Jump to content


Photo

Brexit - your vote and why?


  • Please log in to reply
854 replies to this topic

#841 elemimele

elemimele

    Prodigy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1318 posts
  • Member: 895612
    Joined: 17-July 16

Posted 27 December 2019 - 10:59

Oh, this is sickening. I wake this morning to find the Daily Mail plastering the following headline over a news article on MSN:

'No nice way to kill a fox': Anti-Brexit lawyer defends clubbing fox to death

Now this is the Daily Mail at its most poisonous and devious, mixing up two completely different strands of news, Brexit and Animal Cruelty, and subtly creating a link in readers' minds that those who've resisted brexit belong to a group of animal-hating, fox-killing upper-class hunters. The fact this man is a lawyer who has involved himself in opposition to brexit has nothing whatsoever to do with his attitude to foxes or his chickens. Publishing the story the day after boxing-day is cunning, because it gently hints at his being a red-coated hunter out with his hounds when in fact he was at home with his chickens. I'm not defending his actions, either concerning the fox or his behaviour as a tax lawyer, but I find the linking of unrelated ideas very distasteful; it creates and reinforces unfair stereotypes. It's been cunningly and professionally done, subtle, with layer upon layer of defensible action. But at the bottom, it's just an incitement to hatred, a further effort towards inflaming an Us-versus-Them war, and is the Daily Mail at its most disgusting.


  • 5

#842 Norway

Norway

    Virtuoso

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4734 posts
  • Member: 452922
    Joined: 05-May 12

Posted 27 December 2019 - 11:07

Gosh you don't want to read it Elemimele! I use the neighbour's old copies to put under Dozy Hen's perch cos it's nice and absorbent!


  • 4

#843 thara96

thara96

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • Member: 898080
    Joined: 04-August 17
  • UK

Posted 27 December 2019 - 13:32

Gosh, what a depressing article about politics and animal cruelty. Just goes to show some people are truly backwards in their thinking, doesn't it?


  • 0

#844 dorfmouse

dorfmouse

    Prodigy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1400 posts
  • Member: 1946
    Joined: 18-August 04
  • Germany

Posted 27 December 2019 - 13:34

Years ago I remenmber the DM describing all teachers as "Reds under the bed." It's a disgusting rag.
  • 3

#845 mel2

mel2

    Virtuoso

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4988 posts
  • Member: 6928
    Joined: 15-May 06
  • East Yorkshire

Posted 27 December 2019 - 14:18

For the most part I'm happy to leave this thread to be the echo-chamber it has become, but really, elemimele, I'm surprised at your 'outrage' in this instance. (I don't take the DM or any other daily newspaper, btw)

I could have feigned similar mock shock earlier in the week at an article in the Guardian quoting remarks by the Revd Rose Hudson Wilkin. The clear implication from the headline was that Brexit -supporters' rhetoric was responsible for the murder of Jo Cox MP.* Not some lone nutcase, as is generally accepted in the case of those perpetrating atrocities. Please don't imagine this is a one-way street.
(Can you imagine the fun there would have been on the Today programme had JRees Mogg or N Farage been wielding the cosh in a silk garment?!)

Edit: * and by extension, Brexit supporters in general were to blame for the incident.
  • 0

#846 Aquarelle

Aquarelle

    Virtuoso

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7896 posts
  • Member: 10531
    Joined: 05-April 07

Posted 27 December 2019 - 14:40

I rather think this sort of thing very sadly reflects on our education system. Several generations of children, now adult and of voting age, have been educated to think along these lines.

 

"Read (or skim) the text. Don't bother to look up any words you don't understand. Just guess.Give it a whirl and now answer the following questions by ticking the correct box."

 

What have we done?

 

Please don't read any particular  criticsm of either side into this remark. It applies too widely for that. It isn't just in the UK, either.


  • 1

#847 BadStrad

BadStrad

    Virtuoso

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4080 posts
  • Member: 88756
    Joined: 28-January 10

Posted 27 December 2019 - 14:41

That's over-reaching a bit, I think, Mel. The headline is pretty neutral. Discourse is debate, ie two sides. And of course, it is a quote, not a made up headline.
  • 0

#848 mel2

mel2

    Virtuoso

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4988 posts
  • Member: 6928
    Joined: 15-May 06
  • East Yorkshire

Posted 27 December 2019 - 15:24

That's over-reaching a bit, I think, Mel. The headline is pretty neutral. Discourse is debate, ie two sides. And of course, it is a quote, not a made up headline.


I disagree. Elemimele's objection if I understand it, was to the not-so-subtle linking of ideas in (obviously gullible) DM readers' minds creating an impression that the remainer-QC was fox-murdering toff. (No one forced him to tweet about it...)

I agree that debate is debate and therefore healthy, but the Guardian compilers appeared to believe it is no longer healthy if one is guilty of 'wrongthink'; such views it seems, become 'rhetoric' and lead to bloodshed.
  • 0

#849 BadStrad

BadStrad

    Virtuoso

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4080 posts
  • Member: 88756
    Joined: 28-January 10

Posted 27 December 2019 - 15:59

That's over-reaching a bit, I think, Mel. The headline is pretty neutral. Discourse is debate, ie two sides. And of course, it is a quote, not a made up headline.

I agree that debate is debate and therefore healthy, but the Guardian compilers appeared to believe it is no longer healthy if one is guilty of 'wrongthink'; such views it seems, become 'rhetoric' and lead to bloodshed.
I don't think I understand. The headline (and use of the word "discourse") is a quote from the Rev. It implies "both sides" of the divide.

When rhetoric is mentioned it is in the context of "all" not just one side (see quote from Rev. below). So I'm a bit lost as to your interpretation.

'She blamed both the media and politicians for the damaging rhetoric in society and said “all of us must take responsibility”.'
  • 0

#850 mel2

mel2

    Virtuoso

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4988 posts
  • Member: 6928
    Joined: 15-May 06
  • East Yorkshire

Posted 27 December 2019 - 16:50

That's over-reaching a bit, I think, Mel. The headline is pretty neutral. Discourse is debate, ie two sides. And of course, it is a quote, not a made up headline.

I agree that debate is debate and therefore healthy, but the Guardian compilers appeared to believe it is no longer healthy if one is guilty of 'wrongthink'; such views it seems, become 'rhetoric' and lead to bloodshed.
I don't think I understand. The headline (and use of the word "discourse") is a quote from the Rev. It implies "both sides" of the divide.
When rhetoric is mentioned it is in the context of "all" not just one side (see quote from Rev. below). So I'm a bit lost as to your interpretation.
'She blamed both the media and politicians for the damaging rhetoric in society and said “all of us must take responsibility”.'

  • 0

#851 mel2

mel2

    Virtuoso

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4988 posts
  • Member: 6928
    Joined: 15-May 06
  • East Yorkshire

Posted 27 December 2019 - 17:04

That's over-reaching a bit, I think, Mel. The headline is pretty neutral. Discourse is debate, ie two sides. And of course, it is a quote, not a made up headline.

I agree that debate is debate and therefore healthy, but the Guardian compilers appeared to believe it is no longer healthy if one is guilty of 'wrongthink'; such views it seems, become 'rhetoric' and lead to bloodshed.
I don't think I understand. The headline (and use of the word "discourse") is a quote from the Rev. It implies "both sides" of the divide.
When rhetoric is mentioned it is in the context of "all" not just one side (see quote from Rev. below). So I'm a bit lost as to your interpretation.
'She blamed both the media and politicians for the damaging rhetoric in society and said “all of us must take responsibility”.'

I'm prepared to believe the article was more nuanced than the headline. I'm referring to the way it appeared on MSN, as happened with the DM article referenced in #841 above.
I like to think the cleric would have been annoyed at the construction put on her words but obviously I cannot read her thoughts.
(If I could find the piece as it appeared on my phone a few days ago I would reproduce it, but the feed changes too frequently for me to do this.)
  • 0

#852 BadStrad

BadStrad

    Virtuoso

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4080 posts
  • Member: 88756
    Joined: 28-January 10

Posted 27 December 2019 - 17:35

Ahhhh. When you mentioned the Guardian, I thought you meant this article. https://www.theguard...cox-says-bishop
  • 0

#853 elemimele

elemimele

    Prodigy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1318 posts
  • Member: 895612
    Joined: 17-July 16

Posted 27 December 2019 - 17:36

No, no, no. I didn't say that people who wanted brexit are gullible; I have never said that, and I don't hold that viewpoint. I didn't say that at all, and didn't intend even to hint at it (and I apologise completely and unreservedly that I created that impression).

My complaint was that the press (in this case the Daily Mail, but I won't declare that they are the only guilty news-source) is unnecessarily inflaming an argument by linking it to other completely unrelated, but highly emotive subjects. It is equally wrong when any newspaper does it. I didn't read the Guardian's article, so I can't comment on it. But linking the average brexiteer in the street to anyone's murder is an abominable slur, bordering on the criminal; if the Guardian did it, then they have done something quite as repugnant as the Mail's article.

I wasn't writing in mock horror. I was writing in genuine emotion because I feel, very strongly, that a lot of decent people who favoured brexit have been pitted against a lot of equally decent people who didn't, and two groups of people have been driven into an Us-versus-Them conflict by unnecessarily emotive rhetoric, some of it downright lies. This schism in UK society is doing enormous harm, it's turned into a mass of hatred, and I do feel that the press has a case to answer in exploiting and amplifying the situation entirely improperly. Mr Johnson has said it's time to put this schism behind us, and although I'm far from his greatest fan, I can't disagree. Those of us who voted remain will always feel that we're now making the best of a bad job, but it's time to make the best of it, not time to pour petrol on the flames. The Mail, in this case, was not heeding Mr Johnson's advice.


  • 3

#854 Gordon Shumway

Gordon Shumway

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 402 posts
  • Member: 899488
    Joined: 11-February 19
  • London

Posted 28 December 2019 - 13:58

Tabloid headlines are deliberately misleading. This serves various functions: a) a lot of people only skim headlines and don't read the actual paper; b) they operate like advertising banners for commuters on trains.

 

I read two articles in the Mail in full a few years ago. I summarise them as follows: -

 

"NHS STAFF TOLD NOT TO HURRY"

A boy died of a very rare condition on a beach today.

The paramedics did not reach him in time with the resuscitation equipment.

His father was distraught and claimed that they were told not to hurry.

The beach was separated from the road by rocks.

The equipment weighed 125kg.

 

ELF & SAFETY GONE MAD

A man was up a ladder painting the front of his restaurant. A passer-by thought he looked unsafe and phoned the council. The council replied that he owned the restaurant and what he did was his business not theirs.

 

Another common trick is to get the reader to make up the story for themselves by asking a question then supplying non-committal news that doesn't answer the question, but lets readers' imaginations run wild. They love making up their own stories.

 

I remember reading on FB that the less evidence there was of wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton, the more likely that made it that the evidence was being covered up!

 

The Daily Mail's avowed intent is to generate anger and fear with every article. This reduces the ability to think effectively. In the East politically motivated imams generate anger and fear in young people in order to make them accept poor arguments for committing suicide.

In the west the media generate anger and fear in people in order to make them accept poor arguments for committing political suicide.


  • 1

#855 BadStrad

BadStrad

    Virtuoso

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4080 posts
  • Member: 88756
    Joined: 28-January 10

Posted 28 December 2019 - 14:21

There was an interesting piece of research by Facebook analysts. Some huge proportion (like around 70 - 80%) of people share stories/articles on the basis of the headline alone. They don't read the stuff (as evidenced by click through) they just share it.

Note to self, must try and find the research again as it bugsme not having the number.
  • 0