A Political Thread

[munstermuffin]

Evidence? By who? For what motive?


Respect for authority is being lost because of a lack of trust in authority figures. In the UK, there's a fairly decent relationship between police and public because our police are generally quite peaceful and helpful. Contrast to USA where the police are being increasingly militarised over 40 years and are regularly involved in brutality particularly against ethnic minorities.

As I said it was on radio in reference to USA I've no solid proof.

And I'm on about in regards to protests etc we've seen it in UK USA Ireland and everywhere police being hit and spat at by protestors. Maybe in minority but just I feel there is a bit of respect lost.

 

[Groundhog]

Don't think it needs to be pushed by any one power, and the co-ordination could be as ambiguous as a metaphorical nod and a wink.

It's hardly the Vatican covering up kiddy-fiddling, but I think there's legitimate grounds to describe it as a conspiracy.

The Ying to the Birthers' Yang?

But if that's the case any opinion based journalism is a conspiracy. I honestly think it's the opposite of a conspiracy because the media are very open in what they're doing, because there's no reason not to be. The fact is that Trump sets himself up for so many soundbites, (which worked heavily in his favor during the election as he had a total stranglehold on media coverage, even if what the media was saying wasn't positive, it was his very simple and easy to communicate message which actually reached people) makes him low hanging fruit to most media outlets. I mean the media is literally reporting exactly what he says, even if the level of coverage is frankly boring and tiring at this stage, which they can't be blamed for. This is another case of Trump crying foul of people reporting the regrettable things he constantly spurts out without thought or self-control.
You mention Ying and Yang, and this definitely applies to the U.S, because for every outlet reporting Trump as a sexual predator, there's one calling Hilary Clinton a war criminal.

 

[ratsapprentice]

You mention Ying and Yang, and this definitely applies to the U.S, because for every outlet reporting Trump as a sexual predator, there's one calling Hilary Clinton a war criminal.

That's exactly my point.

Media coverage in the states (and increasingly so in the UK, IMO) is incredibly partisan, and it always has been team donkey vs team elephant. That's what I mean when I describe it as a conspiracy.

 

[ncurd]

That's exactly my point.

Media coverage in the states (and increasingly so in the UK, IMO) is incredibly partisan, and it always has been team donkey vs team elephant. That's what I mean when I describe it as a conspiracy.

Problem is in this country is our partisan coverage is heavily weighted to the right there's bare a left voice out there (The Guardian I suppose). There are a few center-left, a few center-right and a **** ton of right increasingly going increasingly more extreme.

The only benefit is it hasn't really entered our television coverage, the BBC gets yelled out for bias on all quarters (which make me think they might be doing their job right), C4 is bastion for excellence and ITV whilst poor isn't exactly biased. Sky News exists but the only people I know who watch it are Daily Mail readers anyway....all other television news agencies are too small.

 

[Groundhog]

That's exactly my point.

Media coverage in the states (and increasingly so in the UK, IMO) is incredibly partisan, and it always has been team donkey vs team elephant. That's what I mean when I describe it as a conspiracy.

Yeah I suppose in that sense it's a conspiracy as these outlets are owned and paid for by people with very well known political leanings, and it turns into a very bizarre balancing act. Genuinely how a country of America's size can still divide themselves along the lines of republican and democrat. Neither label appeals to me in the slightest, as what you'll get regardless of who you vote for is still a conservative candidate by Irish standards anyway, despite what their voters think
This is a total aside, but what really annoys me about these women marches though is basically the thing that annoys me about modern feminism in general. These people will all march in simply incredible numbers because a perceived sexist is in power in the U.S, a country which is very unlikely to actually reduce the rights of women legislatively, but see if they could give a **** the other 364 days a year about women in countries like Saudi Arabia who actually have seriously reduced rights. They'll pat themselves on the back because they grabbed the low hanging fruit, and repeated the same crap we've heard one thousand times before, achieved nothing, and just revealed what a self centered and privileged movement this is. If "grab em by the pussy" (which I want to be clear is a scummy thing to say) offends you enough to march in the hundreds of thousands, you should march every day for what's going on for people much more unfortunate than you.

 

[ratsapprentice]

The only benefit is it hasn't really entered our television coverage, the BBC gets yelled out for bias on all quarters (which make me think they might be doing their job right), C4 is bastion for excellence and ITV whilst poor isn't exactly biased. Sky News exists but the only people I know who watch it are Daily Mail readers anyway....all other television news agencies are too small.

BBC does a good job of staying fairly central, but I'd suggest they're centre-left (fundamentally difficult not to be when they're a public service based in London).

C4 is increasingly moving left (the one big change in the last 5 years that I've noticed), whilst ITV has been going (very slightly) to the right... although they'll suck anyone's dick for a dollar.

I agree with everything you've said GH.

 

[Groundhog]

BBC does a good job of staying fairly central, but I'd suggest they're centre-left.

C4 is increasingly moving left (the one big change in the last 5 years that I've noticed), whilst ITV has been going (very slightly) to the right.

I think the likes of BBC do a good job, and to be fair they seem to allow people all along the political spectrum have some air time, even if their presenters do tend to lean a little bit left. They generally have two or more people of contrasting points of view debate it out while they moderate to some extent which is probably the right way to do it.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Problem is in this country is our partisan coverage is heavily weighted to the right there's bare a left voice out there (The Guardian I suppose). There are a few centre-left, a few centre-right and a **** ton of right increasingly going increasingly more extreme.

The only benefit is it hasn't really entered our television coverage, the BBC gets yelled out for bias on all quarters (which make me think they might be doing their job right), C4 is bastion for excellence and ITV whilst poor isn't exactly biased. Sky News exists but the only people I know who watch it are Daily Mail readers anyway....all other television news agencies are too small.

In a nutshell this is what gets me the most. People in this country love to lay into the BBC for the slightest inkling of a leaning. To take the time to do that you must be completely ignorant of the extent to which our right-leaning media largely dictates what people think. I understand that the BBC is committed to political neutrality whilst other media have more freedom. but the point is to think that the BBC occasionally absent-mindedly toeing some slightly liberal sentiment is more of a problem than the bigotry and prejudice predicated by most of the papers, you have to be hopelessly blind to the reality of the real problems we face in this country.

Actually I was recently doing some work with the British Election Study and decided to quickly compare Public versus expert (100 political scientists) estimations of where each UK party falls on a 'left-right' spectrum where 1 is super left wing and 10 is super right wing.

The results simply show that the public systematically overestimates how far to the left the UKs main parties are. It won't be anything surprising for the majority on here but for me it certainly confirms that the publics notion of what constitutes being left wing has moved to the right, and that as we see with media criticism, there's just far less tolerance for something seen as leaning left than for something seen as leaning right.

<a href="http://s1150.photobucket.com/user/Henry_Cann/media/LeftRightexpert_zpsfloosp0n.png.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1150.photobucket.com/albums/o617/Henry_Cann/LeftRightexpert_zpsfloosp0n.png" border="0" alt=" photo LeftRightexpert_zpsfloosp0n.png"/></a>

The analysis I have repeatedly heard in the past 5 or 6 years from other people is how the parties really are not that different any more and that they all want to occupy the middle ground. It's a really lazy oversimplification of our politics in which the truth is that the more left-ist parties have to stick closer to the middle ground, even though the public estimate puts them far closer to the left, but meanwhile the right-wing parties don't need to do anything of the sort; the political consensus is simply further to the right. I think that perhaps when people say this of the tories they are thinking of Cameron and what he represents while, somehow ignoring what the likes of Hunt and grayling have been doing elsewhere.

 

[ratsapprentice]

In a nutshell this is what gets me the most. People in this country love to lay into the BBC for the slightest inkling of a leaning. To take the time to do that you must be completely ignorant of the extent to which our right-leaning media largely dictates what people think.

When you describe the totality of our media as being right-leaning, who drags it that way?

And are you giving newspapers as much weight in terms of influence as things like TV and radio? Are you quantifying it by consumers or by number of outlets etc.?

 

[ncurd]

Looking around I'd still give the papers some weighting, how many people actually watch the news and use online sources?

The amount of people reading the Daily Mail Online is probably quite large. So whilst paper circulation is down I still think people are using their normal sources in digital rather than print.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

I wouldn't say it's the totality, but certainly it's a consensus amongst the free press. In response to your question, I'd perhaps say the public and the media have coproduced as it were the movement to the right which we have continued to see in the last 15 years. The press, particularly outlets who have switched political allegiance e.g the Sun, can claim that they are delivering content which continues to reflect the views and positonality of its readership. There's certainly an argument to be made, and this may be what you were implying, that the press respond to public consensus, and that locating all the 'blame', if that's the word, solely with the press is also a simplification. People and press have moved together in tandem. I don't know where the motive forces for this come from but I'd speculate that every now and again we get certain 'shocks' which set things in motion, for example the economic crisis has produced some more hardline attitudes such as towards immigration and sets in motion further crabbing to the right. And we shouldn't think that the economic crisis was a one-off in terms of such a shock; I think the destiny of globalisation is to routinely produce such shocks which check peoples attitudes and make people put up more attitudinal barriers in defence of their economic and social status quo.

By the way It's worth noting that people are not completely blind to the right-wing bias of our press. But part of the problem is that believing your regular paper is biased doesn't appear to be a barrier to continuing to buy and read it. That's because papers like the Sun and the Star like to mix 'business and pleasure' to be a bit flippant, and so people can buy a paper for reasons completely removed form politics, but still be greatly influenced by the political content such as anti-immigrant sentiment.


Re. weighting that's an interesting one. The majority of content in print and online is imbued with values and attitudes and is therefore constantly shaping what people think. You cannot escape opinion online. TV news is more a stylistic business, whereby if you can be accused of right-wing bias its probably because of a stylistic tendency towards simplification in a tabloid fashion. I think listening to Radio for news and opinion is a bit of a middle class thing, but maybe I'm wrong..

 

[j'nuh]

BBC does a good job of staying fairly central, but I'd suggest they're centre-left (fundamentally difficult not to be when they're a public service based in London).

I disagree. I think the BBC is slightly more right wing because they report on what is deemed in the 'national interest' and it is mostly other news sources (skews right) and high-profile figures (skews right) that decide whether something is in the 'national interest'. Take the coverage of the Trump protests: the BBC gave far too much attention to the relatively sparse violence, and not enough to the volume of protests. Why did they do this? Probably because every other outlet was doing it too.

To their credit, their analysis is generally quite balanced since in interviews, they interrogate left and right equally, and they regularly invite two guests with opposing views on an issue to debate one another. I think this is why they are perceived left wing: the majority of news sources in this country wouldn't give left wingers the chance to articulate themselves. But it's not being left-wing to give left-wingers an equal footing with the voice of the right.

C4 is increasingly moving left (the one big change in the last 5 years that I've noticed), whilst ITV has been going (very slightly) to the right... although they'll suck anyone's dick for a dollar.

Agree.

Looking around I'd still give the papers some weighting, how many people actually watch the news and use online sources?

The amount of people reading the Daily Mail Online is probably quite large. So whilst paper circulation is down I still think people are using their normal sources in digital rather than print.

Yep. Sort the table by circulation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...United_Kingdom_by_circulation#2010_to_present

Mirror (5th) and i (10th) are the only leans-left papers in the top 10.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I think this is why they are perceived left wing: the majority of news sources in this country wouldn't give left wingers the chance to articulate themselves. But it's not being left-wing to give left-wingers an equal footing with the voice of the right.

Who are the majority of news sources?

 

[j'nuh]

Who are the majority of news sources?

The ones with large audiences/readerships and hence have influence.

Right wing: Daily Mail, The Sun, The Telegraph, ITV, The Express, The Times, Evening Standard, Sky
Contrast leans left: Channel 4, The Mirror, The Guardian, The Independent (online only)

It's not just the number of outlets, but their respective influences. As above, the circulation of right-wing papers is multiples higher compared to left-wing ones. But also, ITV has higher ratings than Channel 4 so I suspect has a bigger viewership when it comes to TV news. On online presence, left wing outlets start to pull it back. The Guardian appears to be bigger than the rest, but the collective might of the many more news sources of the right may mean a higher collective readership.

(Aside: whilst certainly liberal, you could argue The Guardian is more of a centrist publication: they touted Lib Dems in 2010, favoured Owen Smith over Corbyn, and generally seem more interested in welfare-capitalism than anything that revolutionary. In this case, you could arguably take the Guardian out of the left-leaning group... then it's starting to look a bit barren for the left. EDIT: Refining this a little, pretty much all of the leaning-left major sources are centre-to-centre-left.)

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

I disagree. I think the BBC is slightly more right wing because they report on what is deemed in the 'national interest' and it is mostly other news sources (skews right) and high-profile figures (skews right) that decide whether something is in the 'national interest'. Take the coverage of the Trump protests: the BBC gave far too much attention to the relatively sparse violence, and not enough to the volume of protests. Why did they do this? Probably because every other outlet was doing it too.

To their credit, their analysis is generally quite balanced since in interviews, they interrogate left and right equally, and they regularly invite two guests with opposing views on an issue to debate one another. I think this is why they are perceived left wing: the majority of news sources in this country wouldn't give left wingers the chance to articulate themselves. But it's not being left-wing to give left-wingers an equal footing with the voice of the right.

I understand why you're saying this but I disagree, firstly covering national interest stories isn't enough to automatically make you lean right wing. If anything what I'd say is there's a discernible lack of quality to some of the BBCs online articles many of which are attempting too hard to be relevant and to cover national interest stuff, and lets remember this effort is being made in light of criticisms about their neutrality and continued relevance and the perception that it panders to a cosmopolitan liberal elite.

Basically a lot of the BBCs online content is a poor representation of its frequently excellent journalism and analysis. Whereas many other outlets I would say translate equally effectively into the online environment, for example the Mail online is extremely popular and representative of the printed form, I think a lot of the BBC online stuff is a discernible step down.

 

[ratsapprentice]

The ones with large audiences/readerships and hence have influence.

At least as far as TV goes, I'm gonna disagree with you there.

We disagree about where the BBC sits on the linear left/right spectrum. I say centre-left you say centre-right.
I don't know whether I'd really count ITV as a straight up right wing news source either.

However, if we were to do that (and therefore count the BBC as a left wing source) then TV news has a significantly left wing lean - sky-news' viewership is tiny.
BBC1, 2 and CH4 combined hold a significant majority of viewers... and we don't really even need to mention channel 5, they are effectively a non-entity.

Don't really know too much about newspaper readership, so can't comment there.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

The ones with large audiences/readerships and hence have influence.

Right wing: Daily Mail, The Sun, The Telegraph, ITV, The Express, The Times, Evening Standard, Sky
Contrast leans left: Channel 4, The Mirror, The Guardian, The Independent (online only)

It's not just the number of outlets, but their respective influences. As above, the circulation of right-wing papers is multiples higher compared to left-wing ones. But also, ITV has higher ratings than Channel 4 so I suspect has a bigger viewership when it comes to TV news. On online presence, left wing outlets start to pull it back. The Guardian appears to be bigger than the rest, but the collective might of the many more news sources of the right may mean a higher collective readership.

(Aside: whilst certainly liberal, you could argue The Guardian is more of a centrist publication: they touted Lib Dems in 2010, favoured Owen Smith over Corbyn, and generally seem more interested in welfare-capitalism than anything that revolutionary. In this case, you could arguably take the Guardian out of the left-leaning group... then it's starting to look a bit barren for the left. EDIT: Refining this a little, pretty much all of the leaning-left major sources are centre-to-centre-left.)

Yep, let's remind ourself of circulation....

<a href="http://s1150.photobucket.com/user/Henry_Cann/media/circ_zps0rjs4kme.png.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1150.photobucket.com/albums/o617/Henry_Cann/circ_zps0rjs4kme.png" border="0" alt=" photo circ_zps0rjs4kme.png"/></a>

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

As I said it was on radio in reference to USA I've no solid proof.

And I'm on about in regards to protests etc we've seen it in UK USA Ireland and everywhere police being hit and spat at by protestors. Maybe in minority but just I feel there is a bit of respect lost.

Yeah, you are right, we don't respect police.(not just protestors but most people, police work is mainly the career of people who couldn't figure out what they want to do or don't have the skills to do anything else) police can get some respect when they actually start doing their jobs well

 

[j'nuh]

At least as far as TV goes, I'm gonna disagree with you there.

We disagree about where the BBC sits on the linear left/right spectrum. I say centre-left you say centre-right.
I don't know whether I'd really count ITV as a straight up right wing news source either.

However, if we were to do that (and therefore count the BBC as a left wing source) then TV news has a significantly left wing lean - sky-news' viewership is tiny.
BBC1, 2 and CH4 combined hold a significant majority of viewers... and we don't really even need to mention channel 5, they are effectively a non-entity.

Don't really know too much about newspaper readership, so can't comment there.

Why do you perceive BBC centre-left? Do you have examples?

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

At least as far as TV goes, I'm gonna disagree with you there.

We disagree about where the BBC sits on the linear left/right spectrum. I say centre-left you say centre-right.
I don't know whether I'd really count ITV as a straight up right wing news source either.

However, if we were to do that (and therefore count the BBC as a left wing source) then TV news has a significantly left wing lean - sky-news' viewership is tiny.
BBC1, 2 and CH4 combined hold a significant majority of viewers... and we don't really even need to mention channel 5, they are effectively a non-entity.

Don't really know too much about newspaper readership, so can't comment there.

Ok, but TV as a source of opinion is just barely relevant where compared with the quantity of information online and in print. There's a lot less room for spin in the frankly very short patches of news. As I said above, it's more of a stylistic matter whereby some outlets present more complex multi-faceted items and the more right-wing sources are just incredibly simplistic in their analysis. Basically the shorter the time you have, the form likely you are to present facts. If you have more time and space, as in papers, more room for opinion.

Also worth considering the relative effects on popular consciousness between the sorts of programs offered on different channels. The program called 'Benefits street' does more to contribute to an intolerant and closed-minded society than any six BBC programs put together

- - - Updated - - -

Why do you perceive BBC centre-left? Do you have examples?

I would say you can tell from how varied and wide ranging its coverage is of a huge number of issues and places. Why is this important? Because it presumes the existence of a varied and heterogeneous consumer-base - it is pluralist. What defines the tabloids is the presumption of a homogeneous readership or 'people' who think and want the same things, reflected in its coverage.