Polarisation of society

I agree Casdon.

Fleurpepper

Not heard it- but he is so right. In the USA- but also in the UK- where divisions have not been so wide as they have been in last few years.

He is, and the deliberate creation of this divisive society in the UK, in order for the Tory Party to 'retain votes' is quite frankly just disgusting ....

I’m not sure why this thread has concentrated on newspapers, as there are an awful lot more media outlets than newspapers owned by Newscorp, aka Murdoch. TV channels, internet sites,

Murdoch's other media outlets have been mentioned.

Even if people don't buy the print version all our 'dailies' are available to read on line, the Sun and the Daily Mail have no paywall. I suspect that being on line increases their readership, if only by way of stories being linked to from social media platforms. I, for one, would never read the Mail or the Sun if it were only available as a paper copy, but I have sometimes followed links to articles in them.

I don't believe for one moment MOnica's contention that the papers only publish what people want to read. I think that the owners and editors set the agenda. I can remember the Sunday Times, which I read many years ago, lurching to the right when Andrew Neil became its editor (at which point I turned to the Observer). Did it move to the right because that was what its readers wanted?

Geordie Greig was a pro EU editor of the DM for 3 years. Was he got rid of because of falling circulation as a result of his editorship, or was it because the DM's owners didn't like his rather balanced stance?

“They didn't insist that the banks behaved like gambling casinos. And when the gamblers lost through negligence, a complete lack of oversight, and just plain greed - why did people accept that the gamblers would be bailed (not only bailed, but still be awarded bonuses) - why did they accept that they would be the ones to put up the bail money?”

International Traders are speculators (gamblers) that is what they are paid to do and are extensively trained to do it.
Probably 95% of transactions are speculation and 5% or less hedging, they trade currencies, commodities, interest rates, shares, and they make money on a rising or falling market, only a stable market stops the opportunity to make profits.

That that was not the cause of the SVS collapse, SVS had massive client deposits in US Bonds, usually very safe, because interest rates increased bond prices fell (nobody wanted them) so the bank could not meet customers demand for cash it quickly snowballed and became bankrupt.

You have to remember traders are vicious, if they see a victim the whole herd feeds on it, in a few hours they are gone

HousePlantQueen

There is a great deal of 'othering' going on in the UK, whether it is the demonisation of 'illegal' asylum seekers, or of 'benefit cheats',. Make people angry about other people getting something they are not entitled to' all as a means of distraction about how living standards are dropping for the majority. It is a clever sleight of hand to somehow lay the blame for the NHS waiting lists onto the people who come over on dinghies, and it is the right wing press who do this to serve their Tory masters. For the record, I consider Obama to be the most decent person I have seen in the world of politics for a very, very long time, and when he speaks, the world should listen.

*HousePlantQueen

You put it better than I did - hear, hear!

MaizieD

^I’m not sure why this thread has concentrated on newspapers, as there are an awful lot more media outlets than newspapers owned by Newscorp, aka Murdoch. TV channels, internet sites,^

Murdoch's other media outlets have been mentioned.

Even if people don't buy the print version all our 'dailies' are available to read on line, the Sun and the Daily Mail have no paywall. I suspect that being on line increases their readership, if only by way of stories being linked to from social media platforms. I, for one, would never read the Mail or the Sun if it were only available as a paper copy, but I have sometimes followed links to articles in them.

I don't believe for one moment MOnica's contention that the papers only publish what people want to read. I think that the owners and editors set the agenda. I can remember the Sunday Times, which I read many years ago, lurching to the right when Andrew Neil became its editor (at which point I turned to the Observer). Did it move to the right because that was what its readers wanted?

Geordie Greig was a pro EU editor of the DM for 3 years. Was he got rid of because of falling circulation as a result of his editorship, or was it because the DM's owners didn't like his rather balanced stance?

I agree MaizieD, although I think it’s likely that our generation is more influenced by newspapers (online as well as hard copy) as opposed to other media sources than younger people because they don’t consume their news from the traditional sources so much.

Rupert Murdoch's Fox News is a big corporate machine which "destroys people" says an ex-employee

www.theguardian.com/media/2023/mar/30/fox-news-abby-grossberg-producer-dominion-lawsuit

Varian if it’s accurate that Murdoch chooses the PM for this country, he has made some seriously flawed choices.

Considering the way Sunak crept into the position, it would be hard to see how Murdoch was involved there. The vote didn’t go wider than the parliamentary party.

Just because Murdoch owns a swathe of media outlets which span the political spectrum, it would seem logical to assume a high degree of political influence and manipulation from his organisation. However the exact measure of his reach is not very clear.
Also, why is Murdoch that interested in the political system in the UK when the USA must give him much better returns?

Murdoch did not chose Sunak. Sunak has not won a general election. but he supported the PMs who were elected at every general election since 1979.

Murdoch has exerted enormous political influence in Australia, USA and UK.

Also, why is Murdoch that interested in the political system in the UK when the USA must give him much better returns?

Power?

These words from an Anthony Hilton column for the Evening Standard...

"I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. "That’s easy,' he replied. "When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice."

Dickens

^Also, why is Murdoch that interested in the political system in the UK when the USA must give him much better returns?^

Power?

These words from an Anthony Hilton column for the Evening Standard...

"I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. "That’s easy,' he replied. ^"When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice."^

And tax

Dinahmo

Dickens

Also, why is Murdoch that interested in the political system in the UK when the USA must give him much better returns?

Power?

These words from an Anthony Hilton column for the Evening Standard...

"I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. "That’s easy,' he replied. ^"When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice."^

And tax

That, too.

And greed.

Murdoch has not picked prime ministers with much staying power with his alleged preferred candidates not lasting a full term of office - events overtook Cameron, May and BJ. Democracy still at work therefore?

Do we assume Sunak is in Murdoch’s pocket by now?

What do we imagine Murdoch thinks of Starmer?

If a deeply corrupt, incompetent and lying former UK PM can earn £250,000 for an after dinner speech, why can't a successful former US President command a high fee?

Yes it’s shocking the amount of money Tony Blair’s earned since leaving office!

Why does Murdoch do it - because he can!.

When you are ultra rich you need an activity to use you time up, interfering in politics is his life’s work and at 92 his is still successful, having that power keeps him going.

What do we imagine Murdoch thinks of Starmer?

He probably hasn’t decided yet, there will be a lot of voters still to decide as well.

tickingbird

^If a deeply corrupt, incompetent and lying former UK PM can earn £250,000 for an after dinner speech, why can't a successful former US President command a high fee?^

Yes it’s shocking the amount of money Tony Blair’s earned since leaving office!

Very well put. The people of Iraq and the world, are still paying for Blairs cosying up to Bush.

Freya5

tickingbird

If a deeply corrupt, incompetent and lying former UK PM can earn £250,000 for an after dinner speech, why can't a successful former US President command a high fee?

Yes it’s shocking the amount of money Tony Blair’s earned since leaving office!

Very well put. The people of Iraq and the world, are still paying for Blairs cosying up to Bush.

Ha ha
www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/14/boris-johnson-makes-1m-from-speeches-after-leaving-downing-street

Katie59 I thought the whole point to Obama’s argument was that the electorate didn’t decide? Murdoch decides and it happens?

Starmer as director of public prosecutions had been involved with the decision to prosecute Rebekah her surname escapes me. She was acquitted.

Rebekah Brooks poised to take over the top job from Murdoch it seems….

As everyone on this thread is totally unaffected by the attempts by Murdoch and others to sway our votes, could they say who are th people who follow him so slavishly.

As only 25% of the population read a newspaper every day, and fewer buy them, Who sways the other 75%?

M0nica

As everyone on this thread is totally unaffected by the attempts by Murdoch and others to sway our votes, could they say who are th people who follow him so slavishly.

As only 25% of the population read a newspaper every day, and fewer buy them, Who sways the other 75%?

Have you read the thread though Monica, Murdoch’s empire pervades all types of media, worldwide, it’s not about newspapers specifically?

Casdon

Ha ha

Strange you find it laughable. The hell unleashed on the people of Iraq and the world on the back of Blair’s phoney war is anything but funny. Wine and cake in a garden, however……..

All reporting is selective.

tickingbird

Casdon

Ha ha

Strange you find it laughable. The hell unleashed on the people of Iraq and the world on the back of Blair’s phoney war is anything but funny. Wine and cake in a garden, however……..

You misunderstand tickingbird, what was laughable was your attempt to make a cheap political point when Johnson has made £1m from speeches in the last few months after completely cocking up this country and our future. I wasn’t condoning Blair’s actions in Iraq, he made a bad political mistake.