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

[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.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

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

I'm less sure.

I think she wants the sack. I think she knows that the post office scandal will be yesterdays chip paper in 6 months time.

What she doesn't want is association with the calamitous tory defeat she knows is coming. She wants to be able to be able to plausibly say that Sunak botched the campaign and she can do better

 

[CHAPPERS]

Badenoch is awful. Chris Bryant more or less called her a liar in Parliament yesterday.

 

[MJsGhost]

They possess the holy trinity of dimness, arrogance and paper thin skin.

This is so true.

I would also add that they are paranoid about anything unfamilar and fear outsiders / forriners / change in general.

 

[Gwylan]

Badenoch is awful. Chris Bryant more or less called her a liar in Parliament yesterday.

And now she's being called a liar by the Canadian government too. It's not a good week for her

 

[Thunder Bolt]

This is so true.

I would also add that they are paranoid about anything unfamilar and fear outsiders / forriners / change in general.

They're even paranoid about skimmed milk!

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Blair won because of this man in 97, and the Tories are being played like puppets. Restore Levenson.

 

[A1X]

They're even paranoid about skimmed milk!

#GetFatForBritain

 

[Greg Bobkin]

They're even paranoid about skimmed milk!

He really gets stuck into the big political issues of the day, doesn't he?

Yet another example of someone who claims his party is 'bringing everyone together' and yet he couldn't be more divisive about... milk?! Berk.

 

[aolstudios]

He really gets stuck into the big political issues of the day, doesn't he?

Yet another example of someone who claims his party is 'bringing everyone together' and yet he couldn't be more divisive about... milk?! Berk.

He really is the Berk's berk. An utterly unserious politician

 

[BLOCK F]

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.

Well, the Reform Party isn’t benefitting the Conservative Government. Witness the recent by election results!

 

[BLOCK F]

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.

The Sunday Times and the Times have been pretty keen on investigative journalism for quite a number of years.

 

[MJsGhost]

They're even paranoid about skimmed milk!

We only ever have whole milk in our house.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?!?!