The Tory "dirty tricks brigade" and the media

[garinda]

For years the Tories have accused the BBC of having leftist tendencies. Now Mancie says it's actually the other way round, and really they are anti-Labour. Even though there was the recent exposé about Dr. Who, attempting to bring down Thatcher's government in the mid eighties.

Were Shep and Petra a pair of fascist dogs?

Was Johnny Morris a raving Commie?

Did Phil Redmond write Grange Hill in '78, in the hope of keeping Thatcher from 10 Downing Street?

Does Paxman dress to the left, or to the right, in his reportedly shoddily made M & S briefs?

Bringback Tiswas!

Personally I find the news reporting on the Beeb to be fairly accurate, and without bias. They report what's happening. There's always editorial decisions made about what's deemed newsworthy, but that's life in news broadcasting, be it on television, radio, or over the garden fence.

If from time to time that doesn't suit the heavily media focused political parties, that's tough.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by andrewb

1997:
Independent - Labour
Daily Mail - Labour
The Guardian - Labour
The Observer - Labour
Daily Telegraph - Conservative
The Times - Conservative
The Sun - Labour
Financial Times - Labour

Yeah it might have changed now, but that's what happens in 13 years of politics!

I know you were probably in nappies at the time, but I can personally assure you that the Daily Mail was never pro-Labour in 1997. Though interestingly, in the thirties it famously supported fascism.

In 1997 I knew both the owner, Viscount Rothermere, and the editor, Paul Dacre, quite well, and I can't state catagorically they, nor the newspaper, supported, or desired a New Labour victory. An attempt was made to recruit myself into a media plan to orchestrate bad publicity for Blair, pre-election, which I didn't take part in.

The Daily Mail did support Blair, and New Labour, in the 2001 General Election.

Facts are only worth anything when they're accurate.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by andrewb

1997:
Independent - Labour
Daily Mail - Labour
The Guardian - Labour
The Observer - Labour
Daily Telegraph - Conservative
The Times - Conservative
The Sun - Labour
Financial Times - Labour

Yeah it might have changed now, but that's what happens in 13 years of politics!

Though I admit at the time, in 1997, it was genuinely shocking to see so many traditionally Tory supporting newspapers, going red, and urging their readers to vote New Labour, after 18 years of Conservative rule, under four consecutive Tory governments.

It was a strange conclusion for them to make, and for the electorate to understand.

[cashman]

But the sun actually did support blair rindy, so he got half his facts right. suppose thats near enough fer him.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by cashman

But the sun actually did support blair rindy, so he got half his facts right. suppose thats near enough fer him.

He was right there, that's true.

I could never work out if the Beano and Dandy were pro-New Labour in '97.

Perhaps a youngster, with an in depth political insight, might be able to throw some light on the matter?

[cashman]

Originally Posted by garinda

He was right there, that's true.

I could never work out if the Beano and Dandy were pro-New Labour in '97.

Perhaps a youngster, with an in depth political insight, might be able to throw some light on the matter?

Memories not what it was, but the one with "Lord Snooty" in was probably still tory.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by cashman

Memories not what it was, but the one with "Lord Snooty" in was probably still tory.

That's the one, with little Tommy Licker, who was always running round after Lord Snooty.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by andrewb

1997:
Independent - Labour
Daily Mail - Labour
The Guardian - Labour
The Observer - Labour
Daily Telegraph - Conservative
The Times - Conservative
The Sun - Labour
Financial Times - Labour

Yeah it might have changed now, but that's what happens in 13 years of politics!

Quoted from page 1...

'Meanwhile, instead of backing the Tories as they had done in 1992, The Times encouraged it's readers to back Euro-sceptic candidates of whatever partisan pursuasion (in 1997).'

Quoted from page 11...

'The 'Tory faithful' are readers of the three newspapers that continue to support the Conservatives in 1997, The Mail, The Express, and the Daily Telegraph.'
Powered by Google Docs

[garinda]

He may have made a mistake, but still the most damning fact is that after four Conservative governments, all the traditionally supportive Tory press came to the conclusion the Tories had failed, and the future lay with a Labour government.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by garinda

He may have made a mistake, but still the most damning fact is that after four Conservative governments, all the traditionally supportive Tory press came to the conclusion the Tories had failed, and the future lay with a Labour government.

But that is a damning fact, so my money says its one that certain people will "CHOOSE" to ignore.

[Wynonie Harris]

Originally Posted by Mancie

Look's like the Tories have got it all sorted in the run up to the election..they can do no wrong according to the newspapers.. attacks on Labour are not only daily but seem to be created for the main news on BBC and early morning editions of the papers have new revelations that are forgot in the second editions..
this is not a fair fight regarding policy.. it's tory dirty tricks.. nowt's changed there then.

I wondered why you were chucking your toys out of your pram last night, Mancie. Now I understand! Yes, Stephen Byers and his cohorts have scored rather a spectacular own goal for your lot, haven't they? Still, never mind, still plenty of mileage left in the Lord Ashcroft affair and who knows what else could break over the boy David's head? Surely, it's a bit early to be claiming "we wuz robbed"?

I'll tell you summat, Mancie, I can understand those who vote for either main party on a "lesser of two evils" basis, but anyone who still actually believes in them or trusts them really does need to wake up and smell the coffee!

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

I wondered why you were chucking your toys out of your pram last night, Mancie. Now I understand! Yes, Stephen Byers and his cohorts have scored rather a spectacular own goal for your lot, haven't they? Still, never mind, still plenty of mileage left in the Lord Ashcroft affair and who knows what else could break over the boy David's head? Surely, it's a bit early to be claiming "we wuz robbed"?

I'll tell you summat, Mancie, I can understand those who vote for either main party on a "lesser of two evils" basis, but anyone who still actually believes in them or trusts them really does need to wake up and smell the coffee!

It really is most unfair of Auntie to report this as a 'news story'.

She's definitely a right-wing bigot, and trying to discredit New Labour, by making a mountain out of a mole hill.

They were simply applying the 'redistribution of wealth' theory.

BBC News - Ex-ministers in 'cash for influence' row under fire

Personally they disgust me. As I said yesterday, when I posted the link to the story in the Sunday Times.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by garinda

Quoted from page 1...

'Meanwhile, instead of backing the Tories as they had done in 1992, The Times encouraged it's readers to back Euro-sceptic candidates of whatever partisan pursuasion (in 1997).'

Quoted from page 11...

'The 'Tory faithful' are readers of the three newspapers that continue to support the Conservatives in 1997, The Mail, The Express, and the Daily Telegraph.'
Powered by Google Docs

Very well correct somebody if they make a mistake. Don't try and do it in a patronising way if you're going to make a fundamental error yourself. Mancie was not talking about the readership, but about the papers themselves, as was I.

Some of the papers I listed listed may not have had a firm backing of a political party, but the Mail often supported Blair and the New Labour project in the run up to 1997, and backed them at the 2001 election.

Originally Posted by Garinda

but still the most damning fact is that after four Conservative governments, all the traditionally supportive Tory press came to the conclusion the Tories had failed, and the future lay with a Labour government.

It's not that they 'failed', quite the opposite. The Labour Party would never have changed to New Labour if the Conservatives hadn't been so successful. When you have a seemingly fresh alternative after 18 years of government, which ended in sleaze, it's no surprise that newspapers who had backed the government in the past, chose not to on that occasion.

[Wynonie Harris]

Today's Guardian editorial is certainly coming down hard on them...

MPs' sleaze: Byers for sale | Editorial | Comment is free | The Guardian

...still, what can you expect from such a rightwing, reactionary rag? It's Tory dirty tricks I tell you!

[garinda]

Just to keep Mancie happy...

What happened to Tories and the free market?

'The Tories have abandoned the free market and are now firmly in favour of a planned economy.'

'What happened to the consumer? At best Mr Cameron pays lip-service; at worst he is disingenuous. Towards the end of the document, he discusses “cutting the cost of security”. The last two words are the giveaway because, unlike old Tory thinking, this is not about cutting cost at all. It is about the much higher prices we must pay to meet the bill for minimum carbon prices and guaranteed prices for renewable energy.'
What happened to Tories and the free market? | Carl Mortished - Times Online

It's all very confusing.

Does this make the Times anti-Tory Lite, or pro-Labour?



Perhaps someone with an in depth insight into the political allegiance of the press, in General Election years, will helpfully come along and explain it to us.