (he describes himself as Gouldian) formerly working on the Liz Kendall leadership campaign. Portland Communications’ “strategic counsel” is Alastair Campbell.
So far from representing a popular mood, Mauchlyne was this morning on twitter urging people to sign a 38 Degrees petition supporting the no confidence motion against Corbyn. Ten hours later that petition has gained 65 signatures, compared to 120,000 for a petition supporting Corbyn. Mauchline formerly worked for 38 Degrees, unsurprising given their disgraceful behaviour over the Kuenssberg petition. I am waiting for the circle to be squared and Kuenssberg to report on the significance of Mauchline’s lone heckle.

Of course this may not be true. But the facts can be easily checked. Comparing 65 to 120,000 may be the sort of ratio for discussion outside Westminster and the lobby. Not sure how to describe this better, but it may clarify over the next week or so.

Back to my opinion. I think during the referendum Jeremy Corbyn was visible on social media but maybe only the younger voters noticed this. Possibly by arrangement with the shadow cabinet he was rarely on TV debates except for Sky News and the Last Laugh. When he did make a speech it was often not reported.

I have had no dispute about my screenshot ,  twice tweeted , showing that Channel 4 blocked a clip from the Last Laugh on Corbyn's own YouTube channel. How is he expected to get a message across if he is not reported for what he has to say?

His speech yesterday, by the way most considered and constructive on policy and immigration, is not much reported today. Those MPs wanting a change of leadership have provide the media with a more interesting story. Below is a YouTube clip of the speech. Notice how the BBC distract with news of challenges after a couple of minutes.

Peter Preston has also noticed how things turn up on YouTube. It will be very interesting to see how the newspapers and TV report the Corbyn leadership and the related world of social media. I will tend to rely on Corbyn talking directly to camera. ( newspapers not so much)

continues as tweets and retweets    will789gb

Thank You LA Times

 On Thursday British voters willfully walked off a cliff when they decided to leave the European Union. The “Brexit” victory is a defeat for Britain, Europe and the global economy.

LA Times, link HERE.

Meanwhile I am in a bit of shock and breakdown. Fleet Street obviously did well but at the same time I am very much looking at media outside the UK for opinion and fact. When I say they did well this is at a technical level or as you would judge fiction.

Tweets suggest Polly Toynbee has been on BBC with comments about Corbyn. Maybe more tomorrow on this, I will check what appears in print.

But if you are looking for where to put the blame then the Guardian  could be on the list. Corbyn can only get a message across to the extent he is reported. 

NY Times has authority to comment on UK press

Heard about this on Radio 4 press review and there was a printed copy in Exeter. Only £2 so compares with the Guardian. You can get up to ten stories a day I think before you need to subscribe.

The link is HERE.

Martin Fletcher used to work for the Times. He knows what he is writing about.

It is often said that newspapers no longer matter. But they do matter when the contest is so close and shoppers see headlines like “BeLeave in Britain” emblazoned across the front pages of tabloids whenever they visit their supermarket. They matter if they have collectively and individually misled their readers for decades.

Much more detail. sample headlines. please have a look.

Now closing down probably till there is a result. I may be losing balance, spending too much time as critic of sources that may be slightly positive in the short term.

Whatever the result there will be a difficult situation. Lessons so far, 

direct access to politicians through YouTube seems to work better than spin through journalists

New York Times good starting point in a world of conflicting claims and unreliable reporting. Even though I subscribe will probably buy another print cop later in the week.

By the way, if you take up the trial sub at a UK trade show you may get a free umbrella.

Trying Out Twitter to Communicate with the Guardian #2

I think this started with the quote below, the kicker in a text by Gaby Hinsliff about Jeremy Corbyn

And so to many commentators, his victory just didn’t compute. It made no sense. We treated it like a glitch in the system, almost a mistake.
Time may or may not prove it to be both those things, but in retrospect we could have been more curious about why those who backed him did so; we should be asking even now whether and why they still feel the same. (For every shrill social media warrior there are dozens of perfectly nice, normal people who backed Corbyn. They’re a lot more fun to ask.)

So presumably the nice normal people are face to face. The shrillness is on social media.

And another thing. It is one thing to get a series of reports completely wrong during a leadership election. It is another to behave as if the leadership of the Labour Party was something for journalists to decide, ignoring actual events and giving space to figures from the past or anonymous sources that fit the rest of their argument.

Going back to the topic for this blog I still think that Jeremy Corbyn has been making a consistent and positive Remain case as followers on Twitter will know. The problem has been that he is not reported. Anyway, leaving that aside for a couple of days, just looking at the social media aspects.

Not sure how to link so here are some screenshots

Why are journalists so concerned to assert the negative aspects of social media? Why would Gaby Hinsliff take time out from the Jo Cox tribute to make a general purpose remark about the sort of people who contribute to Twitter?

It might help to back to some facts. I have been trying for a while now to communicate with the Guardian on the basis that includes the experience of Guardian Unlimited Talk ,  a talkboard that was widely supported then trashed without notice. Max would be an offer of the archive for those who wrote it. Minimum would be to admit it existed when writing about social media. We seem to have reached a stage when print journalists are mostly negative about social media except when mentioning their own contacts. So they must realise where the audience is going. Myself I buy the paper less and go direct to Twitter online. It may find the Guardian, maybe not.

Back on topic for the blog, my impression is that TV comment is also very concerned about the negative aspects of social media and so far is reluctant to comment on the recent print media reporting on immigration. But let us leave that for a while, trying to stay positive.

Jeremy Corbyn on Sky News

There are now several versions of this on YouTube.

I also notice that Sky News has a live version on Twitter. Not sure how this works. I still like my television where I can switch between news channels and check they are all much the same.

Except that this Corbyn event is unusual. The audience is paying attention I think. Why the other channels do not invite Corbyn more is maybe a mystery maybe something to explore later.

There could be clips from this. Not sure what Sky News would think. It is a bit long in itself.

By the way, this was reported in the Guardian. And Polly Toynbee is back so no worries there.

Jeremy Corbyn on Andrew Marr show, notes on reporting

I am not going to break up the full clip into little ones. Partly to save time, partly to encourage you to watch the whole thing. But I will list some timings with sampole text if you want to skip.

5.45 question about immigration


"We have had several years of endless newspaper headlines"


9.27   quote Brendan Cox on far right influenece on immigration debate



13    labour voters will vote leave  suggests Marr



13.40  i am not a catastrophist


My take " non catastrophist " is putting some distance between accepting the economy would have problems after Brexit and the sort of facts claimed by Cameron. On this occasion I think Corbyn did include the full Remain case on the economy.

==============

As reported

SUN front page   just about immigration, can't stop free movement in EU  "We admire his honesty" editorial
nothing about role of newspapers

Mirror can't find anything but there is a quote on worker's rights from Len McClusky (page 7) and an editorial about UKIP / Tory / Leave

Times p12 "We can't curb EU migration, admits Corbyn"  , not much about other policy or worker rights. nothing about newspapers.

then p7 Rar-right groups "are inciting hate" on social media

( excuse me, could there be some reporting on newspapers as such or even those print journalists with a Twitter account? just a suggestion)

Guardian similar to Mirror, nothing about Corbyn I can find. Mostly about Cameron

-------

come back to this to expand and comment later. Assume next week Andrew Marr will again ask the question why Labour failed to make the Remain case. Is Jeremy Corbyn to blame? Could it be that whatever he has to say some media will just ignore it?

Sky News tonight, should be on YouTube quite soon I hope.

No explanation yet on how Channel 4 came to block the Corbyn channel from using his own words. I suggest great care before going on a chat show. Your own phone direct to YouTube could be more effective.

Is Polly Toynbee being sidelined?

Is Polly Toynbee being sidelined?

Just a curious question to put in a blog and see what feedback there might be, or just notes for when something turns up.

In the pause after the murder of Jo Cox I tweeted a link to a comment from Polly Toynbee. She wrote about the ugly mood and the role of named politicians. As far as I know this has not appeared in print and there have since been other opinions about the dangers of making comments too soon or without enough information till after legal restrictions are lifted. I have not come across any updated or revised comment from Polly Toynbee and I notice she was not invited to the Sunday Politics with Andrew Neil.

This may have been just by chance but the panel this week seemed to be less balanced than usual , Telegraph / Sun / FT , and there was comment against suggesting any link between the murder motives and public debate.

I also watched Dateline London on BBC News channel and was surprised at the comments by Alex Deane. He defended the UKIP poster and approach and claimed that criticism of this was based on a lack of understanding for working class views. My impression is that panel discussion on TV is getting less like professional analysis and more like a jumble of views that can be claimed as a sort of balance. It is good for a blogging site to be included but the time allowed should be kept in proportion. I would have like to hear more from Marc Roche of Le Point.

Sun editorial today

We acknowledge that some on the fringes of this debate have unjustly targeted migrants for crude political advantage.

But the vast majority of people who will vote Leave this week want a kind, caring, inclusive society -  yet face unfair accusations of bigotry and intolerance from Remainers.

Could there be some investigation of the role of print journalism in how this came about? What used to be known as Fleet Street seems to stick together in terms of the questions that can be asked. TV mostly accepts the news agenda.

I probably will buy copoies of the Guardian for the rest of this week but may have to wait for comment on media. And I may find Polly Toynbee only by looking online.

Next post based on Jeremy Corbyn , Andrew Marr show.

update, more later about YouTube

This is just a bit longer than a tweet. Watched BBC1 and ITV this morning. Will check later for what clips turn up on YouTube.

I will concentrate on Jeremy Corbyn. Not just because he makes sense but because the media treatment is most interesting. Andrew Neil panel missed his remarks about the role of the press and right wing take on immigration. Janet Daley concerned about too easy links of events and press content. Presumably more later when the facts are established and not subject to legal obscurity. Andrew Neil's Twitter feed not yet reflecting any recent updates but he must be busy. It will be interesting to see how this develops in the next few days.

Has Jeremy Corbyn negotiated the rights to be on YouTube?

This blog is concentrating for the next few days on the nitty gritty of how the media is working out, at least the bits I come across. During the week I was told about Jeremy Corbyn on the The Last Leg and then found it on catch up. Later I found several extracts on YouTube. the official ones seem to have concentrated on the funny bits and the odd dress sense. The bit in the middle where he says what he thinks about the EU was only available for a short time on the Jeremy Corbyn channel. Then it was taken down by Channel 4. Now I guess it has been deleted. Can't find it on his page. So this screenshot is from the archive.

My guess is that Jeremy Corbyn has found it hard to get his message across, not because he has not got a message, but because some media do not want to allow him much space. Possibly he went on this sort of show as one of the available options. It is also possible he just has a sense of fun and enjoyed the occasion, I am now drifting off into BBC balance when no facts are obvious. Anyway I doubt if he imagined before the event that he would not be able to use his own words on his own channel.

Unless schedules are changed it is likely Jeremy Corbyn will be on the Andrew Marr show tomorrow and on Sky News Monday evening. Possibly there will be official clips on YouTube anyway. Possibly unofficial clips will appear. But I am just interested whether Jeremy Corbyn has any rights in how they get promoted or hidden.

Then there is Andrew Neil and his wonderful panel. Can this be turned into clips for comment? I am still a bit puzzled on what in general it is that Jeremy Corbyn has not yet contributed. He is sometimes supposed to lack enthusiasm for putting the Remain case. Followers on Twitter will know he has been consistent. Is he supposed to just support Cameron? Corbyn  can reasonably claim that the Cameron case has been limited to the market and includes too many fantasy facts or at least claims that some people find unconvincing. I will wait and see how this works tomorrow and not speculate on what the criticism of Corbyn will be this time. But I remain interested in how it transfers to YouTube.

Pause Mode

The murder of Jo Cox has changed the scene more or less completely. Continuing a blog is not the most obvious response, except that politics never stops and this was one aspect of her life.

I am not going into much detail or raising any new issues. Except to mention that if the dangers of social media can be included in the discussion it is reasonable to also query the role of print journalism.

Yesterday I did a couple of tweets, one to welcome the Guardian website quoting Jeremy Corbyn in full for once, and one to link to Polly Toynbee.  I was surprised to find her words were not in the print version of the Guardian though there was some opinion about not rushing to conclusions. This was before the statement in court that has just been reported. Looking at Twitter also finds the suggested news story is from the Independent with views about how extremist views are legitimised. I will come back to this later when things are a bit more clear.

Meanwhile I will concentrate on video and television. In particular Jeremy Corbyn and how his messages may be filtered.

Instant Rave Update

Watching BBC News around PM Question Time. Corbyn states Labour would not support an austerity budget from Osborne assuming 50 Tory rebels. Norman Smith says this is surprising as Corbyn "supposed to be on the same side" and being "not exactly helpful".

Maybe this explains the sort of enthusiasm Corbyn is supposed to have shown according to the BBC and other comment sources. Should be have backed every Cameron alarm and / or statistic?

Meanwhile I still can't see what Alistair Darling has got out of sharing a platform with Osborne. No distinct Labour message is getting through. but Corbyn seems to be allowing a variety of choices.

I still think the return to Cameron and Osborne upfront could turn out to be a mistake. Not much time to allow a Corbyn presentation as such.

Huffington Post in Guardian role to work with Telegraph and YouTube

Last night there was an EU Debate on YouTube linked to the Huffington Post and the Telegraph. Both websites had comment options and staff reporting. I found a lot of interest on Twitter.

Before the last election there was a proposal for a YouTube debate organised by the Telegraph and the Guardian. I don't think this ever happened. Not sure why the Huffington Post has taken over the Guardian role. Maybe they work with YouTube in the USA. Maybe they are building enough audience to convince the Telegraph they are a suitable partner in moving online. Personally I find the Huffington Post has a wider range of views while the Guardian sometimes fits the news reporting around the views of star columnists. Gradually if other people get the same impression they lose the basis of hosting a debate.

The Huffington Post has started to upload clips and the Telegraph has a two minute edit ( from 90 ) so the space for comments is there. there are many other YouTube clips that together compare well tith television in my opinion.

By the way, I thought Liz Kendall made an effective case about worker rights and the positive reasons for Remain. I still think the media treatment of Corbyn is a concern and of interest in itself. But just considering the next ten days if Liz Kendall is one of the few people the media will allow live on camera then I hope the clip of record will soon appear on YouTube.

Instant Rave

This blog is wandering off from being a sort of study of how Fleet Street is coping. It must be obvious I have my own bias. This morning not good so far so here is a rave jumble ahead of a calm post coming up.

I bought a Guardian and a Mirror to check the reporting of Jeremy Corbyn speech yesterday. Both have switched to Osborne as the main story. Only the Mirror has any direct quote from what Corbyn said, at the bottom of an inside page.

So the apparent backing off from Cameron and a window for a Labour case has lasted just a couple of days.

On 7 June Polly Toynbee wrote about there "still being time for hope"  in persuading against Brexit but she only mentioned Jeremy Corbyn towards the end -

Will enough Labour people get out there, making the case? Jeremy Corbyn’s contribution has been more saboteur than saviour, dismissing the remain case as “histrionic”, “myth-making”, “prophecies of doom”.

No mention of his arguments based on worker rights or the environment. There has been similar selective quoting by Andrew Neil. The question seems to be why Corbyn has not supported Cameron. or shared a platform. It seems to me quite reasonable for Corbyn to say that the Cameron case is not one he shares, it has not been presented well, the facts are open to question, and the scare direction has had a negative effect.

I still can't work out what Alistair Darling has got involved in. He is sharing a platform maybe but not getting much billing. The on the Today program he was not mentioned till the question came up of how Osborne would get his alarming budget through parliament with 50 Tory rebels. I have turned off the radio while writing this so make your own enquiries how this turns out.

My guess is that there was a Remain panic at the end of last week or at least a look at the polls and a decision Labour could be useful to the Remain case. But two days is not very long, especially if the newspapers ignore what is being said. I can't see how Labour will choose to stay with Osborne.

Still time for the Guardian and other media to report Corbyn directly for what he has to say. Bujt this simple option seems very unlikely.

Brexit Fleet Street doing a wonderful job

Time to catch up on some notes and jottings. Main conclusion is that the Brexit press is winning and this is largely because they are doing well at journalism as it now functions. More below on attitudes to facts and the Guardian in detail.

But recent examples are the Sun on Sunday coverage of Jeremy Corbyn and the Daily Express today refuting Cameron on pensions. The BBC Radio 4 8 o'clock press review featured the Sun report and this could easily be explained because it is interesting. There may not be an anti Corbyn bias as such in the way the TV works. I keep an open mind. They just follow a news agenda set by the print media because this is still influential and has skill in launching stories.

More later on facts. I happen to think the Sun basis is a bit shaky when it comes to facts. "The party's leader, a lifelong Eurosceptic, acts as if he would rather do anything else than campaign." That is the editorial on page 16. Report on page 11 includes nothing of what was said, the critique of the scare approach from Cameron or the importance of worker rights and the environment. But the photo is striking and the "cringeworthy" is inserted quickly. The actual show is still available on catchup, maybe skip 20 minutes if you just want to hear Jeremy Corbyn directly.

"Fury at PM's Pension threat" as Daily Express headline is followed up with Farage quotes on "blackmail" , "terrify" etc.  The website seems to have moved on already but try to get a print copy of the Express. Full of confidence.

By contrast the Guardian seems confused on what to make the main point. They are still reluctant to quote Corbyn directly so mostly support Cameron and are surprised that Labour is not backing Remain on the same basis. I am looking at the Observer and Guardian as one thing so here is Andrew Rawnsley from Sunday

Some Labour MPs cast the blame on journalists for failing to give them the means to convey their messages to the electorate. For once, I have a bit of sympathy with politicians complaining about the media. A useful study from Loughborough University calculates that Labour voices have been present in less than 4% of TV coverage of the campaign. It also finds that not a single Labour figure has made the top 10 of most frequently reported politicians. The press is a law unto itself, but the broadcasters are under an obligation to give fair airtime to the principal party of opposition.

OK so the press is a law unto itself, the only redress could be when the readers give up paying out money.  If the Remain problem is the Labour voters and Cameron has cleared the way for Labour to have more priority, what will be the evidence for this?

Guardian today has report that Brown will "lead the charge" but no report of Corbyn on Channel 4. Matthew d'Ancona writes about "making a terrible mistake" but nothing about the Labour case or worker rights. 

The Times reports that Corbyn will speak tomorrow. It will be interesting if the Guardian reports anything. They have their own ideas on who should be leader of the Labour Party and report on those they are in contact with. But if there is concern for the Remain case they might consider a special occasion.

They already have a headline on the letters page " Which party leader should take the blame for a leave vote?" when some might ask "which newspaper has failed as reporting and as opinion?" but this can come later.

The Times also reports Alan Johnson and others writing to the BBC, Sky and ITV about how the Tory psychodrama has obscured other issues. "more focused on the future of the Conservative Party than the future of the country as a whole". Can't find this in the Guardian but they have a point if the 4% figure mentioned by Andrew Rawnsley is correct.

Times also has an editorial on Corbyn as not "credible" . They claim he shows little sign of supporting Remain. This may be based on their own reporting or maybe they read the Guardian.

Meanwhile if you follow Twitter and search on #InCrowd you will find some very clear messages from Jeremy Corbyn that contrast pretty clearly from what is reported.

Strange thing on the Andrew Marr show when he suggested that numbers are just "made up" in an interview with David Cameron. Based on Steve Hilton in the Evening Standard. Apparently he used to make things up so probably this may be so for some of the claims made recently. In the Times today Steve Hilton recalls how he may have been quoted as suggesting that David Cameron is actually in favour of Brexit. there is thjen some backtracking I can't quite follow. So maybe David Cameron is actually not in favour of Remain. The Times editorial suggests the same is true for Jeremy Corbyn just as the Sun continues to claim to know what the Queen thinks even after the IPSO report.

So don't worry too much about facts, just enjoy the journalism.

Trying out Twitter to communicate with Guardian

This blog is going a bit too specific to the Guardian but this is the most surprising scene as far as I can make it out. (The Mail / Mail on Sunday difference is just strange)

Starting with the social media aspect of two chunks of opinion

(For every shrill social media warrior there are dozens of perfectly nice, normal people who backed Corbyn. They’re a lot more fun to ask.)

@gabyhinsliff

The possibility of Brexit could only have happened because of the British press – if there were no other good reason for voting to remain, the hope of denying the press their long-craved triumph on Europe would suffice for me. But Brexit may also happen because of the infantilised and destructively coarse level of debate on social media too.

@martinkettle

This just reminds me about Guardian Unlimited Talk. This was a sort of message board where Guardian readers could contribute. It was destroyed without notice and is never mentioned in the occasional history of the Guardian and social media. If I have this wrong please direct me to some current links.

Gaby Hinsleff explains how the lobby works and how there appears to be a shared view. This is not a conspiracy just an occupational concern to stay close to the movers and shakers. So the failure to report support for Corbyn during the leadership election was an understandable oversight. What concerns me at the moment is the reporting of Corbyn views on the EU referendum.

Martin Kettle in April explained why Corbyn could help the In campaign.

All of which adds up to the extraordinary truth that, for once, Cameron desperately needed Corbyn to rise to the occasion.

Today we are told that Jeremy Corbyn is backward looking and there is an apparent link to his speech on Thursday. But this turns out to be another link to the alleged booing of a journalist.

Could we start with some simple reporting of what Jeremy Corbyn has to say? The news in the paper Guardian has lots on David Miliband who has flown in from New York and probably meets the lobby criteria on who to talk to. But the mention for Jeremy Corbyn is not enough to work out what he said and it comes right at the end.

Martin Kettle view in April probably correct but now is a bit late whatever turns up. It is a fact that the current leader of the Labour Party is Jeremy Corbyn.  There is a limit on how to influence the referendum if he is not reported unless there is some negative invention. The BBC are stuck between Whittington and Osborne , hey only joking this is just a blog of course they cover the whole range of Westminster views.

Journalist opinions are wonderful. I just think the Guardian could go back to reporting.

Research through reading Guardian in print

I did wonder how the Guardian would report the speech by Jeremy Corbyn yesterday. So having spent a couple of pounds to discover I can reveal that the answer is they completely ignored it. Lots about Cameron but all I can find is a letter about the alleged smile on Corbyn's face while the audience protested at the BBC style of reporting. You would have had to be following the Twitter feed and websites to make any sense of this.

So just to recap, editorial yesterday " Too many Labour politicians, from Jeremy Corbyn down, seem too ready to sit on their hands so far", later the same day Corbyn makes speech, Guardian website attempts to make a story out of audience behaviour, then today in print no report of Corbyn speech at all. The only sense this makes is that the Guardian is determined to only report negative stories about Corbyn and to ignore anything else.

They may have complicated calculations about a restructure of the UK political system based on their own discreet conversations with most people in Westminster some of the time. But in the context of the EU debate this is very unfortunate. Cameron is sometimes reported as saying that Corbyn agrees with the In vote. But it is very rare for Corbyn reasons to be reported in any national media such as print or TV. So the debate is a contest in fear with not much positive.

By the way the letter mentions other press titles as if the Guardian were not included. Fleet Street is actually pretty solid in defending the reporting so far as if it is all entirely reasonable.

Huffington Post has space for Corbyn directly. I expect more to develop online but not sure it will be large enough in scale to change the debate.

More about Guardian

I thought I might have been a bit unfair about the Guardian yesterday so have paid more attention today. The print version has a report front page about Tim Roache and GMB concerns about Corbyn failing to make a strong enough case. An editorial shows that the Guardian was aware when this issue went to press that there was a speech intended for today. No mention of this is in the news item. Is it possible the Guardian could ask for some advance information? I very much doubt that relations are so bad this is not an option. They could always speculate on the basis of previous statements.

Today I saw some BBC news in a cafe so have checked the Guardian website

Notice that the Laura Kuenssberg issue is much more obvious than a link to the actual speech. The Guardian has a video clip showing the booing and what strikes me is that this clip also shows that Jeremy Corbyn described his speech as about worker rights. This is something that is not obvious if you follow the link in smaller type just above the video graphic.

He also laid out a series of areas where the EU had brought improvements for Britain, from setting standards for cleaner beaches to protecting workers’ rights. 

He argued that the leaders of Vote Leave would sacrifice those rights if Britain left the EU, saying: “A Tory Brexit negotiation would be a disaster for many working people in Britain.”

These are paragraphs eleven and twelve of the report. The Guardian editorial shows some worry about current polling. It is possible for Brexit to win as younger voters and Labour supporters may not bother to vote. The Guardian might consider whether it is all that likely that Labour will campaign on a Cameron platform with Cameron issues. It may be too late but there is still a case for reporting Corbyn directly for what he has to say.

By the way, I have also looked at why Labour must stop booing the media. I just think it is too late to expect much from the Fleet Street press including the Guardian. The BBC is still not in a position to question the news agenda they set. There is a parallel universe online perhaps, hard though it is to judge the scale.

Guardian still in Fleet Street

I may be beginning to understand where the Guardian is at. I don't buy it every day but am still waiting for some accurate coverage of Jeremy Corbyn. They still don't report his positive views on the EU.

Meanwhile they are finding space for views inside the Conservative Party. Ian Birrell has written about how Cameron could just get rid of the problem Brexit ministers from a new cabinet. So I think the Guardian wants to stay within Westminster. Corbyn mainly relates to supporters in the UK generally. Maybe not so interesting for print journalists. I am not sure how much Guardian income is from talks and courses in King's Cross. Maybe enough to shift the focus towards London. they did cover the joint platform for David Cameron and Sadiq Khan. There was mention of worker rights but not the same case made by Jeremy Corbyn. The Guardian polls put the two sides closer together. Surely there will come a time to report what Jeremy Corbyn actually has to say.

A Twitter search on #InCrowd finds Jeremy Corbyn as top result with a link to the Huffington Post, There is an online scene and then the Fleet Street approach which unfortunately is still setting the news agenda for the BBC and ITV. At the moment I have no idea how to compare the strength of either for voting patterns. I guess turnout could be low as the overall effect of fear on fear is very depressing.