Even before Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn had finished giving his keynote conference speech to round off the party’s 2017 annual Conference, those who have sworn allegiance to him in the left-leaning part of the blogosphere were attacking what they perceived to be the opposition - but on this occasion, as happens so often, kicking the broadcasters and ending up covered in rather more than confusion.
The over-eager Steve Topple, writing at The Canary - a site which has garnered an appearance on BBC Question Time, to the clear frustration of many established media voices - has decided to go after the Corporation’s political editor Laura Kuenssberg, who he has decided is speaking at next week’s Tory Conference in Manchester. She isn’t.
Now, I’m sure some out there on the right will fire back that Zelo Street occasionally mentions Ms Kuenssberg, and this is true, but as regulars will know, my post yesterday on whether she really had the services of a bodyguard contained this caution: “Now, none of what follows excuses or otherwise defends threatening behaviour by any individual or group against anyone else”. Topple missed that. As well as his facts.
This is what he claimed earlier today. Under the headline “We need to talk about Laura Kuenssberg. She’s listed as a speaker at the Tory Party conference”, the post continues “BBC Political Editor Laura Kuenssberg is listed as an ‘invited speaker’ at the Conservative Party conference. And the news raises questions about the impartiality of the journalist and her organisation. Again”. And why should this be?
“The Conservative Party conference is taking place between 1 and 4 October in Manchester. And a fringe event organised by Iain Duncan Smith’s Centre for Social Justice thinktank and the Living Wage Foundation lists Kuenssberg as an ‘invited speaker’ … Kuenssberg has been caught in a furore over reports the BBC provided her with security during the Labour Party conference”. What “furore”? Exaggeration, much?
Yes, the Murdoch Sun ran a story based on an anonymous single source, which, as I pointed out, was contradicted by several delegates to Conference. But that’s got Sweet Jack to do with how Ms Kuenssberg does her job, or whether she is biased. And in any case, Topple’s claim is plain flat wrong. As the BBC’s PR people have told him, “@bbclaurak is not speaking at this @csjthinktank event”. End of story.
Jim Waterson of BuzzFeed UK noted “It took me two mins to call the event organiser and find out this is bollocks. She's not speaking at Tory conference. Already going viral regardless”. And Rupert Myers of the Telegraph and GQ magazine added “Canary lying for clicks is one thing, but doing it to further harm @bbclaurak is utterly despicable and shameless”. Some of the response has been yet more forthright.
It we’re going to come down like the proverbial tonne of bricks when the press establishment tells its readers packs of lies - and this blog does not hesitate in so doing - then there can be no double standards for the left-leaning new media sector.
The Canary should already have taken that alleged story down. As well as adopting a suitably grovelling position and saying sorry to Laura Kuenssberg.
Had to happen while Kerry-Ann Mendoza went on holiday...
>It we’re going to come down like the proverbial tonne of bricks
You're welcome. Feel free to delete.
This came out days ago. The Canary have now noticed. What does her inclusion in the displayed list actually mean?
Nearly crashed the car listening to 'teaboy' Wickham on Media Show today calling out The Canary for their 'story' which wasn't.
Of course he wasn't challenged on the shite he produces on a regular basis.
The Canary isn't perfect, God knows, but they stated that Kuenssberg was listed as a speaker at the CSJ event. Tom Pride confirmed this by linking to the Google cache of the EventBrite site here: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:KuzOoCsApJ8J:https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/britains-productivity-problem-solving-the-puzzle-for-low-paid-jobs-tickets-38035334710+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=pl.
While it is perfectly fine for journalists of any colour to speak at any party conference, it is particularly telling that LK was LISTED as a speaker at a very, very Conservative event at the Conservative Conference, when she is supposed to be non-partisan.
The Canary has updated the story, but essentially stands by it. The hysteria remains stirred up by those with vested interests in denigrating both new media and anyone relatively even-handed when reporting the Corbyn-led Labour party.
It'd be good if you could look at this, Tim.
Why would her name be on the list as a speaker.Why would they even mention her.Why would they remove her name.Why Why
Tim why are you deleting my comments
It is true @BBCLaura was listed as an actual speaker on the Eventbrite site. No mention she was merely invited. It is true she was listed as (invited) after her name as a speaker on the conference website. It is true that The Canary always said she was listed as invited. None of this can be disputed. All of it is true and there is plenty of evidence to show it is true.
Once the matter was raised with the BBC her name was removed from the Eventbrite & conference listings. The BBC then denied she was speaking. Canary altered its headline but didn't substantially alter its piece, which had said all along she had been 'invited' which is true.
Questions need to be asked of the organizers of these fringe events as to why speakers are listed with (invited) after names or giving the real impression they are actually speaking if they are not. Misleading? Yes. Why are they misleading? That I don't know but can have a sound guess.
The hysteria aimed by rather too many 'mainstream journos at the Canary demonstrates they have not actually read the opinion piece, nor have they bothered to check a few basic facts themselves. So pots, kettles and all that?
Here's an interesting take on the matter:-
The Canary was right,according to the facts.
She was listed as invited & as going to be speaking.
I am not the Canarys biggest fan (too Tabloid like)but as far as I can see, they said nothing that was untrue, The version printed in the MSM is distorted and claims that things were printed in the Canary that were not.
I'm sorry Tim but the mistake being made here is believing the MSM.
The Canary offered the evidence and printed a screenshot, whicch clearly showed what the Canary Claimed.
The MSM put up a straw man about her speaking, which the Canary never claimed and you bought it
Sorry Tim I like your blog very much, but given your analysis of the MSM it makes it all the more unforgivable that you would take their word as gospel
The screenshot of the invite
Tim Canary is right, you however in this instance are wrong
Check your facts before attacking, its what good journalists do ( you are much better than most I have to say but still not correct)
Post a Comment