The first link is people projecting feelings and guessing, so pretty irrelevant. The second one is backing up my point that media outlets tend to employ better educated staff/people with a degree relevant to the subject. Which was the point I made to you. So I appreciate you backing that up. You’ll probably find that banks employ well educated people with degrees applicable to numeracy. You may even find that plumbers tend to be trained in plumbing too. Madness.
Ok, so the British public is ignorant and knows nothing about the media - even though this range of views is reflected by people who lean left, right and central. And the article is clear that journalism has become a thing of the elite. 3% working class. Are you saying that the working class are not capable of writing in a newspaper? More than 3% of working class people have very good degrees.
The British public voted for Brexit. They also are being asked their opinion, that’s not fact. People on here can’t even agree whether the BBC is lefty or righty, so excuse me if I don’t give that poll too much weight, no. The 16 year old article in the most left leaning publication you could find? Of course working class people can be journalists. There’s no reason for them not to be. Many are. I’d like to see those figures now, but media outlets (as with a vast majority of professions) will recruit in people with the best qualifications and talent for the job. If the people with the best communications skills are still being produced by the top universities, then they’ll take them from there. I’d be astonished if those figures were still valid now. The world has changed an awful lot in the past 16 years. EDIT - sorry, looking at that again, it’s actually 22 years old, and your 3% intake is from parents with unskilled or semi-skilled jobs, not from “working class”. Nice try though.
2015 (and this is top 100 journalists): 51% of leading journalists educated and working in the UK in 2015 were privately educated, according to the social mobility think tank the Sutton Trust. Another 30% went to grammar schools while 19% went to comprehensives.
You seem very happy to argue the status quo is ok. In a real democracy, those giving the news should accurately reflect those who they are reporting to. The fact is that it is going the other way: 80% of journalists come from upper class backgrounds, finds new report (pressgazette.co.uk) Sadly, while I did misremember the number (I don't care that much) what it reflects is a press which is more and more closing ranks. The NCTJ are very clear on this. The press were more an old boys' club in 2008 than ever before, and it is worse now. Statistically speaking.
Where have I argued the status quo is okay? (You also clearly didn’t read that report properly. It has more holes than Swiss cheese).
It is. Because those people have been ‘better’ educated, and are therefore more competent in the skills required to be an effective journalist. That’s not right. As I’ve said all along. But that’s a societal issue, not a nefarious old boys club of recruitment. As I’ve said all along. What needs to happen is a greater intake of students from a working class background into the universities that will give them the best skills to become good journalists. That is happening now at the likes of Oxford (though possibly not enough yet, still). Then that picture will change. It’s not because people in charge of recruitment at media outlets are sitting there saying “we only want posh Tories here” which is weirdly what you seem to think it is.
It’s not the university point that is the limiting factor in journalism. It’s the connections. James O’Brien often talks about this. They won’t have them to the same level even if they went to Oxford. I’ve just listened to Jonathan Sopal talk about how it wasn’t easy for him to get into journalism straight from uni because he had “only” written for the student newspaper. I’m not really sure what else he was supposed to have done by that point other than “know people”. It’s a bit different now of course
That's exactly what it is and the reason for that is the sermons that Starmer gave about donations when he was in opposition. It's easy to spout all sorts of morality and behaviour standards when in opposition but when you become PM you had better be whiter than white if you don't want it thrown back at you. When the Tories were exposed for their dishonesty they were rightly called out on here for being corrupt. I don't recall many defending them. There are some on the left here (Badger, Back from Beyond, Schrodinger's Cat and some I forget) who have shown an honesty to call it out. But there are others who try to defend it, make meaningless comparisons to what the Tories were like or play it down as right wing propaganda. While they continue to post their blind loyalty, there will be others regularly posting the opposite. That's how it works. Labour are in government now, they (and their supporters) have to accept their behaviour, past and present, will be scrutinised very closely. The issue nobody is talking about is wealth. Why would Sunak need donations when his own wife is exceptionally rich? Starmer has accepted clothes and accommodation to be able to compete with Tories, most of whom are from privileged backgrounds. If we ban donations, how do the poor compete? How could a working class miner or factory worker ever climb the ranks in politics. Best laugh in ages. Compete with the Tories? He is a Tory. Not at the same level of wealth as Sunak and his wife I accept, but enough to scrape together some cash for a few suits and glasses I should think. He may be the son of a toolmaker but poor old Kier will have to make do on a PM/MP's salary of £166,000. This from when he was in opposition; Tax year 2022/23 Keir Starmer paid £99,400 in UK tax on £404,000 income, Labour reveals And also What is Sir Keir Starmer's net worth? According to Prolific London, Sir Keir has a net worth of around £7.7 million, however, they share it could rise to between £10m and £15m when “taking his other revenue streams into account and the land he has held since 1996.” https://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/news/24433431.new-prime-minister-sir-keir-starmers-net-worth/
Regarding his dad being a toolmaker, what rarely gets said is that (unless I am mistaken) is that his dad was a toolmaker who had his own toolmaking factory. I’m no fan of Starmer, and haven’t been since he reneged on all the promises he made once installed as the party leader. He lies far too easily for my liking and he’s also shown that he’s prone to making huge errors in judgement. We shouldn’t be talking about the winter fuel allowance being means tested or the freebies he and his colleagues have been receiving, both of which are avoidable own goals. We should be talking about the good things that Labour are introducing, such as the changes to workers rights that will benefit everyone of working age.
Israel were quite restrained in their retaliation last time IIRC. I think they fired close to, but missed, nuclear sites in Iran. This time I think it will be a lot worse.
