UKIP/Reform NF Ltd and their non-racist well informed supporters

[Chindie]

It's always interesting to reverse it.

So Andrew Neil's values include being ok to accept money from a business with criminal CEO.

[blandy]

46 minutes ago, bickster said:

I somehow think, throwing one's toys out of the pram and directly into the face of the former advertiser is not an approach that would be recommended by many

The advertiser (Ikea) doesn't pick who shows their ads. they pretty much all get agencies to get them airtime "we want our ads shown on TV to audiences who watch evening news/ sport/ kids tv/ etc.".

But obviously they can pull their ads.

It's slightly alarming I think - more cancel culture bollex. I mean I have not the remotest will to watch that channel, but it's a UK broadcaster complying with the broadcasting code and a campaign of twitter people and Facebookers has led to advertisers pulling out.

They might say something I disagree with, burn them!

World's gone mad. If you don't like it, don't watch it.

Do they campaign like that against Al Jazeera or RT? tramplers of gay rights, civil rights, equality and all the rest? no - not a peep.

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

It's slightly alarming I think - more cancel culture bollex. I mean I have not the remotest will to watch that channel, but it's a UK broadcaster complying with the broadcasting code and a campaign of twitter people and Facebookers has led to advertisers pulling out.

I'm not sure I understand the point.

What has happened is that a group of right-wing people have organised and made a TV channel, and the product of their organisation is some political speech, ie the content of their channel.

Then a group of left-wing people have organised, and the product of their organisation is some political speech, ie telling advertisers they will boycott their product if they advertise on the channel.

I don't really see why one of these types of organisation and speech is legitimate, and the other one isn't. Opponents of the channel have presumably not organised around a boycott because they think a boycott is morally superior, but because it is the only practical way to protest the arrival of the channel. To say that one side should continue while the other side shouldn't is surely a call for a unilateral disarmament.

[blandy]

25 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I'm not sure I understand the point.

The point is this. A channel is set up and started within the rules, regs and broadcasting constraints of this country. Let’s say one starts called Corbyn TV. From before it even starts, and into the first few days of broadcasting, social media people organise to bombard advertisers to stop advertising on that channel. It’s broken no laws, broadcast nothing offensive or abusive or harmful, has not breached any laws or guidelines, is not being investigated or accused of anything but being left wing in outlook and in opinion (though under the law it is required to be balanced, it can’t be like Fox in the USA and be a cheerleader).

There is a clear attempt to stifle free speech via piling on to advertisers on a station that they haven’t even watched (hardly anyone has) or if they have, not for very long at all.

It’s the worst side of society. Intolerance, “thought crime”, pile on, cancel culture, hashtag activism. “IKEA take your ads off that channel because I can’t cope with their view being different to mine”.

So the point is not about personal approval of what’s no doubt a crappy news channel, it’s about living in a country where everything’s so polarised that opposite opinions are tried to be smothered. There’s no desire to win a debate, or expand discussion, or consider another perspective, or just ignore people or channels we don’t like.

its **** mental. It’s not left or right wing, it’s just immature.

[HanoiVillan]

7 minutes ago, blandy said:

So the point is not about personal approval of what’s no doubt a crappy news channel, it’s about living in a country where everything’s so polarised that opposite opinions are tried to be smothered. There’s no desire to win a debate, or expand discussion, or consider another perspective, or just ignore people or channels we don’t like.

There is no 'debate' though. You can't 'debate' a television channel. Nor is the channel itself, by my understanding - I haven't watched it, but I don't think I'm wrong about this - interested in 'consider[ing] another perspective'. It appears to be single-mindedly dedicated to putting forward one particular perspective. So again, we have people with one set of opinions, using one method to get those opinions across - namely, a television channel. And then there are another set of people, with a different set of opinions, using a different method to block those opinions - namely, a boycott. I don't see one of those as more legitimate than the other.

What is the alternative to the latter course of action? Should people write really nice, politely-worded letters to Andrew Neil, and hope that they can persuade him to embrace the idea of viewpoint diversity?

[blandy]

14 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

there are another set of people, with a different set of opinions, using a different method to block those opinions

That bit there, in bold. Intolerance of other views. They aren’t illegal, they aren’t even permitted to do what you say Gammon TV is doing - to put out only one set of views. The law says they must be balanced.

The plonkers doing the cancelling are playing right into the hands of gammons “see, even hint at a view that’s not left wing and they try and shut you down”

I’d say the same if it were the other way round, btw. It’s the intolerance that grates, not who it’s directed at. “We don’t want you to have free speech, we want to shut you down”

[blandy]

22 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

 

we have people with one set of opinions, …And then there are another set of people, with a different set of opinions,…Should people write really nice, politely-worded letters to Andrew Neil, and hope that they can persuade him to embrace the idea of viewpoint diversity?

See the irony?

And in answer, boycott by not watching. That’s my choice. Or go on the channel or write to it, yes. Seek to close it down, no, until or unless it starts with hate, or crime or whatever.

[andym]

21 minutes ago, blandy said:

The point is this. A channel is set up and started within the rules, regs and broadcasting constraints of this country. Let’s say one starts called Corbyn TV. From before it even starts, and into the first few days of broadcasting, social media people organise to bombard advertisers to stop advertising on that channel. It’s broken no laws, broadcast nothing offensive or abusive or harmful, has not breached any laws or guidelines, is not being investigated or accused of anything but being left wing in outlook and in opinion (though under the law it is required to be balanced, it can’t be like Fox in the USA and be a cheerleader).

There is a clear attempt to stifle free speech via piling on to advertisers on a station that they haven’t even watched (hardly anyone has) or if they have, not for very long at all.

It’s the worst side of society. Intolerance, “thought crime”, pile on, cancel culture, hashtag activism. “IKEA take your ads off that channel because I can’t cope with their view being different to mine”.

So the point is not about personal approval of what’s no doubt a crappy news channel, it’s about living in a country where everything’s so polarised that opposite opinions are tried to be smothered. There’s no desire to win a debate, or expand discussion, or consider another perspective, or just ignore people or channels we don’t like.

its **** mental. It’s not left or right wing, it’s just immature.

Agree with the general gist of what you are saying (and your points in earlier posts), but in this particular instance a clear attempt to stifle free speech?

Now if it was a campaign to get the Government or Ofcom to shut them down, then yes that would be more troublesome; however much someone may disagree with them, they have broken no laws/guidelines as you say. However i don't think that is the case here?

Of course you could say i'm being naive and this is effectively a way to do it by the back door. But ultimately, it is up to a company whether they advertise their product on a particular channel or not, that channel has no inalienable right to receive money from said company to run an ad. 

Of course the irony in all this is that GB news and its supporters are very quick themselves to seek to 'cancel' things; see stuff like the National Trust, Kew Gardens, and now this week English Heritage, for having the temerity to add some factual statements to their exhibits/website etc. Last week they were up in arms about a few students taking down a picture of the Queen in their common room (that they only put up a few years ago).

In this they are often backed by those in power, the likes of Rees-Mogg, that clown Oliver Dowden writing to museums and summoning charities to a meeting to tell them to defend British history against 'those doing it down', i.e. those who may tell the unpalatable truth. That is much more sinister than some idiots getting angry on twitter.

 

[Seat68]

[Xela]

I see where @blandy is coming from. IKEA have pulled their adverts because they don't want to be seen on a channel that doesn't match their values and supposedly promotes hate speech. 

IKEA have stores in Saudi, where homosexually is illegal and the Government there does not recognise LGBT rights. Punishment includes castration and public floggings. 

What is the bigger issue?

 

[blandy]

39 minutes ago, andym said:

Agree with the general gist of what you are saying (and your points in earlier posts), but in this particular instance a clear attempt to stifle free speech?

Now if it was a campaign to get the Government or Ofcom to shut them down, then yes that would be more troublesome; however much someone may disagree with them, they have broken no laws/guidelines as you say. However i don't think that is the case here?

Of course you could say i'm being naive and this is effectively a way to do it by the back door. But ultimately, it is up to a company whether they advertise their product on a particular channel or not, that channel has no inalienable right to receive money from said company to run an ad. 

Of course the irony in all this is that GB news and its supporters are very quick themselves to seek to 'cancel' things; see stuff like the National Trust, Kew Gardens, and now this week English Heritage, for having the temerity to add some factual statements to their exhibits/website etc. Last week they were up in arms about a few students taking down a picture of the Queen in their common room (that they only put up a few years ago).

In this they are often backed by those in power, the likes of Rees-Mogg, that clown Oliver Dowden writing to museums and summoning charities to a meeting to tell them to defend British history against 'those doing it down', i.e. those who may tell the unpalatable truth. That is much more sinister than some idiots getting angry on twitter.

 

Yeah. It’s not just the left that do it, the right do too. We’re just a totally polarised society. This lot wants to shut down that lot, and vice Versa.

In this instance I see getting advertisers to stop funding the channel as an attempt to starve it of money and kill it. The of money point you make, well it would obviously fail, because they are abiding by the code (so far). If they don’t abide by it, OFCOM will do them.

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

See the irony? 

Honestly, no, I don't understand what you think is ironic at all.

1 hour ago, blandy said:

And in answer, boycott by not watching. That’s my choice. Or go on the channel or write to it, yes. Seek to close it down, no, until or unless it starts with hate, or crime or whatever.

I'm also not watching it, and that's what I would recommend people to do. Life is short, the football is on, why do I want to watch a load of dickheads trying to wind me up. 

But if other people feel strongly enough that they want to exercise *their* free speech rights and tell companies that they won't continue to shop with them if they continue advertising, then that is them expressing their free speech rights, just like the hosts and guests of GB News are expressing theirs. 

'Go on the channel' is obviously not a sensible suggestion, as you well know. 

[blandy]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

I don't understand what you think is ironic at all.

You appear to endorse what you called “trying to block [one] side from voicing their opinion”, yet also talk about “embracing the the idea of viewpoint diversity” as a good thing (which it is). That’s the full on Alanis.

[HanoiVillan]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

You appear to endorse what you called “trying to block [one] side from voicing their opinion”, yet also talk about “embracing the the idea of viewpoint diversity” as a good thing (which it is). That’s the full on Alanis.

I'm not 'endorsing' anything, except watching the football and paying no never mind to GB News. 

I can see my use of the word 'block' was inappropriate. What I meant was something more like 'counter the influence of'. Nobody can actually block the channel except Ofcom, and Ofcom are not relevant to this discussion, we're talking about people telling companies they won't buy their products, which isn't 'blocking' anything at all. So I take that word back, it was a poor choice. 

[HanoiVillan]

The big picture here is that nobody has a *right* to corporate money in advertising. Nobody would say that the heads of FTSE companies are trying to 'cancel' the Morning Star, we all understand why they don't advertise there. They recognise it is not in their financial interests to advertise in that outlet. What is happening here is that people are trying to persuade those same bosses that it is *also* not in their interests to advertise on GB News. 

This dynamic does not prevent the Morning Star from being published, or Novara Media from creating content. They just have to find other ways to secure financing. 

Edited June 18, 2021 by HanoiVillan

[LondonLax]

If enough people like the content this GB News channel puts out and choose to watch it then there will be companies willing to pay money for ad time with them regardless of what some people on Twitter say.

However if the Twitter mob is bigger than the channels audience most companies will side with the bigger group of potential customers.

The news channel will either have to broaden its appeal or cut its cloth accordingly. 

[blandy]

14 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

The big picture here is that nobody has a *right* to corporate money in advertising. Nobody would say that the heads of FTSE companies are trying to 'cancel' the Morning Star, we all understand why they don't advertise there. They recognise it is not in their financial interests to advertise in that outlet. What is happening here is that people are trying to persuade those same bosses that it is *also* not in their interests to advertise on GB News. 

This dynamic does not prevent the Morning Star from being published, or Novara Media from creating content. They just have to find other ways to secure financing. 

That’s not the big picture I see. All you write there is true, of course, but it’s not “my” big picture.

Mine is around the way people’s behaviour has become more intolerant and more siloed. There’s always been campaigning against stuff like Apartheid, or War, or hunting, or Vivisection and so on. Stuff where people or animals are harmed or mistreated. And that’s great and good and proper.

We’re now in a place where the targets of campaigns are people or media with different opinions.  And that’s the big picture danger. The challenge to free speech and the intolerance of opinions that differ from our own is damaging people, including those engaging in this stuff. Mental health will suffer if you’re in the end of it, or if you do it. Anyone getting upset enough to target advertisers on a uk news channel because it’s being said to air right wing views needs to chill for their own sake.

[chrisp65]

16 minutes ago, blandy said:

That’s not the big picture I see. All you write there is true, of course, but it’s not “my” big picture.

Mine is around the way people’s behaviour has become more intolerant and more siloed. There’s always been campaigning against stuff like Apartheid, or War, or hunting, or Vivisection and so on. Stuff where people or animals are harmed or mistreated. And that’s great and good and proper.

We’re now in a place where the targets of campaigns are people or media with different opinions.  And that’s the big picture danger. The challenge to free speech and the intolerance of opinions that differ from our own is damaging people, including those engaging in this stuff. Mental health will suffer if you’re in the end of it, or if you do it. Anyone getting upset enough to target advertisers on a uk news channel because it’s being said to air right wing views needs to chill for their own sake.

…and the thing is, there is no end to it, or at least not until one single strand of thinking is accepted by all and all others have undergone re education and then agreed to stick to baking photos on instagram.

If ‘the social media left’ were to win, and get GB News finished, then they would turn to Sky, or Newsnight or The Telegraph. Once they were finished, they would get the less liked contributors to The Guardian kicked off, then the more free thinking contributors to The Socialist Worker and on and on.

You only have to see the weaponising of trans rights in forums which are essentially 95% left leaning to just make sure that the thinking is taken down one prescribed path. Any issue can be weaponised at the moment.

To some extent, you have to get yourself educated but then try and float somewhere above the unwinnable social media war to close everything down.

It can’t be healthy for the people that get caught up arguing in to the void.

 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

It can’t be healthy for the people that get caught up arguing in to the void.

Agreed. And it really is a void, that’s exactly the right word. It’s a made up non existent parallel reality, all this facegram instatwit social media place. “Listen to my opinion, look at me, don’t look at her, I don’t like it” stuff. “Retweet this hashtag to show who you are”. It’s easy, so easy as to be utterly meaningless, fleeting and transient. It doesn’t require thought or analysis or reflection or contemplation, it’s just numbers. But it’s also polluting and harmful for people to be semi permanently angry about anything and everything, or to be on the receiving end of a barrage of messages, or attempts to shut them down and “cancel” them. Of course there are those who exploit all that for their own ends, but those people are better dealt with by being ignored rather than indulged via a storm of #hashtag activism. Mocking them is far better, too. Crying wolf over everything we disagree with, while often not having any knowledge or understanding of, means the genuinely awful stuff gets lost in the noise. I think it’s genuinely counterproductive for everyone involved. 

[ml1dch]

GB News trounced in viewing figures by Pobol y Cwm – and gets five times fewer than Welsh language Paw Patrol

Quote

 

...the right-wing news channel debuted to ratings of 336,000 on June 13, higher even than established rivals Sky News and BBC News.

But the latest figures showed a significant slump, with only a maximum of 32,000 tuning in on Thursday. Chairman Andrew Neil’s own flagship show only attracted 31,000.

It means that the channel has slumped below viewing figures for Welsh language S4C shows such as Pobol y Cwm, which attracts 44,000 viewers according to the latest S4C stats.

Welsh language Paw Patrol, Patrol Pawennau, pulled in over five times as many viewers at 161,000.