President Biden

[Dr Gloom 19784]

I don't think the Guardian challenged the austerity narrative as much as it should have done, no. One of the key causes of this entire fucking mess can be traced back to everyone just accepting that the Tories were right about the economy, I don't think anyone in the entire fucking world was loud enough about how detrimental that whole shambles could be. But I do expect the Guardian will have been more in line with my views on this. I'm struggling to think if any others would have even been likely to challenge austerity, let alone if they actually did so.

 

As for Corbyn, they were railing against him all last year. I know they were, I saw it - they didn't succeed of course, because no one is listening to them anymore, but they tried. With Sanders, I remember fucking Freedland wrote that article saying how we on the left should 'compromise' because 'bigger' (read: Neoliberal) issues were at stake. All compromising with people in the centre gets us at the moment, apparently, is the fucking far right. Because people in the centre are generally affluent and removed from the widespread malcontent. And I fully, fully, include myself in that. Up until the referendum.

 

Anyway, I stand by my previous post.

 

you're confusing the media with political parties. ed miliband absolutely should have challenged the austyerity narrative more. i don't think you can say the same about the guardian, or the indie. two MSM stalwarts.

 

freedland is a commentator, with his own view. toynbee is another, jenkins and jones two more - they don't all speak in the same voice. 

[Rayvin 4963]

I wanna caveat all of this, Gloom, and say that I still believe they're capable of quality reporting. I just don't think they're doing the job we need them to do any more (if they ever were).

[Happy Face 29]

Amazon were doing 99p Kindle versions of "The Establishment: And how they get away with it" by Owen Jones last week, so I've got that to read.

[Rayvin 4963]

you're confusing the media with political parties. ed miliband absolutely should have challenged the austyerity narrative more. i don't think you can say the same about the guardian, or the indie. two MSM stalwarts.

 

freedland is a commentator, with his own view. toynbee is another, jenkins and jones two more - they don't all speak in the same voice. 

 

Yep, true that Miliband should have been countering it. But papers interpret political realities at the end of the day, and I see plenty of articles now that challenge austerity after the fact. Maybe I expect too much from them in terms of their ability to see this stuff coming.

 

You're right about the commentators. It's just that there should be an opposing view, and their frequently isn't. This bothers me, but maybe the issue is simply that most journalists think the same way...

 

If I did a piece of research and found that the Guardian, in its US election coverage from back when Sanders and Clinton were vying for nomination, had a pro-Clinton bias in terms of articles of 75:25 (I'm not claiming this is the case, I'm just talking hypothetically), would you consider that they had an agenda? Or that they had a preferred candidate? And if so, would it be fair to assume that this candidate was chosen because their views aligned with that of the newspaper?

 

Or would you argue that this is coincidence and simply reflective of the submissions they receive (which I'm prepared to accept as a feasible argument even if I disagree with it).

[Rayvin 4963]

Amazon were doing 99p Kindle versions of "The Establishment: And how they get away with it" by Owen Jones last week, so I've got that to read.

 

I have mixed feelings on Jones. He has some good ideas but is a proponent of identity politics and therefore, in my view, hasn't fully grasped the wider issues at play here.

[Happy Face 29]

Fu! King! Hell maan.  Even the people completely on board with your anti-austerity, anti-establishment Corbyn maypole dance aren't doing it right 

 

[Renton 17723]

Yep, true that Miliband should have been countering it. But papers interpret political realities at the end of the day, and I see plenty of articles now that challenge austerity after the fact. Maybe I expect too much from them in terms of their ability to see this stuff coming.

 

You're right about the commentators. It's just that there should be an opposing view, and their frequently isn't. This bothers me, but maybe the issue is simply that most journalists think the same way...

 

If I did a piece of research and found that the Guardian, in its US election coverage from back when Sanders and Clinton were vying for nomination, had a pro-Clinton bias in terms of articles of 75:25 (I'm not claiming this is the case, I'm just talking hypothetically), would you consider that they had an agenda? Or that they had a preferred candidate? And if so, would it be fair to assume that this candidate was chosen because their views aligned with that of the newspaper?

 

Or would you argue that this is coincidence and simply reflective of the submissions they receive (which I'm prepared to accept as a feasible argument even if I disagree with it).

Personally I'd argue any conscionable person should be overtly against Trump. The criticism of Hillary on this board and the implication of equivalence with Trump were reminiscent of some of the suggestions here today that the Guardian is the moral equivalent of the Mail. Fucking ridiculous and frankly depressing.

[Dr Gloom 19784]

Yep, true that Miliband should have been countering it. But papers interpret political realities at the end of the day, and I see plenty of articles now that challenge austerity after the fact. Maybe I expect too much from them in terms of their ability to see this stuff coming.

 

You're right about the commentators. It's just that there should be an opposing view, and their frequently isn't. This bothers me, but maybe the issue is simply that most journalists think the same way...

 

If I did a piece of research and found that the Guardian, in its US election coverage from back when Sanders and Clinton were vying for nomination, had a pro-Clinton bias in terms of articles of 75:25 (I'm not claiming this is the case, I'm just talking hypothetically), would you consider that they had an agenda? Or that they had a preferred candidate? And if so, would it be fair to assume that this candidate was chosen because their views aligned with that of the newspaper?

 

Or would you argue that this is coincidence and simply reflective of the submissions they receive (which I'm prepared to accept as a feasible argument even if I disagree with it).

 

all newspapers have an editorial voice, or an agenda if that's what you want to call it. you find out what this is by reading their leader column. 

 

it's also reflected in the majority of opinion pieces they publish, the type of columnist they commission and contributing commentator they will publish. it will also influence how the news agenda is structured and ordered. but respected news sources, like the NYT, like the FT et al produce balanced reporting, which is fact checked and verified to the nth degree. 

 

most papers will endorse a candidate in an election. i'm not sure where the guardian stood on sanders v clinton, but i don't recall reading any character assassinations of bernie in the guardian or in the indie, for that matter. 

Edited December 12, 2016 by Dr Gloom

[Happy Face 29]

The Ukrainians were happy progressing with their move westwards in 2013, building the trade agreement when in August 2013, Russia starts a trade war that stops them getting energy from Russia and bans all their exports.

 

In the face of this economic pressure, the Ukrainian government abandons the EU agreement on Nov 21st, that same day the protests start and the first steps to war are initiated. The CIA doesnt even feature in this discussion, none of this is disputed. The only place you see this shit is from RT and alternative websites. Its so ironic that in attempting to be a truth seeker and unveil the lies of one set of 'globalists', you should fall hook line and sinker for the even more deceptive patter of their enemies. 

 

Your timeline starts after this...

 

http://www.stripes.com/news/us-nato-move-ahead-with-romanian-anti-missile-base-1.249597

 

and portrays Russia as acting to  claw Ukraine back from a move West rather than Russia responding to a move east by US and NATO forces.

 

This has long been documented as a Russian fear that has gone unheeded by our expansion.

 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html

[Dr Gloom 19784]

Personally I'd argue any conscionable person should be overtly against Trump. The criticism of Hillary on this board and the implication of equivalence with Trump were reminiscent of some of the suggestions here today that the Guardian is the moral equivalent of the Mail. Fucking ridiculous and frankly depressing.

 

yeah, different sides of the same coin apparently. people don't appreciate the free press we're lucky to enjoy. 

[Happy Face 29]

The implication of equivalence with Trump 

 

I think the only one who made that sort of implication was a climate change denier worried about the mars base we have despite not having reached the moon.

[ChezGiven 0]

Your timeline starts after this...

 

http://www.stripes.com/news/us-nato-move-ahead-with-romanian-anti-missile-base-1.249597

 

and portrays Russia as acting to claw Ukraine back from a move West rather than Russia responding to a move east by US and NATO forces.

 

This has long been documented as a Russian fear that has gone unheeded by our expansion.

 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html

Absolutely, all of that is true. That's not the point though, the events around November 21st and onwards are meant to be a CIA plot. The point is that's not true. The US, NATO and the EU all have a strategy that is based on bringing more countries into their fold based on free markets, democracy and prosperity. Ukraine was a target based on their domestic political landscape, the country was willing and politically ready to join the west. The CIA plot was a propaganda tool used but the Russians to justify their illegal annexation of Crimea. As shown earlier, the protests and anger at the Ukrainian governments u turn on EU integration existed without external influence. It's that base of political feeling that political strategists are analyzing when deploying their influence. The 'fascist led coup' line from the Russians and their ability to get that message to stick on western social media was part of their strategy. If the Russian narrative was true, where are those fascists?

[Rayvin 4963]

Fu! King! Hell maan.  Even the people completely on board with your anti-austerity, anti-establishment Corbyn maypole dance aren't doing it right 

 

 

True. Although I don't think Corbyn has all the answers either.

[Rayvin 4963]

all newspapers have an editorial voice, or an agenda if that's what you want to call it. you find out what this is by reading their leader column. 

 

it's also reflected in the majority of opinion pieces they publish, the type of columnist they commission and contributing commentator they will publish. it will also influence how the news agenda is structured and ordered. but respected news sources, like the NYT, like the FT et al produce balanced reporting, which is fact checked and verified to the nth degree. 

 

most papers will endorse a candidate in an election. i'm not sure where the guardian stood on sanders v clinton, but i don't recall reading any character assassinations of bernie in the guardian or in the indie, for that matter.

 

I don't read the Indie much so won't comment on them. Is the leader like a statement of a newspapers beliefs? If so I probably should read that.

 

It wasn't character assassinations with Sanders, it was the fact that they endorsed Hillary.

 

Anyway look, I respect your views on this and will continue questioning my outlook until I'm satisfied with it.

[Rayvin 4963]

I think the only one who made that sort of implication was a climate change denier worried about the mars base we have despite not having reached the moon.

Yep, pretty sure I said I'd take Clinton over Trump. Doesn't make her a good candidate though. Nice to see even the Democrats have noticed this now, and appear to be undergoing their Corbyn moment.

[Renton 17723]

Yep, pretty sure I said I'd take Clinton over Trump. Doesn't make her a good candidate though. Nice to see even the Democrats have noticed this now, and appear to be undergoing their Corbyn moment.

 

Yep, absolutely great news that.

 

[Happy Face 29]

Absolutely, all of that is true. That's not the point though, the events around November 21st and onwards are meant to be a CIA plot. The point is that's not true. The US, NATO and the EU all have a strategy that is based on bringing more countries into their fold based on free markets, democracy and prosperity. Ukraine was a target based on their domestic political landscape, the country was willing and politically ready to join the west. The CIA plot was a propaganda tool used but the Russians to justify their illegal annexation of Crimea. As shown earlier, the protests and anger at the Ukrainian governments u turn on EU integration existed without external influence. It's that base of political feeling that political strategists are analyzing when deploying their influence. The 'fascist led coup' line from the Russians and their ability to get that message to stick on western social media was part of their strategy. If the Russian narrative was true, where are those fascists?

Good read..

 

https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/12/12/cia-avoiding-conclusion-putin-hacked-hillary-retaliate-covert-actions/

 

On Ukraine:

 

The likelihood that Russia targeted the former Secretary of State for a series of covert actions, all impacting key Russian interests, that at least started while she was Secretary of State. Those are:

 

1. Misleadingly getting the UN to sanction the Libya intervention based off the claim that it was about protecting civilians as opposed to regime change

2. Generating protests targeting Putin in response to 2011 parliamentary elections

3. Sponsoring “moderate rebels” to defeat Bashar al-Assad

4.Removing Viktor Yanukovych to install a pro-NATO government

 

Importantly, the first three of these happened on Hillary’s watch, with her active involvement. And Putin blamed Hillary, personally, for the protests in 2011.

 

Never mind the relative merit of these covert operations. Never mind that Putin has not, yet, released any evidence to support his claim that Hillary (or CIA) supported the 2011 protests targeting him personally; there is no doubt he believes it. During the primary Hillary as much as confirmed that when her diplomats negotiated the UN voted in 2011, they had regime change in mind the whole time. The US has acknowledged its covert operations against Assad in Congressional testimony. And hackers released a call from Victoria Nuland acting like she was in charge of deciding what post-Yanukovych Ukraine would look like.

 

In other words, whatever the merits and evidence behind these four events, there is no doubt Putin sees them as a threat to Russian interests and blames the US for all of them, with merit in at least some of the cases.

[Rayvin 4963]

Yep, absolutely great news that.

Because their centre left candidate just did so well, of course. I can see your concern but the left needs to be forced to give a fuck about people again and apparently the only way for this to happen is for them to be given a collective kicking.

[Dr Gloom 19784]

I don't read the Indie much so won't comment on them. Is the leader like a statement of a newspapers beliefs? If so I probably should read that.

 

It wasn't character assassinations with Sanders, it was the fact that they endorsed Hillary.

 

Anyway look, I respect your views on this and will continue questioning my outlook until I'm satisfied with it.

Yes, it's exactly that. They're also known as editorials. Every paper has such a column - usually in the form of two or theee commentaries on topical issues, outlining the official editorial line, or agenda if you like, on whatever the news item might be.

 

Edit - they might have endorsed Hillary in the election, they're not mad enough to endorse trump. I don't recall them doing so during the primaries, or there being many pieces suggesting it had to be Hillary not Bernie

Edited December 12, 2016 by Dr Gloom

[PaddockLad 14574]

Personally I'd argue any conscionable person should be overtly against Trump. The criticism of Hillary on this board and the implication of equivalence with Trump were reminiscent of some of the suggestions here today that the Guardian is the moral equivalent of the Mail. Fucking ridiculous and frankly depressing.

Fuck me, the government's "equivalence tsar" is back

 

I wouldn't criticise Hilary personally for anything bar being the epitome of everything that's gone wrong on both sides of the Atlantic over the last 20 years, along with Blair. Not her emails, not by proxy her husband's presidency, not her gender and not her trustworthiness. It's her and her acolytes' system that has made people turn against the centre to cunts like Farage and Trump. People are desperate for change but there's no one with a titter of wit on the left now to stand up and say "moving to the right won't solve your problems".

 

In lots of ways Hilary's gang have "won", the big political questions don't exist anymore, the centre has crushed everything in its path and any voices of dissent either can't be heard or aren't given fair hearing. Yes, we know Corbyn is useless but he's just a fuckin symptom of the hollow victory that neo leberalism has carved out. They've won, but nobody fuckin wants it so it will just go on as before with the beyond-manipulated lowest common denominator fuckwits being able to shout the loudest as they've got 98% of the media on their side and the rest can't be heard. That's why I can't stand the guardian at the moment, they won't even fuckin try.

[Renton 17723]

Fuck me, the government's "equivalence tsar" is back

 

I wouldn't criticise Hilary personally for anything bar being the epitome of everything that's gone wrong on both sides of the Atlantic over the last 20 years, along with Blair. Not her emails, not by proxy her husband's presidency, not her gender and not her trustworthiness. It's her and her acolytes' system that has made people turn against the centre to cunts like Farage and Trump. People are desperate for change but there's no one with a titter of wit on the left now to stand up and say "moving to the right won't solve your problems".

 

In lots of ways Hilary's gang have "won", the big political questions don't exist anymore, the centre has crushed everything in its path and any voices of dissent either can't be heard or aren't given fair hearing. Yes, we know Corbyn is useless but he's just a fuckin symptom of the hollow victory that neo leberalism has carved out. They've won, but nobody fuckin wants it so it will just go on as before with the beyond-manipulated lowest common denominator fuckwits being able to shout the loudest as they've got 98% of the media on their side and the rest can't be heard. That's why I can't stand the guardian at the moment, they won't even fuckin try.

The way I see it the president of the US is fairly impotent in tackling the problems facing that country and the world. The main issues facing the west are related to globalism, and the implications of this on immigration and cheap imports negatively impacting on domestic employment markets. Factor in redundancy through technological advances and there are no easy answers.

 

Did Bernie have them? If anybody had even bothered to check Clinton's policies maybe they would have seen they were actually in close alignment with his.

 

Does Trump have them? Well if jingoistic nationalism and isolationism are the answer the world is fucked.

 

I just don't get this mantra for change from supposedly intelligent people. I get why it appeals to idiots though. Clinton's policies were progressive without being revolutionary, but for some reason she was held to a much higher standard than Trump. She was completely screwed through the pathetic email scandal and wikileaks. And yet she won more votes than any previous white male candidate in history, including Trump. She was gracious in defeat. If this had happened to Trump, we know for a fact he would not accept the result and would be inciting violent revolution.

[Park Life 70]

Last few pages made good reading. Good posts chaps.

 

This will have Gloom conflicted.

 

 

Edited December 12, 2016 by Park Life

[ChezGiven 0]

Love the ranting old git, is it a mate of your's P? 

[Rayvin 4963]

The way I see it the president of the US is fairly impotent in tackling the problems facing that country and the world. The main issues facing the west are related to globalism, and the implications of this on immigration and cheap imports negatively impacting on domestic employment markets. Factor in redundancy through technological advances and there are no easy answers.

 

Did Bernie have them? If anybody had even bothered to check Clinton's policies maybe they would have seen they were actually in close alignment with his.

 

Does Trump have them? Well if jingoistic nationalism and isolationism are the answer the world is fucked.

 

I just don't get this mantra for change from supposedly intelligent people. I get why it appeals to idiots though. Clinton's policies were progressive without being revolutionary, but for some reason she was held to a much higher standard than Trump. She was completely screwed through the pathetic email scandal and wikileaks. And yet she won more votes than any previous white male candidate in history, including Trump. She was gracious in defeat. If this had happened to Trump, we know for a fact he would not accept the result and would be inciting violent revolution.

I think we need to put this to bed. So you understand why the fuckwits voted for Trump but don't get why Hillary is held to a higher standard by the intelligent left.

 

It isn't actually to do with standards. There was nothing she could do, say or be, in my view, that would have averted the disillusionment from the left. The problem for the left was that she was coming from the exact same line of failures who had allowed the social order to fail and wealth to be hoovered up by the top. So yeah, we didn't like Trump, but we sympathized with those who voted for him because they wanted someone, somewhere, to notice that they were pissed off.

 

Had we had a left wing populist figure, that individual could have captured the centre, the left, and a good number of the working class who desperately wanted to rage against those leaving them behind. The left wing populist would have won.

 

So really it's as PL says. And fwiw I said this before the election also. Hillary represents neoliberalist status quo.

 

My question to you is, if people at the bottom have nothing to lose, and those of us on the left can see this, and can see the tide turning, why are you still thinking that the centre left has the answers? What makes you think the centre left can do anything at all to turn this around given its comprehensive defeats?

 

Corbyn isn't going to change things himself, the democrat reinvention is also unlikely to. But IMO they are the left rebuilding itself. A proper left unblemished by the demonstrable failure of the third way.

 

That's what I'm banking on. Have been since I voted Corbyn the first time. It'll take time but it absolutely needs to happen.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Rayvin

[RobinRobin 9192]

Had we had a left wing populist figure, that individual could have captured the centre, the left, and a good number of the working class who desperately wanted to rage against those leaving them behind. The left wing populist would have won.

 

 

 

Wasn't that supposed to be Bernie Sanders?