Polarisation of society

“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.

"Former US President Barak Obama has told an Australian audience that Rupert Murdoch's media empire has fuelled a polarisation of society"

People get their information from the media. The days are gone when new info came from the priest, the pamphlet, and the squire.

The information industry is big and exceedingly powerful. Much reportage is on the side of the angels, but HOW are we to judge?

We judge good and bad reportage not only by incorrect information but also by the intention of the reporter. Look to Mandy Rice-Davies who famously observed "Well he would, wouldn't he?

In other words, Murdoch knew precisely who he had thrown his lot in with.

The boss of Fox News said fact checks were "bad for business" - in other words this so-called news network needed to keep putting out fake news ( lies) in order to give its audience what it wanted and keep up viewing figures. Profit before truth!

www.theguardian.com/media/2023/mar/29/fox-news-trump-fact-check-election-lies-dominion

Crossed posts, varian 😀

What you describe is a debate about the possible pros and cons of a measure we might or might not favour. There are elements of truth in both arguments.

This is quite different from the media peddling lies as if they were truth. - such as Trump really won the 2020 presidential election or brexit has improved the UK economy. These are proven lies - the opposite of truth, M0nica

M0nica

^Give the customer what they want - they don’t want to hear the truth^ Which brings us back to the unaswered question I posed a little way back. 'What is the truth'? For the majority of us it is the truth is based on our philosophical beliefs.

Look at the arguments for and against ID cards. Many people believe they are a sensible idea and think the Civil Rights arguments against them are aimed at breaking up society by not using something simple other countries have. Those opposed to them beleive that those in favour are in favour of a controlling and regulating state that will take away our civil liberties and human rights.

Which attitude is the 'truth'?

I wish you'd used something a bit less contentious and frequently discussed on here as your example, MOnica. You have now almost certainly derailed the thread from 'polarisation' to ID cards.

Especially as neither view is 'the truth', they are both opinions.

Perhaps you should have stuck with the print and tv media. Is it true that Trump really was the winner in the 2020 presidential election?

Is it true that billions of displaced people are going to invade the UK in rubber dinghies?

Is it true that the UK lost its sovereignty while in the EU?

etc.

I am always wary of the 'it's done in other countries arguement'. There usually isnt a lot of long term data to back up the claim (on whatever issue) that it's all ok.

M0nica

^Give the customer what they want - they don’t want to hear the truth^ Which brings us back to the unaswered question I posed a little way back. 'What is the truth'? For the majority of us it is the truth is based on our philosophical beliefs.

Look at the arguments for and against ID cards. Many people believe they are a sensible idea and think the Civil Rights arguments against them are aimed at breaking up society by not using something simple other countries have. Those opposed to them beleive that those in favour are in favour of a controlling and regulating state that will take away our civil liberties and human rights.

Which attitude is the 'truth'?

The truth is

Almost all other countries have ID documents is does not restrict their freedoms, it will not in the UK.

Give the customer what they want - they don’t want to hear the truth Which brings us back to the unaswered question I posed a little way back. 'What is the truth'? For the majority of us it is the truth is based on our philosophical beliefs.

Look at the arguments for and against ID cards. Many people believe they are a sensible idea and think the Civil Rights arguments against them are aimed at breaking up society by not using something simple other countries have. Those opposed to them beleive that those in favour are in favour of a controlling and regulating state that will take away our civil liberties and human rights.

Which attitude is the 'truth'?

News papers all have an editorial biased agenda, it’s not about the truth, it’s what the reader wants to be told about, because that’s what sells.

Give the customer what they want - they don’t want to hear the truth.

The problem these days is more that we trust and believe almost no politicians. As for newspapers, they are all biased one way or another.

How can someone hate newspapers if they have never read one??

Glorianny
How true. My ex Husband only read the Sun for the Sport and racing pages and was a successful business man and voted Labour.
My now partner who hates newspapers with a deep and utter loathing so has never read one was a card carrying member of the Labour Party until Corbyn became leader.

Glorianny what is 'the truth' that you keep talking about?

Fleurpepper

MerylStreep

Caramme
So you’re all for free speech but not the Daily Mails opinion because doesn’t coincide with your opinion. Hilarious 😂

No because they are pushing racism, and have supported fascism forever.

Exactly. Fans of DM like to pretend the fascist perspective is in the past. Of course it isn't. It's the backbone of the paper. The lens which everything is seen through in the writing.

MerylStreep

Caramme
So you’re all for free speech but not the Daily Mails opinion because doesn’t coincide with your opinion. Hilarious 😂

No because they are pushing racism, and have supported fascism forever.

ronib

Glorianny excellent starting point for your lecture tour… and your fee is?

I'm much cheaper than BJ!!!!

I don't think I have asked anyone to agree with me. You are quite entitled to your own views
Nor have I said anyone implicitly believes anything.
The discussion is about the ability of the press to report truthfully and accurately, how this polarises society and if it ia all Murdoch's fault. And much as I dislike him it's been going on longer than he has.

But the fact that the press reports according to its political viewpoints doesn't mean that we have to agree with them.

I really resent the intellectual arrogance of people like Gloriananny who assume that everyone but them believes implicitly everything that is said to them by politicians or that they rea in newspapers or online.

Bear in mind that people who disagree with you may not be the stupid ones.

Glorianny excellent starting point for your lecture tour… and your fee is?

I think the press has always reported matters according to their political viewpoints and the establishment requirements. The Peterloo Massacre is a standard example some of the first accurate reports were banned and confiscated.

I am not sure I would lay the blame for polarisation at the foot of the press, I would say social media has a much greater impact than the legacy media.
You see it frequently. I cant believe you are quoting (insert vaguely controversial name) dont you know hes far right/fascist/far left, as if we have to agree with everything someone says in order to be able to 'hear' them.

Glorianny

I don't know that all the blame for polarisation can be laid at Murdoch's door. Newspapers have always been read by people who supported certain political views. Telegraph readers never read the DailyWorker.

I agree with you, Glorianny. Newspapers have always tended to espouse one political view over the other. The Manchester Guardian was a radical paper in its day. So, longer ago, was the Times.

But did they tell as many lies, or distortions of the truth, as papers like the DM tell these days?

Look at Murdoch in the US admitting that Fox News supported the lie about Trump being 'cheated' out of the 2020 Presidency, with Murdoch's approval.

I recommend that people read the article varian linked to. This takes you straight to the whole article

www.allsides.com/news/2023-03-03-0649/media-industry-fox-news-republican-propaganda-according-rupert-murdoch

I don't know that all the blame for polarisation can be laid at Murdoch's door. Newspapers have always been read by people who supported certain political views. Telegraph readers never read the DailyWorker.

The Guardian 27 April 2020
Jill Abramson
BO has a powerful voice. He shouldn’t use it for paid speeches.

1 May 2017
Steven W. Thrasher
BO’s 400000 speaking fees reveal what few want to admit.
Interesting how public opinion has changed in the space of 6 years.