Topic: Doesn't matter who you vote for as long as it's for the right reasons!

[TSC]

Some certainly have an issue with her in particular. Not seeing it here beyond old, and fair, criticisms on lobby journalism giving anonymity too freely. But then the story shifting is itself the story really because we all know who would dare brief the press on Cummings' behalf...

 "OMG she replied to another journalist with another part of the story!" is much ado about nothing in my book. Focus of story shifting aside.

Yep the core issue is of course Cummings actions, and it is that which media and political parties will focus on, and rightly so.  Any actions from Laura K shouldn’t detract from that, no matter how many twitter tweets she posts.

[Welshred]

Good point.  Surely this can't be swept under the carpet in the meantime.

There'll be something about a low or mod level minister come out just before the week ends I guarantee it.

[Gerry Attrick]

That if anything proves the usefulness of her reporting

It's useful to have a line on someone's excuse, even if it's implausible or silly. Now, the morning after, there are already contradictions in the excuse. If she hadn't reported the initial excuse provided to her last night, there would not be a contradiction for people to explore and scrutinise.

I don't know if there's something I've missed but it's amazing the dogs abuse she gets. Do people in the states do the same to people who tweet Trump's batshit ramblings?

"few more details this morning"

Sounds like she has, yep

Usually agree with you Carra, but couldn't disagree more re: Kuenssberg. She's absolutely awful and is symptomatic of the BBC's awful standard of National and Sports coverage these days.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Not this time...

He’s really in the shit...

I suspect that he will get away with it because...hey, tories don’t need to follow the rules, but this has gone well beyond a few denials off the record

Maybe not this time - maybe. But my comment was meant more generally about the whole 'unnamed sources' environment. I can understand that this sometimes can be invaluable for journalists. But I reminded of Woodward and Bernstein's extraordinary efforts to confirm (from other sources) the information being fed to them by Deep Throat before the Washington Post would publish. Now, with Kuennsberg (and Peston), such information (secret whisperings) is automatically published like it would be if it was an official press release.

[SP]

Maybe not this time - maybe. But my comment was meant more generally about the whole 'unnamed sources' environment. I can understand that this sometimes can be invaluable for journalists. But I reminded of Woodward and Bernstein's extraordinary efforts to confirm (from other sources) the information being fed to them by Deep Throat before the Washington Post would publish. Now, with Kuennsberg (and Peston), such information (secret whisperings) is automatically published like it would be if it was an official press release.

Woodward and Bernstein confirmed the info before publishing. They never regurgitated it with corroboration. Using sources to steer a story is very different from printing anonymous sources verbatim.

[classycarra]

Usually agree with you Carra, but couldn't disagree more re: Kuenssberg. She's absolutely awful and is symptomatic of the BBC's awful standard of National and Sports coverage these days.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you say here. Just trying to point out that she's a reporter, reporting a source. People seem to be treating her as if she's a commentator, offering an opinion.

I read back and saw Zeb has summed it up https://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=344128.msg17178957#msg17178957

Definitely lots of issues with lobby reporting. And lots of highly inappropriate use of it by Government.

But on this occasion, given what's coming out this morning, people can surely see the benefit of her reporting the first excuse last night? Now more is known, it means there's a new crack in the story (local sister) to work on eroding.

[Eeyore]

That if anything proves the usefulness of her reporting

It's useful to have a line on someone's excuse, even if it's implausible or silly. Now, the morning after, there are already contradictions in the excuse. If she hadn't reported the initial excuse provided to her last night, there would not be a contradiction for people to explore and scrutinise.

I don't know if there's something I've missed but it's amazing the dogs abuse she gets. Do people in the states do the same to people who tweet Trump's batshit ramblings?

"few more details this morning"

Sounds like she has, yep

Except the government will just deny what Laura K has said and accuse the BBC of spreading fake News. That is why you need official on the record statements and not tittle-tattle.

[Zeb]

So. Official line.

1. Finally, official statement from No 10 ... ‘Owing to his wife being infected with suspected Coronavirus and the high likelihood that he would himself become unwell, it was essential for Dominic Cummings to ensure his young child could be properly cared for.’ ...

2. ‘His sister and nieces had volunteered to help so he went to a house near to but separate from his extended family in case their help was needed. His sister shopped for the family and left everything outside.’ ....

3. No 10 statement continues -‘At no stage was he or his family spoken to by the police about this matter, as is being reported. His actions were in line with coronavirus guidelines. Mr Cummings believes he behaved reasonably and legally.’

Laura Kuenssberg

Now contrast with what Tepid posted about how Cummings and his wife remembered things and with how it was initially explained when the story broke. And it's all a load of bollocks cos they knew they needed to keep it quiet.

[TepidT2O]

Interesting denial by number 10.

Mr Cummings believes he behaved reasonably and legally.’

Note “mr Cummings believes”

What a bit of social distancing there...

[Eeyore]

I don't necessarily disagree with what you say here. Just trying to point out that she's a reporter, reporting a source. People seem to be treating her as if she's a commentator, offering an opinion.

I read back and saw Zeb has summed it up https://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=344128.msg17178957#msg17178957

Definitely lots of issues with lobby reporting. And lots of highly inappropriate use of it by Government.

But on this occasion, given what's coming out this morning, people can surely see the benefit of her reporting the first excuse last night? Now more is known, it means there's a new crack in the story (local sister) to work on eroding.

Then Cummings just turns it around labels it fake News and uses the inaccuracies and contradictions as part of his defence. Exactly what he did after the 'herd immunity piece'.

In March 2020, it was reported in The Sunday Times that during a private engagement the previous month, Cummings had claimed that the government's strategy towards the coronavirus was "herd immunity, protect the economy and if that means some pensioners die, too bad". The spokesman for 10 Downing Street decried the article as "a highly defamatory fabrication" which "includes a series of apparent quotes from meetings which are invented"

What Laura K and the BBC should be doing is forcing the government to make a statement. If they try to avoid doing so then run a piece on the government being unwilling to be held to account. Run a piece about the comparisons with Ferguson and Calderwood.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Woodward and Bernstein confirmed the info before publishing. They never regurgitated it with corroboration. Using sources to steer a story is very different from printing anonymous sources verbatim.

Exactly. And this keeps happening with Kuennsberg (and Peston to at least some degree). There should be strict standards in how anonymous sourcing is utilised - especially in the highly manipulative political sphere.

[classycarra]

Except the government will just deny what Laura K has said and accuse the BBC of spreading fake News. That is why you need official on the record statements and not tittle-tattle.

Sadly it's not an either/or. Last night the alternative to her reporting the 'unnamed source' was probably radio silence rather than an on the record statement.

If Laura K (or someone else) said no, I won't report that unnamed then we would not have heard the excuse last night (and therefore the inconsistency found this morning wouldn’t have been an inconsistency). All we’d know is what’s come from the official lines this morning.

Notice how this morning’s official lines from no 10 now have to directly discuss his sister? They probably wouldn’t have without the excuse last night and the advance this morning (when people said hmm that’s a bad excuse, don’t you have friends/family locally?)

And if it turns out those lines on his sister don’t tally/line up, then the government will face even more pressure

[Snail]

Then Cummings just turns it around labels it fake News and uses the inaccuracies and contradictions as part of his defence. Exactly what he did after the 'herd immunity piece'.

In March 2020, it was reported in The Sunday Times that during a private engagement the previous month, Cummings had claimed that the government's strategy towards the coronavirus was "herd immunity, protect the economy and if that means some pensioners die, too bad". The spokesman for 10 Downing Street decried the article as "a highly defamatory fabrication" which "includes a series of apparent quotes from meetings which are invented"

What Laura K and the BBC should be doing is forcing the government to make a statement. If they try to avoid doing so then run a piece on the government being unwilling to be held to account. Run a piece about the comparisons with Ferguson and Calderwood.

Exactly.

[Zeb]

Number 10 are also saying that Durham Police is lying, which is a remarkable allegation to make.

-
Lewis Goodall

Classic Dom.

[Jiminy Cricket]

I don't necessarily disagree with what you say here. Just trying to point out that she's a reporter, reporting a source. People seem to be treating her as if she's a commentator, offering an opinion.

I read back and saw Zeb has summed it up https://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=344128.msg17178957#msg17178957

Definitely lots of issues with lobby reporting. And lots of highly inappropriate use of it by Government.

But on this occasion, given what's coming out this morning, people can surely see the benefit of her reporting the first excuse last night? Now more is known, it means there's a new crack in the story (local sister) to work on eroding.

Of course the BBC (her bosses and as a whole) are as culpable as Kuennsberg for the way anonymous sources and being used.

[Welshred]

Hold on its gone from him and his wife saying he had Coronavirus in the articles in the Mail and the Spectator to his wife having it. Which one is it guys?

[classycarra]

Then Cummings just turns it around labels it fake News and uses the inaccuracies and contradictions as part of his defence. Exactly what he did after the 'herd immunity piece'.

In March 2020, it was reported in The Sunday Times that during a private engagement the previous month, Cummings had claimed that the government's strategy towards the coronavirus was "herd immunity, protect the economy and if that means some pensioners die, too bad". The spokesman for 10 Downing Street decried the article as "a highly defamatory fabrication" which "includes a series of apparent quotes from meetings which are invented"

What Laura K and the BBC should be doing is forcing the government to make a statement. If they try to avoid doing so then run a piece on the government being unwilling to be held to account. Run a piece about the comparisons with Ferguson and Calderwood.

There's a huge irony here Al.

You've just taken a quote from an unnamed source, allegedly something Cummings said to some Tory grandee at a soiree, as truth. And think it applies to the entirety of the UK response.

[Eeyore]

Sadly it's not an either/or. Last night the alternative to her reporting the 'unnamed source' was probably radio silence rather than an on the record statement.

If Laura K (or someone else) said no, I won't report that unnamed then we would not have heard the excuse last night (and therefore the inconsistency found this morning wouldn’t have been an inconsistency). All we’d know is what’s come from the official lines this morning.

Notice how this morning’s official lines from no 10 now have to directly discuss his sister? They probably wouldn’t have without the excuse last night and the advance this morning (when people said hmm that’s a bad excuse, don’t you have friends/family locally?)

And if it turns out those lines on his sister don’t tally/line up, then the government will face even more pressure

The easiest way to discredit something is to add a bit of disinformation to the pot. Then when you discredit the disinformation the actual facts become discredited as well. For me there were two choices radio silence and actually look at the facts. The government statement and what Cummings wife has already stated.

Or just adding white noise in to the mix. That is what Laura K has done.

[Nick110581]

More lies.

More confusion around it.

The government do not give one single fuck.

[FlashGordon]

How does a man who is too unwell to look after his child drive 200+ miles.

[Zeb]

Labour look like they're pitching "One rule for you. One rule for them."

I think that's spot on here. Too many people have made sacrifices about seeing family for government to take the piss. James Ball was saying it's fairly amusing that someone whose whole persona is breaking the rules is having to pretend he didn't break them after all.

[Eeyore]

There's a huge irony here Al.

You've just taken a quote from an unnamed source, allegedly something Cummings said to some Tory grandee at a soiree, as truth. And think it applies to the entirety of the UK response.

No what I am saying is that the unnamed source bit allowed the government to discredit the article and deny their policy was 'herd immunity'. What they should have done was used what Johnson said on TV, what Vallance said on TV, what Whitty said on radio and what Ferguson said to the select committee.

Use what is on the record.

[classycarra]

No what I am saying is that the unnamed source bit allowed the government to discredit the article and deny their policy was 'herd immunity'. What they should have done was used what Johnson said on TV, what Vallance said on TV, what Whitty said on radio and what Ferguson said to the select committee.

Use what is on the record.

But the article was the unnamed source (someone at a dinner party). And as a result of that, no 10 had to respond officially.

So, if anything, it reads like you are speaking up in favour of reporting unnamed sources?

[Eeyore]

But the article was the unnamed source (someone at a dinner party). And as a result of that, no 10 had to respond officially.

So, if anything, it reads like you are speaking up in favour of reporting unnamed sources?

Absolutely not. The government had to respond to the 'herd immunity' question because 200 hundred scientists wrote an open letter criticizing the idea. Including the unnamed source just allowed number 10 to discredit the facts by association with the unnamed source bit.

[classycarra]

Absolutely not. The government had to respond to the 'herd immunity' question because 200 hundred scientists wrote an open letter criticizing the idea. Including the unnamed source just allowed number 10 to discredit the facts by association with the unnamed source bit.

What were the facts about 'herd immunity' that required discrediting, sorry? Have I missed something?

Wasn't this just a sentence from Vallance being overinterpretted?

[Circa1892]

PMQs is going to be fucking wild with Starmer going at Johnson on this.

[Snail]

PMQs is going to be fucking wild with Starmer going at Johnson on this.

In about two weeks when they’re back from holiday and this has died down.

[Eeyore]

What were the facts about 'herd immunity', sorry? Have I missed something? Wasn't this just a sentence from Vallance being overinterpretted?

No there were 4 different on the record statements. Johnson on morning TV, Vallance at the press conference, Whitty on Radio and Ferguson giving evidence to the select committee.

[vivabobbygraham]

Have any papers used the headline 'Dominic goings' yet? If not I'm claiming it.

Dominic Cummings and goings. You can have that

[gazzalfc]

In about two weeks when they’re back from holiday and this has died down.

And they fill the benches with the PMs cronies to jeer and sneer

[Felch Aid]

Most of the cabinet out on Twitter. Just making it worse.

[gazzalfc]

Closing ranks this morning.

[King Kenny 7]

Decision 79; Election Night


Currently playing on BBC Parliament Channel.


 A very scary night for those that remember watching it live.

Truly the end of an era and the start of a very different world. 

[Nick110581]

And like clockwork, he’s being defended

[Snail]

Whew, Rishi, what a guy eh?

Edit: Raab also using the “don’t politicise this” line.

[Elmo!]

The issue isn’t with the ‘BBC’ as a corporation IMO, but with Laura K.  But in her capacity she is of course the face of the BBC.

This would carry a bit more weight if their Scotland Editor Sarah Smith wasn't just as bad. She was forced to apologise to Nicola Sturgeon earlier this week after asserting, twice on the 6 and 10 o'clock news, that Sturgeon was 'enjoying the crisis'. Mind you Smith is in bed with a different party.

[Rheinbacher]

Myself and others were shouted at for criticising her during the election campaign though.

I got the same on twitter during the election. I was accused of being a "Corbyn cultist" at the time but now the sensible Keir Starmer is in charge it's ok to criticise her now.

[Rheinbacher]

Whew, Rishi, what a guy eh?

Edit: Raab also using the “don’t politicise this” line.

Who would have thought the centrist's new favourite Tory is as morally bankrupt as the rest of them.

[Circa1892]

Sunak is only in a job because Javid told Cummings where to shove it. Easily forgotten...

[TepidT2O]

Who would have thought the centrist's new favourite Tory is as morally bankrupt as the rest of them.

This was never a surprise surely?

It’s clear here though, Cummings  would be fine if there was enough support (or lack of support anyway).

Clearly he still has support. 

And the rest of us? We’d not have done that, we’d have stayed at home, we’d not have lied.  One rule for us...