´óÏó´«Ã½

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

There are two pictures in this post... who are they?? It doesn't say anywhere.

I think the best all-round example of MSM vs the internet that I've seen so far was Christina Odone's Telegraph pieces about Evan Harris. She did the same thing she's always done, spinning a mixture of exaggerations, distortions and outright lies, and chucking in a few gratuitous personal insults, and got completely taken to bits in her blog comments.

Rather than engaging in any sort of debate, or even retracting what she'd said, she went on to post the most paranoid follow-up possible, claiming that she was being oppressed by a coordinated (and 'spooky'!) conspiracy.

Aside from the substance (such as it was) of the spat, the most striking thing was the sheer inability to grasp that you can't just say stuff online without people calling you on it if it's rubbish, coupled with a palpable sense of shock that anyone would even dare question the word of a 'proper journalist'. It's a car crash, but it's well worth a few minutes rubber-necking:

You say that the blogosphere is contemptuous but many people fell that it is the MSM that is contemptuous particularly in how they regard Scotland, Wales & N Ireland when they report on this election as being irrelevant. Not speaking for other bloggers, but all I want is fairness, parity & impartiality particularly from organization such as the ´óÏó´«Ã½ that as they are publicly funded should be made accountable to follow its own charter.

In pursuit of facts, and context, I stumbled across this:



Now, who to believe, and whose opinion to be seduced by?

Tricky.

With very few honourable exceptions - we no longer have newspapers in this country - but daily entertainment. The print media are dominated by neo-con proprietors and their editors who will stoop to anything in support of their personal peccidillos and circulation - including making things up if the truth does not support their agenda.

Fortunately, the new media provide ways for those smeared by the "news" papers to respond - and a good thing too.

Of course, it might be politicians all on their own vs. other folk...

@´óÏó´«Ã½LauraK - John Cowan, candidate for South East Cambridge, suspended for offensive remarks he made online-too late for lab to select a new candidate

Good to see the B´óÏó´«Ã½, which often may be viewed as part of the MSM too, playing is part in this case.

The sky debate was quite sickening really. On top of the obviously against the rules attack on nick clegg by the host several in the media have noticed that the camera shots were manipulated to be more favourable to DC also (only DC had zoom ins while he was speaking for example).

Worse than the the u-gov instant poll which quoted DC as winning was conducted before the debate ended while NC was still making his final speech (see Newsnights political editor Michael Crick's blog who was the only one to report this).


I had a bet on nick clegg winning the debate, the bookmakers paid me out on the basis that in the majority of polls (except the U-gov poll) he won.

Yet if you read the media you would think that david cameron actually won when IN FACT he did not.

Even the ´óÏó´«Ã½ refused to call the result, like many preferring the cop out ''too close to call'' etc, presumably the factually correct headline 'clegg wins again' was banned by mutual consent via the networks that exist between senior incumbent main party politicians and the media of all kinds (including the ´óÏó´«Ã½).

If the ´óÏó´«Ã½ can not maintain its media impartiality who can?

So far, it's been a much better election for the mainstream media - or the "MSM" as they're described by an often contemptuous blogosphere - than you might have expected.

No, not what I expected, but what you and your cronies like Paul Wakely have bleathered on about.

Are the blogs by Nick Robinson, Brian Taylor, Robert Peston and the like part of the blogosphere or the main stream media?

It doesn't matter really, the method of delivery is far less important to me than the quality of the information provided.

As a prediction I wonder what the MSM are waiting to publish on Labour and Liberal Democrats on the eve of the election. The attack on Clegg was very worrying as it was obvious there was a coordinated spurious attack designed to hit on the eve of the debate to unnerve Clegg. There is something deeply concerning when a politically motivated elite who control part of the press use their control to influence a democratic election. I hope that last weeks attack was recognised by many as a such an attack and will respond by punishing the party to which these organs of the press belong.

I'm suprised I managed to get to the "u rock" bit, especially after Twitter was mentioned, again. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ technology blogs have fallen so far, that I stuggle to see them anymore. I know the election is important, or so I'm told to be believe, and that it is good to cover it, but could we please have a few proper technology posts?! Please?!

And no, I won't comment on anymore of the article, as it seems like utter drivvle.

For those of us out in the sticks with no broadband, it has been a blissfully quiet election campaign. With the hit and run of dial-up, we can't afford to listen to the background drone of either the bogoffsphere or MSM. This is one siver surfer whose vote is still up for grabs and no amount of new tech has reached me yet. It's not selling itself very well if all folk do is slag each other off over personal minutiae.
And as for those cheeky blighters who suggest generation change will remove me from the scene, I don't intend poppin' me clogs yet for your convenience, sonnies. The Westminster Village People are still writing for each other to read, not the population at large.
My Golden Girls gathered around my laptop agree with me. And we all have votes...

Social media with facebook and the likes of twitter certainly make for more engaging interaction with the public than MSM as you term it which is very one-way.

There is a continual rant against the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and other traditional channels about bias for or against various parties. I feel it's largely unwarranted though - if anyone bothers to read the comments in these blogs it appears there is roughly an equal distribution of pro-bias and anti-bias against every party imaginable.. pretty fair I'd say if anything. Think you should track that as part of your sentiment analysis Rory!

There is something deeply concerning when a politically motivated elite who control part of the press use their control to influence a democratic election