[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

[Machiavelli]

Leaving your comments re the NHS aside, because it is a vast topic on its own, I am not convinced that GB News, the Mail etc. have a huge influence on how people vote, but as Beorhthelm, I think it was said, they may reinforce the views those readers or listeners may already have. Rather like those who read the Guardian or the Mirror. Would you be influenced by GB News or the Mail?

I think this is a good question and, although you haven't said it, it points towards a snobbery/intellectualism of the left that is a little more prominent than on the right (ie, "it's only the right that are 'indoctrinated' by the Mail, whereas I'm a free-thinking Guardian reader"). That said, my point is that there's a heck of a lot more of the press advocating policies of the right -- which attracts c80% of the readership -- than on the left. You may respond that it's up to the left to create it's own media, and there's something in that too.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Leaving your comments re the NHS aside, because it is a vast topic on its own, I am not convinced that GB News, the Mail etc. have a huge influence on how people vote, but as Beorhthelm, I think it was said, they may reinforce the views those readers or listeners may already have. Rather like those who read the Guardian or the Mirror. Would you be influenced by GB News or the Mail?

We are all influenced by what we read aren't we? Maybe it's on NSC, maybe it's twitter, maybe a newspaper or channel. In a way we gravitate to media as a way of organising existing thoughts we have. I don't see anything wrong with that.

But where it can get pernicious is the drip drip drip. All day every day, the use of language, an incriminating photograph, a suggestive question to make a point. Over years and years, these forms of media are dragging people to the right, much more than I think would be a natural progression

My mates dad is a great example. Hippy in the 70s, supported miners in the 80s. Been watching GB News and reading Daily Mail recently . Me and my mate (both Lord of The Rings Nerds) describe it as trying to talk to Theoden, while under Saruman's spell (apologies to those who don't get the reference). Basically, his brain has been poisoned to the level where even basic communication on any social matters becomes hard.

 

[aolstudios]

I think this is a good question and, although you haven't said it, it points towards a snobbery/intellectualism of the left that is a little more prominent than on the right (ie, "it's only the right that are 'indoctrinated' by the Mail, whereas I'm a free-thinking Guardian reader"). That said, my point is that there's a heck of a lot more of the press advocating policies of the right -- which attracts c80% of the readership -- than on the left. You may respond that it's up to the left to create it's own media, and there's something in that too.

Agreed. As someone on the left it's depressing though that the plethora of left media on the web generally adds nothing but demonisation of Jews or anyone who's slighted the previous leader in the tiniest way. It's trump level #horseshoe

 

[clapham_gull]

Johnson is not a liberal, he speaks like he is, but he most certainly is not by his actions.

I think Johnson will say whatever he thinks will get himself elected.

Most biographies think he is liberal as heart, but as you say.....

 

[beorhthelm]

We are all influenced by what we read aren't we? Maybe it's on NSC, maybe it's twitter, maybe a newspaper or channel. In a way we gravitate to media as a way of organising existing thoughts we have. I don't see anything wrong with that.

But where it can get pernicious is the drip drip drip. All day every day, the use of language, an incriminating photograph, a suggestive question to make a point. Over years and years, these forms of media are dragging people to the right, much more than I think would be a natural progression

My mates dad is a great example. Hippy in the 70s, supported miners in the 80s. Been watching GB News and reading Daily Mail recently . Me and my mate (both Lord of The Rings Nerds) describe it as trying to talk to Theoden, while under Saruman's spell (apologies to those who don't get the reference). Basically, his brain has been poisoned to the level where even basic communication on any social matters becomes hard.

my contention is there might be influenced, most will pick up the media meeting their interests already. a left winger isnt buying or scrolling Daily Mail or watching GB News* and being convinced to change their views. they are read and watched by those already right leaning. same in reverse with Guardian and Mirror. only major difference is with main TV channel news where people might simply watch Sky evening bulletin because its on.

if mates' dad has recently been reading DM, i wonder what they were reading in the 80's a 70's?

* though i'm convinced most viewers are left wing supporters watching to scoff and get enraged by who is on there.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

my contention is there might be influenced, most will pick up the media meeting their interests already. a left winger isnt buying or scrolling Daily Mail or watching GBebbies* and being convinced the output is correct. they are read by someone already right leaning. same in reverse with Guardian and Mirror. only major difference is with main TV channel news where people might simply watch Sky because its on.

if mates' dad has recently been reading DM, i wonder what they were reading in the 80's a 70's?

* though i'm convinced most viewers are left wing supporters watching to scoff and get enraged by who is on there.

I think it's more insidious than "person reads newspaper editorial, decides to vote conservative"

It's about the framing of the national discourse. The way an article in one paper might say somebody "stated" something but another might use the word "claimed".

Having said that, I've always found the more time I've recently spent reading the Guardian the more inclined I am to right wing perspectives, just to spite the patronising twats who write for it.

The really creepy thing is when somebody who's previously seemed entirely normal spends a couple of weeks doing a deep dive on YouTube and comes out of it a boggle-eyed conspiracy loon.

 

[BLOCK F]

We are all influenced by what we read aren't we? Maybe it's on NSC, maybe it's twitter, maybe a newspaper or channel. In a way we gravitate to media as a way of organising existing thoughts we have. I don't see anything wrong with that.

But where it can get pernicious is the drip drip drip. All day every day, the use of language, an incriminating photograph, a suggestive question to make a point. Over years and years, these forms of media are dragging people to the right, much more than I think would be a natural progression

My mates dad is a great example. Hippy in the 70s, supported miners in the 80s. Been watching GB News and reading Daily Mail recently . Me and my mate (both Lord of The Rings Nerds) describe it as trying to talk to Theoden, while under Saruman's spell (apologies to those who don't get the reference). Basically, his brain has been poisoned to the level where even basic communication on any social matters becomes hard.

By dragging people to the right, do you mean bordering on the extreme right or just further away than perhaps you yourself are? Yes, you quote your dad’s mate, but are there really hordes of these types? Your dad and his mate may well be a similar age to myself,75, and as a natural centre right bod, I have no time for extremes of any shade. I think some of this drift to the right you see could be due to the fact that the Conservatives have been in power for too long and since 2019, in particular have been a f—-img shambles. Dissatisfaction has led to a splintered party and unsurprisingly a number of the electorate have expressed their ‘grievances’ by supporting some of the views held by splinter groups. I do believe this will be a temporary phenomenon, a bit like the Oh Jeremy Corbyn nonsense.
The way forward for any party wanting power has been not to veer too far from the centre, either left or right. That remains the case today.
Anyway, let us hope Keir Starmer makes a success of being PM and can keep the Labour Party more or less intact and reject any lunatic fringe that may emerge, given half a chance. In the meantime, in Opposition, the Conservatives will eventually come to their senses and regroup around the centre right.

 

[A1X]

 

[aolstudios]

After the media had insisted what a disastrous week it had been for labour & Starmer

 

[The Clamp]

There’s far too many long, sensible answers on here today.

Please cut it down to just the swear words and insults or face a lengthy ban.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Before I forget, congratulations to @Bozza and his mods for maintaining a forum where grown up, adult conversations can take place, which must be very challenging in 2024..

I am sure all of us appreciate the hard work from all of you, and that it doesn't happen by accident (and we don't help)

 

[The Clamp]

Michael Gove failed to register hospitality with donor whose firm he referred for PPE contracts

Exclusive: Gove enjoyed VIP hospitality at football match with owner of company awarded £164m of contracts after Gove’s referral

www.theguardian.com

More corruption from the cocaine addled Pob. Absolutely dripping in lies, deception, contempt, cronyism, entitlement, and idleness.

Ditch. Now.

 

[drew]

I think it's more insidious than "person reads newspaper editorial, decides to vote conservative"

It's about the framing of the national discourse. The way an article in one paper might say somebody "stated" something but another might use the word "claimed".

Having said that, I've always found the more time I've recently spent reading the Guardian the more inclined I am to right wing perspectives, just to spite the patronising twats who write for it.

The really creepy thing is when somebody who's previously seemed entirely normal spends a couple of weeks doing a deep dive on YouTube and comes out of it a boggle-eyed conspiracy loon.

It is insidious. It's why companies like Cambridge Analyitica operated. A drip feed of stories posted on social media which reinforce someone's prejudices and probably drives them further towards and extreme view.

The next election could be worse for underhand tactics, especially with the abuse of AI.

 

[A1X]

Kemi Badenoch latest…

 

[nicko31]

Kemi Badenoch latest…

Batshit Badenoch not coming out of this well....

 

[Audax]

I think this is a good question and, although you haven't said it, it points towards a snobbery/intellectualism of the left that is a little more prominent than on the right (ie, "it's only the right that are 'indoctrinated' by the Mail, whereas I'm a free-thinking Guardian reader"). That said, my point is that there's a heck of a lot more of the press advocating policies of the right -- which attracts c80% of the readership -- than on the left. You may respond that it's up to the left to create it's own media, and there's something in that too.

The left does have its own media, but it's never had the money behind that the equivalent right media has had and therefore lacks traction.

Having said that, there's certain authors who appear on the Guardian that I avoid; those who I would bundle up as being the left-sided versions of some of the right-sided dog whistlers. Not keen on Owen Jones, for example.

my contention is there might be influenced, most will pick up the media meeting their interests already. a left winger isnt buying or scrolling Daily Mail or watching GB News* and being convinced to change their views. they are read and watched by those already right leaning. same in reverse with Guardian and Mirror. only major difference is with main TV channel news where people might simply watch Sky evening bulletin because its on.

if mates' dad has recently been reading DM, i wonder what they were reading in the 80's a 70's?

* though i'm convinced most viewers are left wing supporters watching to scoff and get enraged by who is on there.

Personally don't think the "fully out" hate media (Daily Mail / GB News) are the main problem here. They are the obvious manifestation. Where the problem lies is in the full media empires owned by the likes of Murdoch, where they have at least one "wolf in sheeps clothing" title that mostly pretends to be a sanely centre-right publication but drops the occasional "let's go a bit further right..." story. With a little manipulation and prodding a centre-right reader can eventually become a sometimes Daily Mail reader and GB News watcher.

Ideally, we should all be consuming a little media from both sides but avoiding the more extreme publications. But also ideally, ownership would be diversified so that there is genuine diversification of views for us to read.

It is insidious. It's why companies like Cambridge Analyitica operated. A drip feed of stories posted on social media which reinforce someone's prejudices and probably drives them further towards and extreme view.

The next election could be worse for underhand tactics, especially with the abuse of AI.

This is the crux of it. Politicians and media moguls (especially on the right) are already adept now at manipulation via social media. And SM providers provide the tools to do it. With the right segmentation and marketing people, it's very easy to set up targeted campaigns on SM that target "soft right" voters with messaging designed to drag them to "firm right". From there, you then subtly retarget them to continue that drag to the right. It doesn't happen overnight, it takes a while ... but we know these hard right scumbags (both internally and foreign meddling) have been at it for *years* and because it benefits the Conservative government they've done nothing to deal with the problem.

 

[chickens]

The left does have its own media, but it's never had the money behind that the equivalent right media has had and therefore lacks traction.

Having said that, there's certain authors who appear on the Guardian that I avoid; those who I would bundle up as being the left-sided versions of some of the right-sided dog whistlers. Not keen on Owen Jones, for example.



Personally don't think the "fully out" hate media (Daily Mail / GB News) are the main problem here. They are the obvious manifestation. Where the problem lies is in the full media empires owned by the likes of Murdoch, where they have at least one "wolf in sheeps clothing" title that mostly pretends to be a sanely centre-right publication but drops the occasional "let's go a bit further right..." story. With a little manipulation and prodding a centre-right reader can eventually become a sometimes Daily Mail reader and GB News watcher.

Ideally, we should all be consuming a little media from both sides but avoiding the more extreme publications. But also ideally, ownership would be diversified so that there is genuine diversification of views for us to read.



This is the crux of it. Politicians and media moguls (especially on the right) are already adept now at manipulation via social media. And SM providers provide the tools to do it. With the right segmentation and marketing people, it's very easy to set up targeted campaigns on SM that target "soft right" voters with messaging designed to drag them to "firm right". From there, you then subtly retarget them to continue that drag to the right. It doesn't happen overnight, it takes a while ... but we know these hard right scumbags (both internally and foreign meddling) have been at it for *years* and because it benefits the Conservative government they've done nothing to deal with the problem.

And herein lies the problem. Capital will take whatever steps are required to keep it dominant. Therefore it will happily fund pro-Capital news outlets, and not news outlets that might be considered anti-capital or even ambivalent news sources.

The “choice” that we have among our news outlets is largely between organizations competing for the same ad money, so bending over backward to amplify the advertiser’s POV.

Any news source that routinely offers views that would make life better for the general population over business’s interests will soon find their advertising spend diminished to non-existent and will therefore go bust.

This is why there is so much hatred directed at the BBC by Murdoch rags and the Telegraph. They have a different funding model and can afford to tell the truth without bowing to advertisers wishes.

A deeply depressing state of affairs, thank god for the BBC. I wouldn’t mind a few more decent news sources on the left though, I find the Guardian depressingly smug, though worth the price of admission for Marina Hyde alone, and largely the only British daily paper to do any real investigative journalism.

 

[A1X]

Batshit Badenoch not coming out of this well....

Considering the initial scandal had basically nothing to do with her, she seems hell bent on placing herself at the heart of it (and not in a good way)

Her political instincts are terrible

 

[Cordwainer]

Considering the initial scandal had basically nothing to do with her, she seems hell bent on placing herself at the heart of it (and not in a good way)

Her political instincts are terrible

Gone beyond the issue now hasn’t it? Her and an awful lot of the other Tory loons simply cannot handle any criticism, especially when made public. Look at the crying they’re now doing over Michael Sheens new drama. They possess the holy trinity of dimness, arrogance and paper thin skin.

 

[Gwylan]

The left does have its own media, but it's never had the money behind that the equivalent right media has had and therefore lacks traction.

There have been left wing papers in the past. The Daily Herald was set up by trade unionists in the early 20th century and was solidly Labour. It was edited by future Labour leader, George Lansbury (Angela's grandad) and was more to the left than the Daily Mirror. It gradually lost sales and was eventually sold to Rupert Murdoch and relaunched as The Sun.

The trade union movement had another go in the 80s, launching News on Sunday. It was a truly terrible paper and didn't last the year (I'm not even sure that it lasted six months). Around the same time, there was the launch of another broadsheet, The Sunday Correspondent. Not strictly left wing, it was more centrist with a pink tinge - not too dissimilar to The Guardian. It wasn't terrible but it was launched into a crowded market and didn't have enough identity.

I don't think any of these failed specifically because of the lack of money: the newspaper market is tough and there have been plenty of non-left failures too - who remembers the Daily Sketch or Today? However, the existing owners can certainly ride out the dips in fortune which newer titles can't.

There is still a leftwing presence online with the likes of the Byline Times but these are certainly drowned out by the more wealthy media owners.