C4 news analysis
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 авг 2016
- Corbyn, Trots and Claudia Webbe
After watching a Channel 4 News interview I was so appalled by the blatant use of Neuro Linguistic Programming and devious production techniques, I just had to break it down and show people how these news programs can skew interviews and relay their own political agendas over and above the messages that their guests are there to relay. Sometimes politicians can find themselves in a “Media Hijack” situation, this is an example of just that. Even though it’s well known that there is a certain amount of media hostility towards the current Labour Leader, I doubt that NEC member Claudia Webbe was prepared for this level of abuse from Channel 4 News and the host Cathy Newman.
I have some experience producing and directing live broadcast TV and I can tell you with certainty that every trick in the book is used in this piece to discredit Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of The Labour Party. Whatever your politics, you need to watch all news analytically to understand just what these people are ramming down your throat. Reading between the lines is not just a text based thing!
Some people have said there are problems viewing here on RUclips so I put it on Vimeo too: vimeo.com/179430286
Insightful analysis. The presenter's grossly unfair bias is so obvious when expertly unpacked, as you have demonstrated. Everyone should see this. It reveals how brutally fiendish the British Establishment are; there appears no limit to how low they will stoop to protect their power and wealth.
This is exactly why I have turned from Tory to Corbynite.....
Yes, once, many years ago, I belonged to an extreme right wing organisation in the UK. The Young Conservatives. But as I've matured I've seen that the practical application of ethical political and environmental principles is going to be the only way that humanity is actually going to be able to survive. Welcome aboard, Mark.
What are those principles?
Excellent analysis of the underhand devices being used by the establishment through the media. I think this adds further support to the Corbyn Campaign.
Thank you so much! Video is best when it's doing it's job! :)
Excellent video. Please do more.
agree!
What a terrible person she is. Why would anyone trust her (let alone give her a job) after she faked an attack in a mosque?
who? the news presenter? got a link i haven't heard about that
She went on twitter complaining about being asked to leave a mosque during an open day event. Huff Po got hold of CCTV footage which showed that her claim was false. She apologised to the mosque for the 'misunderstanding' a few days later, if the CCTV footage hadn't been reported on, her version of being mistreated by muslims would have stood. She's an arsehole.
Sorry, yeah, the news presenter, Cathy Newman. www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/02/05/cathy-newman-mosque_n_6620026.html
this is great - lots of points I know I'd not have picked up in otherwise. would love to see more
Horrible bint. I can't believe the way these interviewers aren't giving any acknowledgement to the huge support JC has! It really makes them look stupid. Who exactly do they think they're fooling?
I cannot stand that rancid superiority complex of a woman. What a vile human being.
What an unwatchable woman. So glad I don't have a really.
i am appalled by channel 4
This is the Ch4 News presenter who claimed on a tweet that she had been ushered onto the street from a mosque. The mosque subsequently getting threats on the phone. Except CCTV later showed she had lied through her arse and then made a mealy mouthed apology.
Why watch C4 News? Why watch TV at all? I gave it up years ago. I'll pick what I want to see, I'm not going to be shown only the things some news editor wants me to see.
This news woman is horrible. She should be taken off the air.
But SHE didn't construct and edit this interview - she is merely the mouthpiece/ puppet. All she does is read the script.
Yes, unfortunately, one of the requirements for the job is not to think.
Thank you. We need more analysis like this being published because following a single viewing it is very difficult to identify what you find disturbing in interviews like this one
Channel 4 should be fined and have it's licence revoked
Excellent deconstruction of the insidious techniques in play here: things which most people are unaware of and as an outsider to the media industry myself, this video has taught me a lot. Thank you, I hope you will do more of these in the future.
This is a brilliant comment thanks! - it is just heartwarming to me that this video helps people see behind the media veil. :)
Well done, Claudia Webbe on not allowing yourself to be bullied by the horrible interviewer (don't know her name).
WHAT AN ABSOLUTE STITCH U-P, EVEN WORSE THAN BBC OR SKY
Yep - that's a good phrase for it!
Could you do these analyses of anti-Corbyn bias by other news channels? It would be very informative and useful.
This is brilliant. Please do more of these and thank you.
Thank you too! I will try and do more as soon as I get a bit of time :)
Have you tried posting a link to your video on the Channel 4 News Facebook page?
I just did and they BLOCKED me within two minutes. That said, WE SHOULD ALL put this video on their FB page!! Let´s bombard them, this is DISGUSTING what they are doing, pure text book MIND CONTROL! So please share to their page!!
Thanks for this Ed. I just found your channel and the insight you provide is helpful. Not to me, I woke up to smell the coffee some 6 years ago. Before that, I was in the matrix right up to my neck and if I hadn't become a victim of the system, I probably still would be.
As an ex military person, I was probably brainwashed more than most, we all are as we become automatons but it is difficult to explain what you show here to those who either cannot, or do not want to see the truth of how they too have been and are being brainwashed on a daily basis from everything they read to everything they see.
Thank whatever deity you happen to worship for social media, it is slowly waking up the flock to see what is really happening in our country and the rest of the world rather then just what they want us to see and hear.
Lots more of these please Ed, I'll certainly do my part to get them out there.
The revolution will not be televised.
This is an incredibly valuable evaluation - and easily understood.
This kind of assessment is something your average person may not be capable of doing for themselves, or have the time to do, given the frequency, voracity and unchallenged nature of such biased reporting.
Pulling interviews apart in this manner could give voters the tools to be critical of the information that's handed to them. This is immensely important for democracy.
If you're able to produce these for other interviews it would be fantastic. Not just anti-Corbyn interviews but those designed as Pro-anyone but Corbyn puff pieces.
Thanks for creating this.
Has anyone at C4 seen this? responded?
Please make more of these!
I will try - going to have a look at BBCNews on iPlayer this afternoon :)
Ed many sincere thanks for producing and sharing this. I get so angry watching interviewers being so unfair but I have never seen a deconstruction of the process like this. It is very helpful to have it broken down in this very accessible way. Any more of this in the pipeline?
Thanks Tony - yes maybe more later this week :)
thanks for this video, very interesting
Thank you too - I'm thrilled that you found it interesting! :)
Ed Torsney it's quite clear there's a lot of bias against corbyn but I didn't realise the extent of the tricks pulled by the media. especially the part with the presenter's eye level above yours whilst you only see the back of the interviewee. take it easy
That is really an amazing shot and there's yet more to it than I mentioned in the video. As well as establishing authority by manipulating the viewer's perspective, this composition is also used a lot in horror/thriller films: The cowering heroin (presenter) is dwarfed by the huge, dark imposing presence of the villain/monster/ideology encroaching onto the screen... So we're supposed to feel a certain amount of fear/loathing at this 'apparition' but it also serves to strengthen the pivotal message of the piece by encouraging us to identify with the presenter's 'heroism' in challenging this 'evil'.... mwuhahahahaaaaa!!!!
Thank you, a real eye opener.
Thanks for taking the time to analyse this
Thank you for this. I don't know much about NLP but what you point out seems very plausible to me. Great video analysis.
Thank you very much :)
I found this really interesting. Thanks for the insight. I'll be watching the news with fresh eyes tomorrow.
Wow thanks - I'm really pleased this has had that effect!
Excellent analysis. People need to understand more about this. That the emotions and opinions conveyed can be as controlled on the news as they are in film and drama on tv.
Thanks, yes that's exactly why I did it, after working on and off in the industry for the last 20 years I find I always watch TV like this - it just occurred to me that most people aren't allowed to see behind the veil - I'd like to help them if I can. Thanks for your kind comments. :)
Hi Ed, do you have the broadcast date for this interview? I intend to complain to Ofcom.
D'oh! Forget I asked. Ive just rewatched it and it's there lol
Good luck with the complaint - it's difficult to prove any of these techniques though. Although many of these techniques are in regular use and understood very well (especially at the big broadcasters), producers and directors can convincingly plead ignorance and say they didn't know a particular shot would give a particular impression, an interviewer can justify her phrasing of a question by putting it down to the pressures of a 'live' environment. There is arguably also an amount of subjectivity involved as with all creative pursuits - certain things will mean one thing to one person and possibly the opposite to another, but it must be stressed - these people are serious professionals - they are some of the best at their jobs in the world and they ALL know every trick in the book!
So in order to prove that the broadcast is in fact biased, it would be a case of adding up all the negative connotations of speech, camera angles, framing, graphics, time allocation, interruptions, spoken inaccuracies, insults etc. against any positive, balancing statements, time allocations and attention given to interviewees' points.
It's very tricky...
Thank you! It's very insightful indeed and I'm quite shocked, as I thought better of Channel 4 News (until now). I'd love to see more analysis like this about other interviews and news reporting tactics in general. (If you do so then please consider adding a voiceover to the text onscreen in future to make it easier to follow)
PS - you might like to know that I found your video via this post on Facebook which has had approx 160K views, 3600 shares, 900 reactions and 375 comments, so the impact of your work is FAR greater than you might realise! :) facebook.com/cloakedtruth/videos/626099404230428/
...oh! Didn't know that thanks! erm...right then... wow!
Excellent work we need more of this kind of thing so people become more aware
Fantastic work. Thank you for taking the time to complete this
moar of this!
brilliant analysis!
Fascinating. I watched that & noticed some of the analysis, repetition of Trotskyites was obvious but its so instructive when its all put together. De Bernays would have a field day! And, on the other hand, people are liking Jeremy for his authenticity when he finally gets shown.
When a story is so well crafted and well told across all media, by the loudest voices and most venerable sources, it takes courage and strength to remember: it's just a story.
C4: Your quality presentation is astounding. Thank-you for showing how the BBC is choosing to distort its "neutral" news coverage. If this system of the BBC news coverage continues, people must end the BBC.
Great video, thank you for your comments and explanations!
Would you make more videos about different techniques like this? It's really interesting!
Where I can see obvious use of association and subliminal influence (broken labour sign), I would not say that it's the use of NLP per se. This kind of manipulation is not exclusive to NLP, but NLP was derived from naturally powerful communicators, then distilled to certain patterns, phrases and principals. I can clearly see everything you point out, and it is obvious to anyone who has studied such a discipline, but just like you can use a knife to cut cake, you can use a knife to kill, but it's not the fault of the knife (I know you are smiling at my use of metaphor, and NLP does study metaphor, but metaphor has been used for many thousands of years, long before NLP 'unpacked it'). Your insight into production technique is fascinating, as was your analysis.
It's great that you take the time to show such blatant bias, bad journalism, and manipulation, keep it up!
Excellent analysis, more please!
This was fantastic! Would be great to see more of these!! I'm often aware of how most media has an agenda it's trying to push onto us but am unable to articulate it. This was a great breakdown and introduced me to the technicalities of how media manipulates emotions and information to push public opinion to serve their interests or agenda.
Kinda reminds me of Adam Curtis' documentary that looks at Edward Bernays, the father of PR, and how he used various psychological techniques, mainly symbolism, to get women smoking in the US after being asked to do so by an American tobacco company.
I think more videos like yours would make for a great RUclips channel.
Do you have any recommendations on anything to read or watch concerning what I've been talking about? Techniques used by the media. Just to help me when I'm watching things so I pick things out and read between the lines better.
"Predictably Irrational" is a good book showing how irrational humans can be and how it's exploited by advertising. Then there's "Merchants of Doubt" (book n film) about fabricating scientific "consensus" about smoking etc. Dunno of anything specific to media and politics so if anyone does I'd like to know too :)
So what did Claudia Webb come up with? 'hope' 'change' - Jesus, the number of times I've heard these words in the mouths of politicians. They're all disgusting.
I had to rewind this so many times when it was broadcast.I never miss all these tricks but this women is always a disgrace.I watch an interview a few weeks ago where most of the camera shots were directed at the back of Jeremy Corbyns head whilst the presenter was aggressively interviewing, He was often slightly blurred when next to Cameron in shots.Thank you for this I thought I was the only one shouting about it.
Thank you Ed for this excellent decipher.
Thank you too Jeffery - I'm reall happy that this video has been useful to some people :)
+Ed Torsney
This is a great format Ed for the coming post-election countermand to Corbyn and Momentum.
I have shared your post, as well as subscribed.
Ed, thanks for the great analysis. In your experience, how deliberate does the interviewer/studio crew use the techniques you described? I gather It needs some training to manage and execute a "conversation script" like that - so can I assume the ppl involved are fully aware of what they're doing?
Different for different studios but generally: Producer, director and talent will meet to discuss live packages for the day and go into some detail on the treatment of each subject/interviewee. (There has to be consensus at this point - a lot rests on the 'correct' treatment). The interviewer absolutely plans the interview and will usually discuss plans for structure, timing and questions with the studio director beforehand so they're both roughly aware of the structure of the package - timings and questions to be asked. The director will then plan the shots - framing/movement etc and disseminate that plan to cameras/sound/lights and gallery etc.
The guys on the cameras don't necessarily know what the 'treatment' will be but they'll have a list of shots and are in constant contact over comms with director in the gallery. So to cut a long story short - the whole piece is usually very tightly orchestrated from the top down...
Thank you for this excellent analysis.
Great deconstruction thank you.
Thank you too! - the important thing is that people get a glimpse behind the veil.
This was despicable. Thank you for the analysis.
If you write a book I will definitely ready it. You are very good at analysing this brainwashing!
Thanks - you're too kind really! Don't know if I've time to write a book (good idea though!) but I'll try and do some more of these, moving house next week though so life a bit hectic just now. Thanks for your kind comments!
Very interesting. Keep analysing.
maybe you could also upload some videos for shows you've worked on and analyse what you did and how you feel about such techniques.
Please do BBCs Labour leadership debate today it made this look like child's play. Great work
I'll have a look - it's a maybe :)
Thank you. I will share widely. Please keep doing this. Did you see the Newsnight programme recently about Media biais? You should tweet this at them and demand a follow up! Or an invite into the programme. Or post this to their Facebook page, if they have one.
Also write to the papers giving this link, and comment on online newspapers under the line with this link! Thanks so much for exposing this!
Interesting analysis
Thank you :)
One knows that you're seeing a manipulation of opinion, a bias and and an agenda, but to have it neatly dissected like this is very illuminating. Thank you. However I have to say that Claudia Webbe needs to be prepared for this sort of thing. It's easy to say this sitting in may chair, but Claudia could have easily deflected some of this by asking Cathy to actually look at Mr Tapp and saying something like "I don't know Mr Tapp personally, but all I see is a benign senior citizen who forty years ago had sympathies belonging to the far left, which is actually quite natural and not illegal for a politically aware young person, and is now a mature socialist with likely a lot of experience that might serve Labour and the country well. This being so, then what's your problem, Cathy?"
Well put! I imagine it's loss of profits that scares them most.
Thanks Ed. I'm an expatriate, I've lived here in NZ for thirty years, which depressingly coincides with NZ's thoughtless gorging of neoliberal political poison, but I've been following with interest the amazing recent events in the UK. The bizarre truly has become the common political currency.
To cheer you up, would you like to watch a video I posted to Google disk the other day?
drive.google.com/file/d/0B0h-Lk4zYZ5RQjlTNWEyVm9udjA/view
Quite scary how British Media manipulates information to serve the Establishment! Simply outrageous!
Love your work
Thank you, this means a lot - I hope it helps you to see behind the media veil - I love doing my work :)
I posted this to my Facebook wall as an "excellent example of deconstruction", Its been shared a lot
You're a star! Thanks :))
I dont usually hit the subscribe button once I see a video that I like. This time I did.
her surname is newMAN..many of you will understand what I'm saying.
What's Wrong with Channel 4 News?
bsnews.info/whats-wrong-with-channel-4-news-part1/
bsnews.info/whats-wrong-with-channel-4-news-part2/
bsnews.info/whats-wrong-channel-4-news-part-three/
excellent analysis
Very well done!
Can you do more? I can make them go viral
I can try if I get time - but I don't know about going viral - sounds like a lot of pressure!
+Ed Torsney
Don't worry. Viral only means people are interested.
keep the quality and objectivity high
thanks ... do more, please ...
Thanks for that very informative video
thanks for this. very informative and I have shared it.
Only just seen this, which I guess is what we're up against! Great analysis though - keep it up!
Great analysis, but I'm flabbergasted at how docile the interviewees are. They seem to be unable to say "Look, your attempts at manipulating the people watching this are embarassingly obvious, and I suggest we start discussing things seriously" and restrict themselves to uttering toe-curling platitudes about hope and change.
Not even the Socialist bloke had the guts to say "Everybody quiet! Wait a second, I never talked about violent revolution, and I'm not going to allow you to put words in my mouth like that. And I'm not going to let this go unchallenged. We're not moving on until this is clarified and you have apologized." Can anyone explain why this is? Serious question.
excellent
thanks for that ,,, interesting
Until recently I'd never heard of Peter Taaffe or Militant as I'd never really been very interested in politics, mainly because in my 28 years I'd never seen politicians as people who genuinely want to improve the lives of ordinary people. They seemed much more interested in their wealthy donors while just throwing us a few table scraps occasionally so they can claim they're working in our interests, while the evidence shows just how unequal our society has become over the past decades.
I decided to look into the history of Militant a little (As I'd encourage everyone to do), and frankly I don't see why they are perceived so negatively, I think the main reason for that is media bias. What they did in the 80's while running Liverpool council should be applauded by everyone. They refused to just accept the cuts the Thatcher government was trying to implement which were disproportionately hurting the weakest and most vulnerable in our society and instead built more houses, opened leisure centres, refused to cut services, etc. Their motto at the time was "Better to break the law than to break the poor", and while I guess there may be some mixed feelings about this, I believe that it can be justified in some circumstances to break the law when it is done with good intent to improve the lives of people.
The fight against the poll tax too, where Militant lead 18m people (cant find the source for this figure now, but I remember reading it or a similar figure) in defying the poll tax which resulted in Thatcher having to abolish it. The PLP constantly talk about needing to be in power to make any change and I agree that being in power is helpful, but there is a lot that can still also be done from opposition if you can mobilise a movement behind you. The things about Labour now being a "protest party" and not one interested in power is ridiculous and just tries to undermine an important part of how we can achieve change in our society. The elites don't just decide to hand us our rights on a plate, we have to fight for (and to keep) them, and that includes protest and social movements. Please dont misunderstand me and think I'm saying that winning an election isn't important, as I believe it is important and also something very possible with our current Labour party leadership, I'm just trying to explain that there is also a lot that we can be doing without a majority in the commons.
I personally hope the Socialist Party will be allowed to join Labour just as the Co-op Party has, as I think they'd be a very valuable part of Labour and open up discussions that may currently be overlooked by not having their voices heard. I think unity of the left is important and discussions about the future of our country and society should include all left groups so there can be an open discussion between all with a better chance of finding the optimal solutions to our problems.
The Co-op party as all ways been part of the Labour Party, the Militant also was part of the Labour party, they use to be called the Socialist before Labour party was first formed, when right wing Kinnock had them removed from the Labour party the reformed into number of Socialist groups like the Socialist Workers and the Socialist party, yes it was the Socialist party that started the anti-poll-tax revolt that lead 18 million people that bought down Thatcher after 9 mths, every one took credit for that except the Socialist party who started it in a cafe in Glasgow with 5 members, after the dust had settlede they went after the leader (Sheridan) with lies from the sun news paper and a altered picture
Firstly - This is a response to the video that I shared on Facebook. Not my own thoughts. Interested to hear your response to the following criticisms:
They leave the opening captions up forever and it is annoying
The very first bullet opens with "actually" as though correcting the statement but the statement is true. Yes he's the general secretary of the The Socialist Party (and his on-screen credit says that, though the blue bubble ignores this) but he's also the founding editor of Militant. His role in militant is more relevant to his wanting to return to the Labour party which is what he came to talk about given that that's why and when he was expelled. Implying a correction where there was none is the kind of bias I thought this video was setting out to correct?
A series of question marks after "JC Supporter" implies that Claudia Webb isn't one. Again this video is big on implying rather than demonstrating - Claudia Webb is/was one of Corbyn's most vocal supporters, she's a Councillor in his constituency. Here's her talking about him:
"Labour needs to win the next General Election, with Jeremy Corbyn and our strong support. Jeremy’s platform and popularity is based on a clear anti-austerity message - a firm break with the previous consensus."
*EDIT* Throughout the interview she is clearly a Corbyn supporter - were the question marks implying they should have given her a different intro? I'm relegating this one to confusing
Yeah the "broken" labour image they use as a backdrop seems pretty appropriate for a discussion of Labour's internal strife which everyone on every side has acknowledged - this is a weak as shit argument for C4 bias
saying "Jeremy Corbyn's Labour" is flagged as biased. The entire point of this portion of the interview is that Taaffe wants back in because Jeremy Corbyn has changed Labour (this is also the very first thing Taaffe says in the interview) so clearly Corbyn warrants a mention. Does every headline about "May's Conservative party" imply that it's not really the Conservative party? No. Dumb.
The addition of the word "violent" - finally something actually worth noting! Though given that Militant has endorsed violence (clue in the name there) and calls for a "continuation" of the Soviet revolution in the same quote (and that was certainly a violent revolution) the journalist could justify the choice fairly easily. In fact she does clarify it but this video edits her response out because *gasp* it's pretty damn biased.
"Trot" is a phrase some people who consider themselves Trotskyist use, it's about as pejorative as calling a Conservative a Tory (many Conservatives don't like it, others use it themselves) - though I'd agree it does encourage you to take Trotskyism marginally less seriously. The comparison with racial abuse is tasteless and wrong-headed.
The turn to Claudia Webbe is more misleading. Mainly due to editing. The interviewer quotes someone from the other end of the table but this video edits that out and implies that the interviewer made it stating her own opinion. The video then dwells on and repeats (three times!) the same question trimming the context down further so you forget the lost introduction and also that the interviewer actively notes that Claudia has distanced herself from the hard-left representatives. One of the bubbles says the interviewer ties her to their position when the opposite is the case.
As for the angle they're right that it's awkward but it's also the first time they've turned to Claudia and they don't use it again, probably because it looked shit. Having worked in telly I'd be amazed if anyone outside of a film director is taking the time to subtly frame things badly during a live broadcast - that editing room is chaos at all times on a live show. The bubbles also imply that she's been insulted by referring to her as a "Corbyn reporter" which seems weird and seems to have an issue with the roundtable format meaning the interviewer can't always be facing everyone (a true roundtable is tricky on TV for the same reason that the cast of Friends always sat on the same side of that table in Central Perk)
The blue bubble is incorrect on polling - Corbyn's early numbers were always weak, the coup (and brexit) hurt them further but he was well behind from the outset. He was already the least popular opposition leader of the modern era. So factual inaccuracy there. The blue bubble argues that the polls may improve but it's not the interviewers job to guess at what might happen - it's her job to question (and yes challenge) the people she has on.
Shouting over the interviewee - yup that's a thing that happens and it's annoying but to be fair Claudia was "bridging" as media trainers call it to avoid the question and the interviewer was bringing it back to the issue at hand "are the Trotskyists allowed/welcome back in"
Again they imply that "trotskyist" is an insult even though they have an avowed one on the panel (and note the interviewer has switched from Trot after being called out on it) if your argument is that this is biased against Corbyn it's odd to then say it's also biased to reference the stated beliefs of people on the panel.
"neuro-linguistic programming technique" come on guys - the panel is about all the hard left people that were booted out of Labour in the '80s wanting to come back in now that Corbyn is there - this video seems to think that the premise is biased. Militant (and the socialist party) both define themselves as Trotskyist - this isn't pejorative name calling.
...as an aside I notice that our lefty panel are calling them "Tories"
On the conclusion slide the bubbles come up with new stuff they never noted during the heavily edited video. They tie the violent quote to the "zero chance" quote despite them happening a good 9 minutes apart. Suddenly terrorism appears in the bullets when nobody mentioned that anywhere - in fact nowhere in this does anyone say Trotskyists are bad or dangerous - the only person who implies that is the blue bubble author to feed into their narrative. Another bullet contradicts a statement made second before that Trotskyists are a small proportion of the membership (something Claudia says and the interviewer notes)
The irony is that this video bemoans "indoctrination" while deploying careful editing, removal of context and implication over demonstration throughout. It's pretty textbook manipulation.
Hi OK/not OK
Suffice to say I disagree with just about everything in your comment - but in the interests of fairness and balance I'll leave it here for people to look at. Fair enough? Ed :)
Hi Ed, Thanks. Again, these weren't my words but a reply I received to my sharing of your video. Could you counter any of the points?
Ah I see, really sorry - I could yes but am looking after the kids, cooking dinner, cleaning, shopping and moving house at the moment so will have to be later...
Fair enough.
1. Leaving opening captions up: I've done a lot of work with people with learning difficulties and disabilities and so I care about accessibility and inclusion. It's difficult using this format to cater for everyone so thanks for your patience.
2. 'Actually' Yes I stand by this - I think his current title (as opposed to what he was doing 30 years ago) should have been presented first, if only out of courtesy before Cathy Newman's narrative building began. I would find this insulting. Also he's appearing on national news saying he wants to join Labour because he's excited about Corbyn's leadership. Regardless of his politics that negates any notion that he's an entryist or indeed an infiltrator. Therefore the important story there is: The General Secretary of The Socialist Party is asking to join The Labour Party.
3. 'A JC Supporter' Yes again I stand by calling this out - Out of courtesy her proper role should have been given first. Calling her primarily a 'JC supporter' demeans her achievements and status as an ELECTED member of Labour NEC and feeds into the narrative that Corbyn supporters are Trotskyists.
4. Broken Labour graphic - stop swearing or I stop reading. That's the point - Labour is not broken, 172 MPs have found themselves in the wrong party, Labour will get new ones. But in the meantime it's the largest political party in Europe. It serves the narrative well to keep repeating the 'broken' theme. There could equally have been an image of 500,000 strong and united people standing behind an image of Jeremy Corbyn. Why wasn't there? You see its all about choices - do we choose to show a negative image or do we show a positive one. C4 went for negative. That's their bias!
5. Saying 'Jeremy Corbyn's Labour' - yes it invokes the idea of factionalism, again this helps the narrative that Labour has been infiltrated and broken by Trotskyist entryists, there is no other real reason not to call the Party by it's proper name: The Labour Party.
6. 'Violent' Yes she clearly just made that up for effect and again it feeds into the negative narrative that she's building. There is no logical argument against that - she lied about what Mr. Taffe had written. Her response was that the Russian revolution was violent which which I edited out because it is irrelevant. The issue here is that she said Mr. Taffe had called for a violent revolution. He hadn't ever.
7. The term 'Trot' is abusive and insulting. Mr. Taffe explained that in the video, I thought his answer was excellent!
Hope this will do for now - life calls, will look at the rest tomorrow :)
Ed
I hate that the press treats Leftists like we are scum.
How I hate channel 4 ...because they hate the white working classes. They hate people with values, they hate anyone who questions the rape gang culture, migration and relativism. 🙄
Meanwhile ..the working men and women of Britain are called racist and nazi's if they are not full on for a multicutural globalist agenda.
I saw this and thought it was horrifying, Corby supporter or not she used the word Trotsky so many times with a certain distaste in her voice, terrible, Do you describe yourself as a Trot?
This is a disgrace. More blatant lies, bias, deception and spin. I'm absolutely sick to death of being patronized by careerist puppets masquerading as journalists. Such transparent manipulation of the audience and the facts is an insult to the intelligence of anyone watching. Murdoch-style gutter politics from a once reputable news outlet. And the BBC is no different. People are beginning to see through this pure, contemptuous propaganda.
If we wanted interviewers to be parrots we would employ a parrot, this interviewer displays why I watch other media from outside the country to find out what is really happening here in Britain. These are the same people that tell us the Tories are not privatising the NHS.
That wasn't an interview it was a badgering inquisition. Isn't she the nasty piece of garbage that claimed to have been kicked out of a mosque then had to recant her claims when cctv evidence showed that she'd fabricated the whole thing?
She's hot to Trot
Quite.
This is a very badly performed interview; the constant attempt to inject Trotskyism into the debate is bad enough, but the continual assertion that Corbyn has "zero chance" is likewise heavily biased. Corbyn supporters are aware that winning a general election isn't going to be easy, but to constantly deride a leader and party as unelectable before a real general election push has even begun is at best bad journalism, and at worst an attempt to reinforce a self-fulfilling prophecy. There's a big difference between "zero chance" and "difficult fight ahead".
Of course calling someone unelectable over and over will start causing people to think that maybe he is, but a good journalist should be concerned about the truth of the statement, and I don't think Cathy Newman has performed her role responsibly at all. Maybe a surge in membership isn't representative of the entire electorate, but polling of the electorate is difficult right now as everything is shadowed by the leadership challenge, which is often superseding the attempts to push Labour policy into the general public awareness.
People who have been exposed to the policies of Labour under Corbyn have been generally positive, including in many Tory areas, so the message of the party is clearly a strong one when it gets out, the issue is with dispelling myths about Corbyn and showing why many of them are actually strengths, e.g- the smear of his being an IRA sympathiser, when in truth he worked hard on the peace-process, alongside many others, that ultimately led to an end to the violence.
There was a clear agenda here which is undoubtedly a cause for concern. But I think your analysis was a little exaggerated. I assume you allign with Jeremy Corbyn's ideology.
This clip stops at the insult 'Trot' and fails to go on. A shame as we should be allowed to see what media tricks even Channel 4 uses to entrap people.
You must have a dodgy connection - it goes on quite a bit after that.
Sorry but I have a first class connection, there appears to be some fault with the video. Not wanting to seem paranoid, but the number of interesting videos that 'fail' or show error messages (seemingly confined to pro-Corbyn messages) are mounting!
Weird! I'll put it on vimeo tomorrow and post a link here :)
Thanks Ed, I'd really appreciate that!
Just uploaded it to vimeo, hope it works better: vimeo.com/179430286
I think you need to get a bit more sleep at night.
If only :)
why would someone have sleeping troubles just because he's aware of something going on television?
why wouldn't you make other people aware of ongoing wrongdoing?
having done something respectable, he should now be sleeping a lot better.
would you made the same comment if this video had been about Russia Today using subtle psychological tricks to manipulate their viewers?
Not that i'm complaining - just trying to help you.
I, personally, prefer being considered a paranoid lunatic by dont-care-how-many laymen than an ignorant collaborator by a professional.
All a bit paranoid if you ask me. Claudia Webbe had made clear she did not want to debate with the two men, so that is why she did not speak for 9 minutes. It is also factually incorrect that Labour were ahead of the Tories in the polls before the so called coup. Labour's best effort as reported by the half dozen leading polls organisations was just about even a couple of days after the Brexit vote when the Tories were in disorder after Cameron resigned. Agree that in the firs quarter of 2016 the were typically only one or 2% ahead, but they are around 15% ahead at the moment.
Labour were 2 points ahead in April 2016.
And I concede that, but that was well before the Brexit vote and the so called coup.
Yes the coup has been very damaging to the party, it's a shame that so many MPs had such basic ideological differences with the Labour Party. But the piece is not meant as a political statement but as an instruction in how these techniques are used in media whatever the message they're promoting at the time. This interview was simply a very stark example which made it easy for me deconstruct & illustrate some of the techniques we use. I'm glad you found it interesting enough to comment on.
Literally the first comment you have made is incorrect. Taffe was one of the founders of militiant. He is ALSO the gen sec of the Socialist party.
Hi Oliver and thanks for your comment. The point that's being made is that his title isn't used - usually in an interview you would expect someone to be introduced using their current and correct title - that's just good practice. He is at the interview in his capacity as General Secretary of the Socialist Party not in the capacity of something he did 35 years ago. Interestingly here, how he is introduced serves to help construct the 'entryist' narrative that is being pushed by the coup leaders through main stream media outlets such as channel 4 news, at the expense of factual correctness and courtesy. I hope that clarifies things for you.
You understand that the Socialist Party and Militant are the same thing?
I think I've given you a very comprehensive and courteous answer. I'm not here to debate politics - this is an instructional video highlighting the techniques we use in media to construct narratives that may not already exist without us. There are plenty of politics focused youtubers out there for you to chat politics with.
I wish you hadn't of edited this. All you have done is taken everything out of context.
A great shame, but maybe in your future videos you will address this? Thanks.
Hi Rohan - I disagree, none of this is 'out of context' it is exactly the opposite - it is firmly in context. The piece is designed to show some of the techniques used to create and strengthen a sub-narrative in a live broadcast News package - that's the context. What's missing is about 4 minutes of Owen Smith's PR man spouting his pro Smith diatribe - I could have added that he was given four minutes, uninterrupted and encouraged in his view but wanted to stick to the subject. The shame is that you want it to say something other than it does.
Fair enough - however, your work has now been taken out of context. I linked to it from a Facebook post where it is being discussed 'as is' and not from the production technique angle that you intended.
This is a shame.
I have done some additional reading from your edit:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Taaffe
He was introduced correctly - although not in his current position. Your edit alludes to it being incorrect. It would be great if your future videos have more 'in-depth info-bubbles' to avoid ambiguity.
Genuinely - I like your work and have subscribed.
Thanks Rohan - it was never intended to be widely viewed - I'll take more care next time:)
Social media - how dangerous can it be? ;-)
+Rohan Leach
happy Hanuka.
The presenter Cathy Newman is clearly trying to make a name for herself as the 'new Jeremy Paxman'. She thinks that the way to do this is to be aggressive and speak over the people she is interrogating. She has 2 ears and one mouth and should have used them in that ratio. She will never make a good 'interviewer' whist she exemplifies the attitude of an 'interrogator' who is trying to extract a confession.
The journalist needs a very hard slap, this bias attitude is disgusting makes me sick!
Vote Corbyn!
Interrogation not interview Media Propaganda!!!!!!!! Talking over her guests What a stupid woman.
shes just like that jumped up arsehole political spokewoman for the bbc to far up there own arses, she spoke to me like that well id be right up to her face telling her just what she really is
They are doing this all over,The anti Russian stuff has already worked.Russia was always going to take back the crimia its one and only warm sea port is there.The USA new this when supporting the ukranian revolution...never ever mentioned.
Why ??do they go on MURDOCK NEWS , knowing these PRESSTITUTS
EMPTY SCRIPTED READERS , THESE PEOPLE MUST BE FUCKING BRAIN DEAD
There is nothing wrong in beleiving the Trots movement, the rich powerful elite fear the Socialist Party who Peter Taff is one of the leading members, btw the Socialist Party is the biggest Socialist group in the UK. It stands members with other Socialist as TUSC candidates in Elections and will only stand against right wing aka Capitalist candidates
C4 Total LIBTARD supporters...
What a nasty manipulative presenter, she is rude and agressive and totally biased.
Channel 4 Ant-Trump Ethnic Minority FAKE News, the unofficial mouthpiece of the gobby and self-serving race relations industry practically invented the concept of fake news in the way it has repeated spread scare and invented news stories about the consequences of Brexit and the election of the visionary Donald Trump yet now has the shameless hypocrisy to criticise those who it accuses on indulging in exactly the same practice. You couldn't make it up even if Channel 4 Ant-Trump Ethnic Minority FAKE News regularly does!