News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
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?