Laura Kuenssberg Meet Barbra Streisand 730


Over 30,000 people within two days had signed an old languishing petition against the Tory bias of Laura Kuenssberg. They were motivated by outrage at the undisguised bias of her election night coverage, though that bias had already been evident daily.

For 35,000 people to be outraged enough to seek out and sign an online petition, millions must have felt that outrage. But the real furore started after 38 Degrees cancelled the petition due to “sexist abuse”. Unfortunately for them, they were forced to admit there was virtually no sexist abuse from the 35,000 people who had signed the petition. They next claimed the sexist abuse was on unrelated social media, but refused point blank to present any evidence of it. Then an extraordinary group started to coalesce in defence of Kuenssberg – Laura Bates, Yvette Cooper, Jess Phillips etc – all of them denouncing this widespread sexist abuse. Not one of these people produced a single shred of evidence of the existence of this sexist abuse.

Probably some abuse is there. I am a much, much less well known figure than Kuenssberg, but since I started writing on this topic I have been the subject of numerous extremely unpleasant tweets and facebook messages. Please note the same epithet applied to Kuenssberg would undoubtedly be claimed as misogynist abuse:

Screenshot (30)

I have cropped this to protect the identity of the sender, but I assure you it is perfectly real and not at all unusual. (This is actually sexist on my part as if it were a man I would not have cropped it. I can only ask you to forgive me, I am old). I am sure Kuenssberg, being vastly more famous, gets more abuse than I do. But the fact either of us receives abuse does not mean we are above criticism. The young woman tweeting above being unpleasant is not evidence I am right about anything. Still less does it mean criticism of me should be suppressed.

To say that abusers “hijacked” the petition criticising Kuenssberg for her terrible biased journalism, is like saying your car is hijacked by an insect landing on it.

But the extremely cheerful news is that the furore caused by 38 Degrees removing the petition has meant that tens of millions more people have heard of the petition, than if it had gone ahead. David Cameron standing up in the House of Commons saying Kuenssberg is not biased in itself will have made a million people realise that she is. Laura Kuenssberg, meet Barbra Streisand. The “Streisand Effect”, named after the actress’ attempt to suppress photos of her mansion, is the internet phenomenon whereby attempts to suppress information lead to far more people knowing it.

In this case, that is really important. Because what has struck me the last few days is the number of people who are saying “Wow, I thought she was pretty biased, but I thought it was just me.” No, it wasn’t just you. She really is the most appalling Tory shill. And now tens of millions more people are alert to it.

The Establishment, by its attempt to invent a “Misogynist campaign” and link it to Jeremy Corbyn, has just shot itself squarely in the foot.

You might enjoy this interesting word analysis of the comments of the 38 Degrees petition. The comments themselves can still be found from here. It should be understood that 35,000 people signed, but the large majority only sign and do not leave comments.

count [607052]


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

730 thoughts on “Laura Kuenssberg Meet Barbra Streisand

1 2 3 5
  • Scott Cameron

    Her stance is rather baffling when you consider her incestuous links the British Labour in Scotland, unless she’s working in the interests of a Blairite insurrection.

    • craig Post author

      I think the only really baffling thing is that the Red Tories and Blue Tories haven’t come together. Either the Blairites will one day get the Labour Party back, or they will leave and join the Tories. Whichever seems to them the best career bet.

  • O Lucky Man!

    Your graphic actually overstates the only word it is possible to construe as a mildly sexist pejorative, “cow”, there are only two real references, one from a man, the other a woman, the third comes up as part of the word Moscow…!

    Incredible that they are trying to get away with this. As if they are beginning to view the whole country as an infant school. Beyond the de-riguer bullshitting, the establishment is disturbingly evidencing all the signs of a growing regressive dissociative disorder.

      • Dobbo

        Thanks, giyane, but I can’t claim credit for the artistry. I just pasted the comments column from the 38degrees text file into Wordle.net. It renders the wordcloud automatically, with the relative frequency of each key word represented by size. Simples!

        Wordle is very good for highlighting the main themes in any text. This is a perfect instance.

    • fred

      It’s a Scottish term, originally describing youths who take magic mushrooms it got used to describe the more fanatical and irrational on both sides of the independence debate.

      • DerekM

        I have never heard that one before Fred it might be true in certain areas you know what we Scots are like we like to take language and expand its meaning,i always thought it was to do with being a spaceman zooming to the moon ie a zoomer but it might have come as you say from magic mushrooms ,very interesting thanks 🙂

        Its quite hard to track down the origin of some of our more colourful words lol

  • Ba'al Zevul

    This will depress you:

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/11/laura-kuenssberg-petition-sexist-bullies-38-degrees

    The story now being that some of the signatories also expressed themselves more robustly on ‘social media’, and that 38 Degrees couldn’t live with themselves. Still no evidence whatever. And a judgement call on whether abuse is sexual or just abuse is left hanging.

    Assuming 38 identified the miscreants (how? Did they all use the same nick on both sites? Even if they did, were they the same people or impostors?), the evidence is that only three 38 signatories used a term remotely sexist, and that on the 38 site the rest confined themselves to criticism of the biased report. So 38 had nothing whatever to blame itself for. It’s in effect blaming itself because it took a taxi, and the next customer to hail it threw up on the driver.

      • Neil

        Ba’al, blame me for that “Moscow”, inflating the misogyny by 50%.

        Very glad to see my comment getting some extra publicity!

  • DomesticExtremist

    When dealing with such deceitful and manipulative types as Ms Kuenssberg and the Blairite die hards, especially those of the sisterhood’s social justice warriror clan, being called ‘c*nt of the day’ is actually a compliment.

  • Courtenay Barnett

    To: ” Cunt of the day”

    A phrase I have never heard before and a rather interesting one too.

    I find it odd that a supposed feminist supporter would use such a turn of phrase as a derisory and insulting remark.

    Me – never had any dispute and/or disapproving argument with that part of a lady’s anatomy; much to the contrary I actually have always heartily approved of same.

  • Dave Price

    “To say that abusers “hijacked” the petition criticising Kuenssberg for her terrible biased journalism, is like saying your car is hijacked by an insect landing on it.”

    Bravo!

    I feel that should be carefully edited to 140 characters, tweeted and re-tweeted…

  • YouKnowMyName

    great crowd-analysis, also just heard confirmation of Streisand effect on bbC Radio4 t.W.AT.one (I think that’s how they abbreviate it?)

    cue BBC droid inteviewing ‘safe’ VIPs about the ‘new’ charter to replace the fading royal one. . .

    one of the VIPs explained to the presenter that “he’d heard that the people were currently upset about recent BBC bias against Corbyn,”
    this floored & astonished the tWATone presenter (whos gender I couldnt identify other than ‘cleared & on-message’) who said that this was an extraordinary statement especially as this particular Veep was recently on the BBC board. . .

    He nicely persisted, just re-affirming that that is what the ppl are saying. . .bias. . .

    • Ba'al Zevul

      Accidentally highlighting the suspicion that the reason the BBC’s been tying itself in ethical knots the last few months is that the charter renewal was coming, and the Tories needed to be kept sweet.

    • YouKnowMyName

      that V.I.P. guest providing the surprising accurate world view on the world at one flagship news was the former Chairman of the BBC trust, Sir Michael Lyons. . .

      I presume he won’t be on the Meejah show on R4 later today discussing the bbc’s charter/trust/board/lodge & B I A S

  • Paul Bancroft

    As an expat, I am often told by locals that the bbc is something to be grateful for. Indeed, it is held up by many as a bastion of free speech and impartiality – justification for this point of view is frequently supported by phrases such as “look at all the great programs they make! Our state broadcaster would never produce Monty Python”. Lamentable

  • N_

    I’m trying to stay away from here, but please have a good look at Lucy Allan, the MP who asked David Cameron the question about the Kuenssberg petition.

    Allan has on a number of occasions been accused of dishonesty. Notably, she was exposed a few months ago as having faked a Facebook death threat against herself.

    On that occasion, she admitted the fakery but she didn’t apologise for it. Instead, she poured hatred on people who were motivated by disgruntlement at not getting the MP they wanted. (Click here for the video statement in which she shows zero real remorse. My interpretation of the statement about people not getting the MP they wanted is that she is thumbing her nose at her constituents and saying she can act however she wants, and if they’ve got a problem with that, they can eff off. See also here: Telford MP Lucy Allan defends adding death threat.)

    Prior to that, she was once suspended and then sacked from her job at an investment trust after she was caught plagiarising. (See for example here).

    Since she appears to think that when she gets exposed acting in a dirty way then the fault must always be someone else’s, you have to wonder whether Wandsworth Council may have been right to form the opinion that she neglected her infant son and was an unfit parent.

    As well as faking documents and plagiarising, she also has a record of bullying her staff. After becoming an MP, she repeatedly phoned an employee who was off sick for 4 weeks, demanding that the employee phone her, and calling her “pathetic”. (See here and here.)

    (Other articles: here, here, here, here, and many other places.)

    The Evening Standard got hold of a tape of a conversation between Allan and her staffer:

    “Ms Plumbly, 26, managed constituency case work after the election but claims the MP turned on her.”

    “She said the relationship descended into a series of bruising confrontations and she had to be signed off work by a doctor.”

    “In a call heard by the Standard, Ms Allan flies into a rage at the staffer, telling her repeatedly to ‘shut up’ as she learns that Ms Plumbly has been signed off.”

    “In a mocking, child-like voice, the MP mimics her employee, saying: ‘ “I’ve got nausea” — you don’t not turn up for nausea. What planet are you on?’ “

    She adds: ‘By the way, if you think you can go to some sort of tribunal you’ve got to think about your benefits here Arianne.’

    When the staffer says she doesn’t want benefits, Ms Allan shouts: ‘Then work, you silly girl.’ “

    You can check out the question she asked David Cameron about the Kuenssberg petition, and what he said in reply, here.

    She basically said that celebrities (those in “public life”) should have a right to say stuff without dirty filth from lower down the opinion chain expressing what they think about it. The woman appears to suffer from extreme contempt and disregard for other people, especially people she employs or whom she is supposed to represent, or who have complained about her vicious behaviour, and from a virulent hatred of people who publicly expose her nasty, vicious, dishonest and lying actions. Yes folks, meet a Tory MP.

    She’s only been an MP for a year, for Telford, where she has a majority of 730. I doubt that those who consider MPs for appointment to the government’s official payroll would view her as having the personality required for a job. If they gave her a post, she’d probably have half a dozen complaints made about her in the first month, for lying, faking and bullying.

    I bet she’s a right slurper to those who are higher up than herself, though. We all know the type.

    As for David Cameron – or his scriptwriter – the words of his reply to Allan in the Commons were chosen very carefully. I was hoping for a clear case of his having factually misled the House. I was wondering whether those who want to pursue this might be able to get a response from Commons Speaker John Bercow or something like that. Or ask David Cameron to repeat what he said outside of the Commons where he doesn’t enjoy parliamentary immunity. But sadly that doesn’t seem like a goer. Of course he did mislead the Commons, but most of it was between the lines. Anyway, people can have a look to see what they think.

    • Ba'al Zevul

      I’m wondering if it’s so much Barbra Streisand Syndrome as Louise Menschopathy in Lucy Allan’s case. And at risk of misogyny*, what we’re being shocked by as never before, is the rise of the alpha female. Which is just as psychopathic as the alpha male, but has a different methodology.

      *boldly going where no man has gone before…

      • bevin

        George Katsiafikas in Counterpunch:
        “…In my lifetime, I have seen feminism turned into opposite: from a set of beliefs that promised women wouldn’t rule – – couldn’t rule – – with the violence and brutality of men into the notion that women should play the same combat roles as men, that women should be just as tough in the corporate boardroom and rule with more efficiency and less sentimentality in a system of worldwide immiseration and alienation…”

        • Mulga Mumblebrain

          bevin, the Right took over feminism, as they have everything, and, naturally, perverted it and turned it into a caricature of itself. That’s what the Right do, and in doing so they ironically created real ‘feminazis’, instead of imaginary ones, ie real feminists with none of the attributes of fascists. As with all these Rightwing takeovers, it has been assiduously assisted by the Rightwing MSM, and attracted the real dross.

    • Chris Rogers

      N,

      She really is a right CnuT, and if any one calls me a misogynist for shouting out what this reptile really is, I’ll bite their heads off – facts really are sacred with me and I’m proud that many here feel the same way. Time for honesty and calling out the buggers for what they really are, one thing they are not is ‘nice’, ‘decent’ and ‘honest’.

      • Mulga Mumblebrain

        I often felt that Cnut was useful as a reference to climate change denialists attempting to hold back the rising seas, but for creatures like K. surely there is a rich lexicon of ‘non-gendered’ terms of description available, say ‘turd’, a lovely old word, or ‘bleb’, ‘pustule’, ‘malevolence’ etc. Ghoul, too. It is not just acceptable to despise human malice-it is mandatory. ‘Good manners’ can go to the Devil.

  • Republicofscotland

    The “discrimination” approach is really just a diversionary tactic, that goes all the way up to the top in the shape of David Cameron.

    One offensive comment (of which I do not condone) has been used by Laura Kuenssberg’s allies as a sledge hammer to break the petition. When the real focus should be on the unmasking of the establishments sheer bias.

    We are the ones that are being discriminated against, we are being fed skewed and distorted information and at times outright lies, by the establishment and its minion lickspittles.

    We shouldn’t let the establishment and the media, twist the story and make it about us, the spotlight must remain on them.

  • Petraco

    All this shows that investigative work and attention to fact can effectively debunk dishonest political claims. Well done, Craig!

    It would be interesting to know who made the first accusation that the Kuenssberg petition was motivated by, and was a vehicle for, sexist abuse. Who initiated the dishonesty and who later joined in on it to exploit it?

    • Shatnersrug

      It’s fantastic! These State “liberal” wallies have not just shot themselves in the foot – they’ve blown their whole leg to stand on off!!!

      Craig is leading the debate and leading the opposition with his little blog and a dogged search for the truth against power!

      He’s worth 10 of the guardian, I’m sharing this everywhere!

  • Noonereally

    This is all horribly addictive, like the early days of Facebook all over again. I notice there are now several petitions calling for She Who Must Not Be Named to be binned – including one on 38-degrees-of-separation-from-stated-purpose. A conscious attempt to divide, conquer and rule? I have half a mind to write to the BBC trust about it, as a matter of fact. Something along the lines of “the licence fee is safe, you’ve got what you wanted – now get a grip!”

    • Republicofscotland

      Noonereally.

      Writing to the BBC Trust, would be akin to writing to David Cameron to complain that Saudi Arabia has British made weapons . ?

  • Mencken

    Full marks again for calling out disingenuous Blairite mendacity. The Guardian and its fellow travellers have tumbled that Identity Politics can be used as a tool to smear Corbyn at one remove – he’s racist, he’s sexist (or at least his supporters are). Tariq Ali too has written in the London Review of Books of how new editor Kath Viner is having her strings pulled by the neocon rearguard that control the Comment pages – manifested yesterday elsewhere in a ludicrous article by Jackie Ashley saying Blair shouldn’t be singled for criticism if he gets it in the neck from Chilcott (why not?). At the root of this there is cognitive dissonance anyway: even if Kuensssberg did receive sexist abuse (and there appears to be little evidence she did), that does not mean she is not grotesquely biased.

  • ExGuardianReader

    Laura Bates, founder of the Everyday Sexism Project, has written an article for The Guardian about the 38 Degrees petition against the Tory bias of Laura Kuenssberg. Here’s a quote from it:

    [i]Posts calling Kuenssberg a bitch, a whore and a slag are not hard to spot on social media. Others refer to her as a cow and a cunt. Some people write that they’d like to kill her. One post included a picture of a scene from Return of the Jedi with Kuenssberg’s face Photoshopped on to that of Princess Leia in the famous gold-bikini scene and David Cameron’s face superimposed on Jabba the Hutt. It describes her as “Cameron’s slave girl”.[/i]

    [url]http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/11/the-laura-kuenssberg-petition-should-be-condemned-not-just-removed[/url]

    The last description is very detailed. It is so detailed you may be able to see the post in your mind’s eye. However, if you want to see it with the eyes in the front of your head you will need to do more work because Laura Bates didn’t provide a link to the post or a screenshot of the post or any other information about the post such as the username of the poster or the name of the social media network on which it was posted. Here’s the paragraph before the one posted about:

    [i]While some have tried to argue that the problem is nonexistent, you don’t have to look very far to find evidence of abusive and misogynistic messages being directed at, or about, Kuenssberg.[/i]

    So even though “you don’t have to look very far” for this evidence and such posts are “not hard to spot on social media” Laura Bates has provided absolutely no evidence to support any of the claims she made in either paragraph. Other parts of the article contain links which supposedly support other claims she makes but she provided no evidence to support the claims she made about social media posts about Laura Kuenssberg on the website of a newspaper which claims that “Comment is free, but facts are sacred” and that routine asks visitors to its website to give it £49 per year to support its journalism.

    The claims Laura Bates made about social media posts about Laura Kuenssberg may be true. However, if they are true then she should be able to provide links to and screenshots of social media posts about Laura Kuenssberg posted before the publication of her article which contain what she described in her article. If she can’t provide links to and a screenshot of the posts she described perhaps she could explain why people shouldn’t conclude that she is a fantasist.

  • Salford Lad

    The Establishment is becoming very unsettled in their propaganda and suppression of truth. First we had the manufactured Anti-Semite HOO-HAA ,which was an attempt to denigrate both the Labour Party and Jeremy Corbyn.
    Now we have the Laura Kuensberg/ 38 degree affair.
    Both have only made the docile public more aware of the maneouverings of the dark forces behind the MSM, and lifted the stone a little to expose the vermin underneath.

  • ExGuardianReader

    Laura Bates, founder of the Everyday Sexism Project, has written an article for The Guardian about the 38 Degrees petition against the Tory bias of Laura Kuenssberg. Here’s a quote from it:

    “Posts calling Kuenssberg a bitch, a whore and a slag are not hard to spot on social media. Others refer to her as a cow and a cunt. Some people write that they’d like to kill her. One post included a picture of a scene from Return of the Jedi with Kuenssberg’s face Photoshopped on to that of Princess Leia in the famous gold-bikini scene and David Cameron’s face superimposed on Jabba the Hutt. It describes her as “Cameron’s slave girl”.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/11/the-laura-kuenssberg-petition-should-be-condemned-not-just-removed

    The last description is very detailed. It is so detailed you may be able to see the post in your mind’s eye. However, if you want to see it with the eyes in the front of your head you will need to do more work because Laura Bates didn’t provide a link to the post or a screenshot of the post or any other information about the post such as the username of the poster or the name of the social media network on which it was posted. Here’s the paragraph before the one posted above:

    “While some have tried to argue that the problem is nonexistent, you don’t have to look very far to find evidence of abusive and misogynistic messages being directed at, or about, Kuenssberg.”

    So even though “you don’t have to look very far” for this evidence and such posts are “not hard to spot on social media” Laura Bates has provided absolutely no evidence to support any of the claims she made in either paragraph. Other parts of the article contain links which supposedly support other claims she makes but she provided no evidence to support the claims she made about social media posts about Laura Kuenssberg on the website of a newspaper which claims that “Comment is free, but facts are sacred” and that routinely asks visitors to its website to give it £49 per year to support its journalism.

    The claims Laura Bates made about social media posts about Laura Kuenssberg may be true. However, if they are true then she should be able to provide links to and screenshots of social media posts about Laura Kuenssberg posted before the publication of her article which contain what she described in her article. If she can’t provide links to and a screenshot of the posts she described perhaps she could explain why people shouldn’t conclude that she is a fantasist.

    • Ba'al Zevul

      She might also explain why she thinks these posts (if they exist) have anything to do with the petition itself. My impression is that Kuenssberg has provoked angry reactions since she was appointed. Someone who bothers with Twitter might be able to give us a timeline, showing (or not) a dramatic rise in trolling just as the petition came to life.

      • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)

        “My impression is that Kuenssberg has provoked angry reactions since she was appointed.”
        _____________________

        I have the feeling you’re onto something there.

        And even before , ie, when she was just a humble BBC TV correspondent eg on Newsnight.

        I would also not entirely rule out sexism as an underlying driver for the criticism she’s been getting (I say that because prominent women Conservatives (whether real or perceived) seem to get a harder time than their male counterparts for reasons you’ll be aware of).

  • Republicofscotland

    “John Whittingdale has laid out sweeping changes to the BBC, with upheavals to the broadcaster’s news output, funding and regulation.

    The culture secretary revealed a raft of measures today, designed to put pressure on the broadcaster to increase its distinctiveness amid criticism that it looked and sounded too much like its TV and radio rivals.

    Here are the 6 sweeping changes – confirmed so far- to what you’ll see on the BBC of the future.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/bbc-white-paper-statement-sees-john-whittingdale-reveal-changes-public-broadcaster-will-face_uk_57346ad4e4b0b11a329e9979?utm_hp_ref=uk&utm_hp_ref=uk

    Trust the Huff to call, them “sweeping changes” they don’t go nearly far enough. The BBC speel spouters will laud the changes, as some sort of mile stone.

      • John Spencer-Davis

        That petition is gaining supporters at a serious rate. I think that is excellent news, because it is a better worded petition and is in my view more likely to actually get somewhere.

      • Republicofscotland

        I’m sitting here thinking “sign” the petition and I have, but in reality what good will it do? What will change? Will Laura Kuenssberg be reprimanded or sacked? Probably not. Will the media become a paragon of parity? Not likely, or will the BBC have a crisis of conscience and go back to being respected all around the world? Really I’m trying not to laugh.

        So what can we do when the media and government play unfair with us? Well looking across Europe we need to take a leaf from the French book. The French actively fight for their rights, and are out like a shot if they feel their government or media are taking liberties.

        http://www.thenational.scot/world/profile-frances-labour-law-unrest.17409

        The problem on this side of La Manche, lies in our inability to challenge the establishment when it’s clearly in the wrong. The French have no problems with blocking roads or protesting into the night as in the Nuit Debout movement that has grown to become a larger entity. Those kind of action worry Hollande and make him think twice.

        Spain’s Indignados and Podemos mobilised against its right wing government and we all know how the people of Greece, let it be known they aren’t going to face extreme austerity. The latter country may even have referendum on a GREXIT, and who could blame them.

        However here in Britain, we tend to bite our stiff upper lip mumble and complain every so timidly, then get the whole bloody incident out of our system, with a pointless social medi comment.

        We should look to the continent, and their active approach (physical) in holding their governments to account.

        • John Spencer-Davis

          I think that something which even remotely gets people involved in and thinking about the political process is a good thing. In my view it does not matter very much if the petition does not get far. If it gets somewhere, well and good. If it does not, people are going to want to know why. Either way is advantageous.

          35,000+ people just got trodden on by the Establishment. Think most of them will forget that? I doubt it. They seem bloody angry about it to me. Little steps; important steps.

          Also, everything that is used to ideologically knock people on the head seems to be backfiring at the moment. I find that deeply encouraging.

  • bevin

    The Establishment is rattled. And not just because it knows that hurricane season is coming.
    It is worried because it has not been so unprepared for about a century, when the Russian revolution changed things utterly.
    We think of Blair as uniquely treacherous, whereas he was really just the last in a line of traitors pretending to oppose the Establishment but actually shoring up its power so that the old Whig vs Tory duopoly was replaced by an equally innocuous Tory vs Labour version of Tweedledee/Tweedledum or Republican/Democrat.
    The Corbyn situation is quite novel. In the first place the Labour Party is no longer dominated by Union block votes and is therefore open to radical reform. Secondly the Labour MPs that are causing trouble and working for Cameron have made the calculation that they are on the winning side, so that, unlike most traitors, they are making no effort to conceal themselves or disown their back stabbing. It is very rare for someone in Corbyn’s position-or to put it more accurately, people in the position in which Labour party members and supporters now find themselves- to have a roughly accurate idea of exactly who the enemies are and where their bases of power lie.
    It’s all rather simple the MPs in question are drunk with the cheap intoxicant of media approval (Jackie Ashley and Polly Toynbee both liked my speech!! I’m sure Laura did too) so their constituents can have no doubt about who is misrepresenting them, wrecking their campaigns, costing them council seats, wasting their time and pissing away their energies. It will show remarkable restraint if the local parties do not de-select them or disown them.
    And that would quickly solve the problem while giving Labour, whether in office or not, for the first time since the 1920s a PLP with a lert wing anti-imperialist pro working class majority. Which, furthermore, is likely to be youthful, energetic, audacious and up for a fight.
    Talking of which the young Irish firebrand Eamon McCann (73) is now heading to Stormont “Neither Orange nor Green but Up for a Fight”, he says.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain

      bevin, you cannot change a capitalist system from within. They own all the levers of real power, the political parties, the MSM, the police, the courts, the religious establishments and the military, and if these all failed, as a last resort Uncle Sam is the ultimate guarantor of parasite rule world-wide. Corbyn was an accident, that they are working furiously to terminate, and they will NEVER cease doing so. These are totalitarians, and Corbyn’s decency and incorruptibility only infuriates them the more. You can see it in Kuessenberg’s undisguised loathing of the man.

  • nevermind

    thanks for that ex Guardian reader.
    So Mrs. Bates, no relation to Norman, believes that she can’t provide the actual evidence from the ‘social media’ to back up her puff piece? Are public comments on social media not public enough for her to publicly back up her puerile piece of drivel? her insinuations accusations of misogyny directed at, ehhem, mostly women on that comment list.

    She ought to be made to apologise for her false allegiance to one, at best, second rate commentator.

    So, what was written on twitter about her, not that it matters, how many people have called her work biased and unprofessional for a chief political commentator?

    Laura has been biased from the word go, imho, but some of you think its only this year, for me her facial expressions when she talks to people give it away every time, she just can’t do unbiased.

    • ExGuardianReader

      That’s okay, nevermind. Here is another quote:

      “In all living things there must be a certain unity, a principle of vitality and growth. It is so with a newspaper, and the more complete and clear this unity the more vigorous and fruitful the growth. I ask myself what the paper stood for when first I knew it, what it has stood for since and stands for now. A newspaper has two sides to it. It is a business, like any other, and has to pay in the material sense in order to live. But it is much more than a business; it is an institution; it reflects and it influences the life of a whole community; it may affect even wider destinies. It is, in its way, an instrument of government. It plays on the minds and consciences of men. It may educate, stimulate, assist, or it may do the opposite. It has, therefore, a moral as well as a material existence, and its character and influence are in the main determined by the balance of these two forces. It may make profit or power its first object, or it may conceive itself as fulfilling a higher and more exacting function.

      I think I may honestly say that, from the day of its foundation, there has not been much doubt as to which way the balance tipped as far as regards the conduct of the paper whose fine tradition I inherited and which I have had the honour to serve through all my working life. Had it not been so, personally, I could not have served it. Character is a subtle affair, and has many shades and sides to it. It is not a thing to be much talked about, but rather to be felt. It is the slow deposit of past actions and ideals. It is for each man his most precious possession, and so it is for that latest growth of time the newspaper. Fundamentally it implies honesty, cleanness, courage, fairness, a sense of duty to the reader and the community. A newspaper is of necessity something of a monopoly, and its first duty is to shun the temptations of monopoly. Its primary office is the gathering of news. At the peril of its soul it must see that the supply is not tainted. Neither in what it gives, nor in what it does not give, nor in the mode of presentation must the unclouded face of truth suffer wrong. Comment is free, but facts are sacred. “Propaganda,” so called, by this means is hateful. The voice of opponents no less than that of friends has a right to be heard. Comment also is justly subject to a self-imposed restraint. It is well to be frank; it is even better to be fair. This is an ideal. Achievement in such matters is hardly given to man. We can but try, ask pardon for shortcomings, and there leave the matter.”

      It is a quote from CP Scott’s essay marking the centenary of the Manchester Guardian which The Guardian has described as “the ultimate statement of values for a free press” and which it claims “continues to underpin the traditions of the Guardian newspaper today”.

      http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2002/nov/29/1

      If The Guardian is true to those values and traditions it should explain why it provided no evidence to support the claims made by Laura Bates about the social media posts about Laura Kuenssberg and especially the post containing the Photoshopped picture. Here’s another quote from CP Scott’s essay:

      “Every year, almost every day, may see growth and fresh accomplishments, and with a paper that is really alive, it not only may, but does. Let anyone take a file of this paper, or for that matter any one of half a dozen other papers, and compare its whole make-up and leading features today with what they were five years ago, ten years ago, twenty years ago, and he will realise how large has been the growth, how considerable the achievement. And this is what makes the work of a newspaper worthy and interesting. It has so many sides, it touches life at so many points, at every one there is such possibility on improvement and excellence. To the man, whatever his place on the paper, whether on the editorial or business, or even what may be regarded as the mechanical side — this also vitally important in its place — nothing should satisfy short of the best, and the best must always seem a little ahead of the actual. It is here that ability counts and that character counts, and it is on these that a newspaper, like every great undertaking, if it is to be worthy of its power and duty, must rely.”

      The Guardian published the Panama Papers and the Snowden Files but it didn’t publish any evidence to support the claims made by Laura Bates about the social media posts about Laura Kuenssberg even though they were supposedly posted on social media websites and “are not hard to spot” and “you don’t have to look very far” to find them. Perhaps the reason why it didn’t publish the evidence is because there isn’t any because the claims are a figment of someone’s imagination, lies created to support a narrative that they want readers to believe. If the claims are genuine then Laura Bates and The Guardian should publish the proof.

      Publish or be damned.

      • nevermind

        Well spoken ex Guardian reader and Chris Rogers. There seems to be no spinal column left at the Guardian and we can’t but watch them slowly sink into the morass of their own making.

        I agree with the conclusion. Publish your evidence Mrs. Bates or be damned. Focus on the quality of our public broadcasters we pay for, not your personal/corporate whimsies.

    • Chris Rogers

      @Nevermind,

      This is what I posted under Bates’s article, its one of the last Comments before the thread was closed and elicited 5o up votes – not bad by Guardian standards. Also there is a good thread going on over at the Independent, and quite a few are referencing Craig Murray’s Blog, among them me, that Article is covering comments by Sir Michael Lyons made on Radio 4 that justify our own concerns.

      Here’s what i had to say:
      RebeccaRiotsXV6 22h ago

      50
      51
      Will Ms. Viner and all Guardian staff associated with the Joe Haydon witch hunt now apologise to Joe and this papers readership for the blatant lies and shoddy journalism undertaken to discredit this young mans Petition.

      Twitter has nothing to do with Joe Haydon, nothing to do with 38 Degrees and nothing to do with the Petition itself. To suggest otherwise and conflate these mediums is nothing more than blatant propaganda.

      Perhaps Ms. Bates can offer her apology first if she has any self respect?

  • John Goss

    I am truly sorry I never saw the original petition because I too (and I suspect tens of thousands more like me) would have signed it.

    Well done Craig for persevering with this important revelation. But we all know just how biased the BBC has become. The man who refused to pay his licence fee was right. I pay it but I’ve stopped watching the main news.

  • John Spencer-Davis

    I just put this up on Facebook. Please consider copying, pasting, and personalising to spread the word as widely as possible. Thanks.

    ——-

    A petition disapproving of the BBC commentator Laura Kuenssberg, due to alleged political bias against the Left, garnered more than 35,000 supporters before it was accused of provoking misogynist behaviour and taken down. Hard evidence of misogynist misuse of the petition is flimsy at best, and only a handful of the nearly 1,000 comments within the petition itself even remotely concerned themselves with Kuenssberg’s gender (several of the most objectionable signed by women). The discrediting and removing of the petition was in my view a deliberate attack upon freedom of speech, using alleged misogyny as an excuse.

    Allegations of BBC bias have recently been supported by Sir Michael Lyons, a former chair of the BBC Trust.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bbc-biased-against-jeremy-corbyn-bbc-trust-chairman-sir-michael-lyons-a7026006.html

    Another petition, in my view better worded, is available here. Please consider signing and sharing. It may not be much, but let’s let the BBC know that we would like it to live up to the impartiality required by its Charter. Thanks.

    https://www.change.org/p/james-harding-director-of-news-and-current-affairs-we-ask-that-the-bbc-review-the-current-political-editor-laura-kuenssberg-s-position

    ——-

      • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)

        fwl

        Surely you wouldn’t be attempting to lead me off-topic, would you?

        Get thee behind me, Satan! 🙂

        • fwl

          Yes, as you know I have expressed some support for Israel because the country permits its own dissent. Maybe I wad wrong.

          • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)

            fwl

            I’ll reply to you because you are polite and not a ranter/obsessive/open-air therapy practitioner. 🙂

            I’ve read the review you linked to and could make a vigorous and, may I say, rather damaging critique of it; but I really do not want discussions to be diverted in that direction. Here’s the deal – please repost your comment plus link next tile there’s a thread on Israel/Palestine or the ME and I’ll give you my response and critique.

            As a taster (and I shan’t reply to any comments to which it might give rise): Israeli NGOs are obliged to declare financial and material support from abroad. Is that really so heinous? The answer is no. Does that obligation impede their operation? The answer is no. Is such an obligation so unique? Again, the answer is no: correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the following applies to UK political parties and their funding: UK publicly quoted companies have to declare political contributions in their accounts; donations in excess of a certain amount received from private individuals have to be declared by political parties; political funding from abroad is forbidden.

            All for now.

    • Chris Rogers

      FWL,

      May I say you are inciting ‘HATE’ by linking to this ‘self hating jew’ material from the NYBooks, and no doubt Freedland, Nick Cohen, Gabby Hinsliff, Mann et.al will be accusing you of ‘antisemitism’ for promoting this rubbish in the UK.

      The above is utilised to demonstrate how debauched honest Journalism has become in our country – indeed, and as I clearly state, many UK media outlets would not run with such an article for fear of upsetting the Friends of Israel who infect much of our Establishment nowadays. Suffice to say, and despite the power of AIPAC in the USA, at least some honesty concerning the brutalisation of Israel itself is allowed and demonstrates clearly, if proof were needed, that many in Israel are as opposed to the injustice the Israeli dishes out daily as its foreign critics are. And as with the foreign critics, they too live with fear, one we can only have nightmares over given presently the worse that can happen to us is twitter death threats of being called an ‘antisemite’.

      I congratulate the author for writing such a chilling account and extend sympathy to both Palestinians and Israeli’s for being treated so badly by a lunatic government that allegedly serves to protect them, well one section of the population at least, whilst carrying out abominations in the name of Jews in the Occupied Territories. Truly awful, but good to see Israeli’s themselves stand up for human rights and peace – so hope exists, a hope the extreme right Israeli Parties desire to extinguish, so lets not let them do so. May peace come to all and the brutality end.

      Many thanks for the link, which made a break from all the crass abuse we have suffered here in the UK these past two weeks.

1 2 3 5