Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think the right wing tabloids have gone too far?

456 replies

Mistigri · 04/11/2016 06:08

Reactions of the Mail, Express and Sun to yesterday's court decision on brexit:

The Mail's front page has a picture of the three high court judges with the headline "Enemies of the people". One judge is criticised for being "openly gay".

The Express says this is the UK's greatest crisis since the Second World War.

The Sun (proprietor: R Murdoch) takes to task the "foreign elites" who brought the case. Because their readers are less likely to approve of attacks on white pensioners (the other claimant), they focus their attack on the non-white woman claimant.

The Mail is the most problematic IMO; attacking the judiciary is another step on the road to facism.

How can we have any reasonable political debate in this environment?

OP posts:
Werkzallhourz · 04/11/2016 15:28

flippinada I thought that the woman from GOSH was pointing out that lack of EU funding would have an impact on medical research into childhood illness, thereby impacting on availability of treatments, not wishing illness on anybody's children.

She actually said she really hoped those people's children got ill. Watch the clip from QT.

Redtoothbrush It is the force that leads the way and drives it and is merely a reflection of the world because it is the thing that sets the agenda for people to talk about. The bottomline is people can not talk about something if they do not know about it or are directed to it somehow. Can they?

This is the fundamental mistake. And a very Soviet point of view. You are assuming that people consume the media to make sense of their realities, while living their lives with their eyes closed, ears muffled and never talk to their mum or mates.

There are millions of people in Britain who do not consume news media on a regular basis. The readership of the Sun is only 5.6 million; the Daily Mail only 4.5 million. Very few people watch broadcast news. BBC News at Ten only gets 4.6 million viewers.

Now consider that the size of the British electorate is 46.5 million.

People primarily make sense of their realities by what they experience directly in their day-to-day lives, and by talking about it with others -- with friends, family, colleagues, neighbours, community groups. There is a "British street" in much the same vein as the "Arab street". If people read something in a newspaper that does not fit with their personal experience of reality, they question it. They don't just accept it blindly. And the more they read that contravenes their personal experience, the more they distrust the newspaper. It rarely works the other way round. People trust their own experiences first.

Direct experience and word of mouth is far more powerful than any media channel. If someone suddenly finds themselves stuck in traffic every morning, they are not going to believe a politician that then proclaims there is no congestion on British roads, no matter how many times the BBC declares it to be true.

Again, the media cannot create a campaign nor change public perception through sheer force of medium. Rosie Boycott's cannabis legalisation campaign at the Independent in the 90s was a perfect example of this. There has to be an already existing groundswell of public concern or support; an idea has to have resonance on the "British street" already. Notice the failure of the media across the entire spectrum to force the resignation of Corbyn, for example.

Influencing opinion is done on the ground, and it spreads even faster these days with the advent of social media. Politicians know this, which is why campaigns have strong door to door and telephone canvassing teams in swing seats.

You are fundamentally forgetting that people do not live in isolated cubes with only a TV or newspaper to access the outside world. They live in a society, and interact with other individuals outside the reach of the media and the state.

RedToothBrush · 04/11/2016 15:29

Red is doing an analysis of the Daily Mail message^

This.

The message goes beyond criticising the judges. It also implies, that if you do not agree with them then you should or you will get the bad label too.

Have a look at the way in which MPs are replying to questions all the time at the moment. Its in a very particular way, stressing particular messages repeatedly.

They are scared of being represented or misrepresented in a particular way to the one they intend.

This is something that has been in politics for a long time. But not nearly to this degree or with such time and energy directed into qualifying and justifying positions.

BertrandRussell · 04/11/2016 15:30

"She actually said she really hoped those people's children got ill. Watch the clip from QT"

Of course she didn't. She was speaking off the cuff on live tv -and she wasn't a professional broadcaster. Give her a break!

AttilaTheMeerkat · 04/11/2016 15:30

YANBU

Has Liz Truss actually made any comment as yet?. Personally attacking judges in such a manner is unjustified.

RedToothBrush · 04/11/2016 15:33

You are fundamentally forgetting that people do not live in isolated cubes with only a TV or newspaper to access the outside world. They live in a society, and interact with other individuals outside the reach of the media and the state.

Echo chambers where views in certain social circles are shared from similar sources and then become 'collective wisdom'.

As directed by the media.

Still.

RedToothBrush · 04/11/2016 15:36

In a coup, what do the rebels almost always attack first and try and control?

Just why is that, again?

Werkzallhourz · 04/11/2016 15:37

Of course she didn't. She was speaking off the cuff on live tv -and she wasn't a professional broadcaster. Give her a break!

Yes, she did. No, I will not give someone a break when they state something so appalling. What decent person even thinks something like that?

I may loathe Daesh, but I don't hope that their kids get blown up by Russian rockets.

RedToothBrush · 04/11/2016 15:38

What's the storyline of nineteen eighty four again?

Oh.

PausingFlatly · 04/11/2016 15:40

"You are assuming that people consume the media to make sense of their realities, while living their lives with their eyes closed, ears muffled and never talk to their mum or mates."

Nope. Don't think anyone's assuming anything like that.

Not sure why you're finding it controversial that the media is a big part of that conversation on a British street. People's talk includes things they've read or seen or heard and incorporated into their lives. Sometimes it's Strictly Come Dancing. Sometimes it's newspaper items. Sometimes it's wild, untraceable rumours.

To take your traffic jam example. If the people stuck in the traffic jam read a newspaper article saying the congestion is being caused by the building works for a Lesbian Separatist Protected Zone just over the horizon, that will become part of their conversation. And part of their lived experience - because they are living the traffic jams! They won't know the LSPZ bit isn't true.

RedToothBrush · 04/11/2016 15:42

The media in Nazi Germany was just a reflection of public views and was not controlled and used by Joseph Goebbels in a particular way.

Oh.

Yeah.

Werkzallhourz · 04/11/2016 15:43

In a coup, what do the rebels almost always attack first and try and control? Just why is that, again?

Because they wish to control the flow of information. Controlling the flow of information is not the same as the creation or influencing of public opinion. I am arguing that the media is not as powerful as you are stating when it comes to the creation and influence of opinion.

So your point here seems irrelevant. Just because the leaders of a coup take control of a TV station and begin to broadcast their message does not mean that the public suddenly agree with everything they say because they are on TV.

Draylon · 04/11/2016 15:46

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Draylon · 04/11/2016 15:52

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

PausingFlatly · 04/11/2016 15:52

"Influencing opinion is done on the ground, and it spreads even faster these days with the advent of social media."

Hang on, so Werkz you DO acknowledge that media influences people's opinions.

I'm not particularly hung up on the difference between a lobby group or powerful body pushing its message by tweet, by adverts on ITV, by an interview in a local paper, or by astroturfing a chat site.

The details vary, but the intent is the same. And the use of professional media advisors to hone and deliver the message for max effectiveness is the same.

RedToothBrush · 04/11/2016 15:56

Because they wish to control the flow of information. Controlling the flow of information is not the same as the creation or influencing of public opinion. I am arguing that the media is not as powerful as you are stating when it comes to the creation and influence of opinion.

Its the same thing.

Why outrage about Syria but very little about Yemen?

News coverage.

Why is Aleppo being treated differently to Mosul? There are very similar issues going on.

News coverage again.

You can not talk about something if you are not getting the information in the first place. If the flow of information is restricted or control in a particular way it affects the way you see the world.

This is just something that happens in a coup. It happens all day every day, when an editor decides which stories to run and put on his front page and which to consign to page 8 or not run at all. It happens on the BBC 6 O Clock news. It happens when Facebook and twitter run algorithms on what stories or people you might like to follow based on what you've looked at previously. It hides other things it - not you - decide are of interest to you.

And its all so seamless you are totally unaware of it.

Werkzallhourz · 04/11/2016 15:59

They won't know the LSPZ bit isn't true.

But this is the mistake again. You are assuming that they don't know and will never know the LSPZ bit isn't true. You are assuming the media needs to tell them it isn't true.

All it takes is for someone's neighbour to say "hey, there are no building works over there" and someone's sister who works at the council to say " there's no such thing as a Lesbian Separatist Protected Zone," and within a very short space of time, huge numbers of people hear about it and the whole thing is blown. The result is those people stop trusting that newspaper.

The media can be very powerful, but it isn't that powerful. There are other forces in play that override the media, and those forces are the communication exchanges that take place outside of a formal media context. That is essentially my argument.

Birdandsparrow · 04/11/2016 15:59

Totally disgusting. No surprise from the DM, a fascist rag. I have complained online at ipso, it's really easy to do and would urge everyone else to do so, took me 5 mins.

PausingFlatly · 04/11/2016 16:06

"You are assuming that they don't know and will never know the LSPZ bit isn't true"

Nope, I don't assume any such thing.

But my experience is that discovering things aren't factually true sometimes makes very little impact on people.

If it's convenient for them to believe something, and they're surrounded by other people conveniently saying the same thing, people can be extremely reluctant to let facts ruin a good story.

flippinada · 04/11/2016 16:08

Yes, I saw the clip. It was a heated discussion (unsurprisingly) but don't think for a moment she was genuinely wishing that people's children would get ill.

I can see why it got jumped on by people wilfully misinterpreting it because it suits their agenda to do so.

PausingFlatly · 04/11/2016 16:10

BTW, I agree with you that there are other forms of influence than the formal media. (Is that what seems now to be called the Mainstream Media in caps?)

But the Mainstream Media still has huge influence.

And I think the other forms of influence must necessarily be in any way more benign or "authentic" than the Mainstream Media. They're all used by groups trying to spread their specific message.

autumnintheair · 04/11/2016 16:12

werkz I really like your point of the Arab street. The first example that came to mind was a nation with the most state controlled media on the planet - North Korea.
I imagine so many poor souls have no idea what the hell they have been born into - however information is still filtering through, and people escape etc. Even in such a place some knowledge filters through. As extreme example.

I also like your traffic jam analogy and this is what worries me about the Guardian, this is what the Guardian does, just point blank refuses to acknowledge various issues.

However of course there is a modicum of truth in Reds flow of information from ones life experience and back to the media. But to try and say it controls us to such a degree....

PausingFlatly · 04/11/2016 16:13

WerkzAllHours, were you here on MN during the referendum campaign?

What did you make of our friend neighbourhood Leave astroturfers on MN?

(I don't mean the regular MNers arguing for Leave, but the posters who were here just to campaign, with very distinctive behaviour patterns.)

autumnintheair · 04/11/2016 16:14

The media can be very powerful, but it isn't that powerful. There are other forces in play that override the media, and those forces are the communication exchanges that take place outside of a formal media context. That is essentially my argument

I totally agree.

Werkzallhourz · 04/11/2016 16:14

Pausing Hang on, so Werkz you DO acknowledge that media influences people's opinions.

I thought I had made the distinction between traditional formal media (newspapers and broadcast news) and other communication exchanges.

We are, after all, talking about the power of the right wing press.

RedToothbrush ^It happens all day every day, when an editor decides which stories to run and put on his front page and which to consign to page 8 or not run at all. It happens on the BBC 6 O Clock news. It happens when Facebook and twitter run algorithms on what stories or people you might like to follow based on what you've looked at previously. It hides other things it - not you - decide are of interest to you.
And its all so seamless you are totally unaware of it.^

I was a left-wing political journalist and section editor for fifteen years. I have a very good insight into how the media affects public opinion from the inside. What I am trying to say to you is that the media is not as powerful in opinion-forming as you are trying to portray. You cannot make a story fly unless there is already public traction and it is very difficult to create public traction without a significant inciting event that impacts emotionally on your reader, which usually requires powerful images that are disturbing, but not too disturbing.

And even then, a lot of them don't give a shit if it doesn't affect them on a direct level.

It is also very easy to lose your audience if what you say contravenes their realities. The public always have the power. Always.

PausingFlatly · 04/11/2016 16:15

Arggh. Missing negative!

I DON'T think the other forms of influence must necessarily be in any way more benign or "authentic"