Paid Members BomberPat Posted March 31, 2021 Paid Members Share Posted March 31, 2021 (edited) Even comparing the reach of two different sources isn't like-for-like, because it assumes a parity of esteem. You might see more of some random news blog in your feed than of reports from a major newspaper, but that doesn't mean that you're going to give both equal weight. Edited March 31, 2021 by BomberPat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Chris B Posted March 31, 2021 Paid Members Share Posted March 31, 2021 19 minutes ago, BomberPat said: Even comparing the reach of two different sources isn't like-for-like, because it assumes a parity of esteem. You might see more of some random news blog in your feed than of reports from a major newspaper, but that doesn't mean that you're going to give both equal weight. On top of that, there's also the sheer amount of news that sites are capable of putting out. The buzzfeed article that Pat linked to acknowledges that this is on an individual article basis, and not looking at all shares. Also, it's ignoring multimedia and video, or content posted directly on Facebook. Again, going to point to the 16 million Facebook followers the Daily Mail has. This reminds me a little of a Ben Shapiro 'news' story recently about how more people googled 'Gina Carano' than googled 'Disney network' or 'Wandavision'. And it was true... for half a day when she was let go by Disney. It was a mixture of a big news story and people googling to see who she was. So you could certainly argue that Gina Carano has had more interest than Disney, but that's not the same thing as sustaining that level of interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members BomberPat Posted March 31, 2021 Paid Members Share Posted March 31, 2021 13 minutes ago, Chris B said: This reminds me a little of a Ben Shapiro 'news' story recently about how more people googled 'Gina Carano' than googled 'Disney network' or 'Wandavision'. And it was true... for half a day when she was let go by Disney. It was a mixture of a big news story and people googling to see who she was. So you could certainly argue that Gina Carano has had more interest than Disney, but that's not the same thing as sustaining that level of interest. Exactly - the pattern for non-establishment news sources tends to be far more reliant on individual stories going viral, and often even then it's more likely just a headline (how many news articles get posted on Facebook that you actually read?). It speaks to the ability for certain topics to go viral and spread widely in a short space of time, but it doesn't equate to the source posting them being inherently more trusted or respected - hell, fringe and extremist groups actively rely on the fact that the majority of people using social media don't fact-check, don't look into sources, and don't question where a story has come from; Britain First picked up a large following by posting fairly innocuous "REMEMBER THE GOOD OLD DAYS?" posts that would get shared widely, to ensure that their more insidious content started popping up in people's news feeds, and you only need to look at any number of "VIDEO OF MUSLIMS CELEBRATING A TERRORIST ATTACK" videos that spread far and wide despite depicting nothing of the sort. So much of the worst side of social media is reliant on people not paying attention to where their news comes from, not them building trust in individual news sources.  People "getting their news predominantly from social media" doesn't equate to newspapers being irrelevant - every major newspaper has a substantial online and social media presence; MailOnline is the most visited English language news site in the world, and that is reflected in their social media following, and the number of times their articles are shared across other sites as well. An online-only blog or Facebook page is not competing with them in terms of reach, but they certainly aren't competing with them in terms of the credibility of coming from an establishment newspaper. To say nothing of the fact that newspapers still dictate the news cycle. This conversation all kicked off in the first place because of how the BBC presented a review of the newspapers. Much of the news on social media or online sources will be recycling, reporting on, or critiquing the news that appears in the papers first. And, again, that's still overlooking the extent to which establishment newspapers still have a significant foothold in social media spheres anyway, rather than being something entirely separate. The Media Reform Coalition report in 2019 showed that establishment media absolutely dominates the online sphere as well, and both of those sectors have the Mail and The Sun way ahead in the lead of anyone else. In terms of newspaper circulation figures, only one "left-wing" publication per the Wikipedia list shared earlier makes the top ten, and that's The Mirror, with less than half the circulation figures of either The Sun or The Mail. In terms of total reach - online and print combined - the Sun and Mail are still way ahead of anyone else. The top ten most viewed news websites are all the online provision of legacy media - either major newspapers, the BBC, or Sky News. The Canary - one of those "left-wing news sources" that apparently we should hold as equivalent to right wing news media - gets a million views monthly. That's fewer than the number of people reading The Sun or The Daily Mail daily. Another Angry Voice barely tops 100,000 monthly views. The Daily Mail website gets over 300 million views a month. The division of "newspaper vs. online" is functionally meaningless when newspapers are dominating the online sector as well, before you even consider the extent to which they set the agenda for other news coverage. In terms of social media, the top ten most viewed news sources are predominantly, again, the social media wing of legacy media - BBC News dominates across all platforms. The only three non-legacy sources to break the top ten across Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat are Huffington Post, Buzzfeed and LAD Bible. And something tells me that people aren't following LAD Bible's Facebook page, or Buzzfeed's Snapchat, for up-to-date reportage.  In terms of sheer numbers, legacy media still dominates. "I get most of my news from social media" isn't a meaningful counterpoint to the influence of newspapers because it overlooks the social media presence of newspapers, and how much of social media "news" is dissecting and commenting on stories that were initially broken by newspapers in the first place. "I get all my news from social media" more often than not means "I don't bother going to MailOnline because any stories that matter will end up in my news feed anyway", it doesn't speak to the actual scale of influence of those providing the news stories, nor does it imply an equality of esteem/credibility projected on to those news sources by the reader. We're looking at an online and news media environment that is increasingly, more than ever, dominated by a few large conglomerates. That's true across print, television, radio and online, and even worse when local news is taken into account. Those large conglomerates are, by their very nature, right wing and arch-capitalist. It's an absolute crisis of media and journalistic integrity and credibility, and to suggest that the reach and influence of those corporations is somehow equivalent to or even less than a few independent blogs and social media pages is either seriously obfuscating the real issues, stretching "both sides are the same" centrism to breaking point, or just flat out politically and culturally illiterate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Chris B Posted March 31, 2021 Paid Members Share Posted March 31, 2021 Yes to all of that. To go back to the original point, part of the reason I'm concerned about the BBC's direction is because those concerns are being reflected by people who, five or six years ago, would have been arguing that the BBC is generally strong at impartiality. But, because of the pressure placed on the BBC by the Tories (firstly through conditions of keeping the TV licence, and then through key replacements) now feel that the impartiality has been damaged. This isn't purely a BBC thing. It's a Tory thing. They've been attacking the BBC for years, and those attacks are bearing fruit. On top of that, people have figured out how to game the BBC's need for balance, and the BBC haven't been strong at responding to that - leading to them unintentionally legitimising arguments that shouldn't have really been legitimised. And now, we're in a position where a UK Fox News and a GB News will be launched, and I guarantee both of them will be shouting about how the licence fee is uncompetitive. Part of the problem will be that the BBC will be held to the highest possible standard (where journalists can't mock flag fetishists without apologising) while other news channels will get increasingly more partisan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 14 minutes ago, BomberPat said: This conversation all kicked off in the first place because of how the BBC presented a review of the newspapers. And was then labelled as tinfoil reasoning. Which had it been a one off, fair enough. But then evidence regarding the BBC saying how they are consciously avoiding wokeism and left wing comedy was added. That was all fact.  The conversation changed to bias, I am of the opinion that Johnson has an easy time of it. I don’t care that someone had yet another affair because it isn’t my business. But you’d think the BBCs Political Editor would mention the little detail about public money and how he lied about it. But maybe she forgot her password and that’s why she hasn’t tweeted in four days.  Speaking of Twitter and bias. This sums it up.  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperBacon Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 Speaking of cunts, this pig fucker could be in hot water* https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/31/how-david-cameron-got-caught-up-in-a-classic-lobbying-scandal  *nothing will happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Jazzy G Posted March 31, 2021 Paid Members Share Posted March 31, 2021 (edited) Well, who would have thought that the police wouldn't find any faults with the police, and then a bunch of old white guys wouldn't find any inherent racism in our inherently racist system? Can't wait for the results of the Tory led inquest into the Tories' handling of Covid when this is all over... Edited March 31, 2021 by jazzygeofferz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Hannibal Scorch Posted March 31, 2021 Paid Members Share Posted March 31, 2021 46 minutes ago, jazzygeofferz said:  Can't wait for the results of the Tory led inquest into the Tories' handling of Covid when this is all over... "After conducting the investigation we've concluded that they did the best they could and we're sorry if you feel differently. I mean, it would have been worse with Corbyn." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Jazzy G Posted March 31, 2021 Paid Members Share Posted March 31, 2021 Yeah, it is Corbyn's fault after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Hannibal Scorch Posted March 31, 2021 Paid Members Share Posted March 31, 2021 5 minutes ago, jazzygeofferz said: Yeah, it is Corbyn's fault after all. Is there a buzzfeed article that confirms that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Jazzy G Posted March 31, 2021 Paid Members Share Posted March 31, 2021 I'm not sure, but there may be something on the equally reliable Daily Mash, or Southend News Network? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 23 minutes ago, jazzygeofferz said: I'm not sure, but there may be something on the equally reliable Daily Mash, or Southend News Network? They make fun of the government so obviously they count as left wing media. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Jazzy G Posted March 31, 2021 Paid Members Share Posted March 31, 2021 21 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said: They make fun of the government so obviously they count as left wing media. Show me where it's cited on Wikipedia. Honestly, you're making this place look like some kind of socialist echo chamber. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deathrey Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 (edited) IÂ for one, am grateful for the bunch of mainly white men who have informed me that all the racism I've experienced in my life was in fact not racism and just that people don't like me. Edited March 31, 2021 by deathrey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperBacon Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 "But Dizzee Rascal-Bonkers..." Fucking hell. Parts of that report reminded me of the bit from Chris Rock's Bigger And Blacker, especially the bolded section, (sorry it's a bit long but the whole bit I felt was needed for some context) when he says: "You see white people pissed off, man. Man, the white man thinks he’s losing the country. You watch the news: ”We’re losing everything. We’re fucking losing. ”Affirmative action, and illegal aliens… ”and we’re fucking losing the country.” Losing? Shut the fuck up. White people ain’t losing shit. lf y’all losing, who’s winning? It ain’t us. It ain’t us. Have you driven around this motherfucker? It ain’t us. Shit, there ain’t a white man in this room that would change places with me. None of you would change places with me. And I’m rich! That’s how good it is to be white. There’s a white, one-legged busboy in here right now… that won’t change places with my black ass. He’s going, ”No, man, I don’t wanna switch. I wanna ride this white thing out. ”See where it takes me.” That’s right, ’cause when you white, the sky’s the limit. When you black, the limit’s the sky! That’s right, man." Mainly in response to this from Tony Sewell, chair of the Race and Ethic Disparities  He said in many respects ethnic minorities were doing better than the white majority. He said: In this report, in all the areas, crime and policing is an issue, but in education, in health, and particularly in the employment space, ethnic minorities are doing better than the white majority in many cases. We have to look at that, and we have to come out now - and the research community needs to do this - and use ethnic minorities as a model of success. That last bit just sounds so fucking patronising.  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.