I'm reprinting this article from yesterday's 'Independent', which reports on a recent study by London School of Economics academics into the media coverage of Jeremy Corbyn's Labour leadership;
"Three-quarters of newspaper stories about Jeremy Corbyn in
the first months of his leadership either distorted or failed to represent his
actual views on subjects, a study has found.
Academics at the London School of Economics analysed the
content of eight national newspapers between 1 September and 1 November 2015,
when Mr Corbyn was first elected
The media researchers found that in 52 per cent of articles
about the Labour leader, his own views were not included – while in a further
22 per cent they were “present but taken out of context” or otherwise
distorted.
In just 15 per cent of 812 articles analysed, Mr Corbyn’s
views were present but challenged, and in only 11 per cent were they present
without alteration.
“Our analysis shows that Corbyn was thoroughly
delegitimised as a political actor from the moment he became a prominent
candidate and even more so after he was elected as party leader,” Dr Bart
Cammaerts, the project director concluded.
“These results relating to sources and ‘voice’ are
evidently troublesome from a democratic perspective.
“Allowing an important and legitimate political actor,
ie the leader of the main opposition party, to develop their own narrative and
have a voice in the public space is paramount in a democracy.
“Denying such an important political actor a voice or
distorting his views and ideas through the exercise of mediated power is highly
problematic.”
Examples given by the researchers of distortions include one
incident in which Mr Corbyn was presented as having criticised commemorations
of the First World War in a 2013 speech.
The newspaper included in the study were The Sun, The Daily
Express, The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail, the Evening Standard, the
Independent, the Daily Mirror and the Guardian.
In terms of tone, fewer than 10 per cent of articles were
judged by the researchers to be positive, while more than half were
antagonistic or critical. Around a third had a neutral tone.
28 per cent of articles analysed were based on anti-Corbyn
Labour party sources, while 23 per cent were based on pro-Corbyn sources.
Mr Corbyn’s supporters have been highly critical of media
coverage around the Labour leader, judging it to be overwhelmingly hostile.
The Labour leader has himself also hit out at the media,
banning journalists from asking him questions at the front door of his home.
“We have a party under attack from much of the media in
this country like it has never been under attack before,” he said in May.
Or, in other words, the papers have just been lying about Corbyn for the last year.
Neil Harris
(a don't stop till you drop production)
Home:helpmesortoutstpeters.blogspot.com
Contact me: neilwithpromisestokeep@gmail.com
