All Tories Are Cunts thread

[Chris B]

9 minutes ago, CavemanLynn said:

What the BBC has done in not showing the front page of the Mirror in that clip is deliberate deflection. It's an extension of the old adage about good speechifying being mostly what you look like, some how you sound and a little what you actually say. In a visual medium, to not show something is purposeful omission, even if the item in question is discussed at all.

It's a fair point that they had a segment about it. But the 'Tomorrow's headlines' bit is a major one, and sticks in people's minds. It's about showing what the major conversations are, and it's easily shareable. It's unusual for them not to show a major headline like that. It's literally burying the lede. And it's a really weird oversight at a point when there are major questions being raised about the BBC's direction.

Edited March 30, 2021 by Chris B

[BomberPat]

37 minutes ago, Chris B said:

There are left and right wing publications, therefore both sides create as much damage as the other - let's ignore that the Mirror has a circulation of 300,000 compared to the Sun and the Mail at well over 1 million each..

and The Mirror is by far the most widely read publication in that list of left-wing news sources - is it really worth even mentioning the Morning Star, when in terms of circulation figures you could fit every reader into a League Two team's stadium and still have seats left over? Or the majority of the "news sources" on that list being nothing of the sort - they're internal publications released by minority left-wing parties. The idea that the Communist Party of Great Britain's newsletter, for example, is either a "news source", or in any way comparable to right-wing press that is consistently the most read, and most publicised, in the country, is so as absurd as to invalidate any subsequent argument.

Edited March 30, 2021 by BomberPat

[Chris B]

I've just learned that 16 million people follow the Daily Mail's Facebook page. But Another Angry Voice has 34,000 twitter followers, so they're both exactly the same.

[stumobir]

The Mirror is also owned by the same parent company as the Express. While they might be left-leaning and sympathetic to Labour they’re not exactly pushing to bring the whole house of cards down. 

[PunkStep]

2 minutes ago, stumobir said:

While they might be left-leaning and sympathetic to Labour they’re not exactly pushing to bring the whole house of cards down. 

This could be lifted from Keir Starmer's Wiki page. 

[Carbomb]

4 minutes ago, stumobir said:

The Mirror is also owned by the same parent company as the Express. While they might be left-leaning and sympathetic to Labour they’re not exactly pushing to bring the whole house of cards down. 

I honestly did not know this. Fucking hell.

[stumobir]

2 minutes ago, PunkStep said:

This could be lifted from Keir Starmer's Wiki page. 

I said left leaning. 

[Keith Houchen]

13 hours ago, Keith Houchen said:

They’re literally on camera saying stuff that is bollocks but aren’t ever pulled on it,

You’d think this would bite him on the arse. Due to our perfectly balanced media, I’m sure Sadiq Khan would avoid scrutiny had he gave his side squeeze public money.  

[Carbomb]

That line "I'm very proud of everything we did in City Hall" takes on a whole new sleazy dimension there. 

Just hope @Chris B wasn't working in their computer rooms at the time.

Edited March 30, 2021 by Carbomb

[patiirc]

22 hours ago, Keith Houchen said:

This isn’t a breaking news story though. It’s essentially her having her say on her terms. This was a breaking story last year and if only one of the main national papers is investigating it, that kind of is my point. Nobody in politics has got off scrutiny as much as Johnson. The majority of the industry are complicit in this.

Perhaps with rolling news and instant breaking news and getting clicks has changed the focus of journalism as to what matters, but as I always say when Meltzer is called a journalist, a journalist doesn’t say “My sources tell me it’s raining, however other sources deny this”. They investigate who is right. 
 

Bias doesn’t come into it when it comes to facts. Everyone has their own opinion but they don’t have their own facts. Tories gaslight the nation constantly but they are hardly ever called out on it. They’re literally on camera saying stuff that is bollocks but aren’t ever pulled on it, or if they do it’s hardly adversarial. 

Thanks for responding. I appreciate you have your views on this however I disagree. The caveat is that the press or the forth estate are appearing to be not investigating, despite reams of proof to the contrary, creating a situation not unlike the US where people have been conditioned to not trust the news they are presented and seek out alternative sources.  Alt Media is called that for a reason. 

It's also a pain that people in general havent cottoned on to this, and instead carry on the same distrust in politicians and has now spread to newsgatherers they dont like on partisanal grounds, whether that organisation is as impartial as it can be or not. It does not matter to them because they've been conditioned to think it's not trustworthy and go and seek more extremes. 

Calling bollocks on stuff is all over the shop if you look for it from multiple different sources inc the BBC (The beveridge thing from yesterday was pretty damning of the gov, but things like that dont matter because no fucker aside from a few will read it and form an opinion. 

In the main though, people actually like Boris and the Tories (Fucking shite) but  he appeals to many different demographics despite all the utter shite that he has come out with or done and the rest of it.  When the Tories present a together image despite imploding over Brexit and are pretty much all on the same message, no matter how horrible things are then that holds sway with those that have been forgotten, even though It's the Tories that have caused that in the first place by removal of funding and rights. Currently they speak a language buoyed by Brexit that the country wants to hear. Currently they dont want to be told they are stupid ignorant, racist etc and as a result if some one draws a line and gives the impression of getting things done then they will flock to that, despite even more crappy outcomes as a result.

Labour havent grasped this, neither have the majority of left parties and instead, still continue to fight battles about how things are presented rather than the actualities and continue to fight completely the wrong battles when they are not in fighting with each other. 

 

21 hours ago, Carbomb said:

EDIT: Fuck it, this has been dragged out longer than it should have.

Only thing I'm keeping is the below.

Again: this is a thread on a forum where we discuss things and vent spleen. It's not the entirety of our political lives. We're not witness to what everyone on here does outside it, unless they tell us.

I'm not doing nothing, I've never been a "slacktivist". I'm from a union family, raised to have been involved in the union movement from as soon as I was old enough to do so, and frequently assisted my father in his efforts in contributing to the Pan-African movement, especially in the area of literary and academic access. I'm just not doing the things you specifically suggest, because my trust in official channels and institutions has been eroded severely, not just recently, but over the years.

As it is, what I do is make sure to vote in every election happening, and participate in my local community, specifically in promoting the co-operative movement, starting with the bookshop and events space that I and others in my community founded, because it's more effective to persuade people of the efficacy of socialism and co-operativism by demonstrating it as a working model at grassroots level. Could I do more? Probably. That's something I'm trying to work on.

Im sorry that you felt that my post was a direct attack on you. It was not aimed at that and I'm sorry that it came accross as that. I was trying to evidence that if one person doesnt and another person doesnt then basically it grows into slacktivism and I am sorry that did not come across. I hope that your trying to work on stuff comes off!

10 hours ago, Fog Dude said:

Not really a fair comparison, is it? They may have both started as one-man operations, but the Guido Fawkes site is now a multi-person professional operation creating anti-democracy propaganda on a daily basis. AAV is still run by just one bloke in Yorkshire who burned himself out in his more prolific days, and now only seems to make a single new blog post every few months.

You can hardly claim that the two balance each other out. 

Well I used the two because there's actually a massive difference. From Week one of campaigning online this looks at , this looks at Facebook and Twitter Likes and Interactions( IE clicks on the post) Alas it does not show impressions or how many news feeds it appears in.

AAV is by far the bigger source on Facebook, Guido on Twitter. So yes they do balance each other out.  According to this article https://theconversation.com/uk-election-2019-how-the-growing-reach-of-alt-media-is-shaping-the-campaign-126947

Additional to that AAV got 81,000 shares or so..  Average UK Social media friends and followers is around 500-2000. So the actual reach without seeing actual impressions could reach more than the entire voting populous of the UK

 

10 hours ago, Chris B said:

We've been through Pat's refusal to understand reach and cultural importance before. It wasn't long ago she tried to make out that newspapers weren't a factor in voting anymore because everyone's reading the internet instead.

There are left and right wing publications, therefore both sides create as much damage as the other - let's ignore that the Mirror has a circulation of 300,000 compared to the Sun and the Mail at well over 1 million each. Let's ignore which dominate news headlines. Let's ignore which are more likely to be on as guests. Let's ignore that there are right-wing press companies that are exceptionally well-funded and are launching multiple 24/7 news channels. There's a left-wing and a right-wing, therefore it's an even playing ground and both sides are as bad as each other and are as equally able to cause damage.

It's sixth-form level 'I see the bigger picture' stuff, trying to make out there's a deeper, smugger, understanding than anyone else has.

 

Hi Chris, love this post and love how dismissive it is before it gets going,  In terms of stats see above, numbers for the mirror are dwarfed by AAV's reach on Facebook alone..  Perhaps you may want to rethink your stance?

No?

Okay Ofcom state While BBC remains the most-used news source, there is a decrease in UK adults using BBC TV channels for news. BBC One continues to be the most-used news source among all adults (56%), followed by ITV (41%) and Facebook (34%) 

Traditional print media just are not in this race anymore. 

Ofcom also reckons that 45% of people in the UK get their news from social media.  You know that thing your post completely and utterly dismisses and writes off as 'sixth form level stuff') Who's ignoring cultural reach again??

There's loads more in their 2020 report https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/201316/news-consumption-2020-report.pdf

You don't have to listen to me though, you can listen to the academics, analysts and the rest who have been mentioning this since at least the 2010 election as being more of a factor in influence. Let's take GE 2017 and perhaps use Buzzfeed ( a company previously reknowned for Clickbaity stuff) https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/the-rise-of-the-alt-left

or a myriad of other things. The Election Analysis site  is pretty good for reading up on analysis of elections https://www.electionanalysis.uk/

 

Let me be very clear. There's no smugness here. I dont want the Tories to win again, as it  puts a lot of people's entire existence at risk. 

What I do want is an opposition that isnt so stubborn that they cant listen to people when they are screaming, in some cases literally (as seen multiple times during GE 2019 and after) at them as to what the issues are, exasperated because the main opposition parties are utterly deaf to what has happened and what is happening to the electorate, the ways in which people consume news and instead rely on outdated methods to form the next battle plan that will result in precisely nothing. 

Labour really need to get their heads bashed together and either split, change the message or stop in fighting as it's this which puts many people off (anecdotal seen many times during campaigning for 2019 amongst others) and stop treating potential voters like shit or as scum.  Get to that point and there's a chance, but it's going to require massive shifts to get there and isnt about doing what they've always done and expecting something else. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Fog Dude]

43 minutes ago, patiirc said:

Thanks for responding. I appreciate you have your views on this however I disagree. The caveat is that the press or the forth estate are appearing to be not investigating, despite reams of proof to the contrary, creating a situation not unlike the US where people have been conditioned to not trust the news they are presented and seek out alternative sources.  Alt Media is called that for a reason. 

It's also a pain that people in general havent cottoned on to this, and instead carry on the same distrust in politicians and has now spread to newsgatherers they dont like on partisanal grounds, whether that organisation is as impartial as it can be or not. It does not matter to them because they've been conditioned to think it's not trustworthy and go and seek more extremes. 

Calling bollocks on stuff is all over the shop if you look for it from multiple different sources inc the BBC (The beveridge thing from yesterday was pretty damning of the gov, but things like that dont matter because no fucker aside from a few will read it and form an opinion. 

In the main though, people actually like Boris and the Tories (Fucking shite) but  he appeals to many different demographics despite all the utter shite that he has come out with or done and the rest of it.  When the Tories present a together image despite imploding over Brexit and are pretty much all on the same message, no matter how horrible things are then that holds sway with those that have been forgotten, even though It's the Tories that have caused that in the first place by removal of funding and rights. Currently they speak a language buoyed by Brexit that the country wants to hear. Currently they dont want to be told they are stupid ignorant, racist etc and as a result if some one draws a line and gives the impression of getting things done then they will flock to that, despite even more crappy outcomes as a result.

Labour havent grasped this, neither have the majority of left parties and instead, still continue to fight battles about how things are presented rather than the actualities and continue to fight completely the wrong battles when they are not in fighting with each other. 

 

Im sorry that you felt that my post was a direct attack on you. It was not aimed at that and I'm sorry that it came accross as that. I was trying to evidence that if one person doesnt and another person doesnt then basically it grows into slacktivism and I am sorry that did not come across. I hope that your trying to work on stuff comes off!

Well I used the two because there's actually a massive difference. From Week one of campaigning online this looks at , this looks at Facebook and Twitter Likes and Interactions( IE clicks on the post) Alas it does not show impressions or how many news feeds it appears in.

AAV is by far the bigger source on Facebook, Guido on Twitter. So yes they do balance each other out.  According to this article https://theconversation.com/uk-election-2019-how-the-growing-reach-of-alt-media-is-shaping-the-campaign-126947

Additional to that AAV got 81,000 shares or so..  Average UK Social media friends and followers is around 500-2000. So the actual reach without seeing actual impressions could reach more than the entire voting populous of the UK

Hi Chris, love this post and love how dismissive it is before it gets going,  In terms of stats see above, numbers for the mirror are dwarfed by AAV's reach on Facebook alone..  Perhaps you may want to rethink your stance?

No?

Labour really need to get their heads bashed together and either split, change the message or stop in fighting as it's this which puts many people off (anecdotal seen many times during campaigning for 2019 amongst others) and stop treating potential voters like shit or as scum.  

That article and graph were made and written the 2019 general election campaign, using data from the 2017 campaign. Yes, AAV still has a lot of FB 'likes' but that means nothing if he isn't posting anything, or if FB's algorithm (which has been reworked massively in the last few years) means that few people see it when he does. AAV worked himself to the bone producing multiple blog posts and images explaining a policy or issue succintly in May/June 2017, many of which went viral and the Conservatives just about failed to win a majority on that occasion. By November/December 2019, AAV was both knackered and realised that it was futile if his posts couldn't get as much traction as easily. And Johnson won a clear majority of seats as we know.

For somebody who doesn't want the Tories to win again, you certainly seem to be doing a lot of their hard work for them. I think it would be better for society as a whole if those 'potential voters' moved towards enlightened positions, instead of Labour moving towards regressive positions like bringing back hanging, deporting brown people, staying out of the EU and – yes – transphobia too. With the social and traditional media landscape in this country, allied to a weak education system and a socio-economic model that keeps people perpetually stressed, scared, worried and angry, it's hard to see where that progressive thinking is going to be fostered. But it doesn't mean the nation's main (ostensibly) centre-left party should stop fighting for compassionate values and policies.

Edited March 30, 2021 by Fog Dude

[SuperBacon]

@patiirc 

 

[Keith Houchen]

31 minutes ago, patiirc said:

Thanks for responding. I appreciate you have your views on this however I disagree. The caveat is that the press or the forth estate are appearing to be not investigating, despite reams of proof to the contrary, creating a situation not unlike the US where people have been conditioned to not trust the news they are presented and seek out alternative sources.  Alt Media is called that for a reason.

Where are the stories about Johnson giving his mistress over a hundred large of public money despite him saying he didn’t? A quick search on the BBC news site says they last mentioned her last year. Where are the stories in the Sun, Mail, Telegraph etc? I know he is the current mayor so it’s a different circumstance but can you imagine Sadiq Khan doing this? I can’t believe the press would give it equal coverage. Or if Corbyn or Starmer cheated on their wives while they had cancer? I mean, they love salacious shit like this. When a B lister or a footballer is caught cheating, it’s all over the press. Every small detail is investigated and printed for weeks. But the guy who holds the most important job in the country does it? Silence. 

[Hannibal Scorch]

@patiirc just some friendly advice 

[Chris B]

2 hours ago, patiirc said:

Hi Chris, love this post and love how dismissive it is before it gets going,  In terms of stats see above, numbers for the mirror are dwarfed by AAV's reach on Facebook alone..  Perhaps you may want to rethink your stance?

No?

Okay Ofcom state While BBC remains the most-used news source, there is a decrease in UK adults using BBC TV channels for news. BBC One continues to be the most-used news source among all adults (56%), followed by ITV (41%) and Facebook (34%) 

Traditional print media just are not in this race anymore. 

Ofcom also reckons that 45% of people in the UK get their news from social media.  You know that thing your post completely and utterly dismisses and writes off as 'sixth form level stuff') Who's ignoring cultural reach again??

There's loads more in their 2020 report https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/201316/news-consumption-2020-report.pdf

You don't have to listen to me though, you can listen to the academics, analysts and the rest who have been mentioning this since at least the 2010 election as being more of a factor in influence. Let's take GE 2017 and perhaps use Buzzfeed ( a company previously reknowned for Clickbaity stuff) https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/the-rise-of-the-alt-left

or a myriad of other things. The Election Analysis site  is pretty good for reading up on analysis of elections https://www.electionanalysis.uk/

 

Let me be very clear. There's no smugness here. I dont want the Tories to win again, as it  puts a lot of people's entire existence at risk. 

What I do want is an opposition that isnt so stubborn that they cant listen to people when they are screaming, in some cases literally (as seen multiple times during GE 2019 and after) at them as to what the issues are, exasperated because the main opposition parties are utterly deaf to what has happened and what is happening to the electorate, the ways in which people consume news and instead rely on outdated methods to form the next battle plan that will result in precisely nothing. 

Labour really need to get their heads bashed together and either split, change the message or stop in fighting as it's this which puts many people off (anecdotal seen many times during campaigning for 2019 amongst others) and stop treating potential voters like shit or as scum.  Get to that point and there's a chance, but it's going to require massive shifts to get there and isnt about doing what they've always done and expecting something else. 

 

 

That report again. I'll just quote myself from the last time you talked about this. (TL:dr - some newspapers have websites and social media presence)

 

On 12/18/2020 at 7:14 PM, Chris B said:

To say the figures they use are open to interpretation is being pretty generous. 

If I read a Guardian newspaper article, that was also on their website, that I saw via Facebook or Twitter, which of the following did I get the piece of news from?

1. The internet
2. Social media
3. The newspaper website
4. The printed newspaper

The Mail, as @Carbombsaid is one of the most-read news websites in the world. And they engage enormously via their website, facebook and twitter. On top of that, their front pages are in every supermarket in the country. And on top of that. every major TV news channel has some form of a 'here's what's in tomorrow's papers' section. And that usually informs the TV coverage over the following day. And on top of that, how many news shows constantly have journalists on as guests?

As a really quick example, look back at the Barnard Castle fiasco - how much of that conversation was dominated by the newspapers' front pages? And how much of it was dominated by The Canary?

These types of figures are absolutely meaningless in terms of measuring the share of voice and level of influence that these papers hold.

 

EDIT:

Ugh. I don't like getting this frustrated, and I don't think I tend to go from zero to sixty like this. You're pretty smart and empathetic, and that's clear. But I find the way you approach people in conversations like this really frustrating. Some of the people I admire most tend to assume their understanding is faulty, and will approach disagreements with the assumption that the other viewpoint is also coming from an informed and intelligent place. I tend to assume I'm not the smartest person in a conversation, and I have a lot of time for quite a few people on this board who I think leave me in the dust. However, I find that you come across like you think nobody else is on your level when it comes to stuff like this. I doubt I'm the only one who has got their back up over that. 

Edited March 30, 2021 by Chris B