back to article Facebook echo chamber: Or, the British media and the election

Given that the election results are nearly all in it's going to be some few femtoseconds before Guardian writer Polly Toynbee starts claiming that it's the right wing media that woefully misinformed the British public and that's why the forces of all that's good and proper didn't win. Given that that's not actually how the …

Page:

  1. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So this article is basically saying the traditional print media in this country is crap?

      As long as it's run by Slimeball Murdoch's Propaganda Indoctrination Corp News Corp, that will always be the case.

      1. Graham Dawson Silver badge

        Re: So this article is basically saying the traditional print media in this country is crap?

        That doesn't really explain the graun though. Or the independent. Or the... well you get the idea. Most media in this country isn't run by Murdoch and still somehow manages to be a complete shower.

        1. Vimes

          Re: So this article is basically saying the traditional print media in this country is crap?

          Isn't the independent owned by a Russian oligarch? Cameron isn't relying on non-doms for support surely?

        2. Cari

          Re: So this article is basically saying the traditional print media in this country is crap?

          "That doesn't explain..."

          That's because they all have audiences to pander to, audiences of people seeking to have their views and beliefs validated.

          You're not going to get decent reporting when publication of choice gets most of its income from outrage porn, poorly researched articles that confirm the biases of its readership, and frequently slings mud at the other team. Even less so when the people in the publication's employ also try to use their position as a platform for their ideologies and step away from writing in the public interest.

      2. Mark 85

        Re: So this article is basically saying the traditional print media in this country is crap?

        So that explains Fox News then? Ok... all's well... err....

    2. Vimes

      ...or the parties themselves are crap.

      One side likes to spend too much and doesn't know when to stop (but tries to pretend it does whilst ignoring the bills pouring through the letterbox) whilst the other prefers to hack away at the public finances with all the appearance of glee and a maniacal laugh (until voters realise what a mistake they made and that side have to be dragged kicking and screaming away from the bloody corpse of what used to be the public sector).

      Oh, and of course there's a 3rd side too, but they don't really count as they'll just end up supporting one of the two others.

      And they all want to sacrifice our freedoms (even the lib dems - just look at how they voted on DRIPA).

      They're all as bad as each other - just in different ways.

      1. Francis Fish

        Spend too much - you must be a Tory press reader.

        "Spend too much" - no they didn't. That's part of the problem. The Tories created a narrative that blames Labour for the crisis and paints them as the saviours of the economy - when it was an international phenomenon and their stupid austerity policies killed the recovery. When they took over things weren't that bad - then we had dingbat austerity killing the recovery based on the now disproved theories of one (yeah, one) academic who cooked his figures.

        Labour thought we were all too thick to understand the counter argument so didn't even try. Her majesty's opposition sat there like the bunch of steaming puddings they are. All because they thought we couldn't grasp the very simple argument that a country's finances aren't managed the same way you would manage a household budget.

        By the way - I hate Labour and am not defending them from partisanship, just from the facts.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/08/opinion/paul-krugman-triumph-of-the-unthinking.html?smid=tw-share

    3. Van

      No, it's saying the Daily Mail is worse than The Sun. A fashionable statement.

      The media is mostly Narcissists who try to run the country. We should never pick and chose between them.

  2. Dave 126 Silver badge

    >What in buggery do we do with a country that naturally produces Daily Mail readers? Nuke it from orbit?

    Well, if you are going to take that option, then you have nothing to lose by trying some slightly less drastic ideas first. Um.... widespread dispersion of LSD and MDMA? If this experiemht fails, then drop the bomb and sterilise the Petri dish.

    But serioulsy, compare the attitude of the Red Tops in the 1980s to today.... they no longer pick on homosexuals, trade unionists, commies, blacks or whoever in the way they did then. Its true that anti-immigrant rhetoric is on the rise - in pubs, just as it is mirrored in the papers - but that appears linked to people not feeling well off.

    Basically, if people feel happy and hopeful they are nicer to each other. If people feel naffed off and oppressed, they want someone to blame.

    1. PrivateCitizen

      "widespread dispersion of LSD and MDMA?"

      The will either cause cancer or cure it depending on the random Daily Mail headline generator.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "The will either cause cancer or cure it depending on the random Daily Mail headline generator."

        I thought it was the Daily Mail headlines that did that themselves?

        Oh, this is an article about cause and effect, isn't it ....

        Shame Al Murray didn't win the seat though, he could've had fun with newspaper headlines :)

      2. Alan Brown Silver badge

        "widespread dispersion of LSD and MDMA?"

        I have flashbacks to "Barefoot in the Head"

  3. Vimes

    Tell that to the Telegraph. They were sending out emails beforehand to subscribers begging them to vote conservative. And as for the Murdoch owned papers... nothing needs to be said really.

    The email in question:

    Subject: The Daily Telegraph urges its readers to vote Conservative

    Body:

    From the Editor of The Daily Telegraph

    111 Buckingham Palace Road,

    London SW1W 0DT

    Thursday, May 7, 2015

    Dear Reader

    As the country goes to the polls, I am taking the unprecedented step of sending you The Telegraph's leading article.

    That's because we view this general election as the most important since 1979.

    It marks a watershed moment: do we continue under the Conservatives with the open, enterprise-led economic approach that has underpinned our prosperity for nearly 40 years?

    Or do we revert to an old-style, “government-knows-best” culture championed by the most Left-wing Labour leader for a generation?

    All the frenzied talk about a hung parliament and the surge of the SNP is a distraction because in the end, the choice is straightforward: do we want Mr Cameron to continue in Number 10 or to see Ed Miliband installed as prime minister?

    The Daily Telegraph urges its readers to vote Conservative.

    Yours

    Chris Evans

    Editor

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Did you read the article in the Grauniad about it? The comments were hilarious. They couldn't see the irony of complaining about a newspaper asking people to vote one way, while on the front page there was a "Please vote Labour" leader.

      1. Vimes

        I know that to expect this not to happen is naive, but nevertheless I can't shake the impression that any journalist that does more than report the news is getting ideas above their station - regardless of who it is they're trying to support.

        1. Trigonoceps occipitalis

          The traditional view was that people got their information from TV/radio and their opinions from newspapers. Opinion pieces and editorials are an essential part of a free press.

          Now I suppose its information from Google and opinion from Facebook (other services are available). Where did it all go so wrong?

        2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          How do you "just report the news"?

          You could just print corporate press releases, or governmet statements without comments - but that is hardy news.

          You could state facts, "the rainfall in southern sudan was x mm" without any analysis if that will mean a famine or prosperity.

        3. hplasm
          Happy

          @vimes

          This. 100%

          El Reg has permission to scrape the barrel, of course...

          (but not to thump it)

      2. mike2R

        My favourite Guardian bit is from here:

        http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/08/david-cameron-tweeted-snog-labour-liberal-snp

        Their description of Cameron embracing his wife is:

        "Looking genuinely relieved and ecstatic, David Cameron squashes his face against Sam Cam’s cheek, as she grins at the prospect of five years of proper, evil Tory power. "

        Don't get me wrong, I *like* having newspapers that have an open agenda rather than pretending to be neutral. I just wish they'd stop hypocritically having a go at other outlets that do the same

        1. Vimes

          @mike2R

          My favourite Guardian bit is from here:

          http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/08/david-cameron-tweeted-snog-labour-liberal-snp

          To be fair that was in the opinion section, which is rather different to the front page of any newspaper.

  4. Chris Miller

    Many Labour spokespeople are (unconsciously?) echoing the words of Bertolt Brecht's The Solution:

    After the uprising of the 17th June

    The Secretary of the Writers Union

    Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee

    Stating that the people

    Had forfeited the confidence of the government

    And could win it back only

    By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier

    In that case for the government

    To dissolve the people

    And elect another?

    1. keithpeter Silver badge
      Windows

      Brecht quote

      http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/labour-left-miliband-hating-english

      (Nick sort of balances Polly)

      An interesting question: how did we get to be socially conservative with a small c &&c. History? Echoes of empire?

      Disclosure: I have lived in various parts of the UK but they have tended to be the parts that are still red on the BBC's map. Not deliberate, just the way it happened.

  5. Graham Marsden
    Boffin

    TW is right, but for the wrong reasons...

    We have a Tory Government which has a "majority" when only ONE THIRD of the people actually voted for it.

    That's right, TWO THIRDS of the people voted for other parties, yet, because of our fundamentally broken electoral system, we don't get the government we want!

    Of course we did have a referendum on this five years ago, but, TW, remind us, *which* media outlets were peddling scare stories and outright lies about what AV would mean? Which Party's rich supporters were paying for posters saying "Vote No to AV or the Baby Dies"?

    Still, it's all the fault of the people, isn't it?

    1. Dave 126 Silver badge

      Re: TW is right, but for the wrong reasons...

      >our fundamentally broken electoral system,

      The purpose of the system is not to arrive at the best solutions, or even to choose the right decision makers. The purpose of the system is to be considered a bit unfair by everybody equally, on the reasonable grounds that grumbling is preferable to civil war, gulags, cultural revolutions and the like.

      In this respect, it is fairly successful. Other countries have PR or AV or other versions of democracy... but are any of them utopias? Nah, they might be better on some respect or other for some people, but none are many miles ahead of us.

      There is plenty of room for improvement, but don't think that bringing in a new voting system is any form of panacea.

      1. Graham Marsden

        @Dave128 - Re: TW is right, but for the wrong reasons...

        The purpose of our electoral system is *supposed* to be for us to elect people who represent *our* views in the running of the country.

        We do not have that and we will not have that whilst FPTP is in place.

        No, changing the electoral system is not a panacea, but it will at least *start* to treat the problem.

        1. Youngdog

          Re: @Dave128 - TW is right, but for the wrong reasons...

          Yes the Tories only got a third but they were still 2 million votes ahead of Labour so Miliband coming out as PM would have made even less sense. What we should really be concerned about is that Nicola Sturgeon's SNP now have over 50 seats in the Commons with <5% of the popular vote!

          1. Paul Crawford Silver badge

            Re: @Youngdog

            The FPTP system is basically broken if you have more than 2 candidates per seat, and even then a tad doubtful with only 2. Some sort of AV/PR system is going to give you a more balanced seating.

            However, the biggest problem is not how we vote for the devious, thieving two-faced bastards, but that so many of them are useless at their jobs and do little more than knee-jerk to get voted in again. Until we deal with who stands for election, and what skills they ought to have (you know, like having had a REAL job for some time and not been a carer politician) then nothing will really get better.

            As for Scotland, 50% voted SNP but they got 95% of the seats which is not exactly representative. Still, the only glimmer of justice is UKIP got more votes than the SNP but only 1 seat...

            1. Alan Brown Silver badge

              Re: @Youngdog

              "The FPTP system is basically broken if you have more than 2 candidates per seat"

              The FPTP system comes from an era where political parties didn't exist and it tries to pretend they still don't.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: @Youngdog

              "We vote for people that we wouldn't trust to baby sit our children!" - Tom Clancy (a bit of a paraphrase)

      2. glen waverley
        Pint

        Utopias?

        Dave says "Other countries have PR or AV or other versions of democracy... but are any of them utopias? Nah, they might be better on some respect or other for some people, but none are many miles ahead of us."

        Oz has both AV (mostly for lower houses aka assemblies) and PR (mostly for upper houses and a couple of assemblies).

        And i know most right-thinking people would agree with me that Oz is much better than the old country.

        1. SundogUK Silver badge

          Re: Utopias?

          Totally agree, I wish Tony Abbott was our PM...

          1. billse10

            Re: Utopias? @sundog uk

            "Totally agree, I wish Tony Abbott was our PM..."

            thank god Diane Abbott isn't ours ...

            1. Tom -1

              Re: Utopias? @sundog uk

              Actually I thing we could have a good system with a PM and two deputies (one being chancellor, the other being home secretary). Diane Abbot would be one of my ideal three in the system - the other two would be Michael Portillo and Richard Ingrams. I think RI would be the best PM, but it wouldn't really matter which of them had which job, it would be infinitely better than anything any of the parties offers now,

        2. Allan George Dyer

          Re: Utopias?

          @glen waverley - "Oz is much better than the old country" But isn't that because of the climate, beaches and cute animals?

        3. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: Utopias?

          I thought that was due to the policy of putting all the political leaders in prison as soon as they were elected?

        4. hplasm
          Unhappy

          Re: Utopias?

          "And i know most right-thinking people would agree with me that Oz is much better than the old country."

          Wait. Just a little while...

    2. Paul Westerman
      FAIL

      TWO THIRDS of the people voted for other parties

      Actually half of those people didn't bother voting at all. Whose fault is that?

    3. Cari

      Re: TW is right, but for the wrong reasons...

      It's a touch worse than that. One third of the electorate didn't vote (unknown is how many did so in protest, and how many just didn't care either way). One third of the votes went to the Conservatives, but that actually translates to around one quarter of the electorate. Using the numbers the Beeb have for results, something like at least 13-14 million voted for some kind of liberal/ left party. Again, ~one third of the electorate. Then there was everyone else who voted for someone other than conservative, and the small number of ballot spoilers.

      We have a system where 75% of the electorate didn't vote for the party that got into power, and blaming the 25% that did vote for them, when it's the system that is bollocks.

      1. keithpeter Silver badge
        Windows

        Re: TW is right, but for the wrong reasons...

        One third of the electorate didn't vote (unknown is how many did so in protest, and how many just didn't care either way).

        One factor: Safe seats.

        In the constituency in which I reside the incumbent was returned with seven times the number of votes of the candidate who recieved the second largest number of votes. Around 21 000 of us could have stayed in bed/gone out/done overtime - those votes do not count for anything. Not surprisingly, the turnout was 12% lower than the average turnout for the election as a whole.

        UKIP did not have any safe seats. UKIP voters would have turned out in a gale/tornado/torrential rain/floods. The 'safe seat' effect tends to increase the proportion of the vote recorded for underdog parties, although I fully accept that the FPTP system acts as a barrier to such parties winning seats.

        In the system used to elect the Scottish Assembly (roughly 3/4 constituency and 1/4 proportional representation based on regional lists) all the votes counted would have fed through to register a preference for regional MSPs, so a reason for turning out. Plus the underdog parties (UKIP/LIBDEM) would have been allocated some of the regional seats, so house slightly more representative. And an even smaller majority for David I think, I'm still puggling the R scripts.

        Data presentation task: map constituencies to the nine government regions in England (each with roughly the population of Scotland) and then apply the same regional list system as in the Scottish Parliament. Not enough to change composition of Commons radically, but slightly more representation for underdog parties, and an even smaller majority for Conservatives.

        Meeja note: Huge celebration and triumphal hurrahs for Consevatives on securing a majority in the Commons that is smaller than the one John Major had in 1992? Good heavens above.

    4. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: TW is right, but for the wrong reasons...

      AV is one of the more broken forms of Proportional Representation.

      The choices should be

      FPP or PR ?

      If PR, which type?

      By offering two unpalatable options the govt gets to keep the status quo.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: TW is right, but for the wrong reasons...

      yes your right 2/3 of people didn't vote Tory....

      and more then 2/3s didn't vote for any of the others

      easy answer dissolve government until Graham can get more than 50% of the country to select which from the dozen or so political parties they want

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    lot of it about

    seen some stuff on twitter where "biased media" (referring to BBC) is blamed for the disaster of people voting as they wanted to. That it came from left-ish tending types (who also referred to said voters as idiots) seems stereotypical.

    [one-nation small-c conservative somewhere-between-Euro-sceptic-and-pro-European Anon]

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: lot of it about

      and yet for years the "right" have been complaing the BBC is to left wing.

      The words people are looking for are "bad losers"

      1. Jamie Jones Silver badge

        Re: lot of it about

        I remember ages ago, one head BBC honcho saying "you can tell when we have the political balance right, when BOTH sides accuse us of bias"

  7. Zog_but_not_the_first
    Windows

    Nudge

    A powerful technique, once touted by Cameron & co as a way of edging people into "good behaviour" but equally capable of presenting a reader with stuff-you-generally-agree-with then pushing little by little towards a more extreme set of beliefs. "Gentle the slope, easy the way" sort of thing.

    An analysis of how the adjectives associated with "immigrant" and "benefits" have changed over the past few years might be instructive.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Nudge

      Do you not remember Blair at all?

      1. Zog_but_not_the_first

        Re: Nudge

        Fair comment.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Big Brother

      Re: Nudge

      Exactly - any newspaper with an agenda is first off reassuring the reader that they're not alone, and that their views are perfectly normal and acceptable, followed by the slow drip-drip-drip feed of more extreme views from its selected contributors to gradually shift the centre whenever required. You can persuade yourself that anything is 'normal' if you just hang out with the right crowd. And of course there's money to be made in running the whole show...

  8. Omgwtfbbqtime

    I read somewhere...

    If all YOU have is 3 GCSEs then the immigrant with the degree is not stealing YOUR job.

    Personally I'm glad the Conservatives won, I don't earn over £100k but SWMBO and myself (and junior for that matter) are better off now than we were in 2010 and I expect things to continue to improve.

    This will get me the downvotes if nothing else will:

    How about if you can only vote if you are either working/full time education or have sufficient NI contributions over your working life to entitle you to a full pension. If you're the ward of the state (i.e. on benefits) you don't get a say?

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like