Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

ITV Daybreak do you deliberately wind up the working people in this country?



Lady Whistledown

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 7, 2003
47,498




Bakero

Languidly clinical
Oct 9, 2010
14,700
Almería
Thanks. It appears Lokki 7 is half wrong then, as his £250m figure is right (and so is he right about it ending in 2015) but India is one of the top 6 recipients of aid, so it is clearly not an irrelevant amount.

I think he was saying it's a fairly insignificant figure in terms of global trade. India's the 2nd biggest foreign investor in the UK (USA number 1).
 




Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
54,760
Surrey
Keep on finding poor people for us to hate. Deflects nicely from the bigger issues.

I don't think ITV are guilty of finding more poor people to demonise in order to deflect attention from the bigger issues. I think they do it, because it's very easy to do so, and gets people talking.

Where is the appetite for Daytime TV to rummage through the accounts of various billionaires at Companies House or off shore, and question how much they are contributing to the welfare of the country? Or the fact that Prince Charles pays pretty much what he likes on the proceeds of his Duchy of Cornwall, choosing to call it an estate rather than a business but only when it suits him?

Neither of these issues are going to get people to watch. They'd rather broadcast poor people (ideally, mindless poor people) tell everyone why they deserve to be propped up by the state. These people are a tiny minority, but still number in the hundreds or thousands or whatever and are therefore easy to find for television researchers.
 






Brighton Breezy

New member
Jul 5, 2003
19,439
Sussex
I don't think ITV are guilty of finding more poor people to demonise in order to deflect attention from the bigger issues. I think they do it, because it's very easy to do so, and gets people talking.

Where is the appetite for Daytime TV to rummage through the accounts of various billionaires at Companies House or off shore, and question how much they are contributing to the welfare of the country? Or the fact that Prince Charles pays pretty much what he likes on the proceeds of his Duchy of Cornwall, choosing to call it an estate rather than a business but only when it suits him?

Neither of these issues are going to get people to watch. They'd rather broadcast poor people (ideally, mindless poor people) tell everyone why they deserve to be propped up by the state. These people are a tiny minority, but still number in the hundreds or thousands or whatever and are therefore easy to find for television researchers.

True, of course. I don't think the Daybreak team has any agenda. But it's editorial policy does not help. It doesn't HAVE to do features on these extreme cases. It doesn't have to invite reactionary right leaning radio hosts/newspaper columnists on to discuss the day's news and invariably find some poor people to have a go at.

Anyone interested, CHAVS is a great book, with a chapter dealing with how differently the media at a national level deal with similar stories emerging from working class and middle class communities. Got it for less than a fiver online. Worth a read.
 


User removed 4

New member
May 9, 2008
13,331
Haywards Heath
The aid budget is largely a political tool used to grease defence deals and trade agreements. As such it probably creates more national wealth overall than it costs.

Well the £ 1 billion over 3 years `political tool` we recently gave to to India(who have a nuclear arsenal and a space programme) didn't `grease the wheels ` to any great fvcking extent, they awarded the $ 10 billion contract for their new fighter plane to the French firm dassault instead of the eurofighter, so I put it to you, that you're talking out of your backside.
 


Lady Whistledown

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 7, 2003
47,498
True, of course. I don't think the Daybreak team has any agenda. But it's editorial policy does not help. It doesn't HAVE to do features on these extreme cases. It doesn't have to invite reactionary right leaning radio hosts/newspaper columnists on to discuss the day's news and invariably find some poor people to have a go at.

Anyone interested, CHAVS is a great book, with a chapter dealing with how differently the media at a national level deal with similar stories emerging from working class and middle class communities. Got it for less than a fiver online. Worth a read.

They just want something to stir up opinions, whichever way it leans.

Which is why they wheeled out that Hopkins woman last week with her views on kids' names.
 








Tooting Gull

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
11,033
As Simster says, it's piss-easy to serve up.

Doing a piece about high-level tax avoidance, or the real issues in the NHS or education system would interest fewer of their audience, and would cost more. Never going to happen, even if they are ultimately and long-term far more important and central to the wellbeing of the nation.
 




Brian Fantana

Well-known member
Oct 8, 2006
7,488
In the field
I suppose this comes down to the age old crux of benefits adequately striking the balance between being a safety net for those geniunely in need and a nice hammock for the less scrupulous to lay in whilst the rest of us work hard on their behalf.

Personally, I think we don't quite have that balance right at the moment.
 


Brighton Breezy

New member
Jul 5, 2003
19,439
Sussex
As Simster says, it's piss-easy to serve up.

Doing a piece about high-level tax avoidance, or the real issues in the NHS or education system would interest fewer of their audience, and would cost more. Never going to happen, even if they are ultimately and long-term far more important and central to the wellbeing of the nation.

They could do an equally EASY piece on something like Foodbanks, or a family struggling to make ends meet etc. But they don't.
 


Thanks. It appears Lokki 7 is half wrong then, as his £250m figure is right (and so is he right about it ending in 2015) but India is one of the top 6 recipients of aid, so it is clearly not an irrelevant amount.

Irrelevant when compared to future potential trade with India given the size of its population and growing economy.
 




Brighton Breezy

New member
Jul 5, 2003
19,439
Sussex
This Morning is just as bad. Currently some woman from the radio (sat next to Gordon Smart of The Sun) moaning about the fact the death of the guy from Glee has been described as a tragedy when, in her opinion, it isn't because he took drugs.

Then talking about how parents at her child's school get together and organise some nice vouchers as an end of term present rather than each getting a box of chocolates.
 




I think you need to take a quick trip round Peckham, Penge and Thornton Heath

I went to Lordship Lane near Peckham Rye Park recently, it's lovely. Loads of new restaurants, Victorian houses and decent old boozers. When did you last go to Peckham?
 


Well the £ 1 billion over 3 years `political tool` we recently gave to to India(who have a nuclear arsenal and a space programme) didn't `grease the wheels ` to any great fvcking extent, they awarded the $ 10 billion contract for their new fighter plane to the French firm dassault instead of the eurofighter, so I put it to you, that you're talking out of your backside.

Yes, that 1 example clearly proves it was money wasted.
 






This Morning is just as bad.

I think you lost everyone with your first sentence there sorry. If you are expecting balanced, intelligent social and political comment from This Morning then I don't think your opinions are going to carry much weight here.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here