It's a brilliant show too. Having a huge amount of representation for women and ethnic minorities. It's just a classic case of the Mail getting hold of a sound bite and asking people to complain.
First question when people complain should be "did you see the show in question, when was it on, what channel?" As all of the complainers were just being told to be annoyed.
Can anyone explain why the government or Burnham announce what actually happened, surely the public have a right to know? I've heard that Liverpool were given better terms than Manchester as well which seems odd.
Oblomov Boblomov wrote:Laura Kuenssberg: "The government said it was like this, but the Greater Manchester leaders said it was actually like this."
Where is the bias? How does that constitute her acting as a government press secretary?
She's not quoting the government. She's quoting "government sources".
She's also quoting Greater Manchester sources. Is she their press secretary too?
I never made the press secretary comment.
But she certainly acts like a government mouthpiece a lot of the time. Her schtick is "a government source said..." but really she's just pushing Cummings propaganda.
I think good journalism would have been to ask a lot of people who have knowledge of the meeting, independently, and try to piece together what actually happened - then report that. If Burnham's people are saying "GM leaders were unanimously opposed", and Cummings with big glasses and a fake moustache government sources are saying "all the GM leaders wanted to take our offer but Burnham blocked it to spite us", then one of those accounts is factually true. She could go and talk to people and try to work out who is lying.
Karl_ wrote:I think good journalism would have been to ask a lot of people who have knowledge of the meeting, independently, and try to piece together what actually happened - then report that. If Burnham's people are saying "GM leaders were unanimously opposed", and Cummings with big glasses and a fake moustache government sources are saying "all the GM leaders wanted to take our offer but Burnham blocked it to spite us", then one of those accounts is factually true. She could go and talk to people and try to work out who is lying.
Exactly. Government sources = Cummings has told her what to say. That's not journalism, that's a mouthpiece for the Government.
Surely, it's possible that the government sources just misread the room. It's not like the other MC people on the zoom call or whatever would say, "Yeah, we'd take your offer but Burnham isn't happy."
Lex-Man wrote:Surely, it's possible that the government sources just misread the room. It's not like the other MC people on the zoom call or whatever would say, "Yeah, we'd take your offer but Burnham isn't happy."
Lex-Man wrote:Surely, it's possible that the government sources just misread the room. It's not like the other MC people on the zoom call or whatever would say, "Yeah, we'd take your offer but Burnham isn't happy."
Does that sound like our government?
My thinking is that it might be a senior Civil Servant rather than an elected politician.
Lex-Man wrote:Surely, it's possible that the government sources just misread the room. It's not like the other MC people on the zoom call or whatever would say, "Yeah, we'd take your offer but Burnham isn't happy."
Does that sound like our government?
My thinking is that it might be a senior Civil Servant rather than an elected politician.
The fact that we all know about lockdowns, tiers and masks weeks before they are announced verbatim shows the highest level of government is leaking.
Otherwise it is an enormous national security issue. They haven't stopped the leaks, pursued the leaker or called in the police to find the bug in Downing Street.
It's the new norm, parliament ignored and the sun and mail used to get the public used to ideas. It is genius as the opposition can't complain about a policy as it's just a rumor, then by the time it comes out the public is resigned to it.