I always believed that Labour had lost it's fight because it had lost sight of it's purpose. I was wrong. The party machines remains acutely aware of that purposes, it just chooses to ignore it. The three mainstream candidates have united to show only too clearly that their fight is still within them, it is still bristling.
Somebody should also remind Newsquest that newspapers have not been money making machines on the whole for years and that they simply buy the owner power both socially and politically and if the management board are in this for the profit then they are the ones that should be dismissed for being in the wrong industry.
MYTH 5. The CPS is engaged in a witch-hunt against journalists. The facts. Normal procedures were followed and those procedures are designed to protect defendants from unfair prosecution. The CPS, an independent body, followed published guidelines in deciding that the evidence was sufficient to put before a jury.
The long and the short is... We don't know. The papers didn't know. But they chose to decide the truth without knowledge. Now it may be that it turns out he was a depressive and those same papers will say 'ah, we told you so, we were right to run the headlines we ran.' To which the answer is 'no you weren't.' If he had just been told he had cancer, and a note to that effect had been found, would we be 'blaming' cancer for the deaths of those poor people who perished in the Alps? This is reporting that belongs in the dark ages along with witchcraft.
While the mainstream media in the UK is dismissing Katharine Viner as someone who will ensure nothing changes at the Guardian, I suspect there are very big changes on the way. Not least the inevitable move to stop printing papers and become online only, and using non-journalists to write, first, comment pieces and regular columns - and then? Who knows.
'The internet and social media have empowered the PR trade and freed it from subservience to the news media.' This was the provocative starting point for an RSA debate recently, which also asked what this premise meant for the future of journalism and, more importantly, the future of public interest.