Janet Edwards

Centre-left moderate. Value: family, friendship, good society, MUFC. Hate biased journalism and celeb obsession. Tweeting own views.

[RS Archer @archer_rs]

Powerful from Starmer, seeing Farage having to sit there, squirming and take it made the speech all the more enjoyable.

[Damian Low @DamianLow3]

Starmer absolutely nailed Farage in #PMQs.

Blasted straight through the opportunism.

[Sam hussain @Samsoprano30]

Totally agree with you appalling behaviour from labour mps after all that we had to endured during the catastrophic 14 years of tory disaster we are just getting started and now this circus for what

[Clare Hepworth OBE @Hepworthclare]

Shameful contribution from Farage today #PMQs
The entire HOC (with the exception of Reform MPs) were repulsed & revolted by his rant.

[SueGreenwoodKelly. 😊 🇪🇺 @susanmc15104271]

@soniasodha You can’t keep blaming Starmer for everything wrong with this Country Sonia. Racism has been embedded in parts of our society for generations. Then to blame “all sides” is a real cop out. Are Tories progressive too ? 🤷🏻‍♀️

[Keir Starmer @Keir_Starmer]

Henry Nowak’s family have lost their son and brother in the most appalling circumstances.

Nigel Farage is exploiting this tragedy to create grievance and division.

It’s completely unforgivable.

[Heather Jeeves 🇪🇺 @HeatherJeeves]

Watching Keir Starmer at PMQs, why would you want anyone else in charge at present. A voice of calm and reason.

[Jordon-Lee @JordonLee]

One of Keir Starmer’s greatest moments in Parliament. He totally met the moment. Some say they don’t know what he stands for, but he’s often the most passionate in these moments when he’s able to showcase how much he cares #PMQs

[Filly ☘️ @fillypepper]

Nigel Farage did not attend or speak during the Commons statement by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood on the Henry Nowak case, which was ordered by the Speaker of the house.

Instead Nigel Farage chose to go on TV & weaponise the tragedy, against the family’s wishes.
#FarageRiots

[Bridget Phillipson @bphillipsonMP]

We’ve hit a big landmark – 10 million free breakfasts served.

10 million better days at school – more children turning up, concentrating, getting on.

10 million easier mornings for parents – better drop-offs & commutes.

Change doesn’t happen by chance, it comes with Labour. 🌹

[ClareT with Ukraine heart and soul 💪 @ClareTa97789912]

This clearly expressed and objectively written analysis of political journalism in GB is an important read.
Those of us feeling frustrated with media presentation of our politics will welcome the clarity of thinking here.
Thanks for this

[Gordon Fielden @GordonFielden]

Over recent months, there has been a widespread and unmistakable backlash against what many people now regard as the political correspondents' circus. Across social media, public discussion, newspaper comment sections and countless online platforms, people have become increasingly frustrated with what they perceive to be the transformation of political journalism from reporting events into attempting to shape them.

This criticism has not emerged from a small or isolated group. It has been repeated by vast numbers of people from across the political spectrum who have become weary of what they see as narrative construction taking precedence over factual reporting. The complaint is remarkably consistent. The public are not asking journalists to tell them what to think. They are asking journalists to tell them what has happened, present the evidence, provide the necessary context and allow people to reach their own conclusions.

The criticism is not directed towards a single broadcaster or newspaper. The BBC, Sky News, ITV, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Times, the Financial Times, the Daily Mail and others have all found themselves the subject of growing public scrutiny. Particular attention has been directed towards the increasingly prominent role of chief political correspondents and political editors, many of whom now appear to occupy a position somewhere between journalist, commentator and political participant.

Critics point to specific examples which, in their view, demonstrate how far parts of political journalism have drifted from straightforward reporting. One such example occurred only last week when Lewis Goodall, during his regular radio programme, openly questioned why the Prime Minister had not already gone. To many listeners, this appeared less like political reporting and more like political advocacy. The objection is not that journalists should be prevented from asking difficult questions. Rather, it is that some correspondents increasingly appear to be advancing their own preferred political outcomes instead of reporting events as they are. For many members of the public, such interventions merely reinforce the perception that certain figures within the political media class have become active participants in the very stories they are supposed to be covering.

For months, audiences have watched as the same narratives have been advanced, repeated and reinforced across multiple outlets. Stories have frequently been presented through the lens of political drama, leadership speculation and alleged crisis, even when the underlying facts have often been considerably less dramatic than the accompanying commentary suggested. The result has been a growing perception that some journalists have become more invested in the narrative surrounding events than in the events themselves.

The controversy surrounding the so called secret vetting process became a notable example. Critics argued that important context was either omitted or given insufficient prominence, creating an impression that was not fully representative of the facts. When further details emerged, many expected the same journalists who had promoted the original narrative to revisit their reporting with equal prominence. In the eyes of many observers, that never truly happened.

This frustration has extended well beyond individual stories. Increasingly, people have questioned why certain correspondents appear determined to present every disagreement as a rebellion, every policy challenge as a crisis and every difficult week as evidence of impending political collapse. Rather than reporting developments as they occur, some appear to have adopted a role in which they actively construct a storyline and then search for evidence to support it.

What has clearly unsettled parts of the media establishment is the scale of the public response. For perhaps the first time in a generation, journalists themselves have become the subject of sustained scrutiny by the public. Viewers, listeners and readers are now challenging reporting in real time, dissecting claims, comparing sources and exposing inconsistencies. The monopoly once enjoyed by a relatively small group of political commentators over the national conversation has been fundamentally weakened.

When members of the public have challenged this approach, some correspondents have reacted with surprise, even indignation, that their work should be subjected to criticism. Yet this is merely the accountability that journalists themselves have long demanded from politicians, public institutions and those in positions of influence. Scrutiny cannot be a one way process.

The decline in trust towards traditional news organisations has therefore not occurred by accident. It is the product of years of perceived bias, selective emphasis, exaggerated narratives and the gradual erosion of the distinction between factual reporting and personal interpretation. People have become increasingly sceptical of those who appear more interested in influencing events than describing them.

The irony in all of this is that the relentless effort by some commentators to portray Prime Minister Keir Starmer as politically weakened may, in some respects, have achieved precisely the opposite effect. The constant predictions of crisis, collapse and leadership turmoil have increasingly been met with public scepticism. Many people have concluded that they are witnessing not objective reporting, but a determined effort to manufacture a narrative that the facts themselves do not support.

Far from weakening support, this sustained campaign of speculation and commentary appears to have galvanised many of those who had grown tired of political theatre. The more some correspondents have sought to present themselves as kingmakers, the more people have questioned whether that was ever their role in the first place. The message from large sections of the public is becoming increasingly clear. Report the facts. Present the evidence. Provide the context. Then allow the public to make up their own minds.

[Emily Sheffield @emilysheffield]

On @newsnight we saw a Reform representative, who, despite being shown the huge violence in Southampton, refused to even consider Farage might have chosen his words more wisely today. The whole programme descended into a shouting match with Reform’s Laila at the centre. If you shout Two Tier policing and call up white hot rage when the mood is this emotional there will further cause and effect. It is that simple.

[Chris Bryant @RhonddaBryant]

She’s right

[Anna Turley MP @annaturley]

Farage could have been in Parliament today, doing his job, and ask any question he wanted of the Home Secretary about the tragic Henry Novak case.
Where was he?
Instead he hides behind pre-recorded rage-bait videos. Coward.

[Hugh 🌹 @HughEdw31897368]

Political fallout @BBCVickiYoung ?
You are politicising a dreadful crime. The case is being referred to the IOPC why not wait for that to run its course. And the sole purpose of having Matt Goodwin on is to stir up racism. Disgusting. @Ofcom

#PoliticsLive

[Gwynoro Jones @Gwynoro]

Mandelson says PM tends to ‘buckle under pressure’ - well that’s not how Trump sees it when he regularly harangued Starmer for not joining the military action over Iran. Certainly he’s not buckling under pressure with all the negatives pouring forth from the media and his own MPs

[Prof Colin Talbot (rerum cognoscere causas) @colinrtalbot]

Angela Rayner - £40k underpaid stamp duty - repaid. Lost jobs in Cabinet and Dep. PM.

Peter Murrell - £400k theft from SNP - going to prison

Huge coverage of both

Nigel Farage - £5m undeclared bung (possibly more) - goes to ground for a month.

Media coverage? You judge.

[Matthew Stadlen @MatthewStadlen]

Lee Anderson is the Chairman of Reform, the party that might form our next government. Let that sink in.

[Gwynoro Jones @Gwynoro]

UK green economy thriving - more than a million jobs, higher wages and nearly half a trillion pounds in investment in the pipeline. Net zero workers averaging £43,000 pa wages about 11% higher than the national average of £39,000
https://t.co/zuIa6x0lXN