That’s terrible but has zero to do with me.
You're part of a mob telling lies about her.
It's like the murder of Jo Cox, if you keep inciting people by repeatedly making up lies about someone one day some nutter is going to do something about it.
Riiiiiiight.
OK you're just trolling now, I'm done.
It’s hard to draw much else as a conclusion as to why she, amongst damn near every other political journalist, gets singled out.
the conclusion is that she is a tory stooge and part of the propaganda machine knowingly or not
Far more like than because she is female.
the conclusion is that she is a tory stooge and part of the propaganda machine knowingly or not
Far more like than because she is female
So the Torys say she's biased because she's a Tory Stooge?
Or are all the accusations of bias motivated by nefarious motives except yours?
You’re part of a mob telling lies about her.
Oh dear. All we've done is posted up info from the internet, verifiable facts, and now we're 'part of a mob telling lies about her'?
You should take up long jumping as a sport, Donnie.
OOB - there are all ranges of views - but there is no doubt that cummings used Kussenberg to deliver unnattributable briefings and that she us far too cosy with an uncritical of the Tories for a supposed impartial journalist.
Its obvious
All we’ve done is posted up info from the internet, verifiable facts,
Claiming she was singing with Gove when in fact she was at a sone kind party with load of other journos is intended to mislead to the point where it's a lie.
Claiming she was singing with Gove when in fact she was at a sone kind party with load of other journos is intended to mislead to the point where it’s a lie.
Except that the only person making such a claim, is Dominic Penna, who as far as I know, isn't on this forum. So perhaps it's better to direct your ire at him, rather than making false accusations against us.
And maybe just step away and occupy yourself with something more positive instead. Because this is unedifying.
there is no doubt that cummings used Kussenberg to deliver unnattributable briefings
I was watching those tweets as they were sent and they were fine. In fact I'm pretty sure I started following her on Twitter then *because* she was giving their (evolving!) version(s) of events, I bet I wasn't the only one that day.
It didn't show Cummings in a favourable light - quite the opposite so if she hadn't shared what she was being told you'd be accusing her of concealing information from the heart of the story.
I'm damn sure that if anyone from any party told her newsworthy stuff she'd do the same.
In this case even without attributes it was clear where it was coming from, we all know what "sources close to" means.
And it was being retweeted by credible journos. Are they biased too? Or was it just newsworthy stuff that everyone wanted to know.
There's none so blind...
I'm kinda tired of "an anonymous source said..." If you can't name your source then put your own reputation on the block: "... and I believe this to be true."
Beyond that we're spiralling dangerously close to Daily Mail "asking a question" headline material. "Does curry powder cause cancer?" No, of course it doesn't, but the genie's out of the bottle and your readers are wondering now.
I remember when journalists used to investigate news rather than regurgitate something someone said in the pub, or flat out make shit up. Different times.
I’m kinda tired of “an anonymous source said…” If you can’t name your source then put your own reputation on the block: “… and I believe this to be true.”
100pc agree with that.
Except instead of 'believe' they should actually check.
...but are us punters willing to pay for that thoroughness these days?
If you can’t name your source then put your own reputation on the block: “… and I believe this to be true.”
I think it needs separating out into the different types of anonymous source which comes down to those whistleblowing vs those pushing the corporate/government line.
An anonymous source reported company x was sacrificing children.
vs
A anonymous source at company x hq said this was incorrect and they only sacrificed consenting adults.
Allowing the latter to push the narrative they want without actually having to attach names to it makes it easier for them to discard the defence once inconvenient/proved to be utterly false. Whereas if you have press officer a then next time they sprout some lies any good journalist can prefix it with "just to remind you last time they got caught sacrificing children the excuse was it was only baby rabbits"
Peter Oborne has written a fair amount on the subject.
I think it needs separating out into the different types of anonymous source which comes down to those whistleblowing vs those pushing the corporate/government line.
An anonymous source reported company x was sacrificing children.
vs
A anonymous source at company x hq said this was incorrect and they only sacrificed consenting adults.
Nope. Either of those claims could be wrong or even both. You have to actually check.
You have to actually check.
As far as you can, yes. However I see no reason to allow the latter to be anonymous at all. its pretty much the PR department hiding from responsibility and so, even if true, they should be putting their name to it.
For the whistleblower though there is a legitimate reason to be anonymous.
Is this the same Ms Keunssberg who has the distinction of being the only Political Editor (so far) to be censured by the BBC Trust for a lack of impartiality? That one? That some of our number think is not biased.
Source, https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/18/bbc-trust-says-laura-kuenssberg-report-on-jeremy-corbyn-was-inaccurate-labour
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, maybe it's a duck.
In its finding the Trust also said that there was no evidence of bias or of intent on the part of the senior BBC journalist