Polarisation of society

GrannyGravy13

Grantanow I actually think that when folks starting calling sectors of the electorate dimwits they have lost any credibility.

I agree, calling people dimwits because they have a different political view to you is not helpful, neither is referring to some posters as woke, snowflakes, the loony left, or libtards, or remoaners. These are all judgemental and say more about the poster than the people they are criticising.

I would never call anyone 'dim' because they read a paper I generally don't, or hold views opposed to mine.

I do, however, sometimes think some are "misguided" - in exactly the same way they think I am.

My head hurts but that's from the brick wall I think.

I believe reading age plays a part here. As a population we should aim higher.

MOnica
You’re quiet right. It does occasionally piss one off.
But maybe one should pity such people who have such a jaded narrow view of mankind.

I'm left wing, well centre left is probably more accurate, and I have routinely said that describing people in those terms is not acceptable. It's also politically and strategically utterly counter productive. But still they keep going.

Passthechocolates

Caleo

Quite right Granny Gravy. It's not the fault of Daily Mail readers that they tend to have have dim ideas.

I’m actually intelligent and articulate and not even a tiny bit dim.
I suggest those criticising cast the beam out of their on eye before trying to demean other for their perfectly free choice.

I find the intellectual arrogance of so many on this thread, and others so offensive and Caleo's comment sums that attitude up so succinctly.

Sadly it seems to be that the more left wing your politics the more arrogant you are. For those of us who want a fair and just country and an end of poverty to read comments like this leaves one with a disgust of people who we should be working with side by side to achieve our aims.

The Daily Mail is owned by Harmsworth, who doesn't pay any tax in the UK. Neither does Murdoch.

I'm not interested in Rupert Murdoch's personal life ronib but I am interested in the role he has had in influencing elections.

www.theguardian.com/media/2023/mar/31/rupert-murdoch-fox-news-2020-election-dominion

varian

Just check out the "don't miss " section

www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

Varian I guess you were interested in the £2million diamond engagement ring Murdoch bought his fifth fiancée?

If anybody caused polarisation, it was Obama himself; and I certainly wouldn’t pay money to listen to him - it was bad enough when he was the President…

Just check out the "don't miss " section

www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

Caleo

Quite right Granny Gravy. It's not the fault of Daily Mail readers that they tend to have have dim ideas.

I’m actually intelligent and articulate and not even a tiny bit dim.
I suggest those criticising cast the beam out of their on eye before trying to demean other for their perfectly free choice.

The Daily Mail, prints very little that is actually true but does appeal to those who are interested in soap stars, pop stars, football stars, film stars, royalty and other "celebs" especially if they are involved in scandals.

Many people find all that interesting and entertaining so they buy the Daily Mail, and just allow the political propaganda to seep through.

I love the Daily Mail, it’s my newspaper of choice always plenty to read.
Most newspapers have political bias one way or another and are caught out exaggerating the truth.

How are their views formed in the first place?

People read papers that reflect their views. They do not choose a papers at random and then adapt their views to match it.

M0nica

Can some of the people looking down on the little people who they know are constantly led by the nose by Murdoch and his cronies to vote for people that they, the superior ones, know are absoutely wrong, please tell us what their sources are for information that is completely unbiased and unprejudiced in any form, leaning neither to right or left in reporting events and make no comments on everything, nor suggesting whether they approve or dislike anything.

I am sure many of us buying and reading papers nd magazines across the political spectrum would be really glad to know.

Analysis of voting in 2016 EU referendum by newspaper readership shows percentage who voted to leave the EU as follows-

Guardian 12
the "i" 26
The Times 38
Metro 42
Financial Times 44
Other 48
Daily Mirror 48
Daily Telegraph 68
Daily Mail 68
The Sun 70
Daily Star 71
Daily Express 78
"

www.statista.com/statistics/1072148/brexit-vote-by-newspaper-preference/

Was that an opportunity to post a random Republic poster that’s not relevant to the thread Grany, or are you saying that in your opinion republicans and monarchists clashing is the reason we have a polarised society?

Imagine what we could use that cash for instead..

For anyone who's interested here's a link to a report of the Brooks etc trial which explains in part how she was found not guilty. The prosecuting barrister had one assistant and an occasional solicitor The defence had several barristers and solicitors ready to hand them information as and when necessary. It cost Murdoch millions. Apparently the lead prosecutor earned less than 10% of some of the defence counsels' daily fees. A go of example of what money can buy.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/25/-sp-phone-hacking-trial-rebekah-brooks-rupert-murdoch

ronib

If anyone cares, the Daily Mail is owned by Viscount Rothermere and family. I don’t know that Obama had him in his sights?

He was talking about the influence of Murdoch and News Corp media worldwide? For what it’s worth, the papers owned by Murdoch are the Sun, the Times and Sunday Times. This is not just about newspapers!

Fleurpepper

Well I tend to agree, using such terms is not helpful.

However, anyone who believes the that is printed in the DM must be at the very least gullible, but possibly worse if it matches their sentiments about immigrants, foreigners, etc.

I typed in 4 * in between 'However, anyone who believes the

(and) that is printed in ...

but it was edited out.

If anyone cares, the Daily Mail is owned by Viscount Rothermere and family. I don’t know that Obama had him in his sights?

ronib

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?

Probably not a lot. Which means that Murdoch is probably losing his edge.