Polarisation of society

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.

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?

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

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.

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!

“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

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?

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 agree Casdon.

varian

Casdon

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, etc. it’s the pervasiveness of one corporation owning so much that is the concern for me, because inevitably with lots of sites pumping out similar information the bias will be less obvious, and that will influence people.

Rupert Murdoch was allowed to own The Sun, The News of The World, The Times and The Sunday Times (contrary to the previous monopoly rules) in return for supporting Margaret Thatcher.

For almost fifty years no politician has become Prime Minister after a general election without the support of Rupert Murdoch. The last to do so was Harold Wilson in 1974.

We might as well have not bothered with general elections and just asked Rupert Murdoch (who is, as far as I know, not even a British citizen) who he chose as PM. We would have got the same result.

It is all very well to say "I'm not influenced by a newspaper" but detailed analysis of voting patterns at the fraudulent referendum of 2016 showed newspaper readership to be the single strongest factor influencing the choice of Leave or Remain.

I know, but that wasn’t what I was trying to say varian, we are influenced by newspapers, but we are also influenced by many other forms of media - and Newscorp owns far more of the diverse forms of media than has been discussed.

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.

We might as well have not bothered with general elections and just asked Rupert Murdoch (who is, as far as I know, not even a British citizen) who he chose as PM. We would have got the same result.

During the last election campaign, there were not infrequent comments along the same lines by some posters on social media... "why don't we ask Murdoch who he's chosen?"

Casdon

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, etc. it’s the pervasiveness of one corporation owning so much that is the concern for me, because inevitably with lots of sites pumping out similar information the bias will be less obvious, and that will influence people.

Rupert Murdoch was allowed to own The Sun, The News of The World, The Times and The Sunday Times (contrary to the previous monopoly rules) in return for supporting Margaret Thatcher.

For almost fifty years no politician has become Prime Minister after a general election without the support of Rupert Murdoch. The last to do so was Harold Wilson in 1974.

We might as well have not bothered with general elections and just asked Rupert Murdoch (who is, as far as I know, not even a British citizen) who he chose as PM. We would have got the same result.

It is all very well to say "I'm not influenced by a newspaper" but detailed analysis of voting patterns at the fraudulent referendum of 2016 showed newspaper readership to be the single strongest factor influencing the choice of Leave or Remain.

varian

ronib over 80% of the readers of UK newspapers read papers with a right wing agenda. The proprietors are billionaire foreigners or tax exiles. What is in the interests of these people is not the same as what is in the best interests of ordinary people in the UK.

Although it is true that not everyone buys newspapers, each paper is on average read by more than one person. Even those who don't buy them see the headlines on newspaper displays constantly. The propaganda is constantly reinforced by selective reporting and whipping up resentment against "others". The others might be foriegners (Turks in 2016 but currently Albanians), benefit claimants (work-shy scroungers), some mythical liberal elite who look down on you (Remoaners) or refugees (swarms coming in small boats).

The key way the readers are influenced is by constant repitition of lies, half truths and slogans. The readers in turn repeat what they've read and influence at least some of their contacts, in real life and online.

This is reinforced by the broadcast media (not just stations like Fox News in US, but several right wing radio and tv channels here). The BBC has been cowed into affording far too much airtime to the likes of Farage (who appeared on QT 29 times in the run up to the 2016 referendum) and numerous spokesmen for mysteriously funded right-wing "thinktanks", such as those operating from Tufton Street.

The readers may spread these views on social media and this is constantly reinforced by propaganda websites. This is how many voters are steered in one direction, to the extent of voting against their own interests because they are convinced that all their woes are the fault of the "others" and society becomes more and more polarised.

... couldn't have said it better.

If it wasn't for the way the news is often slanted in a paper's interpretation of it, we could probably have avoided having Austerity imposed on us - or at least to the degree that it was.

Why were people so convinced that it was necessary, after the 2008 financial crisis that a situation over which they themselves had little control, had to be paid for by them? They may have taken advantage of a system which allowed them to over-extend themselves financially, but they could only do that because they were encouraged to borrow more than they could afford by a system of 'regulation' that was decided by those in power. 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?

Regarding the asylum seekers / immigrants arriving on our shores - do people really believe that if the government were able to stop this tomorrow and magically banish them all from hotels overnight, that they themselves would be any better off, economically? I don't think it would make a blind bit of difference - whatever the cost, any money 'saved' would not be spent on improving the lives of the impoverished by a government that is intent on cutting public spending as an integral part of its ideology.

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, etc. it’s the pervasiveness of one corporation owning so much that is the concern for me, because inevitably with lots of sites pumping out similar information the bias will be less obvious, and that will influence people.

Yet here you are shouting at those who read those papers, not part of the polarisation at all. I am afraid society isnt split between those who read right wing press and those who dont, life tends to be much more complex than that. How useful if you could divide the world into goodies and baddies in such a way.

As someon who deliberately reads newspapes from each end of the spectrumm and often disagrees with both. Where does that place me.

I am always very uneasy with this concept of newspapera indoctinateing their readers. Newspaper readership is tumbling and most people read a wide range of media. I think the papers publish what they know their readers want to read.

All us bien-pensants educated types with all the 'right' left of centre/ left views just have to accept there is a very large proportion of the population of all ages, who have right to very right wing views and we need to accept that and treat them with the same respect and courtesy as we would treat anyone else.

ronib over 80% of the readers of UK newspapers read papers with a right wing agenda. The proprietors are billionaire foreigners or tax exiles. What is in the interests of these people is not the same as what is in the best interests of ordinary people in the UK.

Although it is true that not everyone buys newspapers, each paper is on average read by more than one person. Even those who don't buy them see the headlines on newspaper displays constantly. The propaganda is constantly reinforced by selective reporting and whipping up resentment against "others". The others might be foriegners (Turks in 2016 but currently Albanians), benefit claimants (work-shy scroungers), some mythical liberal elite who look down on you (Remoaners) or refugees (swarms coming in small boats).

The key way the readers are influenced is by constant repitition of lies, half truths and slogans. The readers in turn repeat what they've read and influence at least some of their contacts, in real life and online.

This is reinforced by the broadcast media (not just stations like Fox News in US, but several right wing radio and tv channels here). The BBC has been cowed into affording far too much airtime to the likes of Farage (who appeared on QT 29 times in the run up to the 2016 referendum) and numerous spokesmen for mysteriously funded right-wing "thinktanks", such as those operating from Tufton Street.

The readers may spread these views on social media and this is constantly reinforced by propaganda websites. This is how many voters are steered in one direction, to the extent of voting against their own interests because they are convinced that all their woes are the fault of the "others" and society becomes more and more polarised.

We have power if we choose to get involved trying to change things. without it, passive, then we cannot.

I'm neither pro or for the raising of the pension age in France, I'm not involved, but look what they did - strikes, get out on the street, organise.

Varian please explain how an ordinary person has any political influence or power whatever newspapers they read? What is the exact dynamic? How does this feed through to social inequalities and polarisation?

President Obama is absolutely right to use his high profile to highlight this issue.

The polarisation of society we see in so many countries now is not a division between rich and poor but division between ordinary people - between the readers of the right wing press and others.

So what do we think of the way early Egyptian and Roman civilisations were structured/ polarised? The huge chasm between the slaves and the rulers has been well documented.

I still think Obama’s polemic is a joke!

nanna8

Society was polarised before newspapers were even invented. I’d be looking at the unelected royal family first.

How do you even know that society was polarised before newspapers were invented?

Looking at certainly pre Reformation society (in England) most people just got on with their lives and accepted their position in society because of the teachings of the sole religion that said that one's 'estate' was ordained by God and was part of his plan. That those above one were one's 'betters' and were entitled to respect and deference. (This view has taken a long, long time to die and can be seen even now)

There was very little challenge to this and any challenges were only achieved by word of mouth. So not a great engine of polarisation.

I doubt that the royal family has any responsibility for the general polarisation of society.

Society was polarised before newspapers were even invented. I’d be looking at the unelected royal family first.

Katie59

“Profit before truth!”

Of course profit before truth it always has done

In exactly the same way lies come before truth for polititians if it achieves their aims.

Only because we reward those who put profit before truth.