2,761 posts
|
Post by n1david on Jul 24, 2020 15:11:17 GMT
The details inside show the stark divide. But given that most people will never click into the details, the original tweet was a masterpiece in selective use of data which has now been liked nearly 4000 times and retweeted nearly 1500 times. There are culture warriors on both sides of the divide, they all need to be called out when they use facts selectively to shore up their position.
|
|
1,972 posts
|
Post by sf on Jul 24, 2020 15:14:41 GMT
It's good that it was able to be restored, but this is not Manchester's most shining moment:
(It is also, unfortunately, not remotely surprising.)
|
|
724 posts
|
Post by basdfg on Jul 24, 2020 15:40:53 GMT
The details inside show the stark divide. But given that most people will never click into the details, the original tweet was a masterpiece in selective use of data which has now been liked nearly 4000 times and retweeted nearly 1500 times. There are culture warriors on both sides of the divide, they all need to be called out when they use facts selectively to shore up their position.
This is his latest.
|
|
2,761 posts
|
Post by n1david on Jul 24, 2020 16:00:45 GMT
I'm not really sure that posting lots of tweets on here, particularly from people who have selective views, advances the "discussion" very much, which is supposed to be the point of a discussion board.
If I want to read lots of tweets from people with entrenched views, I can go to Twitter for that. I'd rather engage with individuals here. What are your views? Does your retweeting of Goodwin imply approval, disagreement, or just an opportunity to encourage people to argue?
|
|
724 posts
|
Post by basdfg on Jul 24, 2020 16:12:40 GMT
I'm not really sure that posting lots of tweets on here, particularly from people who have selective views, advances the "discussion" very much, which is supposed to be the point of a discussion board. If I want to read lots of tweets from people with entrenched views, I can go to Twitter for that. I'd rather engage with individuals here. What are your views? Does your retweeting of Goodwin imply approval, disagreement, or just an opportunity to encourage people to argue? Just to show his latest 'argument' and to see people's views to it. I haven't made my mind up on what I believe.
|
|
2,761 posts
|
Post by n1david on Jul 24, 2020 16:23:17 GMT
OK. I haven't made up my mind on every aspect of this story, or any other either. But I try to read sources that express arguments in more than 280 characters.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2020 17:05:58 GMT
One point does anyone find taking the knee slightly ironic given it was a knee to the windpipe which killed George Floyd? Not particularly, given that the gesture existed long before George Floyd was murdered. Yes the Gridiron guy started it but in light of the GF tradegy I just found it a bit distasteful.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2020 17:10:13 GMT
But given that most people will never click into the details, the original tweet was a masterpiece in selective use of data which has now been liked nearly 4000 times and retweeted nearly 1500 times. There are culture warriors on both sides of the divide, they all need to be called out when they use facts selectively to shore up their position.
This is his latest.
Although my politics are very different from Ash's I do like listening to her as she explains her views clearly and will back up her line of thought. Plus she is a great role model for young women and does her own thing regardless of what conventions she may be expected to follow. I actually tweeted words to this effect to her and got a thank you reply saying it was good I was considering her standpoints.
|
|
19,795 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 24, 2020 18:24:05 GMT
I'm not really sure that posting lots of tweets on here, particularly from people who have selective views, advances the "discussion" very much, which is supposed to be the point of a discussion board. If I want to read lots of tweets from people with entrenched views, I can go to Twitter for that. I'd rather engage with individuals here. What are your views? Does your retweeting of Goodwin imply approval, disagreement, or just an opportunity to encourage people to argue? Just to show his latest 'argument' and to see people's views to it. I haven't made my mind up on what I believe.
An opinion would be nice though. Otherwise what’s the point? We can all go to Twitter.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jul 24, 2020 22:05:44 GMT
The culture war is evident through - one figure where it is very stark is views on Meghan Duhcess of Suffolk. Liabilty - 51 Asset -24 But broken down people in London and 2016 remain voters only think she is a liability 42/41-38/37 while 18 -24 year olds (By 37-31) and Labour voters (42-37) think she is an asset. And of course it is very stark around BLM. 47-18 opposition from tory voters and 47 -22 opposition from leave voters but 71-10 support from Labour voters, 62-12 from Lib Dems and 65-12 from Remain voters. 61% of tory voters think the protests should never go ahead not even after the virus but only 14% of labour voters think it - but overall not go ahead gets the pluarity. Is that the same poll that the Mirror ran a headline about saying that 38% thought Harry a liability (I.e. the majority do not) while ignoring the staggering 80% who think Andrew is a liability? Lies, damn lies, and statistics!
|
|
724 posts
|
Post by basdfg on Jul 24, 2020 22:09:11 GMT
The culture war is evident through - one figure where it is very stark is views on Meghan Duhcess of Suffolk. Liabilty - 51 Asset -24 But broken down people in London and 2016 remain voters only think she is a liability 42/41-38/37 while 18 -24 year olds (By 37-31) and Labour voters (42-37) think she is an asset. And of course it is very stark around BLM. 47-18 opposition from tory voters and 47 -22 opposition from leave voters but 71-10 support from Labour voters, 62-12 from Lib Dems and 65-12 from Remain voters. 61% of tory voters think the protests should never go ahead not even after the virus but only 14% of labour voters think it - but overall not go ahead gets the pluarity. Is that the same poll that the Mirror ran a headline about saying that 38% thought Harry a liability (I.e. the majority do not) while ignoring the staggering 80% who think Andrew is a liability? Lies, damn lies, and statistics! Through everyone knows Andrew is - Harry wasn't but is now. The mirror is stuck between not being racist but still being sued.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2020 16:33:21 GMT
Is that the same poll that the Mirror ran a headline about saying that 38% thought Harry a liability (I.e. the majority do not) while ignoring the staggering 80% who think Andrew is a liability? Lies, damn lies, and statistics! Through everyone knows Andrew is - Harry wasn't but is now. The mirror is stuck between not being racist but still being sued. Harry and Andrew, both the second sons, both playboy princes, both made questionable wife choices? Andrew and Fergie do remain friends though. Andrew is a totally busted flush. That interview was the final nail. If he'd kept his mouth shut carried on with his duties. Done the rumored preferred piece for his 60th birthday and with Harry departing he could have been seen as a solid member of the family. The Maxwell lady stuff would still have hit but not the force it has done. Harry was seen as very popular and when he married Meghan they looked deeply in love. I don't think he would have gone to America/Canada unless he'd have wanted to. He doesn't seem to be a submissive husband. I've no concern if Meghan was white/black/Chinese or had been in a spice Girls Tribute act personally. She was as successful personally, probably more so than Kate and if she did throw her weight around a bit I'm sure Senior Royals would have bought her back into line. If Harry had remained in the UK and been at the forefront of the Royal efforts to support morale and help during the Covid Crisis, his popularity would have gone through the roof. Meaghan didn't have to join in, she was with her young son at home. But both could have done the zoom calls that Kate, Wills even HM herself have done and Harry as the fittest youngest Royal could have done a few bits out and about locally. Harry and Meghan's Riyal Role would have been one of support not leading like William will do.
|
|
724 posts
|
Post by basdfg on Jul 25, 2020 18:58:19 GMT
The French do seem to have a no surrender style.
I believe this style applies to the arts for example I have read they very reluctant to use colour-blind casting in historical productions through it also means French tv is a fair bit whiter than in the uk.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jul 26, 2020 16:42:01 GMT
] If Harry had remained in the UK and been at the forefront of the Royal efforts to support morale and help during the Covid Crisis, his popularity would have gone through the roof. Meaghan didn't have to join in, she was with her young son at home. But both could have done the zoom calls that Kate, Wills even HM herself have done and Harry as the fittest youngest Royal could have done a few bits out and about locally. Harry and Meghan's Riyal Role would have been one of support not leading like William will do. Rumour has it that Harry and Meghan’s popularity was part of the problem - there was danger of them outshining Kate and William. Hence the mutterings about her being ‘uppity’ and blatant briefing against them to the press, and all the leaks. Got to remember with the Royal Family stuff that it’s not just the individuals themselves involved - it’s the whole court system. Courtiers jockey for position for themselves as much as for the Royals they serve. It’s an utterly ridiculous system and totally outmoded - you’d think they’d realise that a rising tide lifts all ships and actively help each other against a tabloid market that uses them as gossip fodder, instead of stoking it by leaking and briefing against each other.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2020 18:37:06 GMT
] If Harry had remained in the UK and been at the forefront of the Royal efforts to support morale and help during the Covid Crisis, his popularity would have gone through the roof. Meaghan didn't have to join in, she was with her young son at home. But both could have done the zoom calls that Kate, Wills even HM herself have done and Harry as the fittest youngest Royal could have done a few bits out and about locally. Harry and Meghan's Riyal Role would have been one of support not leading like William will do. Rumour has it that Harry and Meghan’s popularity was part of the problem - there was danger of them outshining Kate and William. Hence the mutterings about her being ‘uppity’ and blatant briefing against them to the press, and all the leaks. Got to remember with the Royal Family stuff that it’s not just the individuals themselves involved - it’s the whole court system. Courtiers jockey for position for themselves as much as for the Royals they serve. It’s an utterly ridiculous system and totally outmoded - you’d think they’d realise that a rising tide lifts all ships and actively help each other against a tabloid market that uses them as gossip fodder, instead of stoking it by leaking and briefing against each other. I'm sure Meghan knows how to play the Media better than Kate but I'd never underestimate Kate as she bagged herself a future King. I personally don't see Kate and William being too bothered about popularity as they know they would always hold the upper position.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2020 18:52:32 GMT
Goodwin is a well off middle aged guy professing to be in tune with the working class. Give me a break, he’s just a user, piggy backing on grievance to fluff up his own importance, whilst simultaneously mischaracterising and misrepresenting the people he professes to ‘know’. I’d put money on his real views being a lot darker than he lets on.
|
|
724 posts
|
Post by basdfg on Jul 26, 2020 20:18:35 GMT
] If Harry had remained in the UK and been at the forefront of the Royal efforts to support morale and help during the Covid Crisis, his popularity would have gone through the roof. Meaghan didn't have to join in, she was with her young son at home. But both could have done the zoom calls that Kate, Wills even HM herself have done and Harry as the fittest youngest Royal could have done a few bits out and about locally. Harry and Meghan's Riyal Role would have been one of support not leading like William will do. Rumour has it that Harry and Meghan’s popularity was part of the problem - there was danger of them outshining Kate and William. Hence the mutterings about her being ‘uppity’ and blatant briefing against them to the press, and all the leaks. Got to remember with the Royal Family stuff that it’s not just the individuals themselves involved - it’s the whole court system. Courtiers jockey for position for themselves as much as for the Royals they serve. It’s an utterly ridiculous system and totally outmoded - you’d think they’d realise that a rising tide lifts all ships and actively help each other against a tabloid market that uses them as gossip fodder, instead of stoking it by leaking and briefing against each other. I think Meghan thought making people think the press is racist will make the press unpopular very quickly - it doesn't work like that in the UK. The people who think the press and wider establishment are a bit racist don't like the royal family that much.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jul 27, 2020 7:58:25 GMT
The British press are racist - no-one who has spent any time studying them can have any doubt about it. Of course, racism is deeply embedded in our society and most others, so this is not surprising.
I am not sure that they did think that pointing out the racism would make the press unpopular. The press are already unpopular - circulation figures have been falling for years, advertising spend has nosedived, it’s an industry in crisis. I think they underestimated the extent to which the court institution are beholden to the tabloid press, given that they are so unpopular.
This is why the press are so vehemently anti The Sussexes. The threat is existential - if they’d persuaded the rest of The Firm that they don’t actually need to cooperate with the tabloids because hardly anyone reads them, that they should stop trying to curry favour with them because actually they can reach people directly via social media, and that they don’t need to put up with the outrageous and often illegal behaviour, then the tabloids would have lost considerable influence. The Palace still act as though the tabloids have the same circulation and influence as they did 20 years ago, and of course the owners and editors need them to believe that. The truth is more people read Facebook every day than a newspaper - and they trust what they read on Facebook more. Which is a huge problem in itself for the spread of misinformation, but that’s a different subject.
|
|
724 posts
|
Post by basdfg on Jul 27, 2020 9:12:46 GMT
The British press are racist - no-one who has spent any time studying them can have any doubt about it. Of course, racism is deeply embedded in our society and most others, so this is not surprising. I am not sure that they did think that pointing out the racism would make the press unpopular. The press are already unpopular - circulation figures have been falling for years, advertising spend has nosedived, it’s an industry in crisis. I think they underestimated the extent to which the court institution are beholden to the tabloid press, given that they are so unpopular. This is why the press are so vehemently anti The Sussexes. The threat is existential - if they’d persuaded the rest of The Firm that they don’t actually need to cooperate with the tabloids because hardly anyone reads them, that they should stop trying to curry favour with them because actually they can reach people directly via social media, and that they don’t need to put up with the outrageous and often illegal behaviour, then the tabloids would have lost considerable influence. The Palace still act as though the tabloids have the same circulation and influence as they did 20 years ago, and of course the owners and editors need them to believe that. The truth is more people read Facebook every day than a newspaper - and they trust what they read on Facebook more. Which is a huge problem in itself for the spread of misinformation, but that’s a different subject. The press are still read online a lot more than their circulation figures suggest.
Put it simply - if the press have no impact how come more than 50% of the UK find Meghan a liability - the non mainstream press barely talks about them.
Through the rumour is Rupert Murdoch has tons of dirt on the Royals which he won't allow to be printed until the Queen dies due his respect for her.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2020 10:17:08 GMT
A quick look at newspaper front pages reveals why the press as it currently exists, as a mouthpiece for its wealthy and privileged owners, needs to be destroyed.
Firstly, ranting about holiday plans being affected by rises in cases across Europe when it was they who were reckless in agitating for for and glorifying foreign holidays during a global pandemic in the first place. Secondly, doubling down on their vendetta against the Sussexes with spin that would have done Malcolm Tucker proud.
Mass media in the hands of a few privileged individuals is a recipe for disaster and our society has been weakened and twisted as a result of it for far too long.
|
|
724 posts
|
Post by basdfg on Jul 27, 2020 10:42:16 GMT
A quick look at newspaper front pages reveals why the press as it currently exists, as a mouthpiece for its wealthy and privileged owners, needs to be destroyed. Firstly, ranting about holiday plans being affected by rises in cases across Europe when it was they who were reckless in agitating for for and glorifying foreign holidays during a global pandemic in the first place. Secondly, doubling down on their vendetta against the Sussexes with spin that would have done Malcolm Tucker proud. Mass media in the hands of a few privileged individuals is a recipe for disaster and our society has been weakened and twisted as a result of it for far too long. Have you seen the state of most of the independent media that covers current affair/politics - much of it is very toxic. I think they is no way to not further the culture war as most countries are moving towards more biased media tailored just for your own views where cancellation of the alternative tribe is the main aim.
|
|
2,340 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jul 27, 2020 11:18:55 GMT
A quick look at newspaper front pages reveals why the press as it currently exists, as a mouthpiece for its wealthy and privileged owners, needs to be destroyed. Firstly, ranting about holiday plans being affected by rises in cases across Europe when it was they who were reckless in agitating for for and glorifying foreign holidays during a global pandemic in the first place. Secondly, doubling down on their vendetta against the Sussexes with spin that would have done Malcolm Tucker proud. Mass media in the hands of a few privileged individuals is a recipe for disaster and our society has been weakened and twisted as a result of it for far too long. Bit socialist that mate
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2020 12:14:36 GMT
People who would want to lock the country down but also be able to go abroad themselves somehow. If we'd just locked down earlier then a lot of the issues could have been avoided.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jul 27, 2020 17:36:48 GMT
]The press are still read online a lot more than their circulation figures suggest. [/div]
Put it simply - if the press have no impact how come more than 50% of the UK find Meghan a liability - the non mainstream press barely talks about them.
Through the rumour is Rupert Murdoch has tons of dirt on the Royals which he won't allow to be printed until the Queen dies due his respect for her.
[/quote] The tabloids are effective at influencing the Court - and when the Court decides to take action the more established news services report it. But they are giving the tabloids that power. They hand them their influence. If they stopped, there would of course be a lot of noisy howling and tantrums thrown initially, and it would all die down eventually and everyone would get on with their life. I am old enough to remember a number of tabloid scoops about The Royals. I remember Prince Charles envying Camilla’s tampons. I remember Fergie getting her toes sucked. I remember the divorces, I remember the bitching about Diana - oh, there was so much bitching about Diana, there was always something to bitch about - I remember the bitching about the Queen after the posthumously-sainted Diana died. I remember the stuff about ‘Princess Pushy’, I remember the ‘fake Sheikh’ catching Fergie out, I remember the persistent rumours about Edward being gay and bitching about Sophie being a PR girl when he turned out not to be. I remember the topless photo of Sophie on Page 3, the the commercial conflict-of-interest accusations. I remember the bitching about Kate’s family being middle-class and William being lazy because he wasn’t doing enough official engagements. The bitching about ‘tax payers’ money’ is perpetual. I remember the Freedom of Information Requests about the ‘black spider memos’ (that was the Grauniad, and at least had a public interest basis - although the results turned out to be totally underwhelming). Most people don’t remember this stuff even if they read it at the time. People have amazingly short memories for anything that doesn’t directly affect their own life. It doesn’t noticeably affect the long-term popularity of The Royals or lead to an increase in Republicanism. There’s a reason why they think the Andrew-Epstein stuff will blow over if he just hunkers down and stays out of public view - which suits him well enough, as he’s never been the most energetic of the Royals when it comes to work. There’s literally a case in progress right now where the Mail on Sunday is arguing that they have the right to breach copyright and invade the privacy of the Royals because their position rests on their popularity with the public and that makes anything they do a public interest matter. I wonder how the judge will respond to that. I would argue that the last 30 years of tabloid history actually shows the opposite - it doesn’t matter how badly or scandalously individual members of the Royal Family have behaved, the institution isn’t going anywhere.
|
|
724 posts
|
Post by basdfg on Jul 27, 2020 17:44:30 GMT
Most legal experts believe the Mail on Sunday will win.
|
|