Polarisation of society

Seriously? Tickets at 200 to 900 US dollars to hear this stuff? Who is kidding who?

ronib

Seriously? Tickets at 200 to 900 US dollars to hear this stuff? Who is kidding who?

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?

MaizieD well I would not pay 900 dollars for a low level sociology lecture from Obama. I certainly wouldn’t pay tuppence for BJ either.

Are people that stupid?

Didn’t hear anything about this on our news. Mind you, we are often a couple of days behind everyone else.

Well I agree with him, and he made the speech knowing it would be covered world wide by the press and reach many many people - its pretty irrelevant to me how much it cost a select few to actually be there.

A quick google shows that Obama gives a great deal of his money to charity, too. Depends on his income at any given point, but over 20% on one recorded year.

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.

The fact he makes a lot of money, is totally irrelevant to what he is saying anyhow.

Fleurpepper let’s not forget the air miles he needed to deliver the speech.

You only have to look at that utter rag, the Daily Mail, to see how the press attempts to manipulate public opinion. The comments section seems to bring low-lifes crawling out from under their stones to promote the most extreme views. So, it’s not just Murdoch’s empire where a newsworthy item is twisted and exaggerated to the max. Far too many people get their news and viewpoints from poorly researched and frankly dangerous posts on social media, and look what happened when Trump used that platform to incite riots in Washington. All the time people whose views do not accord with the ‘wake world’ are cancelled and debate is denied we will all retrench into our own corners. I support minority groups in their quest to be accepted but shutting down discussion is polarising in itself.

ronib

Fleurpepper let’s not forget the air miles he needed to deliver the speech.

You want perfection? It's all a trade off and his speech will reach far. It's something we all have to examine consciences and make choices on. Everyday...do I buy such and such that has been flown in, when I need it for a diet....would I buy a holiday home abroad if I could afford it (no, but others do) and so on.

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

Fox News is Republican propaganda, according to Rupert Murdoch

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

I have read several serial killer books in the past they didn’t turn me into a serial killer.

I am partial to a chic lit novel I haven’t turned into a sentimental mush.

I do at times read the Daily Mail, in fact I like their Weekend free magazine, isn’t it good to read a variety of newspapers in order not to get bogged down in our views?

MerylStreep

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

The Daily Mail has also been criticised for its unreliability, its printing of sensationalist and inaccurate scare stories of science and medical research, and for instances of plagiarism and copyright infringement. In February 2017, editors on the English Wikipedia banned the use of the Daily Mail as a source.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail#The_Daily_Mail_in_literature

There is a difference between opinion and facts. Much of the output of the Daily Mail which has been presented as facts has been shown to be untrue.

The Daily Mail has had a right wing, and sometimes far-right bias ever since it supported the Nazis in the 1930s.

By its selective reporting it creates anger and resentment directed towards selected targets, sometimes taking absurd positions, such as trying to equate Kier Starmer's perfectly lawful curry with Johnson's umpteen unlawful parties at No 10. The Starmer curry story was prominently featured in the DM for 14 days.

I’m assuming everyone was happy when The Sun backed Tony Blair.
Here’s a reminder for those with short memories
.
pressgazette.co.uk/news/rupert-murdoch-documentary-rise-of-dynasty-bbc-tony-blair/

MerylStreep

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

I don't follow. I'm, 'all for free speech', but I don't agree with everything people say. Obviously if something doesn't coincide with my opinion I will disagree with it - doesn't everyone?

MerylStreep

I’m assuming everyone was happy when The Sun backed Tony Blair.
Here’s a reminder for those with short memories
.
pressgazette.co.uk/news/rupert-murdoch-documentary-rise-of-dynasty-bbc-tony-blair/

That’s not the issue though, is it, the issue is that by such a very limited number of companies owning the media the news can be easily distorted to represent whatever agenda they want it to. Murdoch owns a lot of media outlets, in the UK and worldwide, so is in a position of unhealthy influence.

The polarization on the US is stark, there is no middle ground and the actively hate each other, the democrats are not especially liberal by our standards but are viewed as extremists by republicans.

Who would pay to listen to any political “has been” he’s yesterdays man.

As regards the responsibility of the media in particular for the polarisation of society, I'm reminded of a quotation attributed to Sun Tzu, to Petrarch, and most recently to Michael Corleone in The Godfather 2, : "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer". We need to know what those who oppose us and perhaps threaten our freedoms are thinking. For example, our intelligence services will currently be closely analysing what is being printed in Pravda, and will be staying tuned in to Russian state radio and TV. So yes, media is most certainly responsible "for fuelling polarisation of society", and not just at local, National level. Frankly, it always has been, so is anyone really surprised, and did we need Obama to point that out? I doubt it.

MerylStreep

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

Where did I say that I didn’t agree with (at least some) of the DM’s articles? And are you not doing exactly what you accuse me of doing?

Katie59

The polarization on the US is stark, there is no middle ground and the actively hate each other, the democrats are not especially liberal by our standards but are viewed as extremists by republicans.

Who would pay to listen to any political “has been” he’s yesterdays man.

Do you genuinely think he’s yesterdays man? I’d say he’s one of the most influential political figures in the world.

Casdon don’t you think it’s more important to examine the content and context of Obama’s speech rather than pay homage? Although maybe difficult at the moment as Obama’s event was very heavily priced, I think 400 dollars for online access.

Casdon

Katie59

The polarization on the US is stark, there is no middle ground and the actively hate each other, the democrats are not especially liberal by our standards but are viewed as extremists by republicans.

Who would pay to listen to any political “has been” he’s yesterdays man.

Do you genuinely think he’s yesterdays man? I’d say he’s one of the most influential political figures in the world.

I actually think he is the best president the US has ever had, but I don’t believe he is influencing anyone these days, certainly not in Australia. The converted seemingly will pay to listen to him, Murdoch certainly polarized UK politics, probably Australia but the US has been like that for decades.

ronib

Casdon don’t you think it’s more important to examine the content and context of Obama’s speech rather than pay homage? Although maybe difficult at the moment as Obama’s event was very heavily priced, I think 400 dollars for online access.

What a very strange comment ronib. When did saying somebody is an influential figure constitute homage?