Stop Funding Hate

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, Webbo said:

It's not public opinion though. If the public were against these papers they'd be out of business already. It's a small pressure group trying to enforce it's narrow world view on the rest of us.

What Emilio said above. These people are part of the public, ergo public opinion.

 

10 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Yes of course it is. You keep saying companies are free to choose where to advertise, which of course they are, but the point is you are pressuring them not to fund the newspapers because you don't like what the newspapers say, your agenda is to stop the newspaper from saying what it's been saying. What else could your agenda be but to prevent the newspaper from exercising its freedom of speech?

I believe that I said the newspapers are free to write and publish in public what they like a good dozen times on this thread alone. If you're unwilling to believe that, then I have neither the time or the inclination to attempt to convince you further.

 

There are other revenue streams and other companies, other sources of advertising money the newspapers can use to keep going, and it's up to them to find and utilise them, as I'm sure they shall. If we are in a free market and people enjoy reading their opinions, then they will keep going - and again, I'm sure they shall. It's not like there is a dearth of people who share and enjoy the opinions they put forward.

[Benguin]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

What Emilio said above. These people are part of the public, ergo public opinion.

 

I believe that I said the newspapers are free to write and publish in public what they like a good dozen times on this thread alone. If you're unwilling to believe that, then I have neither the time or the inclination to attempt to convince you further.

 

There are other revenue streams and other companies, other sources of advertising money the newspapers can use to keep going, and it's up to them to find and utilise them, as I'm sure they shall. If we are in a free market and people enjoy reading their opinions, then they will keep going - and again, I'm sure they shall. It's not like they're is a dearth of people who share and enjoy the opinions they put forward.

So what is your agenda?

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Benguin said:

So what is your agenda?

Personally? I have none, not on this one. I've not been doing any tweeting or lobbying the papers myself.

 

Again, as I've mentioned before I approve because I think it's the action of a free market rather than anything else. I have zero socially ideological horse in this particular race, it's a purely economic, market based argument.

[GazzinderFox]

30 minutes ago, sphericalfox said:

What about scientific papers/ lobbying papers sponsored by corporations that dictate policy or the laws of the country that directly impact your pocket, health, or well-being?

 

So you agree with the contention that commercial entities influencing editorials is bad?

[sphericalfox]

Just now, GazzinderFox said:

So you agree with the contention that commercial entities influencing editorials is bad?

They aren't editorials. I was giving you examples of corporations influencing policy and law, not news. It's difficult to influence the news media as they are owned and run by wealthy individuals, as already indicated who have deep pockets, and aren't too concerned by them stamping their feet. They just find a new corporation looking to fill their advertising space.

[Benguin]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Personally? I have none, not on this one. I've not been doing any tweeting or lobbying the papers myself.

 

Again, as I've mentioned before I approve because I think it's the action of a free market rather than anything else. I have zero socially ideological horse in this particular race, it's a purely economic, market based argument.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, you're saying that lobbying companies to stop advertising in a paper is the action of a free market when in actuality the said paper owns a huge market share and the said consumers behind the campaign are a minority where public opinion is concerned therefore the 'action of a free market makes no sense and the people behind the campaign do not have the first clue about a free markets, they're merely lefties that believe people are becoming more hateful due to what these papers say.  

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Benguin said:

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, you're saying that lobbying companies to stop advertising in a paper is the action of a free market when in actuality the said paper owns a huge market share and the said consumers behind the campaign are a minority where public opinion is concerned therefore the 'action of a free market makes no sense and the people behind the campaign do not have the first clue about a free markets, they're merely lefties that believe people are becoming more hateful due to what these papers say.  

The actions of a minority have shaped business opinion and practice many times in the past. We're all of those outside what you would call the free market too? Public opinion is public opinion, sometimes numbers don't matter much.

 

As for the intent of the people behind the campaign... if they really want to stop these newspapers from publishing, it's not going to happen, so that intent is of little consequence as far as I'm concerned. They may well get a few companies to stop advertising in those papers (again, entirely up to the companies), but the effect on revenue for the papers themselves will be minimal. They'll find other ways to make dough - again, as they always have. That's what most businesses do, after all.

[Benguin]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

The actions of a minority have shaped business opinion and practice many times in the past. We're all of those outside what you would call the free market too? Public opinion is public opinion, sometimes numbers don't matter much.

 

As for the intent of the people behind the campaign... if they really want to stop these newspapers from publishing, it's not going to happen, so that intent is of little consequence as far as I'm concerned. They may well get a few companies to stop advertising in those papers (again, entirely up to the companies), but the effect on revenue for the papers themselves will be minimal. They'll find other ways to make dough - again, as they always have. That's what most businesses do, after all.

I don't really understand what you are doing in this thread then, the moot point I've been putting across is that these kind of campaigns are the route cause of Trump getting in, Brexit and a Tory majority government, not whether or not this campaign is an action of a free market.

[leicsmac]

Just now, Benguin said:

I don't really understand what you are doing in this thread then, the moot point I've been putting across is that these kind of campaigns are the route cause of Trump getting in, Brexit and a Tory majority government, not whether or not this campaign is an action of a free market.

Sorry, perhaps I should have been clearer then.

 

People are saying that this is awful, an attack on free speech etc etc etc. I contend that it is not (for reasons I've stated) and that it's a perfectly reasonable action to take within a free market. My response was to them.

 

If people think of it the same as you and others and consider that to be the reason why we're having a right wing resurgence right now, that's fine. If anything has become clear recently, what people think is much, much more important than what is. If enough people believe, rightly or wrongly, that they are under threat from something, then they'll act. Whether it's true or not is irrelevant - it just matters what they believe.

[Benguin]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Sorry, perhaps I should have been clearer then.

 

People are saying that this is awful, an attack on free speech etc etc etc. I contend that it is not (for reasons I've stated) and that it's a perfectly reasonable action to take within a free market. My response was to them.

 

If people think of it the same as you and others and consider that to be the reason why we're having a right wing resurgence right now, that's fine. If anything has become clear recently, what people think is much, much more important than what is. If enough people believe, rightly or wrongly, that they are under threat from something, then they'll act. Whether it's true or not is irrelevant - it just matters what they believe.

No I should point out I absolutely think people behind the campaign are promoting censorship and ultimately infringing on freedom of speech.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Benguin said:

No I should point out I absolutely think people behind the campaign are promoting censorship and ultimately infringing on freedom of speech.

 

Fair enough. If that's the case, then I guess it's up to you and those who think that way to lobby the companies involved appropriately as well, I guess.

[GazzinderFox]

1 hour ago, sphericalfox said:

They aren't editorials. I was giving you examples of corporations influencing policy and law, not news. It's difficult to influence the news media as they are owned and run by wealthy individuals, as already indicated who have deep pockets, and aren't too concerned by them stamping their feet. They just find a new corporation looking to fill their advertising space.

I admire your staunch efforts to avoid answering the question.

 

Whether it is difficult or not to force the issue I can only assume you agree with the contention that we don't want to go down the route that commercial sponsors are able to lean on the editors of news outlets because that would be a bad thing.

 

Thank you.

[Finnaldo]

I'm going to give this one more go because it's obviously getting stale and repetitive on both sides.

 

This campaign is to stop the DM and the Sun spreading hate. 'Hate' isn't in my mind saying that you believe there's some fundamentally wrong with Islam or that free immigration is damaging to Britain. That's a fair opinion and vital in free, secular journalism. 'Hate' is hammering a very narrow and unbalanced view across repeatedly. Repeating facts that feed a prejudice, which isn't necessarily wrong in itself, but then purposely avoid inserting any opposing view or counter-argument. What the Daily Mail and Sun does very well is FACTS. Bullet points, lists, they build a argument aimed to be so convincing their readership feels there could be no alternative and that Muslims are inherently evil and that immigration is a ticking time bomb. No other view is tolerated.

 

That in itself is piss poor journalism and it's malicious. You could argue that putting such a bias viewpoint is akin to lying in journalism. There comes a point where it stops existing as a news article and instead a piece of propaganda. Don't think I'm just targeting this at right-wing papers, the Guardian can be just as bad. In fact the vast majority of the press become so during important events like Brexit or elections, I'd argue that Trump was a victim as this at times (but arguably he very much encouraged it at some points). 

 

The Mail and Sun however are perpetually in this mindset. And in my mind, they shouldn't be shut down, they should simply add some balance so the topic can be seen objectively rather than a one way street. Better put the agenda doesn't have to change, the attitude does. Keep the loony screaming in the column section like the Guardian does. The Mail could be a good opposing view to the Guardian that I'd happily read for objectivity's sake, I'd still probably avoid the Sun to be honest.

 

 

 

[Nick]

Papers can print what they like but stay afloat doing so by people wanting to read what they write.

 

Companies unhappy with what they write and the how they represent things that they write about shouldn't give them their money.

 

Thats not censorship that's simple business. It's protecting your brand.

 

Certain companies heavily advertise in print that promotes their company values and operating methods. They advertise less so in those that do not.

 

If Lego have decided that they have differing values to those represented in the mail and they say they are no longer going to advertise with them then good for them to be fair it's not censorship it's supply and demand - something newspapers like the mail know all about.

 

I can't believe some of the stuff on here because a business takes an ethical decision based on how it spends its money. 

 

And in other news, women's rights organisation 'Femme-lib' has ceased to advertise in "Tits-Out Magazine" 

[sphericalfox]

1 hour ago, GazzinderFox said:

I admire your staunch efforts to avoid answering the question.

 

Whether it is difficult or not to force the issue I can only assume you agree with the contention that we don't want to go down the route that commercial sponsors are able to lean on the editors of news outlets because that would be a bad thing.

 

Thank you.

 

I've avoided nothing. It's hypothetical question, that's pointless one. Corporations have no direct influence on editorials in media, that I'm aware of at least. I'm sure there exists some hand-in-hand co-ordination under the radar for when EXXChell Oil company spills the motherload over the Great Barrier Reef, and you do your damned best to get your editor buddies or wealthy owners to help you limit the public relations disaster ahead of you, by perhaps going easy on you. But that's me being cynical, I'm sure that would never happen.

 

However, to be specific these corporate entities you are referring to are advertising revenue streams, not multi-nationals trying to get in or stay out of the news. Therefore in my opinion they have very little sway, and I'll repeat my previous answer to your question, as the owners won't feel any financial impact, as they'll sow up another deal with the next in line, so they won't be changing their tune any day soon. 

[Livid]

I know the underlying objective of this is to pressure the Mail, Express etc into some kind of revelation where they see the error of their ways etc. Never going to happen. The Mail is the paper that was buddies with Hitler 8 decades ago, if that didn't change their tune nothing will.

 

I don't however have a problem with putting pressure on some of these companies who with their BS corporate mission statements and ethical trading policies pumping out the peace, love and understanding to all men every Christmas whilst throwing their advertising spend in papers which promote the exact opposite message.

[Webbo]

Lego were quite happy to give away toys through the Mail the other week. Perhaps they were unaware it was a right wing paper. Now thanks to the actions of a bunch of busy bodies who would never buy and have probably never read the DM , kids can't have a free toy. I'm sure the 99% of people who couldn't give a fvck what the Mail print are really glad that these sanctimonious w@nkers have had a little victory.

[sphericalfox]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Lego were quite happy to give away toys through the Mail the other week. Perhaps they were unaware it was a right wing paper. Now thanks to the actions of a bunch of busy bodies who would never buy and have probably never read the DM , kids can't have a free toy. I'm sure the 99% of people who couldn't give a fvck what the Mail print are really glad that these sanctimonious w@nkers have had a little victory.

Let's think of the kids eh Webbo... just as long as they're not brown...

[Webbo]

Just now, sphericalfox said:

Let's think of the kids eh Webbo... just as long as their not brown...

Oh dear.

[sphericalfox]

Just now, Webbo said:

Oh dear.

or in a lorry/dinghy etc. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Lego were quite happy to give away toys through the Mail the other week. Perhaps they were unaware it was a right wing paper. Now thanks to the actions of a bunch of busy bodies who would never buy and have probably never read the DM , kids can't have a free toy. I'm sure the 99% of people who couldn't give a fvck what the Mail print are really glad that these sanctimonious w@nkers have had a little victory.

Trying to make people feel sorry for Mail readers . 

 

Foxestalk has jumped the shark . 

[sphericalfox]

2 minutes ago, Emilio Lestavez said:

Trying to make people feel sorry for Mail readers . 

 

Foxestalk has jumped the shark . 

Emilio your just a wrong un'. Think of the DM readers with not a penny to rub together who relied on that free Lego to put something under the Xmas tree this year. Dark days indeed.

[Benguin]

The argument I'm seeing is "I'm far to clever to fall for the trap of right wing media but unfortunately the right wing are really poorly educated and are incapable of reading something impartially so I need to stop the meanie papers before they turn everyone into angry hateful people."

 

 

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, Emilio Lestavez said:

Trying to make people feel sorry for Mail readers . 

 

Foxestalk has jumped the shark . 

How petty, to stop kids having a free toy. What kind of hate filled willy puller would do that?Meanwhile Trump wins the presidency, we're leaving the EU and Labour continue to slide down the polls, Still, little victories eh, they must be so proud.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Webbo said:

How petty, to stop kids having a free toy. What kind of hate filled willy puller would do that?Meanwhile Trump wins the presidency, we're leaving the EU and Labour continue to slide down the polls, Still, little victories eh, they must be so proud.

You think the intention of the campaign is to stop the kids having free toys? Perhaps you should apply to write headlines for the Mail Webbo.