"Turns out the man who challenged the PM is also a Labour activist"
What do you take this phrase to mean? That sounds like 'gotcha' to me.
What do you take this phrase to mean? That sounds like 'gotcha' to me.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Yeah it reads like it's some big secret. Like she's uncovered some remarkable twist to the story.
The BBC called the complaints Absurd though and referred to the man at the hospital as a Labour activist rather than a concerned member of the public so they're clearly doubling down on it.
Last edited:
I reckon she likes it up the wrong'un.I quite like this. Seems like a real thing I can get behind.
Giving her the benefit of doubt, it was a naive thing to do in the current climate. However it would be unfair for her to be punished, let alone sacked for it. That's just mob mentality, the very thing people are complaining she is unleashing on him.
Considering everything else going on today, this has been massively blown out of proportion.
Considering everything else going on today, this has been massively blown out of proportion.
Implementing damage control for the Prime Mnister isn't supposed to be her job.
If that was her intention then she hasn't done a great job of it.
The fecking idiot who posted that tweet. If none of that is true, I would sue the fecking pants off him.
Read it again and think about it.....
I would entirely argue that tweet was directed to discredit and defame "the man in the video" otherwise the final comment would have been at the start of the tweet.
Secondly, if the tweet was not made in order to defame and rather legitimately seek clarification on the above issues, why not go through private means? 90% of people reading that tweet couldnt even careless about the final line, the top half has already made its impact.
But Boris DID do all those things...
Oh, I thought he was talking about oldmate in there with his daughter. I've no idea about the history of Boris as im not english.
He's been sacked more often than ancient Rome.
It’s the famous British sarcastic & ironic humor being put on display.
Their response will simply further aggravate those who complained.
Reading replies to the BBC statement tweet, they have have poured oil and not water onto what was a small fire ... who knows where it blows upto now ...
If I were a Labour PR man, I'd be making hay tonight!
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Last edited:
I think the mainstream media do an unpleasant but necessary job, and in that context the BBC are pretty good. Kuenssberg's deference to the govt. is particularly egregious though.
Kuenssberg.. Jesus man, irony maybe?
You only have these views because of your bias. It's sad because you end up endorsing really disgusting behaviour. Try and be neutral, it is possible.
#sacklaurakuenssberg is blowing up like crazy on twitter and Facebook. Are these all 'Labour activists' too?
Her position is now made untenable because now lacks credibility: she is crudely biased and abuses her power. She should be sacked, and I wouldn't be surprised if she is. I reckon she'll be lucky to survive the week.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Last edited:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Exactly, she’s not supposed to be the PMs spin doctor.
In fact she has taken the story away from Boris being caught lying AGAIN!
He literally can’t go through a single conversation without lying.
Not really seeing how Kuenssberg could be seen to have breached journalistic standards here?
She's retweeted a tweet from a political activists twitter account, which is a public platform. He's put it out there specifically to influence political narrative, which seems the sole intent of his Twitter account as a whole.
This is pretty funny, if you type her name into google the second most searched term after kuenssberg twitter is kuenssberg johnson affair
Pretty much sums up a certain faction and their obsession with her.
She's retweeted a tweet from a political activists twitter account, which is a public platform. He's put it out there specifically to influence political narrative, which seems the sole intent of his Twitter account as a whole.
This is pretty funny, if you type her name into google the second most searched term after kuenssberg twitter is kuenssberg johnson affair
Pretty much sums up a certain faction and their obsession with her.
Last edited:
Why is she focusing on the political background of the man in question instead of the PM once again being caught lying?
And this time directly to a member of the publics face? Surely that is the news story here? A man who has repeatedly got himself in trouble for being a complete liar is caught lying again.
As I've said before, I hope every time we get some right wing crackpot on BBC talking about how we need to leave the EU immediately or how much they hate Corbyn she shows similar interest and reports their political backgrounds too.
Where is she focusing on his background?
He wants to have his say on the event and use it in a political way so why is giving him a bigger platform a problem?
Tweeting "turns out the guy is a labour activist" as @Grinner said is like her saying Gotcha! Like it's some big twist to the story.
And then "this is him here" and linking his account for all the right wing nutjobs to pile onto him. It's just so unprofessional and it screams of Johnson getting his journalist pals to help him out.
That's a fair point and it looks like she's deleted it? Is it a breach in journalistic standards though?
If ap
Asking “Who is that guy going at the PM like that” is normal for a journalist. That he “turns out to be a labour activist” is noteworthy, factual but not central.
I wonder what you lot would be saying if it’d been prime minister Jezza and the outraged person had been a Tory activist. Would you still have regarded his tweets and affiliation as not newsworthy?
Amazing that some people can interpret events like this.
Asking “Who is that guy going at the PM like that” is normal for a journalist. That he “turns out to be a labour activist” is noteworthy, factual but not central.
I wonder what you lot would be saying if it’d been prime minister Jezza and the outraged person had been a Tory activist. Would you still have regarded his tweets and affiliation as not newsworthy?
Last edited:
the “this is him here” linked to what he was saying about it. She was quoting his public comments not inviting a pile on. I mean come on.
I don't think there's any debate to be had that retweeting him was 100% proper. She actually gave him the platform he wanted. I do think there's a more nuanced question over the use of 'turns out he's a Labour activist' and if that was an overstep of impartiality.
That said, if you're retweeting his Twitter then its a fact that it's pretty hard to get away from and it was always going to blow up into one of those lovely Twitter political storms, regardless of what she did.
Last edited:
Well I can guarantee if that does happen Kuenssberg won't be tweeting the outraged person is a Tory that's for sure.
I agree with you although around here a journalist retweeting - or you know, quoting -the actual explanation in his own words from the person at the centre of the story, is apparently biased and inviting a pile on.
Possibly political activists or the strongly politically committed see so much of this kind of twitter behaviour they see it even when it isn’t there.
You not think the PM being caught blatantly lying, again, is the bigger story?
No, I'm sure you don't.
Some of you have a very weird defensive relationship with Kuessenberg for the life of my i can't guess why.
It would be ridiculous to sack her over this alone but it was another poor bit of journalism from her. She's a poor journalist and certainly not impartial and has far superior colleagues in her midst but she's there for a political purpose.
If you take a second to look at the tweets this isn't just Corbynites attacking her it's the wider public and for good reason.
It would be ridiculous to sack her over this alone but it was another poor bit of journalism from her. She's a poor journalist and certainly not impartial and has far superior colleagues in her midst but she's there for a political purpose.
If you take a second to look at the tweets this isn't just Corbynites attacking her it's the wider public and for good reason.
I'm not sure it would be enough for a breach of journalistic standards, although lets be honest what standards are they these days.
For me it's more that she's so clearly biased towards the right and particularly Boris Johnson and this is just another in a long line of examples of her doing something like this.
She's a senior political journalist for the BBC, she should at least try and look impartial.
Actually I do, but that’s not what you are focusing on either. Let’s face it, none of you are as wound up by Johnson’s lies as the BBC political editors retweets.
The problem isn't with the facts of her statements but the vocabulary that she used. It denotes some sort of bias, you could even suggest that in her view, being a labour activist reduces the point or the feeling that he may have had during his encounter with Boris Johnson. Otherwise why would she use the term "turns out" and make it the center of the story?
Because I don’t actually think she did anything terribly wrong. No more complicated than that.
did she make it the centre of the story? I saw it as another fact in a developing story.
The Mirror article the father quotes in the tweet she RTd also mentions that he is a Labour activist though, as does his twitter bio. It's not like she outed him as one, it was already known at that point and simply by retweeting him you would be drawing attention to that fact. Plus it's a fact that has since been mentioned in pretty much every report on the incident, so I'm not sure you could argue that mentioning it was out of keeping with the general coverage.