I suppose propaganda by absence of important news is mildly better than the Express yesterday, which was literally just an advert for the Brexit party wrapped around an alleged paper.

 

Of course you’d expect them to be all over the news today given the queen has been wronged... if they had any backbone or consistent principles.

Now imagine if someone left wing misled the queen like Mad May or lied like Bojo! They'd be calling for the tower.

Now imagine if someone left wing misled the queen like Mad May or lied like Bojo! They'd be calling for the tower.

 

Who's 'They' - 'the L*nded G*ntry '? :lol:

 

I had to edit that as BJ kept replacing it with 'disco citizens', despite AQ using the phrase here less than 24 hours ago. :wacko:

Edited September 12, 20197 yr by vidcapper

Wtf??

 

And Murdoch's right wing rags, rhe supporters of the disco citizens and the royalty x I guess they prefer Tories over monarchy then if they're not apoplectic about them lying to the queen!

 

The landed gentey mps would be scrraming on twitter and the bbtory etc as well.

Who's 'They' - 'the L*nded G*ntry '? :lol:

 

I had to edit that as BJ kept replacing it with 'disco citizens', despite AQ using the phrase here less than 24 hours ago. :wacko:

You cannot deny, though, that the right-wing press (along with many Tory MPs) would be screaming blue murder at the merest hint that a Labour PM had been less than honest with HM.

You cannot deny, though, that the right-wing press (along with many Tory MPs) would be screaming blue murder at the merest hint that a Labour PM had been less than honest with HM.

 

They wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't. :rolleyes: I never take them seriously in such cases anyway.

 

On a side issue, has a moderator put a block on the term 'landed-gentry'? AFAIK it's only a 'swear word' to Algernon Monqueef. :lol:

Edited September 12, 20197 yr by vidcapper

So you admit that they are propaganda rags upholding the rich aristocracy and protecting the estanlishment? It is not journalism.

It's common policy that phrases that under most circumstances, only dear Michael uses are to be changed into other words for funsies, until such time as we get tired of the joke and have weaned him off overusing said phrases.

 

No offence meant to any landed gentry of course.

They wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't. :rolleyes: I never take them seriously in such cases anyway.

 

On a side issue, has a moderator put a block on the term 'landed-gentry'? AFAIK it's only a 'swear word' to Algernon Monqueef. :lol:

So you admit that those same papers are NOT currently doing their job?

It's funny that throughout the 20th century the only political part in Britain who supported non parliamentary acts were the tories when Bonar Law proclaimed 'there are things more important than parliamentary majorities' when reviewing the Ulster Volunteers in 1912 - the Ulster Volunteers were a paramilitary organisation formed by Unionist throughout the UK when the third home rule bill was going to be made law when the liberals got the support of the Irish nationalists to stay in power following the 1910 general election.

 

The comparisons with today's crisis are eerie - the tories proclaimed that the MPs had no authority on the issues!

 

Funny how when the tories don't get their way they change the rules and not a peep from unionists about this when they proclaim about nationalists terrorism in NI during the troubles.

 

 

So you admit that they are propaganda rags upholding the rich aristocracy and protecting the estanlishment? It is not journalism.

 

Well, someone has to stand up for the status quo, or there'd be anarchy... :teresa:

 

Seriously though, the aristocracy makes up less than 1% of the population, and thus they cannot override the electorate if they are determined to achieve change.

 

So you admit that those same papers are NOT currently doing their job?

 

I will admit that, as long as you also admit that left-leaning papers are also doing the same thing.

 

Don't forget that, unlike broadcast media, newspapers are not required to be impartial. If you don't mind the Guardian having a left-wing agenda, then you would be a massive hypocrite if you objected to the Mail's right to print a right-wing one.

Edited September 13, 20197 yr by vidcapper

The Guardian isn't left, it's liberal. Massive distinction. Its opinion columns often lean very left, sure (largely because there IS no huge mainstream left-biased paper and the Guardian is the closest that these columnists can get), but the paper's main editorial stance is aimed at Waitrose middle classes who are perfectly happy with the capitalist system. See their massive criticism of Corbyn. I've never seen the Mail or the Telegraph criticise a Conservative leader like that.

 

The Guardian is comparable to the Times on the right. Both give generally nuanced and centrist + slight respective lean reporting.

 

What we object to isn't the fact that newspapers have an agenda at all, it's the style in which the Mail/Express/Telegraph conduct their business that frequently does not reflect reality so they can continue influencing their self-interested editorial views on a readership that doesn't have the critical thinking skills necessary to properly assess them.

What we object to isn't the fact that newspapers have an agenda at all, it's the style in which the Mail/Express/Telegraph conduct their business that frequently does not reflect reality so they can continue influencing their self-interested editorial views on a readership that doesn't have the critical thinking skills necessary to properly assess them.

 

Ironic, given that it's leftists that are usually regarded as 'being too thick to understand political/economic arguments'. :rolleyes:

 

Either way, I regard it as extremely patronising to suggest the more than a very tiny %age of the population (maybe 1% or less) is incapable of making decisions over matters that affect them - indeed that was the very argument that was used up to the early 20th C to deny the franchise to the majority of voters...

 

And this is getting rather 'the greatest argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter'.

 

Considering that they do repeatedly end up voting for Tory governments despite voting for such being against the interests of anyone with limited capital, then yes. Voting for leaders seen as 'strong' is commonly mentioned as a voting point, indicating 'how they appear on TV'. Multiple and consistent anecdotes will tell you that people vote out of party loyalty of unknown provenance or vote because of feelings and impressions, not policies. That this absolute f***ing disaster of a government isn't regularly polling below 20% is indicative of the influence the media have on our population. Too few people ask who funds the media, when that should be the BASIC response to any source - who stands to benefit from me following this opinion?

 

Though of course what also happens is an innate human refusal to admit when they were wrong and they backed the wrong horse. But when their world is shaped by the media they consume, of course they got duped.

 

There's no stereotype of sides being stupid. All can be stupid. All can be smart. But conservative rich people with power have a vested interest in the population staying stupid, while socialists have a vested interest in educating the working classes.

 

And this is getting rather 'the greatest argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter'.

 

Considering that they do repeatedly end up voting for Tory governments despite voting for such being against the interests of anyone with limited capital, then yes. Voting for leaders seen as 'strong' is commonly mentioned as a voting point, indicating 'how they appear on TV'. Multiple and consistent anecdotes will tell you that people vote out of party loyalty of unknown provenance or vote because of feelings and impressions, not policies. That this absolute f***ing disaster of a government isn't regularly polling below 20% is indicative of the influence the media have on our population.

 

Or an indication that enough voters think the alternative would be even worse? After all, they are free to tell pollsters they'd prefer Labour - yet they don't...

Edited September 13, 20197 yr by vidcapper

There are no left wing papers.

 

The right wing papers RIGHT NOW ARE NOT DOING THEIR JOB. Admit it. Don't point over there and shout, hey look! Elephant. Answer the question. Do you agree that the ritht wing papers are nothing more than propaganda sheets, as seen by them suddenly not cheerleading brexshit and turning super quiet and not reporting on yellowhammer or bojo's many failures?

Or an indication that enough voters think the alternative would be even worse? After all, they are free to tell pollsters they'd prefer Labour - yet they don't...

 

BECAUSE OF THE ARISTOCRACY'S CONTROL OF THE MEDIA!!!! PROPAGANDA.

BECAUSE OF THE ARISTOCRACY'S CONTROL OF THE MEDIA!!!! PROPAGANDA.

 

So everything would be wonderful if the left had the same control over the media that you *claim* the Right has - and would gladly hand over their hard-earned wages to give to the feckless? :rolleyes:

So everything would be wonderful if the left had the same control over the media that you *claim* the Right has - and would gladly hand over their hard-earned wages to give to the feckless? :rolleyes:

 

It's not a claim. This is a demonstrable fact.

 

I see you are obfuscating again. Whataboutism is EVEN MORE proof that you ARE in fact right wing. I won't reply to your whataboutism and we are talking about something else in RESPONSE to your claim r.e media. The right wing media was cheerleading brexshit and treating Bojo like the Glorious Leader born to rule. The yrllowhammer documents came out, Bojo shut down parliament like a tinpot dictator, lost every single vote, and lost his majority by PURGING the party - as the right wing media kept HYSTERICALLY screaming that Corbyn was doing it, aka Stalin. This was a lie and Bojo did it instead. Instead of doing ITS JOURNALISTIC DUTY and reporting these new facts, it didn't even get a mention. No front pages screaming about it, no front pages devoted to facts about the very brexshit they clamoured for. This is vile one party state propaganda fit for the ministry of truth and a dictatorship. It's not compatible with democracy. Now tell me ... how would those same billionaire-owned papers have reacted if this was happening under a LABOUR leader and the documents related to STAYING IN the EU?

 

I repeat the question based on what you said earlier: do you accept that the media is currently NOT doing its duty? Do you accept that it is basically ministry of truth levels of propaganda?

 

I think it raises MASSSSSIVE questions. Break up media and paper monopolies and put in non-bias laws like broadcast media is SUPPOSED to have.

So everything would be wonderful if the left had the same control over the media that you *claim* the Right has - and would gladly hand over their hard-earned wages to give to the feckless? :rolleyes:

 

Your second sentence is obviously a defence of capitalism. Sorry, but earning money and giving it to the rich is CAPITALISM. Yes. You were thinking of CAPITALISM, not socialism or keynesian economics x