How the media manage what we think

There are four contenders for the Labour leadership. Each is currently touring the country, making the case for their bid. Each is spending hundreds of hours at public meetings, answering questions and putting their case across. I was watching the coverage on Sky News and I realised I was becoming evermore frustrated with the way the race is being covered. The format seems to be that we are shown a five second sound bite of a candidate, usually Corbyn, followed by a ten minute debate between a panel of pundits, usually of a right wing persuasion, with the odd token Blairite.

We never get to see the context behind the one liners, we never get to see the q&a sessions or any real interaction between candidates & public.

All I know is why a bunch of often rather dull and inarticulate panellists think Corrbyn is Satan incarnate. What seems to have passed the rather out of touch teams who put this rather stilted coverage together is that in this age of social media, the whole picture is available and anyone who is interested is able to see the whole story.

Whereas 20 years ago, we had a very controlled input of news, and the Murdoch press could act as kingmakers.

Things have moved on and now it is essay to see the whole picture. Facebook and Twitter allow us to share the whole picture. Of course there is the misinformation, the Trolls and the bogus stories, but these are easy to spot and as people get more savvy with social media  these become more absurd and less relevant.

It is pretty clear that unless the traditional news channels recognise the way we process information has changed they will become ever less relevant. In the modern world, to be a trusted news source, you have to be honest. Sadly it appears that we are not getting the service we deserve.