So by your lofty standards, no one questions what they read or watch, consume everything as fact, and act like a puppet for said media outlet? Thats the point I am making. If Labour think they lost this election cos of the media, well, if it suits you then fine. I would suggest they ask folk who voted against them instead of assuming.
There are always two positions on this and both are right. The first is to say there is a wide range of media, and people critically engage with it. The other is, if it had no impact, it wouldn't be utilised.
I think it has an overated impact but an impact none the less.
Liverpool is a really interesting example, because the sorts of people who are turning from Labour elsewhere, in seats half an hour up the road, just don't. There is a loyalty and a support for Labour and Corbyn that isn't in existence. You saw it when Tommy Robinson came, and was bounced out really. I think the Sun in particular has a corrosive impact upon people, in a lot of ways at a subliminal level.
I think whats more important though, is what went alongside the Sun being removed. It wasn't about a negative message, but really quite a positive, and simple narrative that went alongside it. In the first instance about what they wrote about Hillsborough, then on the anniversary of Hillsborough having a pop at the other football club, a local star player and women in the city. It was an open goal that we were able to craft a clear narrative they don't like us. In a lot of ways, that is as important as a banning or a boycott, the conversations that go alongside it.
On the wider point the media didn't cost Labour the election, at least not anymore than other elections. Labour will always get a hard time from the press. It's our job to navigate that. We didn't do that well enough. There are a mixture of long, medium and short term problems that came together.