Don't do as I do, do as I say.

[delmbox]

Kuenessberg straight to his defence via her "sources"

Cummins feeding her exactly what to say as usual

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status...14724305055745

[the other bob wilson]

Kuenessberg straight to his defence via her "sources"

Cummins feeding her exactly what to say as usual

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status...14724305055745

Just been on Twitter, there's so much stuff about Stephen Kinnock there - if I was more of a cynic, I would say some people are trying to divert attention away from someone.

For the record, what Kinnock did was against the rules and, as others have resigned for similar wrongdoings, I think he should be penalised by his party or he should stand down as an MP, but, in my opinion. what Cummings did is in a different league from him.

[The Lone Gunman]

Kuenessberg straight to his defence via her "sources"

That's not her leaping to his defence at all. She's merely reporting what the slimy Tories are saying in their attempt to wriggle out of it.

I just don't get the castigation of journalists like her for doing their job. It's pathetic.

[delmbox]

That's not her leaping to his defence at all. She's merely reporting what the slimy Tories are saying in their attempt to wriggle out of it.

I just don't get the castigation of journalists like her for doing their job. It's pathetic.

She's directly replying to another journalist's scoop with an unnamed, unreferenced source which serves the purpose of questioning the validity of the story on behalf of the subject. That's not normal journalistic behaviour, and she's right to be criticized for it.

[The Lone Gunman]

She's directly replying to another journalist's scoop with an unnamed, unreferenced source which serves the purpose of questioning the validity of the story on behalf of the subject. That's not normal journalistic behaviour, and she's right to be criticized for it.

She's a senior political journalist. It's her job to build relationships with people government and in opposition, and to report what they are doing, saying and thinking.

The criticism of Kuenessberg makes me laugh. Every Labour supporter I know thinks she's heavily biased in favour of the Tories, while everyone I know who opposes Labour thinks she's a screaming leftie. It's ridiculous. It seems that opinions of her journalism are determined solely by which side of political spectrum you're on rather than what she actually writes or reports.

[xsnaggle]

She's a senior political journalist. It's her job to build relationships with people government and in opposition, and to report what they are doing, saying and thinking.

The criticism of Kuenessberg makes me laugh. Every Labour supporter I know thinks she's heavily biased in favour of the Tories, while everyone I know who opposes Labour thinks she's a screaming leftie. It's ridiculous. It seems that opinions of her journalism are determined solely by which side of political spectrum you're on rather than what she actually writes or reports.

Does that shit from both sides mean she actually might be doing it right?

[CCFCC3PO]

Does that shit from both sides mean she actually might be doing it right?

I am completely apolitical in the way I vote. I can even break it down by election.

97 Labour (Blair)
01 Lib Dem
05 Plaid
10 Lab (Brown)
15 Plaid
17 Lib Dem
19 Plaid

All this in a safe Labour seat.

Saying Kuenssberg is biased is giving her too much credit. She is completely hopeless. She tweeted about Johnson "cancelling a speech on police advice". She didn't elaborate. Basically, there were 4 protesters there! That's why he cancelled.

Also, during the election, she made a comment about Tory policy being a shopping list of promises, compared to Labour's fantasy list. She isn't employed to pass on her opinions, she is employed to report, to question, to hold politicians to account. It is ludicrous that Johnson was more fearful of the right-wing Neil than the political correspondent Kuenssberg. She is awful, and I say that from the position of having no party affiliations, but as someone who watches her reports to get information, but getting very little other than photos of Johnson walking in the park.

[delmbox]

She's a senior political journalist. It's her job to build relationships with people government and in opposition, and to report what they are doing, saying and thinking.

The criticism of Kuenessberg makes me laugh. Every Labour supporter I know thinks she's heavily biased in favour of the Tories, while everyone I know who opposes Labour thinks she's a screaming leftie. It's ridiculous. It seems that opinions of her journalism are determined solely by which side of political spectrum you're on rather than what she actually writes or reports.

She gets a huge amount of criticism, not all of it fair I agree, and some of it is clearly derived from misogyny. But a lot of it is also fair, and she deserves to be called out for stuff like this.

The source she mentions was undoubtedly someone in Government, (let's be honest, probably Cummings himself) so instead if issuing a comment on the story their first act was to feed her a line which she then parrotted in direct reply to the initial story. She's the BBC's political editor, her job is not to directly rebut another journalist's story with lines from unnamed sources within the Government. It's not proper, decent or remotely common journalistic practice, especially from someone in her position.

Her issuing the rebuttal is the work of PR people and spin doctors, and she's got previous - remember when she spread that Matt Hancock's adviser had been punched outside Leeds Hospital during the election, thanks again to her "unnamed sources", and had to swiftly retract when it became obvious that there was video footage of the incident which showed that absolutely nothing of the sort happened? She's either wilfully compliant in being used to propagate spin for the Tories or she's hopelessly naive. Neither is a good look.

[CCFCC3PO]

She gets a huge amount of criticism, not all of it fair I agree, and some of it is clearly derived from misogyny. But a lot of it is also fair, and she deserves to be called out for stuff like this.

The source she mentions was undoubtedly someone in Government, (let's be honest, probably Cummings himself) so instead if issuing a comment on the story their first act was to feed her a line which she then parrotted in direct reply to the initial story. She's the BBC's political editor, her job is not to directly rebut another journalist's story with lines from unnamed sources within the Government. It's not proper, decent or remotely common journalistic practice, especially from someone in her position.

Her issuing the rebuttal is the work of PR people and spin doctors, and she's got previous - remember when she spread that Matt Hancock's adviser had been punched outside Leeds Hospital during the election, thanks again to her "unnamed sources", and had to swiftly retract when it became obvious that there was video footage of the incident which showed that absolutely nothing of the sort happened? She's either wilfully compliant in being used to propagate spin for the Tories or she's hopelessly naive. Neither is a good look.

She's not very intelligent. Am I allowed to say this without being accused of being a misogynist?

[Tuerto]

She's not very intelligent. Am I allowed to say this without being accused of being a misogynist?

She's bloody awful. She's also smug. She definitely patronised Corbyn up until he defeated a second vote of no confidence, her attitude changed somewhat after that. I think that she's crap. That's not political, i admire Andrew Neil and his ability to do his job even though he's to the right.

[life on mars]

She gets a huge amount of criticism, not all of it fair I agree, and some of it is clearly derived from misogyny. But a lot of it is also fair, and she deserves to be called out for stuff like this.

The source she mentions was undoubtedly someone in Government, (let's be honest, probably Cummings himself) so instead if issuing a comment on the story their first act was to feed her a line which she then parrotted in direct reply to the initial story. She's the BBC's political editor, her job is not to directly rebut another journalist's story with lines from unnamed sources within the Government. It's not proper, decent or remotely common journalistic practice, especially from someone in her position.

Her issuing the rebuttal is the work of PR people and spin doctors, and she's got previous - remember when she spread that Matt Hancock's adviser had been punched outside Leeds Hospital during the election, thanks again to her "unnamed sources", and had to swiftly retract when it became obvious that there was video footage of the incident which showed that absolutely nothing of the sort happened? She's either wilfully compliant in being used to propagate spin for the Tories or she's hopelessly naive. Neither is a good look.

great reply and well observed ,you hit the nil on the head

[Pearcey3]

She gets a huge amount of criticism, not all of it fair I agree, and some of it is clearly derived from misogyny. But a lot of it is also fair, and she deserves to be called out for stuff like this.

The source she mentions was undoubtedly someone in Government, (let's be honest, probably Cummings himself) so instead if issuing a comment on the story their first act was to feed her a line which she then parrotted in direct reply to the initial story. She's the BBC's political editor, her job is not to directly rebut another journalist's story with lines from unnamed sources within the Government. It's not proper, decent or remotely common journalistic practice, especially from someone in her position.

Her issuing the rebuttal is the work of PR people and spin doctors, and she's got previous - remember when she spread that Matt Hancock's adviser had been punched outside Leeds Hospital during the election, thanks again to her "unnamed sources", and had to swiftly retract when it became obvious that there was video footage of the incident which showed that absolutely nothing of the sort happened? She's either wilfully compliant in being used to propagate spin for the Tories or she's hopelessly naive. Neither is a good look.

Spot on.