Luka

Leo

Well-known member
... this study found that when Murdoch’s Sun switched support to Labour, it increased the party’s vote in 1997 by 2 per cent. That was not enough to influence the result, but when the Sun switched back to the Conservatives in 2010, it had a similar impact in the opposite direction, which was enough to influence that result.

which leads one to believe that lots of people have no core convictions, otherwise how could they swing to a polar opposite position and voting record in short time? tribalism seems to be the order of the day, so whatever side the tribe (aka, Murdoch's media outlets) is on is good enough for readers/viewers.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
which leads one to believe that lots of people have no core convictions, otherwise how could they swing to a polar opposite position and voting record in short time? tribalism seems to be the order of the day, so whatever side the tribe (aka, Murdoch's media outlets) is on is good enough for readers/viewers.

A colleague of mine told me he's voted Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, Green and UKIP. And this was an intelligent guy, well educated and qualified, doing a highly technical job.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
The Telegraph has gone full InfoWars:

_20191221_103027.JPG

This is a problem for someone like my dad, who started buying it decades ago when it was a 'quality paper' that had obviously right-wing talking points in its opinion columns but could generally be relied on to report facts on the front page, and who doesn't realise that's no longer the case.
 

luka

Well-known member
I was reading about the money pumped into climate change denialism today in that book 'dark money'. Mega zillions. And it worked really really well.
 

entertainment

Well-known member

Pitting them against eachother while Biden runs away with it. Sanders got fucked over by CNN last time around too, didn't he?
 

Leo

Well-known member
worst debate this cycle. while our democracy crumbles at the hand of a corrupt wannabe-authoritarian, fucking CNN loading up on good-TV soundbite gotcha questions, asked in a way that always pits one candidate against another ("Senator Warren believes XYZ, why is she wrong?").

I'd vote for the first candidate who tells the moderator "that's a stupid questions, no one cares about that bullshit".
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
which leads one to believe that lots of people have no core convictions
No bad thing in itself, I'd like it if people voted according to policies rather than the name of the side.... voting for what The Sun tells them to is worse than either though.
Agreed re Telegraph, I think my parents still read it.
With Climate Change denial I have two thoughts - one, there is a problem with Greta becoming this massive figure-head in that it allows people to concentrate on attacking her, what with her being an angry insane puppet who ought to be in school and so on, instead of engaging with the science which surely doesn't change whoever is saying it. Two - I don't get Climate Change Denial, I mean, I understand those who read that Telegraph article and believe it, but the people behind it, the scientists paid by Shell or whatever, the ones who know they are repeating discredited arguments and so on. Don't they care at all about what's going to happen? Do they have no children or friends who might outlive them and might be affected... do they think that it will be good to be rich when the world is on fire etc? It seems absolutely crazy to me.
 

Leo

Well-known member
No bad thing in itself, I'd like it if people voted according to policies rather than the name of the side....

but core convictions are what you believe, as opposed to just following direction from a side.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Sure. I mean to say I don't have a problem with people changing party to the one whose policies best reflect their views. I even don't have a problem with people interrogating and possibly changing those views with careful consideration although not just twisting in the wind obviously.
 

Leo

Well-known member
ah, ok. but I get the sense sun readers didn't change their minds en mass after hours of deep conptemplation. they most likely just changed their mind because of what they read in the sun, which means they didn't have any core convictions of their own.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
To play devil's advocate, we all receive information (and probably some amount of disinformation) about the world via media channels, whether traditional ones like newspapers and TV news, stuff on the internet or whatever. Even if it's just people's opinions on Facebook or right here on Dissensus. So what do we mean by 'core convictions'?

In other words, it's easy to dismiss someone who thinks "Jeremy Corbyn was in the IRA" because they've got a distorted memory of something they read in the Sun that was already pretty biased and perhaps inaccurate. But each of us has a store of opinions and facts, or things we think are facts, that we've read or heard somewhere else. Perhaps these ideas are more accurate and complete for having been picked up from the Guardian or the New Statesman or New York Times or whatever than those garnered from the Sun - I'd certainly hope so, at least - but the basic principle is the same, isn't it?
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
I took convictions to mean something more than facts. More like principles eg "people all deserve the same rights" or "people should get what they earn and taking it away from them in the form of tax is evil" etc
 

john eden

male pale and stale
Worth pointing out wrt to climate change:

The BBC has improved massively in terms of "impartiality" on this issue and generally doesn't give space to deniers now "for balance". I assume as a result of scientists patiently explaining it all to them.

The Telegraph no longer denies that climate change is real, but it has a particular bee in its bonnet about Greta and ER's sense of urgency about it all. The "Extinction" bit of Extinction Rebellion.
 
Top