Posts
South Manchester Distorter: More Skewed By-Election Coverage
The South Manchester Reporter have a round up of the four candidates in the Didsbury West By-Election HERE. No idea how they determined the order in which they should be pictured and listed. Any ideas? Not alphabetical of surnames. Not alphabetical of first names. Not alphabetical of parties. Or reverse alphabetical of any of these.
Just Leech's cipher first and most prominent is all. Now why on earth is that? She would be my fourth and last choice for the job. South Manchester already has enough useless Lib Dem councillors and it is really about time that the Didsburys and Withington reconnected with the ruling Labour group and gave themselves a better chance of getting things done.
West Didsbury Residents’ Association is hosting a ‘Question Time’ type hustings on Thursday, January 22, from 7.30pm at the Albert Club on Old Lansdowne Road, West Didsbury. So put the date in your diaries and get along and weigh up the candidates for yourselves. Perhaps Channel M, the so-called Community TV Station, could get along and cover that instead of making one hour commercials for David Cameron?
22 comments:
"No idea how they determined the order in which they should be pictured and listed."
Er, the order the parties finished in at the last election maybe.
Get A Grip, Get A grip!
If you are going to read this blog you are going to have to devote some time to unravel the content so you can read it as if a rational human being had written it.
Its a bit like the Daily Mail.
The Reporter is a bit like the Lucy Powell Fan Club, but CP still calls it the Distorter. Him! Calling something else the distorter!
Sorry. My mistake.
God if you're the face of the modern Labour party, roll on the Tories and the Lib Dems.
I had a quick look at constituency profiles from various newspapers that were featured in the run-up to the 2005 General Election.
Guess what? In 95% of cases, the order that the candidates were featured was the one that their respective parties had finished in at the last election.
It seems perfectly reasonable to me. It allows the journalist to formulate some sort of priority without leaving themself open to accusations of favouritism.
I don't think any of them used the "what order would Chris Paul like them to be listed" criterion.
That would be David Ellison follwed by the Sport section I think
He's not exactly a democrat, Grippy
Sorry. My mistake.
Or the pet lingerie section.
Someone is impersonating me!
But good point anonymous
Marvellous stuff. Solo banter from an anonymous troll. The SMR need to explain their choice. They gave Leech the run of the place in the run up to 2005, printing his propaganda often unanswered or without engaging critical faculties.
Let's hear from the SMR. Not a manic Lib Dem troll on some mind altering concoction of drink and drugs. The SMR have history ... and it's not of listing candidates in order of previous results.
The reporter listed the Lib Dems first in every single local seat in the last LG elections I think. They're just rotten rubbish really.
I will try to type slowly so that you can follow this, Chis.
The SMR do not need to explain their choice and I expect they have no intention of doing so, either.
The details of candidates were printed in the order that their parties finished in the last election. It is normal journalistic practice - that's why you won't understand it.
If perchance it is "normal journalistic practice" - let's say it is shall we? - it is not normal SMR practice. Otherwise I'd not be putting the question.
They appear to list the Lib Dems first whether they are incumbents candidates or parties or not. And that is embarrassing. Are you not embarrassed for them? Poor dears.
The fact you've posted this anonymous but split person conversation with yourself suggests that you're cowardly, and/or crazy, and/or stupid.
do you consider reporting the engagement of a woman who has never sought election (yet) to be good news values?
Its swings and arrows Chris.
I've never posted as anything other than anonymous since you blogged monitoring the URLs of commentators.
Perhaps that is cowardly, but crazy and stupid, it is not.
You asked if anyone had "any ideas" why the SMR published the candidates and I told you. No need to thank me. An apology would be nice, though.
I checked SMR back copies for their election coverage and you are wrong.
I have not been carrying on conversations with myself. Nor do I hear voices. What are yours saying today?
Couple of notes to the trolls:
Six posts from "Get A Grip"
Six posts from "anonymous" - clearly may be more than one poster (as indeed may be Get a Grip)
Riffing off each other. Tediously. If that's not talking with yourself I don't know what is. Even if GaG and Anon don't have a shared real identity during the riff.
Anon 10:39: I don't monitor URLs and haven't said I did. Nor do I routinely monitor IP Addresses though as with most blogs and websites the IP addresses of visitors are logged. It is not hard to identify with some certainty which IP address wrote which comment using even free software. Clearly this points up patterns of posters using different identities.
Get A Grip: Perhaps you could provide a link to SMR issues which don't list the Libs first when they are not incumbents? Just saying it's so don't make it so. And even producing a link or a scan doesn't mean there is not a pattern.
Lucy Powell getting engaged is more of a story I suppose for a local tittle tattle sheet than John Leech MP claiming to have moved into the constituency with his long term girlf when in fact he has not done so as far as anyone can see.
But you digress. And your concluding insinuation betrays your inner nastiness and stupidity. Which reflects badly on your apparent Lib Dem lineage.
One advantage of posting with a fixed identity is that you can then delete deeply nasty and ignorant posts you think better of.
If you'd like me to remove it for you I will. Offensive.
You said that the SMR coverage in recent elections was biased in that it always placed Lib Dem candidiates first. You have not provided any evidence of this or any link to the SMR issues. And yet you want me to do it for you. Get real.
You have still not conceded the point on your original one-eyed gripe that it is perfectly reasonable to list the candidates in the order that their parties finished at the last elections.
Just what is your problem with that?
As for being offensive. You accused me of being a "manic Lib Dem troll on some mind altering concoction of drink and drugs".
None of those statements is true. For someone with an incredibly thin skin you really don't mind doling it out, do you?
Mr Paul
Are you sure that you aren't your own sock-puppet?
I ask only because it's the only post you've made recently with more than 1 or zero comments and it's suddenly infested with a nom de plume and you.
Also why does your site refresh automatically when I scroll down it? I haven't gone anywhere and assume that there is no dynamic content that requires a refresh every time I touch the scroll bar?
Mr "Get a Grip":
You are an anonymous troll. You don't get to have feelings to offend. Or real humanescence.
It is obvious - any fool know - that making insinuations and indeed direct allegations about real people's mental health is offensive and actionable.
There can be no equivalence between teasing a dim troll - and "anon" may well be the target here - and defaming a real person with offensive garbage.
Cut it out.
Plato: No, I am not putting these initially sensible (1 comment) then quickly ridiculously stupid and latterly deeply offensive remarks on my own blog. And as for the stability of your computer and your browser I have no idea what's going on there. But it is not anything I've done. I have not booby trapped my blog page and I have not possessed your browser. Though the fact that you posted your comment twice doesn't bode well. Thanks for removing the "spare".
And to suggest that I am a drunkard and a taker of mind-altering drugs is deeply offensive.
The fact that you take it on yourself to say that just becuase I have taken you up on some microscopic detail of a non-story says everything there is to be said about you.
Post a Comment