Zack Polanski faced an absolute battering for retweeting a pretty tame tweet, including being told by the PM that he’s not fit to lead a political party. In the same week Nigel Farage said he’d only send immigrants to green voting areas if he gets in. Which is worse, and which got more attention? Why?
Reform (it was his deputy who did it) made an empty threat, which is extraordinary but unless they demolished planning law first is inert headline grabbing.
Meanwhile, another man who would quite like to run the government decided to do some social media bandwaggoneering rather than remembering that as an MP and party leader he can in fact get the Met Commissioner on the phone to explain the event before putting his foot in his mouth.
So both tried to get social media frenzied, with varying success, but I would hope for something better from the Green party.
No, it’s not whataboutery. There’s no specific accusation against Zack Polanski. The accusation is that attacks in the media against the green leader are ramping up in the run up to the election. The example was provided as evidence to this.
Whataboutery is more what you’ve just done here, in combination with a moving of goalposts. First you’ve changed the topic from comparing media negative coverage to what the leaders actually did, and then you minimised reform’s actions by comparing them favourably against the greens.
The goal of this is either to defend reform or just to play devil’s advocate, it seems.
Not only are you indulging in whataboutery, you can’t even focus on what your man’s done wrong this week. I think if you felt his behaviour was actually defensible, you’d defend it, rather than trying to change the subject.
The subject is that the attacks on this politician are ramping up this week. My comment was germane to the context.
I think his behaviour is defensible. It is a single word that was incorrect, there’s zero tangible effect, it was two four years ago, and he has admitted he was wrong, apologised and taken it down.
If other politicians were as straight as he is, we wouldn’t be in this mess.
As straight as he is? He’s been caught out lying on multiple occasions.
There’s no reason to believe they’re ‘ramping up’ beyond paranoia. He did some things that were both unusual for a politician and that people wildly disapproved of this week. When should the press have reported that news? His latest lies were discovered this week. Again, when should the press have reported them, such that it would meet with your approval?
Before he was party leader? They should’ve reported on the activities of some guy in case he eventually became leader?
The other occasions of his lying were the hypnoboobs thing and his subsequent false claims (that it was a sting and that he disavowed it immediately, both false).
Ok, so then when he became party leader?
The ‘hypnoboob’ thing wasn’t in any way a lie now was it. And again, it’s of zero consequence.
I think you’re gasping at straws here, especially if you compare his record to literally any other party leader. Who’s your guy?
The media should be heavily regulated so that the news treats both sides equally. But it is not, we have subtle propagandist instruments that work through omission, distraction and rage bait.
Taken as a whole, corporate fascists get cake and blessings whilst anyone standing up for workers rights gets the stocks.
If you don’t see this you’re either naive and need to do a bit of reflecting on this, or you are not what you seem on first glance.
The media should be heavily regulated so that the news treats both sides equally.
No, the media should be regulated to treat both sides fairly. Both sides are not equal. If one side is lying and the other isn’t, the media is not obliged to pretend both are doing it.
May not have been what you meant but its what you said. Word choice is important. The words you used were the opposite of what you claim to have meant.
How do you know about corporate fascists and what they do, other than through the media? It’s through the media that I know that Nigel Farage is corrupt, that Boris Johnson is a serial liar and that Keir Starmer broke most of his ten leadership pledges. Polanski is getting the exact same treatment as those figures: he lied and he is now being held accountable for his lies.
Its all about proportion. The amount of criticism levied at different political entities is directly proportional to how right wing they are on end and how pro workers rights they are on the other. The more corporate they are the easier time they get.
And this makes sense. Why? Because corporations own most news and even public spaces like the BBC it has been stacked with cronies.
I have not missed your point, I just disagree with you.
The amount of criticism levied at different political entities is directly proportional to how right wing they are on end and how pro workers rights they are on the other.
You can leaven this rhetoric with objective-sounding phrases like ‘directly proportional’ but it’s entirely subjective. In defending Polanski’s lying with whataboutery, you have shown that the standard you actually hold is that politicians you agree with should be allowed to lie because you falsely believe that other politicians get away with this behaviour which, as I have shown, is not true. Even if it were true, it would not justify Polanski’s lying, because two wrongs do not make a right.
I have not at any point justified Polanski’s lie. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
You want everyone to look at this article with zero overall context. To pretend that the media game isn’t rigged and that its a level playing field.
I on the other hand encourage everyone to look at this for what it in all likelihood is. What the last 30 years of political history has shown us time and again. A stitch up of a pro workers rights candidate at a crucial voting moment. The manipulation is blatent to me because its happened so many times and will continue to happen well into tjr future.
Ask yourself, how many crises, how much rule breaking, how many illegal acts, how many scandals, did it take to break the Johnson government?
Contrastingly, Ed Miliband was character assassinated by a bacon sandwich.
I think it’s possible you’re not being entirely genuine, because you’re obviously quite intelligent in the way you write. But your disregard of reasoned argument clashes with this fact.
I guess maybe that’s where my naivety is; I struggle to imagine a person with such capability being so willfully blind to the obvious.
Do you actually know the circumstances at stake here? He was asked to represent them at public events even though that wasn’t something he was on the payroll for. These fuckers turned wage theft into a scandal for the victim.
Look, you are just repeating mainstream media smears, word-for-word, seemingly with little fact checking or checking the context or background of the events as they are reported to you, by extremely biased media organisations who have demonstrated complete willingness to peddle right wing propaganda and advance the interests of the ruling class in this country, at the expense of the rest of us.
You can dig your heels in and refuse to acknowledge the reality or you can stop blindly believing all the shit the propaganda machine spews into your slop trough, your call.
The only reason it ‘seems’ to you that I haven’t done any research is that I disagree with you, and you think that must mean I’m ignorant. That is of course true of some people who disagree with you, but it’s arrogant and counter-productive to assume it. You don’t know what I’ve read and what I haven’t read, or indeed what I think about virtually anything.
Dismissing these claims because they’re made by ‘mainstream media’ (an ill-defined term) even though Polanski has apologised for his actions and thereby acknowledged the veracity of the accusations is just nonsensical. What I see in Polanski is a guy who makes inaccurate, self-aggrandising statements and then lies more when called out. The press are reporting on the fact that he does it, and that he keeps doing it. You may feel it’s worth voting for him anyway; that’s your prerogative. But facts are facts.
Something you could reasonably say is: ‘He shouldn’t have done that and it worries me that it’s becoming a pattern but he’s a damn sight less corrupt and evil than Nigel Farage*. His politics are basically aligned with mine, I think his heart’s in the right place and this doesn’t change my overall view of him’.
What you can’t say is, ‘None of these things that this guy acknowledged happened and apologised for count/are real because I read about some of them in the Guardian’. That doesn’t make sense.
*Links because you seem to believe the ‘mainstream’ press doesn’t report on right-wing corruption and this also… isn’t true.
I have not defended Labour at any point in this thread. Yesterday I was saying Starmer and Sarwar should resign in another thread, something I’ve been saying for months.
EDIT: Late edit but it just occurred to me I also criticised Starmer in this thread!
You cannot believe that it’s okay for politicians to lie or that the press shouldn’t report it when they do.
Zack Polanski faced an absolute battering for retweeting a pretty tame tweet, including being told by the PM that he’s not fit to lead a political party. In the same week Nigel Farage said he’d only send immigrants to green voting areas if he gets in. Which is worse, and which got more attention? Why?
Isn’t that whataboutism?
Reform (it was his deputy who did it) made an empty threat, which is extraordinary but unless they demolished planning law first is inert headline grabbing.
Meanwhile, another man who would quite like to run the government decided to do some social media bandwaggoneering rather than remembering that as an MP and party leader he can in fact get the Met Commissioner on the phone to explain the event before putting his foot in his mouth.
So both tried to get social media frenzied, with varying success, but I would hope for something better from the Green party.
No, it’s not whataboutery. There’s no specific accusation against Zack Polanski. The accusation is that attacks in the media against the green leader are ramping up in the run up to the election. The example was provided as evidence to this.
Whataboutery is more what you’ve just done here, in combination with a moving of goalposts. First you’ve changed the topic from comparing media negative coverage to what the leaders actually did, and then you minimised reform’s actions by comparing them favourably against the greens.
The goal of this is either to defend reform or just to play devil’s advocate, it seems.
Not only are you indulging in whataboutery, you can’t even focus on what your man’s done wrong this week. I think if you felt his behaviour was actually defensible, you’d defend it, rather than trying to change the subject.
The subject is that the attacks on this politician are ramping up this week. My comment was germane to the context.
I think his behaviour is defensible. It is a single word that was incorrect, there’s zero tangible effect, it was
twofour years ago, and he has admitted he was wrong, apologised and taken it down.If other politicians were as straight as he is, we wouldn’t be in this mess.
As straight as he is? He’s been caught out lying on multiple occasions.
There’s no reason to believe they’re ‘ramping up’ beyond paranoia. He did some things that were both unusual for a politician and that people wildly disapproved of this week. When should the press have reported that news? His latest lies were discovered this week. Again, when should the press have reported them, such that it would meet with your approval?
They should’ve reported it four years ago, when it happened, maybe?
Which other occasions?
Before he was party leader? They should’ve reported on the activities of some guy in case he eventually became leader?
The other occasions of his lying were the hypnoboobs thing and his subsequent false claims (that it was a sting and that he disavowed it immediately, both false).
Ok, so then when he became party leader?
The ‘hypnoboob’ thing wasn’t in any way a lie now was it. And again, it’s of zero consequence. I think you’re gasping at straws here, especially if you compare his record to literally any other party leader. Who’s your guy?
Because they didn’t know about it! They have to research and check this stuff and that takes time.
A rule for thee but not for me.
The media should be heavily regulated so that the news treats both sides equally. But it is not, we have subtle propagandist instruments that work through omission, distraction and rage bait.
Taken as a whole, corporate fascists get cake and blessings whilst anyone standing up for workers rights gets the stocks.
If you don’t see this you’re either naive and need to do a bit of reflecting on this, or you are not what you seem on first glance.
Which is it sir?
No, the media should be regulated to treat both sides fairly. Both sides are not equal. If one side is lying and the other isn’t, the media is not obliged to pretend both are doing it.
Not what I meant, have another read.
May not have been what you meant but its what you said. Word choice is important. The words you used were the opposite of what you claim to have meant.
I misread the reply. Apologies, a lack of comprehension on my part. I agree with what they’re saying.
No worries.
How do you know about corporate fascists and what they do, other than through the media? It’s through the media that I know that Nigel Farage is corrupt, that Boris Johnson is a serial liar and that Keir Starmer broke most of his ten leadership pledges. Polanski is getting the exact same treatment as those figures: he lied and he is now being held accountable for his lies.
You’ve entirely missed my point.
Its all about proportion. The amount of criticism levied at different political entities is directly proportional to how right wing they are on end and how pro workers rights they are on the other. The more corporate they are the easier time they get.
And this makes sense. Why? Because corporations own most news and even public spaces like the BBC it has been stacked with cronies.
I have not missed your point, I just disagree with you.
You can leaven this rhetoric with objective-sounding phrases like ‘directly proportional’ but it’s entirely subjective. In defending Polanski’s lying with whataboutery, you have shown that the standard you actually hold is that politicians you agree with should be allowed to lie because you falsely believe that other politicians get away with this behaviour which, as I have shown, is not true. Even if it were true, it would not justify Polanski’s lying, because two wrongs do not make a right.
I have not at any point justified Polanski’s lie. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
You want everyone to look at this article with zero overall context. To pretend that the media game isn’t rigged and that its a level playing field.
I on the other hand encourage everyone to look at this for what it in all likelihood is. What the last 30 years of political history has shown us time and again. A stitch up of a pro workers rights candidate at a crucial voting moment. The manipulation is blatent to me because its happened so many times and will continue to happen well into tjr future.
Ask yourself, how many crises, how much rule breaking, how many illegal acts, how many scandals, did it take to break the Johnson government?
Contrastingly, Ed Miliband was character assassinated by a bacon sandwich.
I think it’s possible you’re not being entirely genuine, because you’re obviously quite intelligent in the way you write. But your disregard of reasoned argument clashes with this fact.
I guess maybe that’s where my naivety is; I struggle to imagine a person with such capability being so willfully blind to the obvious.
You are in fact attempting to defend him by deflecting from what he’s done by raising irrelevancies.
Do you actually know the circumstances at stake here? He was asked to represent them at public events even though that wasn’t something he was on the payroll for. These fuckers turned wage theft into a scandal for the victim.
You consume way too much mainstream media
I frequently share stories from media outside the mainstream on this very community.
Doesn’t matter if you dabble with truth from time to time when the majority of your diet is fed to you by the Epstein class.
If all you’ve got left are these false and petty insults I think we’re done here.
Look, you are just repeating mainstream media smears, word-for-word, seemingly with little fact checking or checking the context or background of the events as they are reported to you, by extremely biased media organisations who have demonstrated complete willingness to peddle right wing propaganda and advance the interests of the ruling class in this country, at the expense of the rest of us.
You can dig your heels in and refuse to acknowledge the reality or you can stop blindly believing all the shit the propaganda machine spews into your slop trough, your call.
The only reason it ‘seems’ to you that I haven’t done any research is that I disagree with you, and you think that must mean I’m ignorant. That is of course true of some people who disagree with you, but it’s arrogant and counter-productive to assume it. You don’t know what I’ve read and what I haven’t read, or indeed what I think about virtually anything.
Dismissing these claims because they’re made by ‘mainstream media’ (an ill-defined term) even though Polanski has apologised for his actions and thereby acknowledged the veracity of the accusations is just nonsensical. What I see in Polanski is a guy who makes inaccurate, self-aggrandising statements and then lies more when called out. The press are reporting on the fact that he does it, and that he keeps doing it. You may feel it’s worth voting for him anyway; that’s your prerogative. But facts are facts.
Something you could reasonably say is: ‘He shouldn’t have done that and it worries me that it’s becoming a pattern but he’s a damn sight less corrupt and evil than Nigel Farage*. His politics are basically aligned with mine, I think his heart’s in the right place and this doesn’t change my overall view of him’.
What you can’t say is, ‘None of these things that this guy acknowledged happened and apologised for count/are real because I read about some of them in the Guardian’. That doesn’t make sense.
*Links because you seem to believe the ‘mainstream’ press doesn’t report on right-wing corruption and this also… isn’t true.
Removed by mod
And we’re back to the insults. Have a good one.
You can believe that it is not okay for the press to report it selectively.
The press is not a monolith and does not act as one, and so cannot be said to be selective.
My bad looks like you are just here to defend Labour at all cost. I will move on.
I have not defended Labour at any point in this thread. Yesterday I was saying Starmer and Sarwar should resign in another thread, something I’ve been saying for months.
EDIT: Late edit but it just occurred to me I also criticised Starmer in this thread!