Nov 2020
12:17pm, 18 Nov 2020
7,159 posts
|
sallykate
OH is publishing a book next year which looks at this sort of thing in the context of war, specifically the difference in use between MSM and social media. The use of Facebook in Myanmar contributed to the Rohingya genocide there (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html). I was astonished years ago that Trump was able to shrug off the "grab them by the pussy" comments. |
|
Nov 2020
12:18pm, 18 Nov 2020
7,160 posts
|
sallykate
Have the clickable link: nytimes.com - I always forget about punctuation ruining them!
|
Nov 2020
12:20pm, 18 Nov 2020
18,162 posts
|
Bazoaxe
The MSM thing I find really frustrating and is used all too often when people dont like what they read and instead want to believe something heard from other sources. Sources Trump might call fake news, but other take as the truth.
|
Nov 2020
12:22pm, 18 Nov 2020
3,238 posts
|
J2R
HappyG, dismayingly the dismissal of 'mainstream media' is not exclusive to the populist right. It is also common on the far left. Mind you, I do have a slight smidgeon of sympathy considering what has been happening in the mainstream media. It is not quite what it used to be. It seems clear to me that the BBC's news department has moved politically somewhat to the right in recent years, as a result of the policy begun by Cameron of putting Tories into important posts in the BBC and, perhaps more importantly, the BBC's reluctance to offend the Government for fear of having the TV licence funding method brought to an end, a threat which is always hanging over them. Also, the Daily Telegraph, which used to be a respectable, thinking broadsheet, albeit right-leaning, has been transformed over a short period into something not far from the Soviet Izvestia or the Nazis' Voelkischer Beobachter, a quite shocking decline. |
Nov 2020
12:27pm, 18 Nov 2020
12,702 posts
|
larkim
The thing about fraud and small margins of error though are that almost by definition (i.e. a criminal and "under the radar" activity) it would be expected to only provide a small impact - but recognising that that small impact may be all that is necessary to make the difference. I don't for a single minute believe that there is fraud in the US election which is in any way significant, but when presidencies (e.g. Bush vs Gore) are decided by how a few hundred people vote it's not thoroughly implausible that a small group of people finding a way to fraudulently vote could make a difference (on both sides of the fence - with Trump pre-alleging widespread fraud by Dems it wouldn't surprise me if a few Reps were motivated to find ways to fraudulently vote too). On the MSM point; that was sort of what I was getting at with the reporting of the votes uncounted in Georgia. It's easy to see how a pro-Trump activist would read BBC reporting of that as a demonstration of how the MSM suppresses news, and that whilst "they" were "forced" to publish that bit, there are "untold" volumes of similar cases that the BBC aren't telling us about. |
|
Nov 2020
12:44pm, 18 Nov 2020
12,704 posts
|
larkim
On Corbyn - surprised that Starmer is holding firm with the parliamentary party; up 'til now he was able to point to the internal LP disciplinary route as being out of his hands, but the PLP membership point is broadly in his gift, and he's taking a strong stand here which will alienate quite a few pro-Corbyn members. Maybe that's the right tactical route with the electorate as a whole, but there'll be some painful conflicts over the next few days / weeks as a consequence I think. If it was me, I might have taken the weaker option of accepting the disciplinary committee outcome, accepting him back into the PLP but making a concurrent statement about this being a "last chance saloon" for Corbyn on the anti-semitism point. |
Nov 2020
12:45pm, 18 Nov 2020
36,482 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
J2R, I'm certainly not saying that mainstream media are not guilty of bias, and also of providing a platform for some shocking opinions. But they usually cite their sources, and also differentiate between an opinion piece and a factual reporting. They can still be biased by not reporting somethings, over emphasizing others or using unhelpful or misleading language. But it's not as blatant as "Bleach will save you from Covid" or "All Democrats are paedophiles" etc!  G
|
|
Nov 2020
12:48pm, 18 Nov 2020
36,483 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
Glad you're not labour leader then larks! I think a stand had to be taken. Mealy mouthed language over issues of race or religion are unhelpful and in terms of political clarity should be unacceptable. If necessary the party mechanics need to be overhauled to reflect that clarity in its processes. Imho. Otherwise Labour is never going to be re-electable. |
Nov 2020
1:07pm, 18 Nov 2020
28,894 posts
|
Wriggling Snake
You could be right about Thunberg, she's in the Beano independent.co.uk I think they should kick Corbyn out completely. Show you really mean business. |
|
Nov 2020
1:12pm, 18 Nov 2020
3,239 posts
|
J2R
HappyG, agreed.
|
Useful Links
FE accepts no responsibility for external links. Or anything, really.Related Threads
-
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
-
EU Referendum - In or Out? Vote here
Aug 2018
-
March to Parliament Against Brexit - Sat 2nd July
Jun 2016
-
EU Referendum
Feb 2016
-
Ads on Fetch - anyone else getting Leave and Remain?!
Feb 2017
-
The Environment Thread :-)
Dec 2024
-
Economics
Aug 2023
-
Dear Scottish Fetchies
Jan 2023
-
Any economists out there - question
Oct 2022
-
Power and exploitation - please check my sanity
Oct 2018