Why can't Corbyn connect with public?

[Craig B]

If you learned anything from history it should have been that the future cannot be predicted. Still, since you don't agree, can you post a few bullet points describing the political state of the world in 2067?

My claim is that I can tell you what happened in 1987.

 

[baron]

My claim is that I can tell you what happened in 1987.

That's amongst the less controversial claims I've seen on this site. Not sure what relevance it has to predicting what will happen in the future, but still.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

But "the media" is not a monolithic entity.

They are not a monolithic entity and nothing I said relies on them being so.

 

[Tolls]

No it's not. It's the media that shape the story. It's the media that decided that these are the issues of the day rather than other ones. It's the media that tell people what is important and what isn't.

Sounds fairly monolithic to me.
That implies (in my reading) that the media are in lockstep much of the time.

however, if the various parts of the media, from individual newspapers to the TV news, via the various web outlets, are not in lockstep then the above is meaningless. It's not the media that decides...it's the media is consumed that informs a person. There's a difference.

One is living in a self created echo chamber...the other is some strange conspiracy.

 

[3point14]

I'm sorry but that is just wishful thinking. The public really aren't that stupid that the papers (which only a few read these days anyway) can greatly influence anything.

Here is a list of the national papers, ranked by circulation.

Rounding up and totting up, and assuming that no-one reads two different papers in a day, and the total of papers in circulation in a day is about 8.7 million. There are 45.3 million registered voters in the UK.

So fewer than one in 5 voters reads a paper. Therefore anyone who thinks that Labour would be 20 points better off if the papers were all favourable to Labour can't do maths.

A newspaper can be read by more than one person, surely?

 

[MikeG]

A newspaper can be read by more than one person, surely?

Of course, but we don't have figures for that. However, for every member of the electorate to have read a newspaper, every single paper in circulation needs to be read by 5 people every day, which rather reinforces the point I was making: the views of newspaper columnists aren't as important as some here would like to think.

 

[baron]

A newspaper can be read by more than one person, surely?

Or none. Many people buy newspapers just for the sport or the gossip. Not that I even know what the argument is about but I thought I'd point that out.

 

[Seismosaurus]

Fudge noted. What is the threat, where is it from?
Fudge noted. What is the threat? Where is it from?

Asked and answered.

So Corbyn's statement is irrelevant. As NATO would still retaliate. You're destroying your own argument. If you think Corbyn's views on NATO are the issue then why didn't you give them as the priority rather than the 2 that you did?

Yeah, that's nonsensical. We protect them, so we can get rid of our weapons! Awesome argument.

Except you haven't yet identified a threat to staying alive. So yeah, not important at all.

Asked and answered.

Then you seem to have some serious risk assessment issues. I believe the media have a strong influence here too.

Well, fortunately for you we live in a world where you are free to be as wrong as you wish.

And there you have the media influence! Seed doubt in some areas and then you cast aspersions on all. You are explaining textbook fashion how media influence works and then denying that the media has a strong influence.

But that isn't media influence. That's merely me making a judgement on him based on my own values. The attitude of a politician towards nuclear weapons has been a litmus test for me since I was about 17 (which is 30 years ago). Not because of any media, but because I judge it as the most important issue in politics. The only effect media has had on me is that it's via media - typically the BBC website - that I read my news.

This remains true no matter how much you want it to be untrue.

It's interesting though that you have to continually assert the 'realities' of a nuclear world without actually showing what they are or supporting them with evidence.

I suspect you and I simply disagree on what constitutes a threat.

You appear to want me to name a specific country that, right now, wishes to attack this country with nuclear weapons. I think that just shows that you really don't know what you are talking about on this topic.

I have never said that you are being dishonest or stupid.

You have repeatedly claimed that I don't hold the views I do for the reasons I have said I do.

That means you either think I am too stupid to understand my own beliefs and the reasons for them, or you think I am lying about my beliefs.

 

[Seismosaurus]

Yeah as it stands the only possible reason to have nukes is for smaller nations to avoid being regime-changed by the super-powers. That's why the NKs want them.

Well done on that, World!

Of course there is exactly 0 chance of a Russian land invasion of the UK so should I assume you are dishonest, stupid or incorrect here? You help me out.

1) No, it isn't exactly 0.
2) Did I say anything about a land invasion? No I did not.

 

[The Don]

Of course, but we don't have figures for that.

This group claim to:

http://www.newsworks.org.uk/Market-Overview

According to them, 28% of people read a paper daily, 52% at least weekly and 64% monthly.

However, for every member of the electorate to have read a newspaper, every single paper in circulation needs to be read by 5 people every day, which rather reinforces the point I was making: the views of newspaper columnists aren't as important as some here would like to think.

For newspapers to be influential, not everybody has to read a paper daily.

Even the 52% who read a paper at least weekly may be a low estimate for the newspapers' reach and influence because what they report often influences TV and radio reporting.

 

[Craig B]

That's amongst the less controversial claims I've seen on this site. Not sure what relevance it has to predicting what will happen in the future, but still.

My point is; you can make predictions about the future by examining:

1 Events of the past, or
2 Telegraph and Mail editorials.

I have chosen source no 1 above.

 

[baron]

My point is; you can make predictions about the future by examining:

1 Events of the past, or
2 Telegraph and Mail editorials.

I have chosen source no 1 above.

So you can make predictions about the future! I thought you said you couldn't? In that case I'll ask my question again: What will be the state of world affairs in 2067?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Of course, but we don't have figures for that. However, for every member of the electorate to have read a newspaper, every single paper in circulation needs to be read by 5 people every day, which rather reinforces the point I was making: the views of newspaper columnists aren't as important as some here would like to think.

Sometimes ignoring people who have useful things to say makes you say silly things like we don't have figures for that when they have been given to you pages before.

Wilful ignorance I believe that's called.

The fact that someone doesn't have those numbers shows how little they know about the media or care about facts. A cursory google would provide them.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Sounds fairly monolithic to me.
That implies (in my reading) that the media are in lockstep much of the time.

however, if the various parts of the media, from individual newspapers to the TV news, via the various web outlets, are not in lockstep then the above is meaningless. It's not the media that decides...it's the media is consumed that informs a person. There's a difference.

One is living in a self created echo chamber...the other is some strange conspiracy.

Not being monolithic doesn't mean that they equally represent all viewpoints at all times either. The media are there to sell papers or get viewers. Not to educate and inform the public or provide a balanced in depth analysis. The ownership of the media have their own political aims and biases too.

And yes of course consumption plays a part too but some media is so pervasive that you have little choice but to consume it at least in part. And the same media drives the political debate elsewhere and influences policy and discussion amongst politicians.

People are scared of losing their jobs if the Daily Mail takes up arms against them.

Take a different example. Christianity is not a monolithic entity but it has huge influence over US political discussion.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Asked and answered.


Yeah, that's nonsensical. We protect them, so we can get rid of our weapons! Awesome argument.


Asked and answered.


Well, fortunately for you we live in a world where you are free to be as wrong as you wish.


But that isn't media influence. That's merely me making a judgement on him based on my own values. The attitude of a politician towards nuclear weapons has been a litmus test for me since I was about 17 (which is 30 years ago). Not because of any media, but because I judge it as the most important issue in politics. The only effect media has had on me is that it's via media - typically the BBC website - that I read my news.

This remains true no matter how much you want it to be untrue.


I suspect you and I simply disagree on what constitutes a threat.

You appear to want me to name a specific country that, right now, wishes to attack this country with nuclear weapons. I think that just shows that you really don't know what you are talking about on this topic.


You have repeatedly claimed that I don't hold the views I do for the reasons I have said I do.

That means you either think I am too stupid to understand my own beliefs and the reasons for them, or you think I am lying about my beliefs.

No it means I think you are mistaken. If we were consciously aware of media influence it wouldn't be working and they wouldn't be doing it right. Smart people are influenced just as much as stupid people. We are talking psychology here not an IQ test.

 

[Craig B]

So you can make predictions about the future! I thought you said you couldn't? In that case I'll ask my question again: What will be the state of world affairs in 2067?

You're simply being daft, which is very sad.

 

[baron]

You're simply being daft, which is very sad.

No, this is daft. What are you even talking about?

But I asked before: the Red Menace that was about to attack and destroy the Free World for ideological reasons has imploded. Why do we still need to blow up the planet?

That's rather short-sighted. Do you really claim to predict what's going to happen 10, 30, 100 years in the future?

No, I really claim to retrodict what happened thirty years in the past, and I choose to take lessons from that history, rather than from the op-ed columns of the Sunday Torygraph and the Daily Heil.

If you learned anything from history it should have been that the future cannot be predicted. Still, since you don't agree, can you post a few bullet points describing the political state of the world in 2067?

My claim is that I can tell you what happened in 1987.

That's amongst the less controversial claims I've seen on this site. Not sure what relevance it has to predicting what will happen in the future, but still.

My point is; you can make predictions about the future by examining:

1 Events of the past, or
2 Telegraph and Mail editorials.

I have chosen source no 1 above.

So you can make predictions about the future! I thought you said you couldn't? In that case I'll ask my question again: What will be the state of world affairs in 2067?

You're simply being daft, which is very sad.

 

[Garrison]

A large part of the media is overtly hostile to Labour, which is why a smart party leader would avoid feeding them easy attack headlines about things like the Falklands.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

A large part of the media is overtly hostile to Labour, which is why a smart party leader would avoid feeding them easy attack headlines about things like the Falklands.

Yes, you can certainly say that Corbyn is apparently not very good at managing the media. But that's quite different from saying his policies are bad. And you should also acknowledge that if a large part of the media is overtly hostile to you it won't really matter what you say, a way will be found to use it against you. They are after all quite prepared to simply lie if the truth doesn't work for them.

 

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by Craig B But I asked before: the Red Menace that was about to attack and destroy the Free World for ideological reasons has imploded. Why do we still need to blow up the planet?
Originally Posted by baron That's rather short-sighted. Do you really claim to predict what's going to happen 10, 30, 100 years in the future?

You see that I was talking about the past implosion of the Red Menace. It now turns out it wasn't the Red Menace at all, cos we will need to keep nukes for ever and ever, commies or no commies. So I retrodict that what we were being told decades ago was nonsense. In the meantime I would like to devise some way of giving unusable weapons up, just as we have given up the slave trade, judicial torture and even, in most advanced countries, the death penalty.