Another reason for the Greens not to blink is that your polling floor is naturally a lot higher when you actually believe in something, rather than swaying all over the shop trying to please the famously mercurial British press.
This is how it looks with big thumbs pressed hard on the scales for the main two. It’ll break up differently in an actual election, but this is how it looks in peacetime.
A fun thing is every time I see an MP giving out about disability benefits I put their name and the word "expenses" into google and folks, there is always a news story.
There’s no fixing that kind of deformation professionelle. If the best-paid people believe their job is to repeat what they’re told then move on to Match Of The Day coverage, and anyone saying Wait, What Is Going On Here? is greeted with hostility… that will perpetuate itself.
But by 2015 we had a top-tier of people who listen to the repugnant little fash crank Michael Gove brandishing a hoax letter about Muslim conspirators waging secret war on schools, say “Thank you sir, how scary” then simply repeat what he had said on TV, radio and in front pages.
Senor Labour source: And so, we reckon Scottish nationalism is an Iranian Facebook plot, probably
The Guardian Politics Desk: Terrifying stuff sir, we can barely get our heads around the scale of these threats. Quick team, back to the Mystery Machine: we must inform the public
In this one, Pippa blithely repeats chat from A Labour Source about how a US drone strike on Tehran took out thousands of “Cybernat” bots. Jessica does not even blink at this wild shit, just if we’re gauging how deep in the hole the Guardian politics desk is, at this point.
Lots of this going on over the Fairford “terror attack”. No way to guess what happened because all of the reporting is these lads listening to the government and then repeating it, seemingly without any analysis at all. I remember it being at least somewhat better in the 2000s.
Because if I'm honest I don't really think there's anything any amount of bit farms could do that compared to this site being owned by a foreign oligarch who very publicly uses it to interfere in other country's politics.
I think it would be helpful if journalists talking to politicians about "Russian election interference" asked them to clarify what they actually mean. Is it just "doing some tweets"?