This article is weird - the headline reads as if it’s a done deal, but the content reads that we’re in the same situation: Burnham’s side pressuring Starmer to step down, Starmer’s side denying he’s going to do so. So the news is actually just Burnham’s side want Starmer to step down.
I generally like the Guardian, but the coverage over the Makerfield by-election and Burnham’s aspirations have felt quite biased. They had 10 articles on the Makerfield by-election itself on Friday, and a lot of the themes seemed to be pushing an inevitability narrative of Burnham being leader.
The Guardian is usually better at separating editorialising from news, so I’ve been a bit disappointed in the coverage. I’m actually leaning in favour of Burnham but it feels like the Guardian focusing on an inevitability narrative is like it’s trying to help shape the story rather than just report it. It’s a left wing paper but it’s not a good sign that it’s blurring the lines between editorial and news.
It could be the Guardian manufacturing consent for Burnham. Or, they could be talking with Labour MPs off the record. Sure, Starmer hasn’t announced anything, but anyone who know, KNOWS.
I don’t really know where I land on The Guardian, they’re mostly factual so probably the latter. Do they have a wealthy owner, for whom Burnham is particularly advantagous, to justify manufacturing the consent?
He announced his resignation, it was probably the latter
This article is weird - the headline reads as if it’s a done deal, but the content reads that we’re in the same situation: Burnham’s side pressuring Starmer to step down, Starmer’s side denying he’s going to do so. So the news is actually just Burnham’s side want Starmer to step down.
I generally like the Guardian, but the coverage over the Makerfield by-election and Burnham’s aspirations have felt quite biased. They had 10 articles on the Makerfield by-election itself on Friday, and a lot of the themes seemed to be pushing an inevitability narrative of Burnham being leader.
The Guardian is usually better at separating editorialising from news, so I’ve been a bit disappointed in the coverage. I’m actually leaning in favour of Burnham but it feels like the Guardian focusing on an inevitability narrative is like it’s trying to help shape the story rather than just report it. It’s a left wing paper but it’s not a good sign that it’s blurring the lines between editorial and news.
It could be the Guardian manufacturing consent for Burnham. Or, they could be talking with Labour MPs off the record. Sure, Starmer hasn’t announced anything, but anyone who know, KNOWS.
I don’t really know where I land on The Guardian, they’re mostly factual so probably the latter. Do they have a wealthy owner, for whom Burnham is particularly advantagous, to justify manufacturing the consent?
He announced his resignation, it was probably the latter