If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
It Was The Sun Wot Lost It
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
As Private Eye has been reporting throughout the last few months, the massive Tory lead in the polls began to evaporate almost simultaneously to the Scum coming out all guns blazing for the Tories a while back.
While this doesn't prove the Sun were to blame, it certainly seems to show that if newspapers had an decisive influence in voting tendencies in the past, they do not now.
For me the single most important aspect of the election has been that an extraordinarily aggresive campaign by the bulk of the best selling papers in the country (Sun, Mail, Telegraph and to a lesser degree, Times) have failed in their sometimes rather disturbing efforts to influence their readers, as the outcome they were all warning against in a most unpleasant fashion, the hung parliament, has come to be nonetheless.
Admittedly the Mirror produced just as pathetic prograpanda for Labour as the Scum did for the Tories, but the influence of this and the likes of the Guardian and Indie are far smaller than their right wing counterparts.
So raise a glass with me in toasting the failure of the tax avoiding, power-mad Murdoch, Rothermere and Barclay families in their efforts. May the perception that Rupert & co can decide the outcome of an electionwith the power of their press be erased from the minds of our politicians forever.
Fuck you, bastards
While this doesn't prove the Sun were to blame, it certainly seems to show that if newspapers had an decisive influence in voting tendencies in the past, they do not now.
For me the single most important aspect of the election has been that an extraordinarily aggresive campaign by the bulk of the best selling papers in the country (Sun, Mail, Telegraph and to a lesser degree, Times) have failed in their sometimes rather disturbing efforts to influence their readers, as the outcome they were all warning against in a most unpleasant fashion, the hung parliament, has come to be nonetheless.
Admittedly the Mirror produced just as pathetic prograpanda for Labour as the Scum did for the Tories, but the influence of this and the likes of the Guardian and Indie are far smaller than their right wing counterparts.
So raise a glass with me in toasting the failure of the tax avoiding, power-mad Murdoch, Rothermere and Barclay families in their efforts. May the perception that Rupert & co can decide the outcome of an electionwith the power of their press be erased from the minds of our politicians forever.
Fuck you, bastards
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Clicky
Campbell baits him, he falls for it but shows his lack of understanding of the electoral law in this type of instance, also his complete lack of understanding that Cameron doesn't have enough seats to automatically become PM...
But that won't happen, as the likes of Dominic Mohan and Paul Dacre seem to think their readers don't have brains of their own. Bastards.
As for that Adam Boulton/Alastair Campbell, I wish Boulton had done what I've wanted to do for years and thumped the cunt.
A few weeks ago I made the error of, for the first time ever, defend a Murdoch organ, namely Sky News. But on second thoughts, after seeing incidents like this and a couple involving that evil witch from hell Kay Burley, I retract my words. Sky News is little less biased than Murdoch's printed rag, the Sun, and every bit as pisspoor.
Lol, you don't say. I particularly enjoyed the Daily Mail's headline as they desperately tried to find something to attack Nick Clegg with after years of "Nick Who?" **snigger, snigger**.
Seeing how relatively poor the Lib Dems did, that's unlikely.
Regardless of one's political leanings, it is to be celebrated that disturbing individuals with agendas to push completely failed in their attempts to use their newspapers to influence the election.
Go fuck yourself, Rupert!
Onwards and upwards...
Don't think that encounter is going on a wavy contour line advert...
It really has not been a good couple of weeks for Murdoch the cunt.
The BBC is an organisation that takes public money, and has to attempt to produce impartial news and programmes as a consequence. That, I can understand, even if the Beeb does often fail in its objective to be impartial. But why exactly should broadcasters that take no public money whatsoever (such as ITN in its various guises, Sky News, Bloomberg etc...) have a duty to be impartial?
Newspapers are run by private companies that don't take public money, and they have no duty to be impartial. So why do private television companies that don't take public money have to be?
Just curious to know what everyone thinks.
But then, Sky did have a duty of being impartial during the televised debates. A great many people believe Sky was anything but impartial during it, with the fat tosser Boulton heckling and harrassing Clegg when should have not done so. No doubt his Australian-born American tax avoiding boss told him to do so.
Judge that as you may. For the rest of the interview, head over to Iain Dale's here.
"If you've just joined us, the entire eastern seaboard of the United States has been decimated by a terrorist attack!"
Well I think the impartiality issue was originally a result of having to issue broadcast licences. There was only so much space on the network, so obviously it can't be filled up with partisan bias masquerading as real news. However, I think the other issue is that this is a democracy, and I think a democracy relies on the population being somewhat well informed about issues. I don't really like the idea of British politics being dictated by rich people who don't even live in the country. With newspapers (and now the internet), it is obviously more difficult to impose this after a culture has built up around them. People know what to expect, but it's also the case that the most biased papers are more of a mix of news and entertainment. But in principle, it really is just the sort of regulation you expect in any industry. If it says news on the tin, you expect news in the tin, and I don't think that at least an attempt at impartiality is an unreasonable assumption from news.
I think this is one example where what on the face of it creates more freedom, in practice actually just puts more power in the hands of the wealthy, and actually does the opposite of empowering people.
I'm sticking with the Herald!
I have to say though that a great many newspapers have gone far more rabid and ludicrous than in past elections. As Nick Cohen recently put it in the Observer, the montage the Sun did using Cameron's portrait to create an Obama poster bordered on the insulting- as if the election of the 19th Old Etonian man to office was comparable to the election of the first African American President...
But far more despicable was the Daily Hatemail, which in the day of the election had pictures of rioting Greeks with a headline all but claiming that if the Tories didn't win an outright majority, it'd be fire and murder on the streets of Britain next.
As previously stated the Mirror went hysteric for Labour in the meantime.
Even though they don't have nearly as much influence as they think, I wish newspapers would stop telling their readers how to fucking vote. Not only is patronising, it undermines our democratic system and makes our politician dance to the tune of two or three familes who happen to own newspaper groups.