Maybe the question is not is it "good" but is it "less bad" and with the exception of Channel 4 News the answer is probably still a guarded yes.

All very true. But when it comes to destroying, the person who did the dodgy Panorama edit should not escape censure because the blatant dishonesty has played right into the hands of the populist right. Defending it would make things even worse.

So just a 128% increase then. That's not a rabbit hole. It's a mineshaft and despire your protestations we are all shouting down it saying that it didn't make the news because (i) it wasn't as bad and (ii) nobody knew. Is this Labour Government ever going to take control of anything?

"Celebrity says something" theory of journalism

Presentionally, she has been an accident waiting to happen from the outset. And it's happening.

Yes, it's PR incompetence arising from the fear that truth at the wrong time would shatter the Ming Vase. Their inadequacy is exasperating. Are all politicians trained from birth to be duplicitious? Are Labour incapable of building a good PR machine and narrative?

I hope you are telling Bristol City daily to sort themselves out and get on here as well.

Couldn't agree more. But journalistically they still utterly fucked up by getting too clever. And by doing so they have caused a negative response. So if they are not deeply embarrassed then they should be because it is the sort of error that is a gift to the far right.

And yet to many of them reckon they are going to vote for it..... beyond belief

How does he account for it? Because they are an established Premier League team with quality offensive players who create chances against everybody every week and we are a promoted side desperately trying to make the grade, survive and slowly improve. That's totally normal. We have to suck it up.

I am also progressive and despise right-wing tropes. But your nuanced response is understandable. Denial is no solution. There is no confirmation as yet, absolutely, but you are entitled to a wearied and troubled response in view of statistical evidence about random attacks.