So today, at last, the news media is finally reporting the pretty unsurprising news that Charles Kennedy, leader of the Lib Dems from 1999 to 2006, is not leaving the Lib Dems in 2010.
Now it is of course the silly season, and we can easily write off this journalistic confection as mere desperation to fill some column inches / dead air-time. But actually I think it’s a symptom of a wider malaise in political journalism, its ‘tabloidisation’.
How an unsourced rumour went viral
Let’s go back to Friday afternoon, when the Kennedy defection rumours started circulating, and work out how they came to be the lead story on TV news by Saturday lunchtime.
They first emanated on the Labour-supporting blog, Left Futures, in a story written by Mark Seddon, a journalist with deep Labour roots but not at all plugged into the Lib Dems. The post, Charles Kennedy Considers Defecting To Labour, caused something of a stir on Twitter.
At this point, responsible journalists would have asked themselves a couple of questions:
1) What’s the source for this story?
Mr Seddon’s article refers lazily to “Westminster sources”, with only one even vague attribution (“including one close to Ed Miliband’s Labour leadership campaign”). No-one close to Mr Kennedy, or even within the Lib Dems, is referenced.
Within a couple of hours of the story being re-tweeted, Olly Grender – someone who is well-placed within the Lib Dems as its former communications director – had dismissed it out of hand: “Charles Kennedy rumour re defection is total fiction – a Labour generated silly season story – nice try @Ed_Miliband”.
2) Who stands to benefit from the story?
Any responsible journalist would have considered the different angles to the story, and who would have an advantage in seeing it further circulated.
Mr Kennedy himself would be an obvious possibility: he is known to be unhappy with the Coalition, and so the story has a certain plausibility. However, if he were actually seeking to defect (i) he would not want the story leaked out, and (ii) he would most certainly not want it done through such an obscure channel as Left Futures. Which leaves the possibility that he was attempting to fire a warning shot across the party’s boughs. But, again, if that were his intention why not place an article or interview in one of the Sunday heavyweight newspapers? In other words, there is no logical reason to believe Charles Kennedy could be the source. And clearly the Lib Dems have no reason to spread the rumour, which leaves only one possibility…
Mischief-making by Labour, whether directly connected to Ed Miliband’s campaign or another leadership contender’s. This seems to be by far the most likely explanation, especially as the official party also was willing to go on the record to laugh off the possibility, and that Charles Kennedy himself contacted Nick Clegg by email to rubbish it. Responsible journalists would at the very least have asked the ‘who benefits?’ question, and reflected it in their reporting of the situation.
Incidentally, if it did come from Ed Miliband’s campaign, it seems a peculiarly ill-judged move. Mr E. Miliband has succeeded in looking like he enjoys spreading rumours and playing games while simultaneously antagonising Lib Dems; he should leave such tactics to Ed Balls, if he doesn’t want to gain the same tainted reputation. And if it came from his campaign team and wasn’t personally authorised by him, that strikes me as a worryingly chaotic state of affairs.
As far as I can make out, no journalist thought about asking these two vital questions: who’s the source and who benefits from the story. If they did, it certainly wasn’t apparent from their highly speculative reports.
Why not? Because it fitted with the news media’s current meme that the Lib Dems are on the point of collapse. Again, the evidence for this is patchy. Party membership is on the up, The Voice’s surveys of party members show high levels of satisfaction, and our poll ratings are at their usual summer levels.
That’s not to deny the difficulties the party is currently experiencing, which the news media is perfectly entitled to report. But the job of responsible journalism should be to present an accurately balanced picture, not simply to see if it can self-justify its own negative spin.
The long-term problem for journalism
This is, in Mr Kennedy’s own words, simply “the silliest of silly season stories”, one which will soon blow over, and be forgotten. But it points again to a news media which has forgotten its purpose – to question, to challenge, to analyse: to help citizens make sense of the world they live in.
This should worry journalists, whether they represent the most downmarket tabloid news outlets (like the Sun, Mail and Sky News), or the more upmarket ones. As my colleague Mark Pack points out, journalism which loses the trust of its audience is not a sustainable business model.
What the Kennedy defection rumours point to is a news media which is mistaking reporting for re-tweeting. Time for journalists to get back to basics.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
11 Liberal Democrat MPs vote for registrars to be exempt from marrying same sex couples
The Sun story about Chris Huhne that was a total invention (and which the other papers happily copied)
How Liberal Democrat MPs voted on same sex marriage amendments
Opinion: Why Lib Dems should support the Referendum on the EU – and let’s have it before 2015
Same sex Marriage: another Liberal Democrat victory
Baroness Judith Jolly writes: new Social Care Bill focuses on people not systems
Opinion polls yadda yadda. OR “Does Nate Silver mean nothing to you? Did he write in vain?”
Mike Crockart MP writes… Reducing reoffending and cutting crime
Opinion: Lib Dem MPs: Vote for equality, human rights and love today
Why America's economy is recovering and Europe's isn't
All hail to the Chair!
That Rings a Bell
Liberal Democrats continue to push for Greener, Fairer, Stronger Economy for Lancashire
Failure at the top of Medway Council Cabinet
The Blood is The Life 22-05-2013
A week in the life of a councillor - a very personal view
Why is a Tory Chancellor skewering the middle class?
Wordless Wednesday
20mph Average Speed Cameras
Matthew Huntbach
Geoffrey Payne
Chris_sh
54 Comments
It didn’t originate at Left Futures, it originated at “Big Think”, though with the same text and the same author. BBC ran the story as “Charles Kennedy ‘not defecting’ to Labour” yesterday, so it’s a bit dishonest to try and claim that they’re belatedly saying it.
I can’t find a BBC article saying that he was defecting, as far as I can see the story first popped up on the BBC as a denial of the rumours- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11046733
Sad news anyway, would have loved Charles Kennedy in the party.
The Media cant keep up the “Libdems imploding” meme for ever. Sooner or later they will get bored & look for a new angle. My guess is that Labour will be the next victim, probably in The Spring when the new Leaders newness has worn off.
Of course the LibDems are always scrupiously honest about the stories they place with the media? Anyway glad to to see you are working yourself to a lather about this, while ignoring the abolition of the FCO report on human rights. Apart from making up the numbers for the Tories what is the point of the LibDems in the coalition if you cannot at least make some show of resisting such retrograde measures.
Funny that it is only now that LibDems complain loudly about ‘tabloidisation’ of political news. The LibDems have been among the beneficiaries of it. I have to laugh at your ‘back to basics’ remark.
You ask who benefits from circulating the rumour. You forgot to include your coalition partners. haven’t you wondered how every time Clegg is at the helm, the press turns negative. coincidence? The LibDems may be past masters at dirty tricks campaigns, on a local basis. You have absolutely no idea just how expert your Tory partners are at it, on the major national scale.
You have much more to fear from them, than you could ever have from Labour.
Nonsense, the LibDems never have said summat like “Vote for Change” without explaining what this is, or rode on the crest of a wave from a smooth talking leader on some televised debate (rode it backwards in terms of seats) who now tells mere voters to pipe down.
Who is Mark Seddon? The next Alistair Campbell? He wrote a mediocre blog piece (which couldn’t even get right either CK’s constituency or the name of the constituency he thought CK represented), and Twitter picked-up on it because the LibDem leadership didn’t think they needed to explain thinks to hoi polloi (an e-mail from CK for goodness sake!).
Twitter is not journalism. Blogging is not journalism. What’s emerging about the events leading up to David Kelly’s death is potentially far more damaging to journalism than this (in the same way the damage to public trust in politicians who make a 180o turn on VAT in a matter of weeks when votes no longer are required is more damaging to that estate).
@jayu
I recall many complaints over the years from the Lib Dems about how the media acts. We haven’t suddenly started thinking it could do a better job. Anyone who’s gone to a lib dem conference knows how little connection to reality the reporting of the conference has.
As for the ‘dirty tricks’, unsurprisingly this is my experience of how both Labour and the tories act (and Plaid Cymru). I’ve seen far worse from labour than anyone else in local elections. Labour runs dirty campaigns in my experience (mostly hackney of course). Anecdotal evidence of course, but I’ve always laughed when accusation fly on this. Especially when I found out opposition members think trying to convince voters to vote for you is negative campaigning…
A typo: “Which leaves the possibility that he was attempting to fire a warning shot across the party’s boughs.”
I thought it was the Tories who had a tree as their logo? I think you mean “bows” (as in of a ship).
I think your diagnosis of deep problems in journalists’ attitude towards political stories is spot on. It’s time the traditional media (especially newspapers) evolved to meet what their consumers expect of them, or go extinct.
“Party membership is on the up”
How ironic that you should be referring to that LDV story while pontificating about poor journalistic standards. That was the one whose headline – “Official: 4,500 new Lib Dem members have joined party since election and coalition agreement” – turned out to be quite wrong, when a clarification of a highly misleading statement on membership was finally dragged out of the chair of the English party. In fact the new members had joined since the beginning of May – not since the election, and certainly not since the coalition agreement.
Unsurprisingly, neither the article nor the headline was corrected. Perhaps you should put LDV’s own house in order before you try to set the rest of the journalistic world to rights.
@jayu – “Funny that it is only now that LibDems complain loudly about ‘tabloidisation’ of political news. ”
Erm, how about this piece I wrote last year attacking Andrew Marr’s tabloidisation for spreading unsourced smears about Gordon Brown’s health?
@Kehaar
and Twitter picked-up on it because the LibDem leadership didn’t think they needed to explain thinks to hoi polloi
Eh? What exactly is the Lib Dem leadership meant to do to control the somewhat excitable types who picked up on this on Twitter? They came right out and dismissed it as the nonsense it is, so what else were they meant to do?
Out of interest, Stephen, are you a journalist? Formal qualifications, membership of the NUJ sort of thing.
As I said above, this hoo-haa seems to have been caused by bloggers. Remember the likes of Michael Buerk insisting that they ain’t just news-readers but also journalists (just as there are weather-presenters who’re also meteorologists).
“Traditional media” need not just be in print form. I take it to refer to outlets which adhere to journalistic principles and self-imposed standards.
Blogging is, ultimately, a parasitic endeavour which relies on the writing and investigations of journalists, and then complains when they have to pay to access a firewall. Entities such as the Guardian’s Comment is Free have added to this sense of entitlement where – financed by a car magazine – and nobody can write an opinion piece (just as Mark Seddon does there) and call it macaroni.
There’s journalism to be done at local level, picking through boring council meetings or planning commissions but, ‘cos of blogging, you have people who didn’t want that and have gone straight to writing about highfalutin policy and foreign issues.
I think we can be pretty sure of one thing:
Reports about the imminent split or demise of the Liberal Democrats will get a lot louder and more frenzied during the Autumn Conference. Seeing that most poltical journalists never properly covered the event before, they won’t know what hit them when they get to see a conference where opinions aren’t stage managed as they are in other party conferences, and they’ll blow it out of all proportion! I’d predict that there won’t be much reporting on content and ideas, but a lot of noise about apparent disagreements.
One can just hope that they’ll get used to coalition politics and LibDemmery eventually…..
I am still thinking that this kind of coverage, pretty much any coverage, really , is better than the almost complete media black-out for all things LibDem in recent years.
It was the being-picked-up-by-major-outlets which added to it.
No, they didn’t. For a considerable period it was second-hand information and hearsay itself (“CK told me”). Welcome to 24-hour media. A week may have been a long time in politics in the 1970s, but now we’re talking about seven hours.
The story of Charles’ defection to Labour spread because it was quite believable, and some might argue, a logical move for a disillusioned social democrat (which is why I defected in May). Had someone suggested that David Laws was defecting to Labour, it would have had no credibility. What made the story suspicious was the timing of its release – in mid-August, rather than at the start of the Lib Dem conference.
“And clearly the Lib Dems have no reason to spread the rumour, which leaves only one possibility…”
Except that the Lib Dem leadership have gained. If they thought Kennedy was wobbly they may have tAken the view that it was better to either smoke him out now or, as has happened, get him to make a statement supporting the Party.
A great fun read !!
Of course CK was not going to defect this weekend.
But seriously folks: anyone who does not think this was a shot-across-the-Clegg-Bows needs a reality check. All is not well in the Lib Dems- even if that is not reflected in the sort of mind control that seems to have overcome all the posting originators on LDV (if not the repliers).
Charlie was a social democrat originally: I was a ‘social democrat who stayed’.
Doubtless I have much more in common with him politically than do the posters on here- a majority of whom seem to be Orangies.
Or- if not- at least suffering from that same bunker mentality/ collective nervous breakdown that a load of Labourites got after the Iraq war did not find any WMD.
@Kehaar
You’re contradicting yourself. You say Twitter is not journalism. Blogging is not journalism. and also It was the being-picked-up-by-major-outlets which added to it., thereby rather negating your criticisms of Stephen’s posting. This was just a Twitter storm and the major outlets should have done rather more checking of it than they did. And before you start, yes I am a journalist and a paid-up member of the NUJ. My initial reaction when I heard this was that it was nonsense – it’s a shame more members of my profession didn’t adopt a similar attitude.
@kehaar
Out of interest, Stephen, are you a journalist? Formal qualifications, membership of the NUJ sort of thing.
What a liberal way of looking at things.
I am interested by the idea of someone seeking to fire a warning shot across the Party’s boughs. But I suspects that “bows”, as found on ships, are more likely.
What would be equally worthy of examination and discussion was the willingness of Lib Dem members to believe the rumour, and to turn immediately to viciously attacking Kennedy.
I lost count of how many times I read that awful Straight line “joke” or the equally witty leave a party early line by Lib Dems.
Take a chill pill, Bernard and Rob. My question to Stephen could be construed as a reproach only if youse think there’s summat inherently untrustworthy and disreputable with non-journalists such as bloggers (in which case you’ve chosen an odd place to express this view). I am neither a journalist nor NUJ member.
I’m still waiting to hear just which sections of the public distrust journalism, and what definition of journalism is being used.
Bernard, you may be a journalist, but I wonder about your skills in rhetoric. No-one here is disputing that the claims started from a mediocre blog-piece and then moved to Twitter. As much as I may not think this is actual journalism, once it was picked-up by mainstream outlets, it strikes as reasonable to have expected a response from LibDem bigwigs.
This is what happens in 24-hour media, which as I and others have pointed out, the LibDems have been more than happy to make use of (and before you start crying “infamy”, this is not necessarily a reproach).
They did not, as you assert, immediately scotch it. The initial we-say-it-ain’t-so-you-should-believe-us attitude would add to distrust of politicians before journalists.
Oh, terrific, it took over a dozen remarks, but now the conversation has been directed to the One True Cause, i.e. Iraq. Kennedy may have opposed the invasion, but he still would have preferred a Coalition with Labour… unlike his Party, which went in for the Conservatives who supported it, and senior members still babble on about illegal invasions.
Care to address this, Rob? Care to point to precisely which bogeymen (i.e. Labourites) have become unhinged by it? In my experience, it’s the attitude you espouse which has experienced the biggest outbreak of silliness.
Also, care you point to precisely where the case for invasion was predicated on the presence of CBN?
Or, to make it easier, just admit this has naff all to do with the subject in hand.
Not a LibDem, that’s unfair. The Party machine threw its weight behind CK when he made the agonizing admission as to his alcohol problems, did it not?
@Kehaar
Yes, while it was still assumed he was onside. As soon as it was being beleived he was not, the reaction from members in public forums was vicious.
Personally, I don’t think shambolic drunks should be allowed near politics. Churchill for one.
Back to Stephen’s article:
Again I ask, who is Mark Seddon? His Labour roots ain’t so deep that he wouldn’t consider running as a Tory PPC.
Stephen complains of journalistic misrepresentation. Yet, here we have a minor and not entirely committed Labour figure who writes a mediocre piece on an ill-read blog, and now Stephen is trying to link him to long Labour activism and skulduggery.
Stephen also complains of poor research. Yet – as was pointed out before on LDV – the original piece pre-dated the Left Futures piece.
Sorry, Kehaar, what do you mean Mark Seddon “would consider running as a Tory PPC”? He has certainly been pretty well dug in in Labour circles being a leading member of Tribune Group etc. You may have more knowledge of his earlier origins than me.
The daft thing is that, despite all these “LibDems imploding” stories, I have never felt more at ease in the party.
When dear old Paddy was covertly lifting the counterpane to sneak into bed with Tony Blair I was very uneasy and there were massed ranks of the party ready to march on Norton-sub-Hamdon. But not now. The whole coalition thing was so obviously unavoidable that I have no qualms.
The Labour party are the ones having an identity crisis.
And I have just read your further comment “minor figure”. That seems like a form of dissing that is unjustified. As I remember he was also an NEC member in the recent past – you can hardly speak of people as well dug in as that as “minor figures”. Be fair.
Paul, there are plenty in the party and who supported it who have considerable qualms. I am sure you, like me, have read the reams of stuff here (OK, we know some is Labour or independent radical based) and heard other stuff off the blogosphere, you’ve seen the polls. Many ain’t happy. And there are good policy, ideological and dare I say, constitutional reasons for that.
So reports the Coffee House’ David Blackburn.
See what I mean by the negative, and I forgot to mention; personal, press when Clegg is ‘at the helm’?
Dash, I was mad about his being a Tory PPC. So, now’s opportunity to go in for the kill and link to a piece about his having the ear of Labour bigwigs.
@Kehaar
it strikes as reasonable to have expected a response from LibDem bigwigs.
And it got one – it was dismissed as nonsense, which it is. What more do you think the party could have done? Advance on the Beeb with flaming torches? Stage a sit-in at The Guardian? I think you’re letting your obvious dislike of the Lib Dem leadership cloud your judgement on this one.
While everyone’s been having a lively argument in the comments thread people seem to have forgotten that there is an embarrassing typo (of Grauniad standard) in the blog post, as I have pointed out in an earlier comment. Any chance someone with admin rights here at LDV could replace “boughs” with “bows”?
And to answer Kehaar’s comment on my comment – yes, it was started by blogs and tweets, but it was picked up in a remarkably credulous way by the media. And I don’t see why not being a member of the NUJ disqualifies anyone from commenting on the quality or lack of quality of a piece of journalism. I don’t have to be a qualified builder to tell that a house that has fallen down was badly built.
DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS! Don’t forget, if labour carry on thinking they can return to power like this, they will be in opposition for a generation!
@dom: If you’re referring to Kehaar he’s not a troll. You should see the real trolls!
Dom, if you arr incapable of dealing with opposing thoughts or explaining yourself to non-members, may I suggest you retire to the Members area? I never have voted Labour, so your assumption I’m smarting about its demise is a little bit off..
Got a direct statement from Kennedy? Realized that the immediacy of social media and the Internet can work against the Party as well as for it?
Failure to accept this – instead assuming we mere mortals would accept hearsay about what Kennedy had said to Clegg – allowed the rumour mill to run, as Niklas has said.
I misread Seddon’s Wiki page – apparently the best Stephen Tall could provide – as running for the Tories, and not in a safe Tory seat (i.e. not gifted a safe Labour seat). Looking closer, I see he was removed from the PPC shortlist for Labour not once but twice. Some insider! Compare and contrast with, say, Tristram Hunt or Luciania Berger.
So, I will ask again, who is Mark Seddon?
That wasn’t my intention. If anything, I would say it places an extra responsibility on the individual.
What I was saying that “political bloggers” are to be assumed to be non-journalists until proven otherwise (that includes me and, maybe, Stephen Tall). Any lessening of respect for journalists is, in no mean part, caused by lippy bloggers who think they’re the cat’s pajamas and are mistaken for journalists.
Completely disagree with the conclusion of ‘tabloidisation’ as a malaise that has compromised political journalism. In fact, it is the consequence of the public preferring editorial over unbiased, factually accurate reporting. I simply see no evidence of the public becoming disillusioned with political journalism, they simply prefer getting it from Richard Littlejohn, Iain Dale and The Stillettoed Socialist. ‘Re-tweeting’ is what the public seems to want… unless it disagrees with the political views of said ‘re-tweet’.
Mpg, I have considerable respect for Iain Dale… as for Richard Littlejohn, I “acknowledge” his skills. Unlike much of the political class, he (and Ron Liddell) has pulled himself up from his bootstraps… even if I have nothing but disdain for many of his views, not least those on the Rwandan Overwhelming.
Kehaar – I had not stated M Seddon was “an insider”, a sycophant, or any kind of a leadership mouthpiece within Labour. He is the absolute opposite of that. That does not mean he is not well dug in – much more so than the likes of Luciana Berger, for example. Just because someone is a perennial rebel, or on one wing of a party, doesn’t mean they are not well established, you know.
As a comparison for those of us within the Lib Dems, Seddon’s position in Labour is rather similar as an anti-establishment outsider to say, Simon Titley, or John Smithson or even Viv Bingham or Tony Greaves. OK, Tony is in the Lords, these days, but that hasn’t gagged him from making forthright comments! None of them are MPs, and all of them are considerably better known in the party than many of our MPs!
Tim, I ain’t had no objection to owt you’ve said. I have no doubt that Seddon wrote what he did ‘cos of his pro-Labour proclivities… but so what? That’s what political bloggers do. It’s what drives regular LDV authors; many of whom, including Stephen Tall, I respect; and, I have no doubt, would like.
As it happens, from the beginning, I suspect I had an insight lacking in most LDVers. I am writing from Caithness so, unlike Seddon, not only knew who was and was not our MP but also knew that the Highland Region is not Labour territory. I say Highland Region rather than the Scottish Highlands ‘cos the East Caithness Plain [1] is not culturally Highlandish (although I am from such teuchter stock).
Outside of the heaving metropolis of Inverness, this only has ceased to be Tory territory ‘cos the current Tory Party changed. If the LibDems were controlled by the likes of Charlie Kennedy or (my MP) John Thurso, I would almost certainly join. Even Danny Alexander is a good egg.
[1]Scottish schoolbooks would divide the country into the Borders, Lowlands, Highlands (and Western Isles) andEast Caithness Plain plus the Northern Isles.
“Unsurprisingly, neither the article nor the headline was corrected.”
And unsurprisingly no response from Stephen Tall – the great champion of journalistic standards…
I think your diagnosis of deep problems in journalists’ attitude towards political stories is spot on. As a comparison for those of us within the Lib Dems, Seddon’s position in Labour is rather similar as an anti-establishment outsider to say, Simon Titley, or John Smithson or even Viv Bingham or Tony Greaves. Good luck!
“no journalist thought about asking these two vital questions: who’s the source and who benefits from the story”
And this comes as news to you?
When are the journalists from the mainstream media going to ask the same questions about “anthropogenic global warming” aka “climate change”, amongst other things?
Anthony, thank you for the giggle. I’d like to buy ‘Cuse’ a drink.
~alec
What happened? I don’t doubt that Charles Kennedy has had talks with the Labour Whips. The issue is how best to vote against some of the Coalition budget proposals which the Lib Dem Ministers agree with the Tories. Kennedy and others may vote with the Opposition. If so they might be pushed out of the Lib Dem parliamentary party. They could stay Lib Dem but sit in opposition This is what I believe Charles has been discussing. As we know Simon Hughes would like it to be accepted that Lib Dem MPs can vote according to their conscience: two sides of the same coin. This is not a situation of fine distinctions. The change sought by the Coalition will damage British soiciety for years to come. Some of the damage to individual lives will be irredeemable. It is time to stop thisa..
Viewing this string on my first visit to this site raised, first of all an eye-brow or two and then as I read further, an ever-widening smile…
Having worked in news-rooms most of my 40-year plus media career, I long ago learned to trust very few ‘journalists’. In general, they are an excitable lot, obsessed with gossip, and the early days of my BBC years when no-one published ‘facts’ until they’d been checked from at least three independent sources are long gone.
Erosion of standards, 24-hour news (that is SO boring to be part of, trust me…), blogging, tweeting etc have all added to this demise.
The ‘story’ of CK defecting was handled perfectly appropriately by the party.
Yes, it could have been plausible, but no, to anyone applying a brain cell or two, it was not probable (as others have said, think timing, unreliable source etc etc).
Many journalists today are like excitable children – and should almost always be treated as such – get over it.
Oh, and to all those who are worried about conference reporting about party splits etc. – the disagreements & disaffection amongst LibDems is nothing compared to what’s going on (and being buried as much as possible) in the other two parties.
I now live “out in the sticks” and the ill-ease among the county Tory ranks continues to give me endless amusement – they (the solid rump of the Tories) are having to live with and accomodate a situation they are totally and viscerally unsuited, uneducated, and unprepared for.
The Tory-dominated press (and the lazy, Westminster-addicted political editors and their puppet-reporters) haven’t yet made the adjustment to the whole coalition scenario – and will take a very long time to get there.
Perhaps they should all be sent to Germany or another of the many countries where a more civilsed system has been operating for years?
“But the job of responsible journalism should be to present an accurately balanced picture, not simply to see if it can self-justify its own negative spin.”
Oh come on, this hasn’t been the case for a very very long time, if ever. The claimed role of journalists may be this, but the actual job itself is rather a different animal
@Kehaar
My referencing Iain Dale, et al, wasn’t to say that they are by definition ‘bad’, merely that they are biased. And their bias, at least it seems to me, is clearly evident in their reporting. And cheers for the Rod Lidell reminder, I think that guy is quite dishonourable in his journalism.
Charliechops1
In what universe could a libdem MP vote against budget measures , sit on opposition benches and remain a libdem MP? We are either in a coalition Govt or not – there is no halfway house. I know many on here (those who are libdems of course – I know how much our labour “friends” dislike it!) are unhappy with the coalition, but it is what we’ve got and no use pretending there is something better around. We have for years played up the benefits of coalition, now we have to prove them. We can’t be in a position where we will accept coalition, but only with one other party.
“Shot across the boughs”? Bows, I presume was meant. That’s the problem with relying on spell-checkers.
It’s baffling that anyone even took this seriously to begin with. What madness would induce a liberal join this Labour party, given their record of the past 13 years? Labour supporters just don’t seem to understand how repellent their party is to us.
Labour will try anything to destabilise both us and the coalition.
Having confronted the Labour Party over the Iraq war when he was the leader it would be nye impossible to contemplate the same Charles Kennedy to defect and join with that lot of unprincipled glory hunters now seeking to lead the same discredited Labour Party.