In reality, the left is the target of political violence

[JamesWales]

‘Surely you realise’…. ‘Surely you recognise’…. Surely I don’t!

There is nothing outdated in realising and recognising that the wealth, power and privilege of the UK establishment has nothing to do with the political left which exists to challenge those things. A few sociology departments does not offset the vast and growing concentration of establishment power that exists to maintain that wealth, power and privilege. In my experience it is only the apologists for that inequality and abuse that argue the analysis is now irrelevant.

If you insist on widening the view to take in the crimes of parasitic bureaucratic castes in states that claim to be inspired by Marx and Lenin then all I can say is those regimes are not of the political left. The ‘left’ were among the first victims of those autocratic regimes. But that is a massive deflection anyway from the Andy Beckett article that started this thread which was clearly directed at the history and current threats of political violence directed at the left in the UK - that you claimed no one believes.

The terms still have meaning and value. You seem to think they are no more than archaic flags in someone’s culture wars. Gluey seems to see the world through a lens of pro-WEF and anti-WEF - who is in the Swiss bunker and who isn’t. I disagree with you both.

How is the left challenging the establishment at the moment? Aren't most on the left cheering on the house of lords in the last week or two, praising the top universities decolonising programmes, trying to overturn the referendum to keep us in a huge free market and pretty content with the BBCs editorial stances? I'm not sure I see the challenging? Not in a real sense. Even less so in America, although there are of course other countries!

Ah, of course, when it goes disastrously wrong, then it doesn't count! Come on Jon, a great great many libes in history have been deeply ruined under left wing ideas and if you can't see that then I am very surprised.

I don't think they are entirely meaningless, but I think it's largely cultural flag waving, a borderline religious role more than an attempt at real problem solving.

Just sounds fanatical if only good things can exist under left wing politics, it's like those who say the same about islamic states or those states in history that must be true to the bibles teachings etc.

Shit governance and shit policies has little to do with the left/right scale IMO

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

I mean you have literally selected two very specific and curious examples from the great history of political nations.

And one of them is wrong too. Scandinavian countries aren't socialist at all.

The issue of right, just, moral, good, honourable or successful governance of countries is nothing to do with the left/right scale at all. They will tend to be liberal democracies but that spans the spectrum in itself.

Pinochet , your maggies mate

The Caravan Of Death

[JamesWales]

Pinochet , your maggies mate

The Caravan Of Death

Yes, he is a right-wing dictator. Can you think of any left-wing ones?

[JamesWales]

Pinochet , your maggies mate

The Caravan Of Death

Yes, he is a right-wing dictator. Can you think of any left-wing ones?

[JamesWales]

Well said, lots of going all around the houses in this thread and none of it makes the original article less true.

Well yes, the problem with the article is that it is entirely one sided. Absolute classic guardian. Will ignore anything that doesn't fit in with what readers want to read.

The idea that left wing protesters are somehow oppressed or painted as an angry mob, or that the same isn't applied to rare "right wing" protests is bizarre to me.

I'm not sure the article gave much compelling evidence really

[JamesWales]

It's pointless Jon. Just seeing his response to Bob suggests that. I didn't even get a response even though I quoted an example of what 'should' be a compelling argument. Conveniently swerved that one.

I'll reply to you later!

[JamesWales]

It's pointless Jon. Just seeing his response to Bob suggests that. I didn't even get a response even though I quoted an example of what 'should' be a compelling argument. Conveniently swerved that one.

So, my issue with the article, is that I don't think it's based in reality. They have a website to fill, some advertising to sell and they need articles shared. That's not just a guardian thing of course, but I do think it means that many (now primarily online) articles are less balanced than they may be; they'll come up with a rather jazzy headline and construct a not entirely truthful reality around that.

In this case, do we have some protesters being oppressed? I'm sure there's examples of it. Do left-wingers get abused online? Of course some do. Are left-wing protesters smeared as an angry mob? I don't actually think they are, but no doubt some people will do so, citing some protests or online behaviour etc.

But just like an article that talks about crime and illustrated it only with crimes committed by (for example) immigrants and tries to say that there is a link between the two is disengenuous, so too is this. article. Every example given may be true, but if you fail to mention that it happens across the spectrum then the analysis is fundamentally flawed, just like ignoring crimes committed by 'non immigrants' means you would have a false interpretation of the links between immigration and crime.

In this particular article, I'm not even sure how accurate the examples are.

It starts with some stuff about Tony Benn from 40 years ago, saying prominent British socialists have always received death threats. Unfortunately I suspect that is true, but haven't all MPs? I'm pretty sure there were attempts on many MPs lives in the 80s, the most famous being the Brighton bomb.

It then talks about the Tory doners awful comments. But it fails to reference that the recent shadow chancellor proclaimed in a speech that an MP should be lynched. Lynched! Again, when you look in the whole, then the headline and thrust of the argument gets weaker.

It talks about MPs being physically assaulted, citing egg throwing etc. Now I don't think that's on. I remember calling it out when Farage and others had milkshake poured on them (at a time of prominent acid attacks btw). Let's see how the guardian talked about that:

When it's Corbyn and an egg:

"In 2019, Jeremy Corbyn had an egg smashed on his head by a Brexit supporter. Such incidents have generally been treated by the media as minor, almost meaningless. Yet they form part of an ominous pattern"

When it's Farage and milkshake:

"This Milkshake Spring isn’t political violence – it’s political theatre"

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...tommy-robinson

I could conclude the Left have a monopoly on hypocrisy, but I won't, as I know it's not like that, just as I suspect the author here knows the reality is quite different to what he's presented.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

So, my issue with the article, is that I don't think it's based in reality. They have a website to fill, some advertising to sell and they need articles shared. That's not just a guardian thing of course, but I do think it means that many (now primarily online) articles are less balanced than they may be; they'll come up with a rather jazzy headline and construct a not entirely truthful reality around that.

In this case, do we have some protesters being oppressed? I'm sure there's examples of it. Do left-wingers get abused online? Of course some do. Are left-wing protesters smeared as an angry mob? I don't actually think they are, but no doubt some people will do so, citing some protests or online behaviour etc.

But just like an article that talks about crime and illustrated it only with crimes committed by (for example) immigrants and tries to say that there is a link between the two is disengenuous, so too is this. article. Every example given may be true, but if you fail to mention that it happens across the spectrum then the analysis is fundamentally flawed, just like ignoring crimes committed by 'non immigrants' means you would have a false interpretation of the links between immigration and crime.

In this particular article, I'm not even sure how accurate the examples are.

It starts with some stuff about Tony Benn from 40 years ago, saying prominent British socialists have always received death threats. Unfortunately I suspect that is true, but haven't all MPs? I'm pretty sure there were attempts on many MPs lives in the 80s, the most famous being the Brighton bomb.

It then talks about the Tory doners awful comments. But it fails to reference that the recent shadow chancellor proclaimed in a speech that an MP should be lynched. Lynched! Again, when you look in the whole, then the headline and thrust of the argument gets weaker.

It talks about MPs being physically assaulted, citing egg throwing etc. Now I don't think that's on. I remember calling it out when Farage and others had milkshake poured on them (at a time of prominent acid attacks btw). Let's see how the guardian talked about that:

When it's Corbyn and an egg:

"In 2019, Jeremy Corbyn had an egg smashed on his head by a Brexit supporter. Such incidents have generally been treated by the media as minor, almost meaningless. Yet they form part of an ominous pattern"

When it's Farage and milkshake:

"This Milkshake Spring isn’t political violence – it’s political theatre"

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...tommy-robinson

I could conclude the Left have a monopoly on hypocrisy, but I won't, as I know it's not like that, just as I suspect the author here knows the reality is quite different to what he's presented.

Never mind all that pseudo intellectual nonsense

The Economic League persecuted people and prevented them from getting jobs because they were left wing or believed to be left wing

The Economic League was FUNDED by Conservative donors and big business

Directly and indirectly

Thatcher knew about this

State sponsored intimidation

Your lot

It wasn't just a few eggs thrown sonny

[Citizen's Nephew]

So, my issue with the article, is that I don't think it's based in reality. They have a website to fill, some advertising to sell and they need articles shared. That's not just a guardian thing of course, but I do think it means that many (now primarily online) articles are less balanced than they may be; they'll come up with a rather jazzy headline and construct a not entirely truthful reality around that.

In this case, do we have some protesters being oppressed? I'm sure there's examples of it. Do left-wingers get abused online? Of course some do. Are left-wing protesters smeared as an angry mob? I don't actually think they are, but no doubt some people will do so, citing some protests or online behaviour etc.

But just like an article that talks about crime and illustrated it only with crimes committed by (for example) immigrants and tries to say that there is a link between the two is disengenuous, so too is this. article. Every example given may be true, but if you fail to mention that it happens across the spectrum then the analysis is fundamentally flawed, just like ignoring crimes committed by 'non immigrants' means you would have a false interpretation of the links between immigration and crime.

In this particular article, I'm not even sure how accurate the examples are.

It starts with some stuff about Tony Benn from 40 years ago, saying prominent British socialists have always received death threats. Unfortunately I suspect that is true, but haven't all MPs? I'm pretty sure there were attempts on many MPs lives in the 80s, the most famous being the Brighton bomb.

It then talks about the Tory doners awful comments. But it fails to reference that the recent shadow chancellor proclaimed in a speech that an MP should be lynched. Lynched! Again, when you look in the whole, then the headline and thrust of the argument gets weaker.

It talks about MPs being physically assaulted, citing egg throwing etc. Now I don't think that's on. I remember calling it out when Farage and others had milkshake poured on them (at a time of prominent acid attacks btw). Let's see how the guardian talked about that:

When it's Corbyn and an egg:

"In 2019, Jeremy Corbyn had an egg smashed on his head by a Brexit supporter. Such incidents have generally been treated by the media as minor, almost meaningless. Yet they form part of an ominous pattern"

When it's Farage and milkshake:

"This Milkshake Spring isn’t political violence – it’s political theatre"

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...tommy-robinson

I could conclude the Left has a monopoly on hypocrisy, but I won't, as I know it's not like that, just as I suspect the author here knows the reality is quite different to what he's presented.

Let’s cut to the chase here. What you’re talking about - this frustration with how the media, including outlets like The Guardian, spin stories with flashy headlines and sometimes shaky grounds in reality - isn’t just a one-off thing. It’s the norm, not the exception, and it’s everywhere. From left to right, online or print, every publication out there is playing the same game. They’ve got space to fill, ads to sell, and clicks to get. Truth? Balance? That often takes a backseat to whatever gets people fired up enough to share an article.

Hoping for academic-level neutrality from these guys is like expecting a shark not to bite; it’s just not in their nature. They’re not in the business of giving you a well-rounded lecture; they’re in the business of keeping your eyes glued to their page at any cost. Sensationalism sells, and subtlety doesn’t pay the bills.

Your points on bias, selective storytelling, and playing favorites with facts are spot-on. If a story only tells one side or hypes up certain examples while ignoring others, it’s not just bending the truth - it’s warping it. And yeah, every example they use might be legit, but when they cherry-pick only the bits that suit their angle, we’re getting a distorted picture of reality.

The problem I have with your reply is calling out one publication for this kind of thing. It’s like yelling at a single raindrop for getting you wet in a storm. This is a widespread problem. It’s about the entire system that prioritises scandal over substance and outrage over accuracy.

I'd argue that media like The Daily Mail, The Sun, and The Express are much worse at doing this. Some of the material published in those 'news' outlets constitutes hate speech IMO. So, The Guardian, by no means exempt from the issues you mention, is far more readable IMO than the other media I've mentioned. Though, I acknowledge, it's getting harder and harder to find reliable sources.

What you're asking for is academic writing. But you also acknowledge that it's not going to happen. So, in summary, what you also seem to be acknowledging is that none of us should read any news outlet and cite it in any thread unless it is of the academic standard you're expecting.

Bottom line: You’re right to be f*cked off about the lack of balance and the blatant bias. But let’s not kid ourselves that this is a problem with just one article or one outlet. It’s the whole media landscape that’s skewed.

[JamesWales]

Never mind all that pseudo intellectual nonsense

The Economic League persecuted people and prevented them from getting jobs because they were left wing or believed to be left wing

The Economic League was FUNDED by Conservative donors and big business

Directly and indirectly

Thatcher knew about this

State sponsored intimidation

Your lot

It wasn't just a few eggs thrown sonny

I don't doubt it. It is 2024 though.

[JamesWales]

You are right it's absolutely pointless

Even if he's wrong he's right

And if he's caught in a corner he will take a week off hoping nobody notices

I gave a long response explaining why I think the guardian article is incorrect in its conclusions (same reason it often is; the pursuit of ad revenue instead of the pursuit of truth) which you dismissed as "pseudo intellectual nonsense" and then started talking about something from nearly half a century ago.

Before that, I simply said I think the article is wrong

Cant win with some of you! I guess the oppression and persecution has messed you up?! 😉

[jon1959]

I gave a long response explaining why I think the guardian article is incorrect in its conclusions (same reason it often is; the pursuit of ad revenue instead of the pursuit of truth) which you dismissed as "pseudo intellectual nonsense" and then started talking about something from nearly half a century ago.

Before that, I simply said I think the article is wrong

Cant win with some of you! I guess the oppression and persecution has messed you up?! ��

The Economic League was running its blacklist until it wound up in 1993. A lot more recent than 'nearly half a century ago'. Some of us had personal experience of the blacklist in operation. It was an integral part of 'the establishment' with its tendrils in both the private and the public sector. Blacklists were not the main target of the Andy Beckett piece but they were certainly part of the picture.

[JamesWales]

The Economic League was running its blacklist until it wound up in 1993. A lot more recent than 'nearly half a century ago'. Some of us had personal experience of the blacklist in operation. It was an integral part of 'the establishment' with its tendrils in both the private and the public sector. Blacklists were not the main target of the Andy Beckett piece but they were certainly part of the picture.

Appreciate that Jon and no one would justify it. There are numerous reports of people in academia and the like being denied work due to conversative views. Equally unacceptable, and based on political intolerance which as you may have noticed is a huge bugbear of mine. It's not right.

But I thought we were having a conversation about contemporary Britain, and as I say, I don't think the evidence stacks up to support the conclusion made in that article tbh

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Appreciate that Jon and no one would justify it. There are numerous reports of people in academia and the like being denied work due to conversative views. Equally unacceptable, and based on political intolerance which as you may have noticed is a huge bugbear of mine. It's not right.

But I thought we were having a conversation about contemporary Britain, and as I say, I don't think the evidence stacks up to support the conclusion made in that article tbh

It's like clubbing a seal

[Elwood Blues]

It's like clubbing a seal

What on earth are you on about, Sludge???

It is about time I started responding again to more posts I think.

If I can be bothered I will get my laptop out and give a fuller response to this thread later.

I know you have all missed my incisive political posts.................

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

The UK media is incredibly top heavy with right wing crap

There are more outlets to peddle right wing nonsense ......and they are very active

Anyone who thinks the Guardian and the BBC ......both of whom are wishy washy but essentially liberal and moderate come anywhere near the right wing rubbish this country spews out is deluded or lying or both

Daily Mail , The Sun , Express , Times , Telegraph , Evening Standard , ITN , Sky , Talk TV, GB News

That's just for starters when it comes to tory and right wing cobblers

Absolutely overloaded with it

I am not even going to wait for the yeah but no but yeah gibberish from the usual tory suspect or suspects

[+ the native hipster]

The UK media is incredibly top heavy with right wing crap

There are more outlets to peddle right wing nonsense ......and they are very active

Anyone who thinks the Guardian and the BBC ......both of whom are wishy washy but essentially liberal and moderate come anywhere near the right wing rubbish this country spews out is deluded or lying or both

Daily Mail , The Sun , Express , Times , Telegraph , Evening Standard , ITN , Sky , Talk TV, GB News

That's just for starters when it comes to tory and right wing cobblers

Absolutely overloaded with it

I am not even going to wait for the yeah but no but yeah gibberish from the usual tory suspect or suspects

titania you're back!! and of course i agree the economic league are worse than stonewall and hate not hope, coz it's ok when we do it

[Dorcus]

Only Gammons read trash like the Mail, Express and Sun.

[Wales-Bales]

Only Gammons read trash like the Mail, Express and Sun.

I'm more of a Parma Ham lover myself.

[JamesWales]

Let’s cut to the chase here. What you’re talking about - this frustration with how the media, including outlets like The Guardian, spin stories with flashy headlines and sometimes shaky grounds in reality - isn’t just a one-off thing. It’s the norm, not the exception, and it’s everywhere. From left to right, online or print, every publication out there is playing the same game. They’ve got space to fill, ads to sell, and clicks to get. Truth? Balance? That often takes a backseat to whatever gets people fired up enough to share an article.

Hoping for academic-level neutrality from these guys is like expecting a shark not to bite; it’s just not in their nature. They’re not in the business of giving you a well-rounded lecture; they’re in the business of keeping your eyes glued to their page at any cost. Sensationalism sells, and subtlety doesn’t pay the bills.

Your points on bias, selective storytelling, and playing favorites with facts are spot-on. If a story only tells one side or hypes up certain examples while ignoring others, it’s not just bending the truth - it’s warping it. And yeah, every example they use might be legit, but when they cherry-pick only the bits that suit their angle, we’re getting a distorted picture of reality.

The problem I have with your reply is calling out one publication for this kind of thing. It’s like yelling at a single raindrop for getting you wet in a storm. This is a widespread problem. It’s about the entire system that prioritises scandal over substance and outrage over accuracy.

I'd argue that media like The Daily Mail, The Sun, and The Express are much worse at doing this. Some of the material published in those 'news' outlets constitutes hate speech IMO. So, The Guardian, by no means exempt from the issues you mention, is far more readable IMO than the other media I've mentioned. Though, I acknowledge, it's getting harder and harder to find reliable sources.

What you're asking for is academic writing. But you also acknowledge that it's not going to happen. So, in summary, what you also seem to be acknowledging is that none of us should read any news outlet and cite it in any thread unless it is of the academic standard you're expecting.

Bottom line: You’re right to be f*cked off about the lack of balance and the blatant bias. But let’s not kid ourselves that this is a problem with just one article or one outlet. It’s the whole media landscape that’s skewed.

I largely agree with you too. I probably could express it more evenly, but on CCMB at least we really don't see many 'right wing' threads really, and I just don't engage on some of the more conspiratorial ones.

I think our issues are things as we've discussed, poor news values, people getting their news from twitter and phones which can never properly portray issues, political intolerance, some issues on free speech, a lack of understanding of different views etc. It's got worse in the last 15 years or so, perhaps since the global financial crisis but I blame social media more than anything.

I really don't like political pigeon holes, I really think there is good and bad across the spectrum and we should question and listen to everything. When I hear differently I tend to push against it and as I say on CCMB I generally see the issues come more from a left wing perspective, but I entirely agree it's across the spectrum. That, deep down is what I am usually trying to say, not always worded as well as I would like.

[life on mars]

I've been targetted by vile left wing commentary on ere

[the other bob wilson]

They’re mad

[Citizen's Nephew]

They’re mad

You have to wonder what's going on in the heads of these people. It's truly frightening. If this was an individual, who, say, decided to put out a propaganda piece like that, there'd be some sort of intervention. This is the work of people who have truly lost the plot.

I didn't think I could be shocked any further but, yay! The Tories don't disappoint, do they?

[Citizen's Nephew]

You have to wonder what's going on in the heads of these people. It's truly frightening. If this was an individual, who, say, decided to put out a propaganda piece like that, there'd be some sort of intervention. This is the work of people who have truly lost the plot.

I didn't think I could be shocked any further but, yay! The Tories don't disappoint, do they?

The American narrator and the overall style are like some amateur Batman promo made by Nigel from accounting who's subscribed to an online site that produces generic videos by cutting and pasting royalty-free clips. You pay extra to have the watermark removed.

[Wales-Bales]

They’re mad

"Policed by cameras and computers"