Butchers
"I wasn't talking at all about the accuracy or not of their views, but how they are arrived at."
Given that they are inaccurate though, and given that the inaccuracy is in line with MSM narrative, do you think those two things are only coincidence? If not, how could it not be a relevant fact to the overall debate?
"That was the whole point. And if you get that wrong then you're going to find it very difficult, it not near impossible to to converse or meaningfully discuss politics with these people. You won't even be speaking the same language."
Of course I understand that. I think we both understand each other better than you make out.
"I'm not interested in doing so no - i don't think it's even relevant as a start point to dealing in stuff politically - and this may even be heightened in UKIPs case."
You're not interested in speaking with them? Sorry, that's a genuine question. I was going to ask something similar on the thread of all contributers. Probably will.
"You said UKIP say what the papers say, therefore people love them because they have red that they should in the paper"
That's an exagerated misrepresenation, but I would argue there has to be a strong influence, or if not that at least an alternative cause of demonstrable misinformation should be advanced.
"i said the other parties say what the papers say without any such rise in their support"
But you've ignored my obvious point that other parties either are in government or were in government recently, making them easier targets for general disgust, especially in a pervading atmosphere of corruption and their "living in a different world".
"the papers are currently attacking UKIP"
It's not as simple as that. They are singling out sensationalist stories about the party, partly motivated by attack to defend the tories. But on the other pages they continue to bolster the general agenda. There's also the obvious point Wilde made about "There's one thing worse than being talked about..."
They "criticise" UKIP candidates etc. for saying stuff in the same tone as their own papers say. I guess there's a slight sense of Frankensteins Monster about it, but they can afford UKIP success at the Euros, it's a bigger stick to drive the tories further to the right for one thing.
Then the fuss will die down for a while and in the run up to the generals it may well be wall to wall "vote ukip get miliband" and quite a lot of Euro voters will feel they've "sent their message", along with whatever petty thrill of phoney rebellion that may bequeath them.
"in line with your model, their support should drop" - My model is about long term high profile brand exposure, constant coverage and resultant channeling of dissent in a direction that is ultimately very safe for the establishment. Belatedly picking at a few nutbar candidates doesn't seem to have done more harm than good to the UKIP profile, you are right about that, but it was predictable. The right wing press will then, as in the past, use the success of UKIP to say "look! we were right" having driven the agenda in the first place.
