Discussion of the more serious side of the Mail's agenda
  •  
  •  
 
By crabcakes_windermere
Membership Days Posts
#305975
For various reasons (work, mainly) I haven't had as much time as usual to browse Mailwatch this last month or so, and so as a knock-on I haven't been exposed to nearly as much DM bollocks. And I genuinely feel better for it - less pessimistic, less angry and so on. And that's via second-hand exposure to people pointing out how unpleasant it is, so I really despair about the effect reading tripe like the DM would do every day to someone.

I wonder if anyone has performed any studies on the effect of tabloid negativity on views and ability to perceive/detect falsehoods and underlying agendas?
By Dacre Bleugh
Membership Days
#306111
crabcakes_windermere wrote: I wonder if anyone has performed any studies on the effect of tabloid negativity on views and ability to perceive/detect falsehoods and underlying agendas?
The "Bad News" series from GMG is worth a look. This is good too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_t ... ith_Kansas" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's not so much to do with tabloid negativity, but rather looks at a new(ish) discourse of populist Conservatism (Tea Party/UKIP) that draws attention to cultural issues, rather than economic ones.

In particular, I fear this is the sticking point...
Thomas Frank, the author of the best-selling book What's The Matter with Kansas, is an even more exasperated Democrat and he goes further than Mr Westen. He believes that the voters' preference for emotional engagement over reasonable argument has allowed the Republican Party to blind them to their own real interests.

The Republicans have learnt how to stoke up resentment against the patronising liberal elite, all those do-gooders who assume they know what poor people ought to be thinking.

Right-wing politics has become a vehicle for channelling this popular anger against intellectual snobs. The result is that many of America's poorest citizens have a deep emotional attachment to a party that serves the interests of its richest.

Thomas Frank says that whatever disadvantaged Americans think they are voting for, they get something quite different:
"You vote to strike a blow against elitism and you receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our life times, workers have been stripped of power, and CEOs are rewarded in a manner that is beyond imagining.

"It's like a French Revolution in reverse in which the workers come pouring down the street screaming more power to the aristocracy."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8474611.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Trump Presidency

Sadly, quoting Baltimore at these people is a wast[…]

Momentum

Momentum strongly criticized here by neoliberal au[…]

Endangering Democracy

And Dr Ault leaps to the conclusion that "thi[…]

Labour, Generally.

Personal right to anonymity? I think the lion's […]