To think the right wing tabloids have gone too far?

[Mistigri]

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?

It's ridiculous, and it contributes to the complete ignorance many people have of the people and institutions that govern us. What makes me mad is that in a lot of cases, the people who write these articles know what the ruling was about. It was saying that the executive cannot repeal a piece of legislation using Royal Prerogative. It wasn't overturning the referendum result, just saying that Parliament should have the right to debate the conditions of exit. They know that but want to whip their readers up into a frenzy, not caring about the consequences. If we had a responsible, reasonable press, they would do their job properly. The woman on Question Time moaning about judges using some old law from 800 years ago ( presumably meaning the Magna Carta, the foundation stone of Parliamentary Democracy throughout the world) made me laugh in a hollow way.

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

ahhh!!!

Of course the MSM has an influence. Social media is relatively new and has been harnessed by certain political movements (eg Momentum).

WRT the connects about astroturfers, I'm pretty sure there are posters on here campaigning for the US election.

Ahhh.

Did you use to think you as the formal media had almost complete influence over what people thought?

And have reacted to discovering this was untrue, by swinging to the other end and believe the formal media have almost no influence.

There's a VERY big space between those two extremes, you know...

I've written to my MP and the Ministry of Justice about the press behaviour. By all means let the press object to the judgment if they feel there are grounds but the press shouldn't be engaging in ad hominem attacks on an independent judiciary.

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

Not really. I tended to leave it well alone. I understand the motivations for people wanting to remain and the motivations for those that wanted to leave, and I empathise with both. My own decision was influenced by certain geostrategic considerations that are a personal bugbear.

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

Same as I make of the neo-liberal, pro-establishment shills that comment on here and silence other MNs that don't hold the same opinions as them.

I tend to see it all through the lens of competing meta-narratives. I find it interesting that Brexit and Bremain have almost turned into religious ideologies; each with their cardinals, saints and holy warriors.

The point being, that although no media organisation or lobby group can assume it will be able to push through any view it likes, nor can it duck out of responsibility by claiming to be merely the reflection of society.

It creates, it reflects, it amplifies, it nudges.

Blimey, I haven't seen anyone that interesting in the referendum campaign.

Cardinals and saints and holy warriors? OK!

I was thinking of the way we saw social media being used as one end of an integrated campaign that used a whole variety of media, including formal press and broadcasters.

Jesus Christ you were a section editor.
I bow down to your superior knowledge then.

That makes me quite categorically wrong then, doesn't it?

Quite apart from the use of position of authority to win an argument rather than the argument itself being a propaganda technique in its own right. But I'll let that one slide

Of course there is the saying that standards in journalism ain't want it used to be and slipped quite some time ago. Isn't there?

See two can play this game

Regarding the media influencing people's opinions - I had a relative who, unfortunately, believed everything the DM said, without question. This was a once tolerant, accepting person who informed me every time I visited, something along the lines of how immigrants are flooding the country simply to get free healthcare, that Trump and Farage have the right ideas on how to run a country, etc. Each time I contested any of this with actual, hard facts, I simply got "but the Mail said so." And that was that.
I know this is just one person, but I don't think it is an isolated case.

I agree to a certain extent that the media has less ability to shape opinions than they are often given credit for, if only because in our 140 character sound bite culture, no one reads articles any more (hands up who has read further than the headlines of the articles that prompted this thread ...).

On the other hand, discourse in the wider world takes place in a context where - because of social media and the Internet generally - more people than ever before are exposed to headlines and sound bites propagated by the media. And that shapes the discourse that takes place between individuals.

Indeed, upon reflection I find it even more remarkable that a former left leaning section editor posted this:

I''ll just add ... it really doesn't help that a very silly woman who works for GOSH on last night's QT said that she hoped Brexiters' children got ill and then couldn't get treatment for their children because the lack of EU funding for research.

Without a second thought or question.

And then goes on to claim that we are not influenced as much as is made out.

Just goes to show we all unwittingly fall foul at one time or another doesn't it?

Of course we read the things we want and this is a reflection of us. But by the same token we can not quote them and rejuritate them on if they are not pushed by the press or they simply do not exist.

It is a symbiotic relationship. But in an era of falling revenue in the traditional print press, it has seen a rise in click bait and ever outrageous headlines to drive traffic and the press have focused on this type of journalism in order to generate more profit and are able to use technology to manipulate this much more than in previous generations and eras. This in itself, puts the public in a weaker position than they have ever been in determining the quality and worth of what they are reading.

Pausing Ahhh. Did you use to think you as the formal media had almost complete influence over what people thought? And have reacted to discovering this was untrue, by swinging to the other end and believe the formal media have almost no influence. There's a VERY big space between those two extremes, you know...

This is a massive conversation, but no, I didn't. What astonished me when I first started working was the utter disconnect between the news values of the traditional media and the realities and concerns of ordinary peoples' lives.

There is a great game played between the traditional media and the government of the day that doesn't really involve ordinary people nor is it particularly concerned about them. This is why incidents like the Brexit win seem to come out of nowhere, and cause a huge shock. The traditional media doesn't really "report" anymore; it uses information to attempt to influence opinion and through that supposed "influence", threaten government. The traditional media likes to feel that they are "key players" in the political game; they revel in that power.

For example, a lot of stories were chosen not because the public needed to know, but because they would embarrass a government figure or force a resignation or u-turn. Such an outcome was a win. It was a game of chess played between government and the media; the public were almost irrelevant.

The problem is that the traditional media doesn't have the influence it thinks it has. No-one is really listening, nor do they believe half of what the media says. Not only that, but it has no true understanding of large swathes of the public mood, largely because they were and are not remotely concerned about finding out. They believed the public would believe what they told them.

I worked with political editors, journalists, spads and political communications specialists (some of whom ran campaigns) all of them ostensibly on the left that had never met anyone who had gone to a comprehensive school or had to sign on at some point in their lives. I once met a young Labour bod quite high up in the party who was shocked that I, as a woman, drank beer, and wittered at me at length about social justice despite having no idea how much a giro was or how Housing Benefit worked.

Of course, the Brexit vote finally revealed that the traditional media elite doesn't have the power and understanding it always pretended to have with the public. Part of me suspects that is why the DM and The Sun have gone all torches and pitchforks; they want to recreate that illusion of power over the public to once again sabre-rattle at government, which is where they really get their rocks off.

Redtoothbrush

I do believe you were trying to tell me how the media works seamlessly to influence without my apparent notice.

So I answered by saying that I do know how it works -- because I worked in it for a number of years at quite a high level.

You appear to have some sort of problem with me saying that the right wing media is not solely responsible for people holding unsavoury views. Do you honestly think that if the Daily Mail and the Sun disappeared tomorrow that everyone would suddenly embrace the EU?

Was just in the shops and the Telegraph has a "judges vs the People" article too! With mug shots of the judges.

Know the Telegraph is right wing too, but FFS.

And the PM is "assuring" people that the government will win at the Supreme Court? Who made her head of the Supreme Court?

The sensible thing to do would be to bring a Brexit bill to Parliament.

It shouldn't have been necessary for citizens to bring this legal challenge - MPs should have held the PM to account over it.

The sensible thing to do is to respect the view of the people. Unfortunately bad losers will not do that.
When did it become constitutional for judges to overrule the will of the people?
Judge Jefferys supporters need not answer.

If someone brings a case, how are the judges to blame? Didnt they do exactly what they are supposed to do?
Ironic that Bresiters are screaming unfair all of a sudden.

The Judges have NOT ignored "the will of the people", they have simply ruled on a point of law. ...that is their job.

The Govt don't want anymore debates or hold ups so will appeal this decision.

After that Brexit will go ahead as most MPs are. It going to go against their parties or their constituents.

Am surprised that supposedly clever people cannot understand this .

It scares me that so many Brexiters appear too thick to understand this ruling doesn't mean "remain in the EU". Speaks volumes about them and their ability to understand what they voted for TBH.

Ah, so "the view of the People" as interpreted by some of the government (and some of the media) makes good policy, law or trade deals - great, perhaps we don't need to bother with MPs and such - the People can just exert our will!

I'll start with a subsidy for childcare!

Redsctio, you DO realise that one of the people who asked the judges to rule on this voted to Brexit don't you? Or did that little nugget of info pass you by too?

I know several people that read the DM religiously and I have no doubt that it influences their view of the world or at the very least reinforces and plays upon their concerns and fears. My MIL quotes something to me daily that she has read in the paper about migrants, benefit scroungers or the EU and apparently it's must be true because 'it says so in the newspaper'

I became acutely aware of this influence during the referendum campaign when the reasons for voting leave were all based on things people had read in the DM.

Bill Sykes I take your point on the interpreter if that is true but using a crap app to make their supposed point?

However I referred to a lot more instances of the Daily Mail exploiting and engendering prejudice, perhaps you could address those. I did not respond earlier because I am on the motorway dodging all the dangerous driving from two inside lanes filled with lorries pretty much all British. I have observed many on their phones. So it does not appear that there is a particular issue resulting from holding a foreign passport.

Then there are all the other issues which they regularly feature to exploit and reinforce prejudice and stereotypes such as women's lifestyles. You would have to be a teetotal woman who conformed to the stereotype of a 50s housewife not to have an issue with that.....

Redactio in what way have judges purported to override the will of the people? Their ruling on the procedure required for triggering Article 50 does not prevent the triggering of Article 50.

Indeed, both Theresa May and Boris Johnson have said today that they are confident it won't even interfere with their proposed timetable, according to which Article 50 will be triggered by the end of March.

So what's the problem?

BTW Judge Jeffreys was sent to the Towet in the 1680s. I doubt his supporters, whoever they were, are hanging out on MN.

Since yesterday I have observed a pattern emerging on all even vaguely Brexit related threads.

Every so often somebody posts a selection of "Elitists! Democracy! Overrule! Will of the People! Brexit!". Then it has to be explained that that they misunderstand, this wasn't about overruling anybody. Then somebody else posts a selection of "Patronising! Smug! I understand! Therefore all Leavers understand!". Then the thread moves on a bit. Then another somebody starts the cycle again.