Hit pieces on this man predictably ramping up now. The billionaires and their cronies in the media are worried.
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?
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?
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).
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Had anyone registered haspolanskiresignedyet.com yet?
Blown out of proportion by the right-wing media owned by the wealthy who afraid of being taxed. If he didn't have enemies, he'd be doing something wrong.
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.