President Biden

[Rayvin 4964]

Only a quarter of a million people voted Corbyn into his position.  Among the other 64.75m his support is nothing like as fervent.

 

Read the Corbyn thread on here from September 2015.  Almost exclsively a centre/left board but no-one would say that Corbyn had any hope, even if we hoped he could  prove everyone wrong.

 

I don't think we're necessarily representative though, and I don't think you can pull those two numbers together and make an assumption as to how things might have gone if the press had sat back and said 'well let's see what he has to say first'. We know his policies poll well, and we know he wasn't associated with old New Labour and their poisonous brand. His issue was that he galvanized the whole establishment in opposition to him and that the press were clearly not happy with him.

 

I know what you're saying mind, but the fact remains that we can't say with certainty that Corbyn couldn't have capitalised on an anti-establishment, anti-austerity narrative. What I remember from the early days of his time in power was people throwing media articles about how useless he would be around, and how his colleagues were coming out to discredit him. It was a fucking shambles. If the whole establishment had come together to oppose Brexit as effectively as it did Corbyn, we'd not be leaving Europe.

 

But look, you made a good point before - in the UK it's not yet possible to bypass traditional media. It's coming, but it's not there yet. The Americans have already sailed through that - Trump cut them off at the knees though. Fewer people in the US trust the media than trust Trump. Something like 48% behind Trump and 42% behind the media. Is this all Trump's fault? If it isn't, whose is it?

[Rayvin 4964]

Pretty much EVERYBODY else.

 

 

Look, this is what I would say in support of that statement. The media over here is universal in condemnation of Trump, right? I mean, I assume even the Mail has been critical. So we think Trump is an absolute disaster. And yet, he still retains widespread support from those who voted him in. You wouldn't know that to listen to the media though.

 

They're out of touch. They didn't see Brexit or Trump coming (they gave Trump a 1% chance of winning on election day). How can we trust the media's representation of how people feel any more? Why do you put so much faith in them?

 

Too many echo chambers around these days...

[Alex 30517]

What happens when the media all take the same side on an issue?

For example...

[Rayvin 4964]

For example...

 

Trump and Corbyn?

 

Russia?

 

Neoliberalism

 

I could just start throwing all my buzz words at you now.

[NJS 3986]

You did see that poll where he score unfavourably with every sector and demographic including all labour voters didn't you, Rayvin?

[Happy Face 29]

I don't think we're necessarily representative though, and I don't think you can pull those two numbers together and make an assumption as to how things might have gone if the press had sat back and said 'well let's see what he has to say first'. We know his policies poll well, and we know he wasn't associated with old New Labour and their poisonous brand. His issue was that he galvanized the whole establishment in opposition to him and that the press were clearly not happy with him.

 

I know what you're saying mind, but the fact remains that we can't say with certainty that Corbyn couldn't have capitalised on an anti-establishment, anti-austerity narrative. What I remember from the early days of his time in power was people throwing media articles about how useless he would be around, and how his colleagues were coming out to discredit him. It was a fucking shambles. If the whole establishment had come together to oppose Brexit as effectively as it did Corbyn, we'd not be leaving Europe.

 

But look, you made a good point before - in the UK it's not yet possible to bypass traditional media. It's coming, but it's not there yet. The Americans have already sailed through that - Trump cut them off at the knees though. Fewer people in the US trust the media than trust Trump. Something like 48% behind Trump and 42% behind the media. Is this all Trump's fault? If it isn't, whose is it?

 

But saying "if the press hadn't acted like the press" is like saying "if Corbyn hadn't acted like Corbyn".  Both did as predicted and as everyone knew they would.  Up to Labour to go again.

 

The public largely like their jobs for their people, they don't like the other. You have to use racist and nationalist language to foster an uprising that would outfank traditional media.  I can't see Labour going that way.

 

 

Look, this is what I would say in support of that statement. The media over here is universal in condemnation of Trump, right? I mean, I assume even the Mail has been critical. So we think Trump is an absolute disaster. And yet, he still retains widespread support from those who voted him in. You wouldn't know that to listen to the media though.

 

They're out of touch. They didn't see Brexit or Trump coming (they gave Trump a 1% chance of winning on election day). How can we trust the media's representation of how people feel any more? Why do you put so much faith in them?

 

Too many echo chambers around these days...

 

Alternative fact

 

[Rayvin 4964]

You did see that poll where he score unfavourably with every sector and demographic including all labour voters didn't you, Rayvin?

 

Nope, don't think so? Was that just after his election? Fair enough if so, it'd at least tell me where that majority HF mentioned came from.

[Renton 17852]

 

Look, this is what I would say in support of that statement. The media over here is universal in condemnation of Trump, right? I mean, I assume even the Mail has been critical. So we think Trump is an absolute disaster. And yet, he still retains widespread support from those who voted him in. You wouldn't know that to listen to the media though.

 

They're out of touch. They didn't see Brexit or Trump coming (they gave Trump a 1% chance of winning on election day). How can we trust the media's representation of how people feel any more? Why do you put so much faith in them?

 

Too many echo chambers around these days...

I don't follow. The media are to blame for Corbyn's lack of widespread appeal?

But are ineffective against Trump?

 

For the last time, the reason for that contradiction is the media control fuck all, especially now.

[PaddockLad 14655]

What happens when the media all take the same side on an issue?

I think that's in general the situation we've ended up with now anyway. That's not to say there haven't been voices of dissent over the last 30-40 years, there quite plainly have, but when it comes to opinion forming there's no point in that period of time when Corbyn would've received full support from the major titles in this country. The Guardian and Mirror supported Kinnock but he would've just ended up as Blair lite iyam given his subsequent drift into euro beaurocracy. The big players don't want politicians with principles, they want easily manipulated careerists in it for themselves.

[Rayvin 4964]

But saying "if the press hadn't acted like the press" is like saying "if Corbyn hadn't acted like Corbyn".  Both did as predicted and as everyone knew they would.  Up to Labour to go again.

 

The public largely like their jobs for their people, they don't like the other. You have to use racist and nationalist language to foster an uprising that would outfank traditional media.  I can't see Labour going that way.

 

 

Alternative fact

 

 

 

Some of them were reporting 1% then. None of them were thinking it was likely.

[Alex 30517]

Trump and Corbyn?

 

Russia?

 

Neoliberalism

 

I could just start throwing all my buzz words at you now.

Corbyn gets some sympathetic press but I guess there's not going to be loads of it when you've got fuck all in terms of leadership or your ability to get your policies across. I do agree with HF in that he wasn't given a fair crack of the whip though (but he correctly points out the circumstances that caused that too).

Trump has the likes of Michael Gove giving sycophantic interviews with his boss there to make sure, not to mention Fox News (also run by Gove's boss) pretty much being positive throughout his campaign.

Russia get a more balanced view from the western media than the other way round. It's also difficult to argue they aren't taking part in a new Cold War. Arguably the US and its allies are as much to blame but you'll get articles written that will make that point too, I doubt you see much criticism of Putin at home. I wonder why (and no, I'm not blaming the media on that one )

And yeah, you never see a single piece having a pop at the failure of neoliberalism.

 

Have another go

[Renton 17852]

Think he was 15% which isn't that much of an outside bet.

[Alex 30517]

Actually, don't

[Rayvin 4964]

I don't follow. The media are to blame for Corbyn's lack of widespread appeal?

But are ineffective against Trump?

 

For the last time, the reason for that contradiction is the media control fuck all, especially now.

 

I think HF made a good point before (not sure if intended) wherein he noted that in the UK, a Trump style victory wouldn't currently be possible. We're still too used to following the tabloids (in general). Obviously here it's the right wing tabloids that influence people predominantly.

 

Trump bypassed the media. He held mass rallies, he use TV opportunities to speak directly - people consumed Trump news from Trump, not the media. As such, he managed to win despite their efforts.

 

And I agree, the media do control fuck all. They influence much though, albeit a diminishing amount in an age where they're struggling for both traffic, sales and attention.

[Rayvin 4964]

Double post, sorry - connectivity issues.

Edited February 20, 2017 by Rayvin

[PaddockLad 14655]

I don't follow. The media are to blame for Corbyn's lack of widespread appeal?

But are ineffective against Trump?

For the last time, the reason for that contradiction is the media control fuck all, especially now.

They're ineffective against Trump because he's not a politician in the coventional sense. But Trumps strings are being pulled by Bannon though, who understands implicitly how powerful the media can be in forming opinion, which is why he's declared war on them. Bannon knew as long as he found a willing patsy of sufficient blunt "charisma" there might be a chance of the real power he's always wanted for his agenda and he set up Brietbart in order to give it a semi-professional sheen, instead of letting the MSM label them for what they are, racists and fascists.

[Rayvin 4964]

Corbyn gets some sympathetic press but I guess there's not going to be loads of it when you've got fuck all in terms of leadership or your ability to get your policies across. I do agree with HF in that he wasn't given a fair crack of the whip though (but he correctly points out the circumstances that caused that too).

Trump has the likes of Michael Gove giving sycophantic interviews with his boss there to make sure, not to mention Fox News (also run by Gove's boss) pretty much being positive throughout his campaign.

Russia get a more balanced view from the western media than the other way round. It's also difficult to argue they aren't taking part in a new Cold War. Arguably the US and its allies are as much to blame but you'll get articles written that will make that point too, I doubt you see much criticism of Putin at home. I wonder why (and no, I'm not blaming the media on that one )

And yeah, you never see a single piece having a pop at the failure of neoliberalism.

 

Have another go

 

The vast majority of the coverage on those things is negative (and I'm not passing any moral judgement on that), with the exception of Neoliberalism which is only mentioned very rarely (but negatively when it is, at least).

 

Look, I ask again - if the media are doing such a good job, why do only 42% of Americans trust them? That number has been declining for decades, incidentally.

 

EDIT - Sorry, missed your follow up post

Edited February 20, 2017 by Rayvin

[Alex 30517]

I find it weird and depressing how some people will question the main stream press and hold them to account but don't apply any of the same to the likes of Trump and Alex Jones.

[Rayvin 4964]

I find it weird and depressing how some people will question the main stream press and hold them to account but don't apply any of the same to the likes of Trump and Alex Jones.

 

If you mean me, I do both of those things. I trust literally no one to be honest.

[Alex 30517]

The vast majority of the coverage on those things is negative (and I'm not passing any moral judgement on that), with the exception of Neoliberalism which is only mentioned very rarely (but negatively when it is, at least).

 

Look, I ask again - if the media are doing such a good job, why do only 42% of Americans trust them? That number has been declining for decades, incidentally.

 

EDIT - Sorry, missed your follow up post

I never said they were doing a good job, I disagree with the notion of the media's homogenity though. Also, if I was asked if I trusted the media I would have to ask what the term meant. In either case, you seem to be arguing against yourself, because if this nebulous body you refer to as the media are so influential then perhaps you can explain why the trust level is so low

[Alex 30517]

If you mean me, I do both of those things. I trust literally no one to be honest.

I didn't mean you. If I did I'd have said. I was more thinking of the crackpot conspiracy theorists that take all the shite the likes of Jones comes out with about Bohemian Grove and 9/11 as gospel (even though almost all of it could easily be disproved with a small amount of research) then just dismiss the majority of the scientific community out of hand as being part of an establishment plot. I brought them up because a lot of those types are the exact same people who would have voted for Trump and will be lapping up his shite

[Happy Face 29]

 

Some of them were reporting 1% then. None of them were thinking it was likely.

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fivethirtyeight-gave-trump-a-better-chance-than-almost-anyone-else/

 

five thirty eight provide some of the most respected (or least ridiculed) polling analysis.  They refer to the 1% figure, but gave him a 29% chance.

 

If the election was run 3 times he'd win 1.

 

Polls aren't about media opinion or being out of touch though.  They're about asking the public their opinion and collating a representative view that most closely resembles reality.  Polls can't ever predict the future though, only report intention.  Only exit polls reflect how people voted.

 

If you're complaining about partisan hacks inflating or reducing someones chances then, again,  that's life.

[Rayvin 4964]

I never said they were doing a good job, I disagree with the notion of the media's homogenity though. Also, if I was asked if I trusted the media I would have to ask what the term meant. In either case, you seem to be arguing against yourself, because if this nebulous body you refer to as the media are so influential then perhaps you can explain why the trust level is so low

 

The best explanation I've seen takes me a little out of my comfort zone in terms of discussing the current MSM Overton Window. Gloom would probably know more about it. But the gist basically is that the current Overton Window on acceptable views has shrunk to the point wherein the media are all operating in a safe, centrist space - to the exclusion of what is now a majority of people situated outside of this window. The majority simply organised around a single figurehead and outvoted the centre. Had the Overton window been large enough to give voice to these concerns, maybe trust would be higher.

 

Thus, I think the media can be fairly homogenous through operating in a very small Overton window, and at the same time widely untrusted.

[Alex 30517]

Don't remember that one from Playschool.

[Rayvin 4964]

I didn't mean you. If I did I'd have said. I was more thinking of the crackpot conspiracy theorists that take all the shite the likes of Jones comes out with about Bohemian Grove and 9/11 as gospel (even though almost all of it could easily be disproved with a small amount of research) then just dismiss the majority of the scientific community out of hand as being part of an establishment plot. I brought them up because a lot of those types are the exact same people who would have voted for Trump and will be lapping up his shite

 

Fair enough then - and yes, people like Alex Jones are a problem for sure. They're speaking into their own echo chambers and objective analysis within these groups becomes near impossible. But this happens on the left too. Even in the centre I'd argue. People aren't exposed to a sufficient range of views any more, so we don't have debate, we just have isolated whining.