Look whose manifesto this doesn't mention
And what is worse than the lack of objectivity in what was once, like the similarly-afflicted Telegraph, a paper of record, is the attitude of its journalists, who, along with their colleagues at other papers, cannot understand the egalitarian world of social media, where nobody needs permission to speak, and anyone and everyone is free to call out the establishment for its shortcomings.
The article continues “It’s as if these covers were printed in an alternate Tory universe where only one party is running, or at least with any chance of success … You would expect this sort of thing from the openly conservative newspapers … But the Times is still considered to be a more serious and objective newspaper, both here and around the world”. Perhaps some of Rupe’s supposedly upmarket troops would care to comment?
So it was that Times chief political correspondent Michael Savage took to Twitter to respond to LFF, demanding “Why didn't you tweet Saturday? Or fact that all three, esp today, are critical pieces?” LFF duly engaged with Savage and replied “Sat was better, but why bury launch? + a bit critical, but from the Right. EU negotiation top issue for voters? Pls read post”. All of which was perfectly cordial.
But Savage was not for discussing the matter with mere Twitter users: they had been told, and should not have been so insolent as to talk back. You think I jest? Here is his riposte: “so many errors in that tweet alone, think i'll leave u to your extremely lazy analysis of the media scene. Good luck with it”. In other words, “Look over there, it’s your fault, you’re rubbish, you don’t really understand, and you ought to know your place”.
LFF pitched a legitimate question. It was Michael Savage’s choice to enter the Twitter discussion (he was not tagged in LFF’s original Tweet), but he would not, or could not, bring himself to understand that Twitter is not a medium where you make statements and everyone else has to accept them and otherwise behave like good little children. Everyone is treated strictly on merit - or the perceived lack of it.