Current Affairs GB News

[Tubey]

How is that different from calling for a boycott though? Neil et al. are as likely to complain about “bullying” or say “the liberal elites are laughing at you” as they are go on about wokes cancelling them.

Because you're not aiming to fight the converted. You aren't going to convince the tinfoil hat wearers who already want to listen to this stuff to turn away from it. The aim instead should be to stop more falling into the trap of thinking such a thing is a reasonable viewpoint.

Sociologically speaking, it's called normalisation. 'Cancel culture' makes them sympathetic to a wider audience and therefore drags more into 'the net'. Simply arguing and logically highlighting their inconsistencies/insanity through what they actually say or do is much more preferable as it can't be leveraged.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Not seen anything so unprofessional for a long time to be honest. Come on really? Is this a real channel? Its so bad it is unwatchable, it's a parody of drop the dead donkey, surely? And all that is missing is Mr Motivator Green goddess type segment to teach the audience how to goose-step and hell march...

 

[brigadier]

Had a quick look yesterday apparently I should be outraged that someone can't invite 400 people to their wedding and have to make do with 200 , what a bunch of clowns.

 

[trueblue84]

Won't watch it but I reckon I can guess the underlying themes...

"We're fighting back against woke culture... That's why we want to protect statues of slaver owners"...

"We believe in the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman... That's why we're against black people voting"...

"We believe Britain is better out of Europe... That's why we think police should have more stop and search powers over black people"...

Something like that?

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Won't watch it but I reckon I can guess the underlying themes...

"We're fighting back against woke culture... That's why we want to protect statues of slaver owners"...

"We believe in the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman... That's why we're against black people voting"...

"We believe Britain is better out of Europe... That's why we think police should have more stop and search powers over black people"...

Something like that?

Know your enemy the art of war. Watchable as RT when Putin blew raspberries at us when he spilt some novachuk on our sovereign soil...

 

[dead_soft]

Because you're not aiming to fight the converted. You aren't going to convince the tinfoil hat wearers who already want to listen to this stuff to turn away from it. The aim instead should be to stop more falling into the trap of thinking such a thing is a reasonable viewpoint.

Sociologically speaking, it's called normalisation. 'Cancel culture' makes them sympathetic to a wider audience and therefore drags more into 'the net'. Simply arguing and logically highlighting their inconsistencies/insanity through what they actually say or do is much more preferable as it can't be leveraged.

You realise the main reason for getting advertisers to boycott is to try and cut off their funding don't you?

What are you referring to when you say 'normalisation'? Are you referring to cancel culture normalising far-right theories? Or are you saying arguing against their inconsistencies normalises (not sure what exactly you're describing) the arguments being absurd?

 

[Number_25]

It's going to fail, I'm certain of it.

I'm not saying that there's no market for markedly politicised news outlets, it's just they don't really translate well to traditional forms of media consumption.

 

[Tubey]

You realise the main reason for getting advertisers to boycott is to try and cut off their funding don't you?

What are you referring to when you say 'normalisation'? Are you referring to cancel culture normalising far-right theories? Or are you saying arguing against their inconsistencies normalises (not sure what exactly you're describing) the arguments being absurd?

Yes I understand what they're trying to do, the problem is it causes more harm than good. They lose a bit of money, oh well, other advertisers fill the void, meanwhile they get free massive PR while being largely funded by interest groups anyway. The only way that works is if you're totally, 100% successful in making their argument so toxic that it is impossible for a brand to advertise with them, which would require them to be basically Britain First/National Front levels of obvious in their extremity. Otherwise, it's just paper cuts.

And yes, cancel culture normalises that which it targets by making the subject sympathetic. The fight in politics is always about winning the argument with the majority, not converting 100% of people to your own ideologically pure cause. The 'fight' should be for ideological momentum, to get people more interested in your cause than that of the opposition.

To detail it:

1. People try and 'cancel' GB News.
2. They get advertisers to pull out.
3. GB News leverage it to validate their position, gains more publicity.
4. The layperson views situation and is more sympathetic to GB News because of the stupidity of the actions against them.
5. Comparatively, the viewpoints/position of GB News is now more normalised as 'reasonable'.

 

[Tubey]

It's going to fail, I'm certain of it.

I'm not saying that there's no market for markedly politicised news outlets, it's just they don't really translate well to traditional forms of media consumption.

There's a chance of it for sure - the idea is more suited to 'shock jock' radio stations. Even Fox News has to somewhat temper their strategy when compared to conservative radio in the US, which is truly a free for all.

GB News is essentially TalkRadio on TV. There's a difference between hearing Wootton spout his nonsense and seeing his stupid face as he's doing it.

 

[coollino]

Is GB news in HD?

 

[tsubaki]

Because you're not aiming to fight the converted. You aren't going to convince the tinfoil hat wearers who already want to listen to this stuff to turn away from it. The aim instead should be to stop more falling into the trap of thinking such a thing is a reasonable viewpoint.

Sociologically speaking, it's called normalisation. 'Cancel culture' makes them sympathetic to a wider audience and therefore drags more into 'the net'. Simply arguing and logically highlighting their inconsistencies/insanity through what they actually say or do is much more preferable as it can't be leveraged.

Surely though they’d try to do that with any criticism?

I mean it’s not that long ago that “cancel culture” didn’t exist, nor did “woke”, and it’s certainly the case that there was zero clamour from the public for anything to be done about either. The media invented all that, deliberately because it was easier to fight against than people calling for equality was.

Nor is ridicule and holding them to account going to do much - look at Neil for example, whose had a prominent and lucrative career as a hack despite what he allowed to happen to Vanunu and being one of Private Eye’s favourite memes. Money is the only thing these people understand.

 

[Tubey]

Surely though they’d try to do that with any criticism?

I mean it’s not that long ago that “cancel culture” didn’t exist, nor did “woke”, and it’s certainly the case that there was zero clamour from the public for anything to be done about either. The media invented all that, deliberately because it was easier to fight against than people calling for equality was.

Nor is ridicule and holding them to account going to do much - look at Neil for example, whose had a prominent and lucrative career as a hack despite what he allowed to happen to Vanunu and being one of Private Eye’s favourite memes. Money is the only thing these people understand.

You said the other month that they don't care about money, that media is a loss leader for political views.

The truth is in the middle. They care about money, but short term monetary loss is worth the long term gain from influence, which in turn leads to more money.

The gains the right in this country make from the left being seen as repetitive crybaby moaners is immense. GB News facilitates that; it exists to do two things - wind up the left, pander to the right, in that order.

You have to distinguish between 'what works' and 'what works 100% effectively' - nothing is going to completely make people like this go away entirely, but you can marginalise them and make them look foolish to the layperson. It's not done overnight. Sure, the likes of GB News will try and leverage any and every criticism as 'woke nonsense', but that defence isn't watertight - people will see through it if it's crystal clear they're speaking nonsense. Whereas with 'cancel culture', it's so easy to dismiss and leverage as 'woke nonsense' that it is completely, totally counter-productive, demonstrably so.

The right are simply much better and much more well equipped to play the long game politically. The left, whilst fighting harder in recent years, have not fought smarter, and the right has leveraged what they do.

 

[tsubaki]

You said the other month that they don't care about money, that media is a loss leader for political views.

The truth is in the middle. They care about money, but short term monetary loss is worth the long term gain from influence, which in turn leads to more money.

The gains the right in this country make from the left being seen as repetitive crybaby moaners is immense. GB News facilitates that; it exists to do two things - wind up the left, pander to the right, in that order.

You have to distinguish between 'what works' and 'what works 100% effectively' - nothing is going to completely make people like this go away entirely, but you can marginalise them and make them look foolish to the layperson. It's not done overnight. Sure, the likes of GB News will try and leverage any and every criticism as 'woke nonsense', but that defence isn't watertight - people will see through it if it's crystal clear they're speaking nonsense. Whereas with 'cancel culture', it's so easy to dismiss and leverage as 'woke nonsense' that it is completely, totally counter-productive, demonstrably so.

The right are simply much better and much more well equipped to play the long game politically. The left, whilst fighting harder in recent years, have not fought smarter, and the right has leveraged what they do.

This is just daft though - you are pretending it’s possible to win this game by being smarter, as if the system isn’t heavily weighted against everybody who isn’t the right (or more precisely the section of the right that is in charge).

I mean, what constitutes “smarter” anyway? Writing critiques of both BLM and GB News? Saying fascism is bad but we need to respect that people should have the right to wear political uniform?

 

[dead_soft]

Yes I understand what they're trying to do, the problem is it causes more harm than good. They lose a bit of money, oh well, other advertisers fill the void, meanwhile they get free massive PR while being largely funded by interest groups anyway. The only way that works is if you're totally, 100% successful in making their argument so toxic that it is impossible for a brand to advertise with them, which would require them to be basically Britain First/National Front levels of obvious in their extremity. Otherwise, it's just paper cuts.

And yes, cancel culture normalises that which it targets by making the subject sympathetic. The fight in politics is always about winning the argument with the majority, not converting 100% of people to your own ideologically pure cause. The 'fight' should be for ideological momentum, to get people more interested in your cause than that of the opposition.

To detail it:

1. People try and 'cancel' GB News.
2. They get advertisers to pull out.
3. GB News leverage it to validate their position, gains more publicity.
4. The layperson views situation and is more sympathetic to GB News because of the stupidity of the actions against them.
5. Comparatively, the viewpoints/position of GB News is now more normalised as 'reasonable'.

Yes, this was very noticeable with BDS, Anti-Apartheid Movement, Soda Stream, NRA boycott, all validating the positions they are against.

These were all campaigns that have either gone or are going against much bigger, more established, well-liked brands or campaigns. It does not only work if you are 100% successful. You think that that is what sounds logical on a surface level but it really isn't. But you're not even arguing that they don't work, you're arguing that they are completely counter to it again I can sort of see why you think this is the case but I haven't seen much evidence that a boycott like this will validate and normalise them.

You said 'to detail it' and then left a whole heap of steps out.
If 1 is successful it leads to 2 (though language used by you is deliberately chosen to skew the initial statement). It des not, a priori, lead to 3, which does not lead to 4. 4 may potentially be argued to lead to 5.

You cannot just fill in the blanks with the idea that is common sense, they are huge leaps of logic.

 

[Tubey]

This is just daft though - you are pretending it’s possible to win this game by being smarter, as if the system isn’t heavily weighted against everybody who isn’t the right (or more precisely the section of the right that is in charge).

I mean, what constitutes “smarter” anyway? Writing critiques of both BLM and GB News? Saying fascism is bad but we need to respect that people should have the right to wear political uniform?

What part is daft? Simply moaning about everything being 'rigged' isn't doing anything about it. You're essentially saying 'we can't win so sod it'.

Again it comes down to thinking short term. I'm talking long term - it isn't possible to win immediately, but it's possible to at least get on the field and compete.

The aim of the left should be to start throwing darts at the middle of the dartboard and hit something, rather than aim for treble 20 and hit nothing, because they're crap at darts.