Stop Funding Hate

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Barky said:

 

And your point is?

We keep being told that educated people voted a certain way, as if that proves anything.

[los dedos]

1 hour ago, GaelicFox said:

Er ..... look your facts up 

 

The NRS estimates that the Daily Mail and Mail Online has some 23.5m UK readers over the course of a month. It puts the Daily Mirror in second place with 17.5m readers over the course of a month and the Daily Telegraph in third with 16.4m (neck and neck with The Guardian on 16.3m).

 

23 million dumb fecks 

 

Says it all really 

"23 million dumb fecks" Really Thats like saying 640,000 different people went to the King power last season.

[Barky]

6 minutes ago, Webbo said:

We keep being told that educated people voted a certain way, as if that proves anything.

It proves what it proves.

 

A lot of educated people are as thick as shit. A lot of uneducated people are very smart. But people who have been through further education tend to vote one way, that's what it proves. Whether that's because universities are full of liberal propaganda, or maybe because higher education teaches critical thinking, or something else, I haven't a clue.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Webbo said:

We keep being told that educated people voted a certain way, as if that proves anything.

It doesn't. One man, one vote, which is the way it should be.

 

However I would think that educated people are more likely to make voting decisions based on altruism than self interest (though not definite, there are many smart and educated people driven entirely by self interest) and younger people are more likely to vote based on future interest than older people who are more likely to vote based on what they make of their past. Again, not accurate all the time, but at least some. And I think that is reflected in the polls.

 

Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with the original topic of the thread, which is simply about businesses considering taking action as a response to legitimate public pressure that might affect their bottom line which, quite frankly, happens all the time.

[lgfualol]

If the Daily Mail goes out of business how will I get my daily "she might be 13 but she looks like a big girl in her bikini" pics while also raging that internet porn is turning our children into ISIS-loving, cancer-causing, Queen-hating, "leftie", Europeans coming to take OUR JOBS.

 

I hope more companies get behind this. Rupert Murdoch is a cock.

[GaelicFox]

32 minutes ago, los dedos said:

"23 million dumb fecks" Really Thats like saying 640,000 different people went to the King power last season.

No that stat isn't hits ,it's Individial UK ISPN hits over a month 

 

so once again your wrong  

[Bryn]

How can an organisation peacefully lobbying against an organisation they perceive to be harmful to society be anything other than democratic?

 

The Daily Mail and similar publications are appalling, telling lies and sowing hatred.

[ousefox]

27 minutes ago, Barky said:

It proves what it proves.

 

A lot of educated people are as thick as shit. A lot of uneducated people are very smart. But people who have been through further education tend to vote one way, that's what it proves. Whether that's because universities are full of liberal propaganda, or maybe because higher education teaches critical thinking, or something else, I haven't a clue.

Yeah I think that's a key point - a lack of critical thinking is something I've considered a lot and is noticeable on this thread and some of the stuff I see on twitter.

[Webbo]

I don't see how trying to put alternative opinions out of business is an example of critical thinking. It seems like trying to narrow the debate to me. This critical thinking phrase seems like the usual suspects saying if you don't agree with me you must be thick as usual.

 

If you think I'm wrong and we should only hear officially approved opinions, use your critical thinking to tell me why and don't just give me slogans and buzzwords.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I don't see how trying to put alternative opinions out of business is an example of critical thinking. It seems like trying to narrow the debate to me. This critical thinking phrase seems like the usual suspects saying if you don't agree with me you must be thick as usual.

 

If you think I'm wrong and we should only hear officially approved opinions, use your critical thinking to tell me why and don't just give me slogans and buzzwords.

In a free market businesses are always subject to public pressure and opinion, and they should be. If there is a market for such opinions that these newspapers give then they will survive in spite of the pressure against them. If you cater to the views of your customers, you succeed. If you don't, you don't stay in business for long.

 

This is nonviolent public pressure on a business in a supposedly free market in a way that has happened a million times in the past. It wasn't wrong then and it isn't wrong now.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I don't see how trying to put alternative opinions out of business is an example of critical thinking. It seems like trying to narrow the debate to me. This critical thinking phrase seems like the usual suspects saying if you don't agree with me you must be thick as usual.

 

If you think I'm wrong and we should only hear officially approved opinions, use your critical thinking to tell me why and don't just give me slogans and buzzwords.

 

Okay how about this for an example. It was later proved to be incorrect and clarified (in smaller print, on a page further back into another edition of the paper)

 

 

Do you think that could have been handled more responsibly? From what I understand this is what this campaign is trying to do. Not stop discussion of migration/schools/housing/healthcare which are concerns - but concerns where the anger should be directed at successive governments of all denominations that have failed to address these issues for generations. Not the people themselves.

 

Perhaps by printing the truth in the first place maybe under a headline of something about having an open and honest discussion about immigration (which is an issue, nobody is denying that) but there are ways of igniting a debate that don't generate fear, mistrust and division among communities.

 

That's just my opinion anyway, I don't imagine anybody genuinely wants 'approved opinons' just measured and considered coverage for the power that these media outlets hold.

 

 

[sphericalfox]

10 minutes ago, Emilio Lestavez said:

 

Okay how about this for an example. It was later proved to be incorrect and clarified (in smaller print, on a page further back into another edition of the paper)

 

 

Do you think that could have been handled more responsibly? From what I understand this is what this campaign is trying to do. Not stop discussion of migration/schools/housing/healthcare which are concerns - but concerns where the anger should be directed at successive governments of all denominations that have failed to address these issues for generations. Not the people themselves.

 

Perhaps by printing the truth in the first place maybe under a headline of something about having an open and honest discussion about immigration (which is an issue, nobody is denying that) but there are ways of igniting a debate that don't generate fear, mistrust and division among communities.

 

That's just my opinion anyway, I don't imagine anybody genuinely wants 'approved opinons' just measured and considered coverage for the power that these media outlets hold.

 

 

Sounds like you got your further education in North Lincolnshire...

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, sphericalfox said:

Sounds like you got your further education in North Lincolnshire...

I'm sadly a lot older than 23 though, and definitely not over-privileged

[sphericalfox]

19 minutes ago, Emilio Lestavez said:

I'm sadly a lot older than 23 though, and definitely not over-privileged

Bet you don't even have a  mortgage! Bloody tenant! Your opinion (and evidence) is invalid!

[Jimothy]

10 minutes ago, sphericalfox said:

Bet you don't even have a  mortgage! Bloody tenant! Your opinion (and evidence) is invalid!

Bet he's not got any kids either. He wouldn't have a clue how to, say run the country, if he's had no kids.

[MC Prussian]

17 hours ago, Webbo said:

Newspapers are increasingly irrelevant, sales are on the decline, without advertising they will go out of business so to try to stop advertising you are trying to put them out of business. If these people were trying to stop the Mirror too you could argue they were trying to stop tabloid excesses but they're not. It's blatantly obvious what they're trying to do. How  anyone can pretend differently is beyond me.

It's the chicken-or-egg question with newspapers, Webbo.

 

Are they the victim or the culprit when it comes to publishing news? From what I gather, many newsrooms of established papers see their print numbers dwindle because they underestimated the impact of digitalisation or reacted too late. Journalism has been left in a conscious state of slumber for too long and the printing houses are sort of paying for that ignorance now. I don't agree with their general reaction, though. As a consequence, they lay off good/established journalists and sacrifice quality for scandalous headlines and gutter press articles.

 

If at all, they should've strengthened quality journalism. Instead, they follow the neo-liberal credo like many other businesses and promote shareholder thinking, neglecting public interest and in-depth information. Proper journalism is damn hard to make a living of, so many writers give in and report on absolutely irrelevant topics or even go to great lengths to make them up.

[Webbo]

1 hour ago, Emilio Lestavez said:

 

Okay how about this for an example. It was later proved to be incorrect and clarified (in smaller print, on a page further back into another edition of the paper)

 

 

Do you think that could have been handled more responsibly? From what I understand this is what this campaign is trying to do. Not stop discussion of migration/schools/housing/healthcare which are concerns - but concerns where the anger should be directed at successive governments of all denominations that have failed to address these issues for generations. Not the people themselves.

 

Perhaps by printing the truth in the first place maybe under a headline of something about having an open and honest discussion about immigration (which is an issue, nobody is denying that) but there are ways of igniting a debate that don't generate fear, mistrust and division among communities.

 

That's just my opinion anyway, I don't imagine anybody genuinely wants 'approved opinons' just measured and considered coverage for the power that these media outlets hold.

 

 

How would you have handled it. What would your headline have been?

 

Btw people who have to uni have a right to an opinion same as everybody else, the point is going to uni doesn't make your opinion more worthy than anyone else.

[theessexfox]

2 hours ago, Webbo said:

I don't see how trying to put alternative opinions out of business is an example of critical thinking. It seems like trying to narrow the debate to me. This critical thinking phrase seems like the usual suspects saying if you don't agree with me you must be thick as usual.

 

If you think I'm wrong and we should only hear officially approved opinions, use your critical thinking to tell me why and don't just give me slogans and buzzwords.

If these papers are going to go out of business because Lego pull out of an advertising deal then perhaps they should be more concerned about how they're making money and appealing to their customer base, both in print and online. Lego has no obligation to advertise in the paper and if the association with the Mail is putting pressure on their own business, why shouldn't they pull out? 

[ealingfox]

The Sun and the DM is one thing, but even putting politics aside, surely we can all agree that the Express is absolute dogshit? I have no idea how they stay in business, I don't think I've ever seen anyone buying it and the quality is just laughable.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, theessexfox said:

If these papers are going to go out of business because Lego pull out of an advertising deal then perhaps they should be more concerned about how they're making money and appealing to their customer base, both in print and online. Lego has no obligation to advertise in the paper and if the association with the Mail is putting pressure on their own business, why shouldn't they pull out? 

There are groups putting pressure on supermarkets to stop placing advertising with certain papers. If anyone wants to place advertising or not with any media outlet that's their business. It's not up to any pressure group to decide which newspapers should survive or not. It's iliberal and anti democratic.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, ealingfox said:

The Sun and the DM is one thing, but even putting politics aside, surely we can all agree that the Express is absolute dogshit? I have no idea how they stay in business, I don't think I've ever seen anyone buying it and the quality is just laughable.

Include the Star in that as well. Awful papers, but they have a right to exist.

[theessexfox]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

There are groups putting pressure on supermarkets to stop placing advertising with certain papers. If anyone wants to place advertising or not with any media outlet that's their business. It's not up to any pressure group to decide which newspapers should survive or not. It's iliberal and anti democratic.

I'd argue the hallmark of a healthy, pluralist democracy is a pressure group lobbying a company in this way. The pressure group isn't deciding anything, but if the supermarkets want to continue their partnership with the newspaper then it may harm their own business. What sort of democracy do you want to live in, where companies can't be lobbied about different aspects of their business? I think your version of illiberal and anti-democratic differs to mine.

[The Blur]

I like many others are not too keen on the quality and the sensationalism of modern newspapers nowdays but I feel campaigners are going wrong way about it.  I would have preferred to support a campaign to establish something that newspapers are accountable such as heavier fines or any other severe penalties if they have been found to made something up to rather to put pressure on advertisers to withdraw.  I just worry this could lead to more censorship if this campaign succeeds.  

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, Webbo said:

There are groups putting pressure on supermarkets to stop placing advertising with certain papers. If anyone wants to place advertising or not with any media outlet that's their business. It's not up to any pressure group to decide which newspapers should survive or not. It's iliberal and anti democratic.

 

Answer....

 

4 minutes ago, theessexfox said:

I'd argue the hallmark of a healthy, pluralist democracy is a pressure group lobbying a company in this way. The pressure group isn't deciding anything, but if the supermarkets want to continue their partnership with the newspaper then it may harm their own business. What sort of democracy do you want to live in, where companies can't be lobbied about different aspects of their business? I think your version of illiberal and anti-democratic differs to mine.

 

This.

 

Free market. Open to public opinion.

 

Is this situation somehow different from the manifold other times companies have had to think about their bottom line because of public opinion?

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Webbo said:

How would you have handled it. What would your headline have been?

 

Btw people who have to uni have a right to an opinion same as everybody else, the point is going to uni doesn't make your opinion more worthy than anyone else.

You're the one who seems to be self conscious or paranoid about education levels here Webbo trying to imply people with further education don't understand things . i personally couldn't give a toss what yours or anybody elses educational level is. I have my opinion based upon my experience and that's all it is.

 

I've also never said it's worth more or less than anyone else it's just an opinion. You've  voiced yours, I've voiced mine. Both valid no?

 

As for the headline, I'm not an editor so don't have that experience but in my opinion that image and that text does nothing but stoke fear of immigration.