To think my Dad has been radicalised?

[Februaryrat]

My Dad was a teacher back in the day. A Guardian-reading, mostly apolitical teacher.

He has a (hate to use the word) redneck friend in the USA whom he Skypes regularly, and whom I believe has radicalised my Dad. Over the last three years, my Dad now believes:

• Climate change is a hoax (obsessive hatred of windfarms)
• Hilary Clinton is a murderer
• Brexit is the way forward because some of "them" (mostly Romanians when pushed) are committing 70% of offences around here (they aren't) and the press isn't allowed to report on nationality of offenders (they are)
• The NHS is being brought to its knees by health toursits
• Trump is a businessman who is likely to give the USA exactly what it needs, and will be re-elected to great acclaim at the next election.
• The Mexican wall is a good idea
• Why don't more Muslims condemn terrorist attacks?

I am a hard-left feminist, who is finding it harder and harder to have conversations with him that don't end in mud-slinging.

His "source" of news is often what I would consider to be conspiracy websites. I am willing to accept sources of news from anything I consider reputable - and would consider any mainstream media including (spit) the Daily Mail, but the websites he comes up with seem to me to be run by nutters spouting nonsense.

As a previous teacher in a subject where critical thinking and reading was key, it astonishes me that he isn't able to see past the bullshit - but perhaps he thinks the same about me in my left-wing bubble.

Anyone else's parents been radicalised? Any hope, or do we just have to stick to conversations about the weather now? Shit, we can't even do that because of climate change.

It seems to me that many current journalists (in this country at least) are either lazy or have a poor understanding of journalism.
We don't often see unbiased, well researched news pieces / investigations now. I find a lot of the information from journalists is picked up from Twitter quotes or other unreliable sites, hastily put together.
It feels like they can't be arsed, or that they can choose whose opinions are valid (from a very narrow source).
I'm sure I could do better myself!

Yes, my mum's the same. I used to let her get away with it, but I've started challenging her now to support her statements with facts.

It's not great for our relationship tbh - but as I've said to her, she's the one who steers the conversation onto these topics. I'm perfectly happy to talk about the garden, if she wants to repeat untruths about benefits claimants, or what have you, then she's going to have to providemore data to back them up - than I saw it on 'benefits street'.

PickledCauliflower the trouble is, it's the same or fewer number of journalists, competing with a 24 hour news cycle and click-bait sites, who don't employ qualified staff. There isn't the money or the time to check everything.

It definitely is bad for journalistic quality, but the only way to overcome it, is to pay more for quality news, more for the licence fee etc.

Rat..

I am a hard-left feminist, who is finding it harder and harder to have conversations ......

Serious question. Can you have a conversation with anyone who doesn't see the world as you do and not descend into argument?

The thing is, it doesn't really matter in a lot of ways how the OP's dad has changed. If he'd been a right-wing city finance type who became vegan and started supporting the SWP she'd be just as upset.

I could understand the BBC having to manage with poor journalism if they were on a shoestring, but they are coining it in.

Maybe they need to have a rethink on how they spend the money that they insist the public pay - because they own a TV.
Are they spending too much on rights for football games, presenters, paying their senior staff too much etc?

If they are too skint to hire some decent journalists, I feel that they have their priorities wrong.

@Itisnoteasybeingdifferent Yes, as mentioned upthread, I have many friends who have religion (I am an atheist) or who are Tory voters and we discuss issues without it descending into argument. Debate, yes, but argument, no. Perhaps this is partly because I am politer or more careful with my communications with friends - there is less of that carefulness I think with parents. I will watch this, though old habits are hard to break!

It is true that I would be worried about his views if he had changed from being a right-wing Tory to a Green Party candidate too - it's about a personal shift as well as about him holding views that I feel are unpalatable.

Thank you to those of you who have pointed me in the direction of this coming from a place of fear in a changing world, and trying to have empathy.

Thank you also to those of you who have said that I'm unpleasant / should be disowned / my dad's (provably wrong) views are correct. Whilst we will never agree, and I feel some of you have overstepped the mark with personal unpleasantness, it does at least indicate that my dad isn't alone, or even particularly unusual for thinking what he does. That in itself is disappointing from a geo-political perspective, but reassuring from a personal one.

I don't think it's about the quality of the journalists though, PickledCauliflower, but the changed news environment. No matter how good the individuals are, they're still running 24/7 in an era of instant news. That's true for all news sources, I think. Do you follow any of the reporters on Twitter? They seem often have more leeway there to link to useful sources with corroborative data.

I don't use Twitter I'm afraid. I did, but became very frustrated with it.
I know I could become very selective in who I follow, but I am reluctant to reactivate my social media accounts. I enjoy no longer having them!

I suppose I would like easy access to a good quality news site, without constantly receiving updates, etc. The BBC had a worldwide good reputation for informative sources and impartial reporting.
I'm just disappointed that the corporation has gone downhill.

No, Pickled, the BBC is not coining it in. In fact they're having to make a lot of cutbacks recently as I'm hearing from DD's friend. Good you might perhps say?
I wouldn't. The fewer media outlets there are the worse it is for democracy imho.

One of the things that I find hardest about being in this situation that I am the person that my parents raised me to be - their views and values were shaped by theirs and I have always tried to be a 'good' daughter. But suddenly one of them completely changed track and started expressing contempt for many of the things she herself taught me to hold dear.

How can that be anything other than upsetting?

Well at least you have been raised free of these views. My family are horribly racist, have been my whole life, they think Brexit is the best thing ever and the sooner all the foreigners and rounded up and booted out the better.

£145.50 from nearly household annually is a huge amount. if they cannot run a good service on that - how much money do they need?

I wonder who the cutbacks are affecting? Probably not the very senior staff or the overpaid presenters. They are not very transparent in how they spend the publics money.
If there are disgruntled staff there facing redundancy, it wouldn't surprise me and I would not applaud it. The way the corporation is run and how they spend the money should be certainly be reviewed.
It's a public service, but the public have no say in how it is run.

Nearly every household rather

One of my parents is similar OP - was a journalist for main stream media, very left wing, always thoughtful and considered in political thinking and very much a socialist. As they've got older they've become much more rigid and 'daily mail' like in their thinking, really just spouts a load of rubbish a lot of the time. While it is frustrating I also find it sad that someone who I used to so look up to and shaped me into the person I am today has become so intolerant, introspective and narrow minded. I think it is partly due to fear of a changing world and have also felt that perhaps there is also a little cognitive decline as well.

I think in the long term we will see the BBC privatised, PickledCauliflower, on the grounds of value for money, I don't believe personally that's a good thing as I think there's intrinsic value in having an independent news source not owned by corporations.

More generally, if you want a non-updating news source, then a hard copy must be your best bet? At the moment the New York Times is winning a lot of accolades, but of course it will have a US focus. In the UK, if you don't want a particular political bias then the Independent, but that's online only which doesn't help with the not constantly updating.

BroomstickOfLove yes, similarly - my mother brought me up to question and try to think for myself, so I do find it odd and unsettling when now she doesn't want to apply that to her own beliefs.

£145.50 per household is 40p per day, or 10 p per person per day for an average family of four. For that you get three main TV channels plus BBC news, CBBC, iPlayer, 5 radio channels plus local radio. Absolute bargain! We pay much more for commercial TV and radio through the costs of advertising which are added to the price of goods, and have no say how they're run.

40p per day from each household is still a lot of money.
It doesn't sound like a lot to the household, but it is still massive revenue for the BBC.
I expect better from them.

Classic example of the claims of BBC bias - the likes of the Mail and Express is that they load the panel on Question Time. Yet throughout the last government, because they aimed to have both a Lib Dem and a Conservative on the panel, there was consistently a bias in favour of the government. Even last week they had three right wingers and two left wingers. But try to tell a Mail reader that, and they'll just block the information out.

Some of his views are unpleasant, or even unpalatable, but radicalisation is the adoption of an extreme viewpoint with the intent to curtail the freedoms of a peoplegroup in society (which is usually a minority, vulnerable, peoplegroup).

I don't think your Dad has been radicalised, he's just adopted a more right-wing viewpoint than you're used to and can cope with.

You expect better than all those radio and TV channels without constant interruptions from adverts, Pickled? You don't ask much, do you?

I note that you seem unworried about the fact that families are spending way more than 40p a day on commercial TV and radio.

Those complaining about BBC bias should tune in to Trump's press conferences, particularly today's. It simply isn't possible to present it in a good light - it's a rambling mess, just embarrassing at best, frightening at worst.

Petronus16, you're right, I know nothing about the white child trafficking ring in Liverpool. Tell me more. Were their victims selected because they were of a different nationality and religion (therefore viewed as lesser beings) to the perpetrators in the same way that the vulnerable Rotheram girls were selected?

Februaryrat, Redneck? Really? A person defined by the colour of their neck. Red because their white skin is sun-burnt (so Southern-based) and of low IQ because they work a manual job (in order to get the sunburn). Redneck huh? Is this perhaps a rascist term? You "hate to use this word", so why did you?

The BBC could start with looking at senior executive salaries and pay offs. Maybe reinvest in decent journalism?
I have no say in what other tv channels do, but they are not a public service. I can't do much about that I'm afraid.

Gary Lineker admitted himself, that his £2 million pounds salary from the BBC was too much.
He probably knows that people would still watch match of the day, and the odd other football programme he presents - if he presents it or not.
They tune in to watch the football, not him.

If the BBC spent that salary alone, towards some decent journalism - that would be a good start.