Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The election where the newspapers lost their monopoly on the the political news agenda

It is quite satisfying, after the still reverberating humiliation of the News of the World phone hacking scandal and the subsequent closure of that putrid rag, that we may be seeing the decline and fall of The Sun itself during Murdoch's lifetime.
 
Did they ever have that monopoly though? That's the real question.

30% of Sun readers voted Labour according to some stats I saw. But is that because the Sun "lost it" or something deeper?

It is however refreshing to see some decent stuff coming out of social media, at the moment.
 
It's good to see that Corbyn and Labour defied the media onslaught, but with the Tories still above 40% after the last couple of weeks, I think the decline of their influence still has a long way to go. Social media can fill the void in a positive way, but only if people work together to make sure that it doesn't' become a breeding ground for the right-wing to spread their poison.

This is already happening to an extent, of course.

Still, anything that disappoints Murdoch and edges his ticker closer to implosion is welcome news to me.
 
Did they ever have that monopoly though? That's the real question.

It's hard to say but where I think it clearly did have an effect is that recent Labour leaders have been absolutely terrified of them. That came across very strongly in both the policies and the general demeanour of someone like Miliband and that definitely did have an effect. Corbyn has stuck to his guns regardless and people voted for him - whether that could have happened pre-social media is the question I'd say.
 
Social media will have a greater impact as the years pass and each new voting generation comes through. This will happen quicker though if the yoof decide to actually vote more.
 
Agree with others that it's hard to say how much influence the print media used to have. The fact that there was such an enormous difference in voting between old and young lends some support to the idea that it did have an influence, if the correct interpretation of that new voting pattern is that the print media still does have some effect among older people, but that this influence has waned enormously among the under 25s.
 
The effect was even more pronounced in the US - only 2 of the 100 biggest newspapers endorsed Trump.

A good case to show the risks of social media really. It's easy to see the good in The Sun or Mail losing their influence but as the US shows the commentators and the mindset can both move on into different mediums. Plus things like the AltRight can emerge to saturate online discussion. I get the feeling it'll happen here too, especially if the norm for social media promoted and online journalism is set at Breitbart or The Canary.
 
It's interesting to see how persistent the mainstream media have been with stories warning of online 'echo chambers'

1) Vested interest much?
2) Like that's not been the case for subscribers or regular readers of a specific rag (of any hue)
 
Last edited:
A good case to show the risks of social media really. It's easy to see the good in The Sun or Mail losing their influence but as the US shows the commentators and the mindset can both move on into different mediums. Plus things like the AltRight can emerge to saturate online discussion. I get the feeling it'll happen here too, especially if the norm for social media promoted and online journalism is set at Breitbart or The Canary.
Even in the case of Trump, I'm not so sure how much influence these places had. Marginal, at best, I'd have thought. The majority voted like they always had done, a majority still didn't vote for Trump, and the places where he seems to have made crucial gains, such as in the rust belt, were often among a demographic that isn't massively into social media.

In the case of something like Breitbart, I would think that you would largely need to be already sold on a lot of their nonsense to seek them out in the first place.

Also, even negative coverage of a candidate in an election can be positive for them. Newspaper says 'Trump is a loon who is against Muslims'. Reader thinks 'I didn't know that, I like'. That might have happened a little in the UK - the negative coverage of Corbyn may have helped to put across his message.
 
There was piece on Newsnight last night about the supposed decline of their power, particularly the Sun and Mail, but mentioning the Telegraph and Mirror too. It was ironically reported by Amol Rajan, the final editor of the printed Indie.
 
Not so sure they had the power in the first place. Wasn't it Major's election the Sun claimed the credit for? More like they backed the winner, as even with that one it was fairly certain.

The level of political disconnect of readers of these papers is neatly summed up by a bloke I see waiting for a lift at a bus stop each morning when I walk the dog; he's enjoying a fag and a Costa coffee and reading the back pages of the Sun. I'm not a big football fan, but if you care enough about the game to avidly read the back pages first thing, surely that shit-rag would be the very last one you'd ever buy? But 'nuff footie fans do buy it.
 
I'm fairly sure- growing up among many tabloid readers- that people read that stuff to park the brain. Like Woman's own, Eastenders, tuning in to find the results of The Jeremy Kyle Lie Detector. Not because of it's informed political content. Next you'll be telling me most people think Emmerdale is a documentary. "Don't know why I keep buying this, lot o shite"
 
I feel that social media has 'come of age' and this election to a degree is proof of that. People are able to share information like they never have before and now my main concern is that the powers that be have realised this. An example of this imo is May's strident calls to heavily regulate the net in the wake of the Manchester an London terrorist attacks to 'stop radicalisation'. This was complete bollocks and being used as an excuse to regulate what we are able read and share not because of terrorism but rather the've woken up to the threat of shared information and networking that the net poses; subsequently the traditional channels of opinion forming/control are no longer as efficacious as they once were.
 
I feel that social media has 'come of age' and this election to a degree is proof of that. People are able to share information like they never have before and now my main concern is that the powers that be have realised this. An example of this imo is May's strident calls to heavily regulate the net in the wake of the Manchester an London terrorist attacks to 'stop radicalisation'. This was complete bollocks and being used as an excuse to regulate what we are able read and share not because of terrorism but rather the've woken up to the threat of shared information and networking that the net poses; subsequently the traditional channels of opinion forming/control are no longer as efficacious as they once were.

The Tories and the powerful people/businesses they represent will soon enough find a way to make social media work for them, so the death of the influence of print media won't matter. They will be able to afford the best people to develop ways of using this medium to get their message across and to disrupt anything opposing them. Some of this has already been seen in the 2015 campaign, but I think this last election they were basically outnumbered and outshouted by Labour supporters online. They'll learn from this and counter it strongly next time.
 
The Tories and the powerful people/businesses they represent will soon enough find a way to make social media work for them, so the death of the influence of print media won't matter. They will be able to afford the best people to develop ways of using this medium to get their message across and to disrupt anything opposing them. Some of this has already been seen in the 2015 campaign, but I think this last election they were basically outnumbered and outshouted by Labour supporters online. They'll learn from this and counter it strongly next time.
I am sure you are right in fact they have already started to do so as evidenced by the likes of Cambridge Analytics and Robert Mercer. Subsequently I think it's up to interested parties from the other side of the divide from the 1% to try and make sure that this is not successful.
 
It's fucking beautiful :)

The only annoying thing about it is that it's not being talked about by enough (or any) high profile figures. If I were Corbyn I'd be mentioning it daily in the hope to give Rupert a fatal stroke.
 
The Tories and the powerful people/businesses they represent will soon enough find a way to make social media work for them, so the death of the influence of print media won't matter. They will be able to afford the best people to develop ways of using this medium to get their message across and to disrupt anything opposing them. Some of this has already been seen in the 2015 campaign, but I think this last election they were basically outnumbered and outshouted by Labour supporters online. They'll learn from this and counter it strongly next time.
You can't impose central control on the structures of the hive mind.

The Conservatives reportedly spent £millions on targeted facebook ads, to limited effect as it was the articles that people were sharing which mattered most.

This is why May is trying to introduce internet restrictions
 
I checked the Heil several times this avo expecting to see "Terrorist-loving traitor, Jeremy Corbyn, refuses to bow to her maj" as their headline, only to be disappointed. Should I sell my shares in Countdown, digestive biscuits and Michael Parkinson?
 
This is why May is trying to introduce internet restrictions

Bit of a leap here I reckon. You'd need North-Korea style internet censorship to stop people sharing political content. Surveillance is a problem but it doesn't actually stop anyone from doing anything.
 
Bit of a leap here I reckon. You'd need North-Korea style internet censorship to stop people sharing political content. Surveillance is a problem but it doesn't actually stop anyone from doing anything.

May's plans for the internet go way beyond mere surveillance.

Theresa May to shut down the internet as we know it

The government now appears to be launching a similarly radical change in the way that social networks and internet companies work. While much of the internet is currently controlled by private businesses like Google and Facebook, Theresa May intends to allow government to decide what is and isn't published, the manifesto suggests.

The new rules would include laws that make it harder than ever to access pornographic and other websites. The government will be able to place restrictions on seeing adult content and any exceptions would have to be justified to ministers, the manifesto suggests.

The manifesto even suggests that the government might stop search engines like Google from directing people to pornographic websites. "We will put a responsibility on industry not to direct users – even unintentionally – to hate speech, pornography, or other sources of harm," the Conservatives write.

...

But perhaps most unusually they would be forced to help controversial government schemes like its Prevent strategy, by promoting counter-extremist narratives.

"In harnessing the digital revolution, we must take steps to protect the vulnerable and give people confidence to use the internet without fear of abuse, criminality or exposure to horrific content", the manifesto claims in a section called 'the safest place to be online'.

The plans are in keeping with the Tories' commitment that the online world must be regulated as strongly as the offline one, and that the same rules should apply in both.

....

The manifesto also proposes that internet companies will have to pay a levy, like the one currently paid by gambling firms. Just like with gambling, that money will be used to pay for advertising schemes to tell people about the dangers of the internet, in particular being used to "support awareness and preventative activity to counter internet harms", according to the manifesto.

The Conservatives will also seek to regulate the kind of news that is posted online and how companies are paid for it. If elected, Theresa May will "take steps to protect the reliability and objectivity of information that is essential to our democracy" – and crack down on Facebook and Google to ensure that news companies get enough advertising money.

If internet companies refuse to comply with the rulings – a suggestion that some have already made about the powers in the Investigatory Powers Act – then there will be a strict and strong set of ways to punish them.

"We will introduce a sanctions regime to ensure compliance, giving regulators the ability to fine or prosecute those companies that fail in their legal duties, and to order the removal of content where it clearly breaches UK law," the manifesto reads.

In laying out its plan for increased regulation, the Tories anticipate and reject potential criticism that such rules could put people at risk.

"While we cannot create this framework alone, it is for government, not private companies, to protect the security of people and ensure the fairness of the rules by which people and businesses abide," the document reads. "Nor do we agree that the risks of such an approach outweigh the potential benefits."

The stuff about "protecting objectivity of information" does look like it may be an effort to allow "trusted" sources, i.e. the traditional media, to dominate public opinion once more and move things back towards an anodyne neoliberalism. The other stuff about combating extremism is a bit dodgy too - it wouldn't stay limited to ISIS propaganda, fash propaganda has produced terrorism in recent years and it is easy to imagine them being treated in the same way, which in turn would prompt calls for some parts of the "hard left" to be classified as extremists too.
 
May's plans for the internet go way beyond mere surveillance.

Theresa May to shut down the internet as we know it



The stuff about "protecting objectivity of information" does look like it may be an effort to allow "trusted" sources, i.e. the traditional media, to dominate public opinion once more and move things back towards an anodyne neoliberalism. The other stuff about combating extremism is a bit dodgy too - it wouldn't stay limited to ISIS propaganda, fash propaganda has produced terrorism in recent years and it is easy to imagine them being treated in the same way, which in turn would prompt calls for some parts of the "hard left" to be classified as extremists too.

Note the date of the article. This is just one of many things May isn't going to be able to get through without a majority in parliament. That's assuming it wouldn't have been quietly shelved anyway once someone explained to her that there is no realistic way to actually do most of the things she wants to do.
 
its weirdly instructive as to the workings of those hoover-esque secret policeman underwear sniffing minds. They've never liked flows of information they can't monitor or control
he Licensing of the Press Act 1662 is an Act of the Parliament of England (14 Car. II. c. 33), long title "An Act for preventing the frequent Abuses in printing seditious treasonable and unlicensed Books and Pamphlets and for regulating of Printing and Printing Presses." It was repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1863.

thats just off a brief google, I recall reading elsewhere about restrictions on printing in the 1800's, targeted principally against 'radical and seditious' publications.
 
May: Introduce a backdoor into your software which we can access.
Tech company CEO: Sorry, who are you?
May: I'm the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
CEO: OK, well as you've probably realised from the plane journey you took to get to my office, this is not a British company.
May: But if you want to operate in the UK you will have to do as we ask.
CEO: Not really no. We operate just fine in China and they're way better at this sort of thing than you.
May: You're helping terrorists though.
CEO: You have no evidence our platform is used by terrorists. We have plenty of evidence that your government funds terrorists.
May: If you don't do as I say then I'll...what we'll do is...
CEO: That's what I thought, help yourself to a free mousemat on your way out.
 
Note the date of the article. This is just one of many things May isn't going to be able to get through without a majority in parliament. That's assuming it wouldn't have been quietly shelved anyway once someone explained to her that there is no realistic way to actually do most of the things she wants to do.

Actually I can't find anything saying she has shelved it - it seems like it is one part of the manifesto that has remained in the Queen's speech. She may have trouble getting it through as there is likely to be quite a few Tory rebels, but I wouldn't take its failure for granted either.
 
Actually I can't find anything saying she has shelved it - it seems like it is one part of the manifesto that has remained in the Queen's speech. She may have trouble getting it through as there is likely to be quite a few Tory rebels, but I wouldn't take its failure for granted either.

The role of Davis needs to be considered as well; he has been a strong critic of civil liberties legislation - and as he could well be the next PM, I wonder about the survival of this particular policy.
 
Back
Top Bottom