|
Fangz posted:Also 'social media as an alternative news source' is basically a bad joke. As mentioned, it totally depends. There are a load of issues with online alternative news: Lack of motivation in volunteers, lack of verification, overt bias, etc. One major problem you have that the mainstream media doesn't is that it's basically anonymous so there's nothing to hold the 'journalist' to account - so often you get people pushing whatever agenda they have very hard (e.g. conspiracy theorists who seem to appear everywhere). There are also issues of creating filter bubbles where you only read things you agree with - but I'm not sure that's a bigger problem online than it is for people reading many newspapers. There are people and systems attempting to deal with these issues though. E.g. Checkdesk for collaborative verification. (Or the stuff I'm investigating in my own PhD, which I'm still recruiting participants for to test in the new year - PM me if you're interested  </plug>)So yeah I think using social media as a news source now has its issues - but the days of the radical press are over - and if we want more democratic news sources which represent a broader range of views - this is our best shot and we should keep working on it.
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 03:28 |
|
|
Back when I was in Japan twitter was actually really useful when I had quite a big earthquake in the middle of the night. It was pretty far from Tokyo, so none of the English language sites were reporting about it immediately after but thanks to twitter I could see roughly how far away people were feeling it and people were checking in saying if there was any damage in their area.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 08:33
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:The vast majority of people, in fact. How do they cope Pissflaps?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 10:33
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:Not necessarily, depending on how it's used. For comment/analysis it can be useful for providing alternatives to the orthodox position. For example, look at the Scottish independence referendum. Whatever your opinion on the issue specifically, the discussion around it demonstrated pretty clearly how the mainstream media can collaborate to control the terms of debate, and the potential of more informal sources to countering that. I'm still having to explain to my friends in England that my support of independence doesn't mean I'm a nationalist, which is very much the image that was put across in most of the time in the press/on TV. Don't you see the referendum as pretty strong evidence that Social Media as Alternate News just plain doesn't work? If you've failed to explain to even your *friends* that you aren't a nationalist, then how is that going to permeate the rest of the population? What social media as news really achieves is create small bubbles of people talking to similarly like minded people, which extended across the general population is in fact alienating and damaging - it also faciliates the spread of very dumb rumours and ideas: I would consider for example the indie notion of Project Fear as one such example. It is still the mainstream mass media that moves the masses, and I'd say that the referendum shows to need to co-opt that at all costs, not just moan about it. Ghandi's success was the effect of a specific context, and generally requires a situation where popular opinion is *already* massively on your side. I don't see how it's going to be repeated. StoneOfShame posted:Civil disobedience can work and work well as can general strikes (which would be a really great idea in this country at the moment). The most likely model for change I see is an internal takeover of one of the major parties, if necessary gradually. See e.g. something along the lines of what Reagan did to the republican party.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 10:50
|
|
|
I am wondering how "civil disobedience" in the pursuit of eliminating foreign ownership of residential properties is going to look like "BNP rally" comes to mind these are policies that can be undertaken, but they occupy an uncomfortable position of being both populistically popular (cough) and being utterly terrifying if perceived to be implemented in deference to populists
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 10:52
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Don't you see the referendum as pretty strong evidence that Social Media as Alternate News just plain doesn't work It's not the ideal for a lot of news, but for certain events it can be very useful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 10:56
|
|
|
Fangz posted:
Give the man a cigar. People are looking to Occupy Wall Street for some loving reason which managed to accomplish getting a bunch of people pepper sprayed when they should be looking at the Tea Party; they demonstrated that even if you have a nonsensical economic platform and odious supporters you can radically change the discourse as long as you're in the tent pissing out. We're lucky they're so crazy; had it been another group of smooth operators a la Reagan they could have seized the republican party (instead of fracturing it). e: and guess what's going to happen if UKIP takes 1-49% in a large number of seats and Cameron or whoever comes to them talking conciliation; a split electorate can pivot into a grand coalition in no time at all. CoolCab fucked around with this message at 10:58 on Oct 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 10:56
|
|
|
civil disobedience is good at obstructing activities that require a physical presence. You seize a position and you dare your oppressor to fight you out of it notice that of every bullet point on Vitamin P's summary, every single one requires bureaucratic procedures instead. You cannot take the functioning of a welfare state hostage in order to demand an incrementally larger welfare state, your right-wing opponent will gladly shoot the hostage and then you these are straightforwardly not goals readily achievable through occupations, seizures, etc. You cannot combine the activism techniques of the 70s New Left with the goals of the old postwar social democrats, no matter how nostalgic one is for lost eras and lost opportunities. It is especially insensible to advocate this in Britain, considering what sent Labour into the desert across the 80s ronya fucked around with this message at 11:08 on Oct 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 11:05
|
|
|
Renfield posted:I remember from the time (although I can't source it at all) that Argentina was given the nod quietly that the UK wouldn't fight for the Falklands, and that in any case they would not have invaded if they knew the UK had a nuclear submarine in the area (which we did). edit: oops, I left my tabs open 
Zephro fucked around with this message at 11:22 on Oct 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 11:18
|
|
|
The whole Falklands issue is really interesting. It's a textbook case of self-determination, where the islanders want to be British. I still get the feeling that there's a group of people for whom the real preferences of real life actual people are less important than the ability to strike a heroic pose against "British imperialism" in just about the dumbest way imaginable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 11:24
|
|
|
Zephro posted:This is putting it too strongly. We used to have a Royal Navy ship that patrolled around the South Atlantic. We removed it. That was interpreted, in Buenos Aires, as a sign that we'd given up on that part of the world. As far as I know, no-one ever gave any kind of "nod", there was no back-channel communication along the lines of "feel free to have a go", or anything like that. Yeah as I understand it both the Cabinet and the command at Falklands were completely blindsided; Argentina was our ally at the time and frankly even radically diminished as the UK was at the time, it was picking a fight they couldn't possibly win if we contested it in the slightest. The whole "limited war" thing existed to ensure we didn't escalate the conflict to bombing their mainland (which, in my opinion, might have happened had they successfully blown up the ship in Spain like they attempted).
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 11:27
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Cumbria, actually. And apparently ever since it moved there the signal has been really crap. Mountains I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
I think a lot of the Argentine calculation pre-war was "they simply don't have enough of a navy to do much about it anymore", which was broadly correct- a lot of the task force sent was due to be scrapped or even in the early stages of being scrapped. Even then, a few good fuses, or a few more exocets could have tipped the scales entirely in Argentina's favour, and who knows what would have happened in that event.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
Argentina's actions have to be considered in its own domestic ideological lenses - where British imperialism triggered the devastating Paraguayan War in the 1860s (an idea that was popular amongst the Argentine left in the 1970s), and also one where organized leftist opposition to imperialism is a credible bar to such imperialist military action. The junta was truly reactionary, in that it tacitly accepted the propaganda and worldview of its enemies. And anyone reading such propaganda in 1981 can only have concluded that Britain was crippled, shattered by riots in London itself, and on the persistent verge of a general strike. Even by the 1980s this seems a bit antiquated in the West - we knew that there can be million-men marches on Washington, DC and still have DC bomb a country on the other side of the planet the next day, with no fear of imminent collapse of government. Less 60s/70s-flavoured panicking when urban students march.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 11:51
|
|
|
ronya posted:The junta was truly reactionary, in that it tacitly accepted the propaganda and worldview of its enemies. And anyone reading such propaganda in 1981 can only have concluded that Britain was crippled, shattered by riots in London itself, and on the persistent verge of a general strike. Sound like they lurked this thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 12:01
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Sound like they lurked this thread. maybe. sort of. I've noticed that UKMT has a lot more vaguely left-ish-but-disengaged-and-disenchanted than State and Revolution-waving activists as of late, but clearly you understood the tenor of what I was describing, yes
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 12:06
|
|
|
Guys hate to interrupt Falklandschat but breaking news, UKIP is releasing an anti-immigration calypso complete with fake jamaican accent and it is apparently a real thing and not some kind of brilliant parody.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 13:31
|
|
|
I just saw that pop up on my Facebook feed and I was convinced that it was a joke until I looked into it. The first thing that springs to mind is this David Mitchell rant; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09MsD8wSeYM
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 13:37
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Don't you see the referendum as pretty strong evidence that Social Media as Alternate News just plain doesn't work? If you've failed to explain to even your *friends* that you aren't a nationalist, then how is that going to permeate the rest of the population? I'd see the complete opposite. A 45% vote for something almost universally condemned in the mainstream media is a pretty good showing. I never said I had failed to explain to my friends, only that explaining is something I have to do on occasion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 13:40
|
|
|
Heisenberg1276 posted:As mentioned, it totally depends. This isn't actually a problem. "Bias" in news today means "this reporter dared to point out what's actually true", and unbiased means pretending the issue has exactly two sides and giving both equal time while neither analyzing or challenging anything either one says (but only after censoring anything that might go against the status quo), ala BBC News. If "bias" is a angry bloke with a bunch of facts telling the established narrative that it's full of poo poo, then hell yeah, more biased news media please.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 13:44
|
|
|
Anyone who's been hearing that Banksy was arrested today should know it's a hoax and the police have confirmed as such.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 13:46
|
|
|
Obliterati posted:Anyone who's been hearing that Banksy was arrested today should know it's a hoax and the police have confirmed as such. Oh thank god.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 13:50
|
|
|
The New Black posted:Guys hate to interrupt Falklandschat but breaking news, UKIP is releasing an anti-immigration calypso complete with fake jamaican accent and it is apparently a real thing and not some kind of brilliant parody. When I first read this I thought they were going to sell a juice drink to schools
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 13:53
|
|
|
Phoon posted:When I first read this I thought they were going to sell a juice drink to schools
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 13:57
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:This isn't actually a problem. "Bias" in news today means "this reporter dared to point out what's actually true", and unbiased means pretending the issue has exactly two sides and giving both equal time while neither analyzing or challenging anything either one says (but only after censoring anything that might go against the status quo), ala BBC News. The problem is that this is often viewed as less reliable than mainstream news reports (which attempt to neatly divide an issue into two camps according to the broadcaster's ideology). In my research I'm attempting to present news as a collection of very biased reports from across the spectrum - hopefully allowing reasoned opinions to shine out and encouraging contribution from groups who would normally be excluded.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 14:05
|
|
|
The New Black posted:Guys hate to interrupt Falklandschat but breaking news, UKIP is releasing an anti-immigration calypso complete with fake jamaican accent and it is apparently a real thing and not some kind of brilliant parody. Go home Nigel, you're drunk.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
In fairness, UKIP did manage to find the one ex-Radio 1 DJ not having his collar felt by Yewtree, which is impressive, in a way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:Go home Nigel, you're drunk. You mean there were times Nigel wasn't drunk?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
Trickjaw posted:In fairness, UKIP did manage to find the one ex-Radio 1 DJ not having his collar felt by Yewtree, which is impressive, in a way. You always need to add a "yet" when talking about Yewtree, that poo poo's going to run and run. As for the media response, how has nothing been slung at the corpse of John Peel yet, doesn't he admit to getting blowjobs from thirteen year olds in his autobiography?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:I'd see the complete opposite. A 45% vote for something almost universally condemned in the mainstream media is a pretty good showing. I never said I had failed to explain to my friends, only that explaining is something I have to do on occasion. But *where* are those 45% coming from? If it was truly social media, you'd have expected it to be coming from the internet savvy young, and from the more richer people with more access to technology. But in fact, despite a dominance in social media, the indies failed to win the 18-24 year old demographic. Their core demographic was actually 30-40 year old men, and the unemployed. Note too that the pattern of the rise in support for Yes didn't match the social media campaign - the rapid rise in the late stages of the game corresponded more clearly to a string of headline events supportive of Yes. There was no reason why a social media campaign would suddenly become more effective at those points. The vast majority of social media 'news' is simply people retweeting mainstream news coverage. There is no new information being added.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
Fangz posted:If it was truly social media, you'd have expected it to be coming from the internet savvy young, and from the more richer people with more access to technology. Wait, this only works depending on how many people in Scotland have at least basic internet access which I would be surprised if it was less then 90% and what do you mean by how "much access to technology" anyways. You just need a basic internet connection and a device/machine that has connectivity to the internet to use social media and research on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
Fangz posted:But *where* are those 45% coming from? If it was truly social media, you'd have expected it to be coming from the internet savvy young, and from the more richer people with more access to technology. But in fact, despite a dominance in social media, the indies failed to win the 18-24 year old demographic. Their core demographic was actually 30-40 year old men, and the unemployed. That's slightly misleading. Young voters disproportionately supported independence. The 18-25's were in fact the only <55 group who voted on balance for No, and then only by 1%. The real swing factor was the always reliable OAP demographic. If pensioners were excluded it would have been a comfortable Yes victory. You are correct that there's clear correlation between income and voting intention. The poor were far more likely to go for a Yes vote. I'm not sure the argument that only the rich can afford to access social media really has legs these days, except in very extreme examples. I don't think social media was the deciding factor, but I do think it provided an accessible alternative platform for discussion incorporating perspectives that the mainstream media would not carry. The only pro-indy pieces I saw in print were a couple of opinion pieces in the Guardian/Independent (both of which retained a heavily pro-unionist editorial policy in general). It's not so much about online campaigns as such, but a space for free and open discussion. The people speaking may be biased, but the platform isn't intrinsically weighted on way or the other.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
The New Black posted:Guys hate to interrupt Falklandschat but breaking news, UKIP is releasing an anti-immigration calypso complete with fake jamaican accent and it is apparently a real thing and not some kind of brilliant parody. I can't wait for the leaders' debate when Farage pulls off his rubber mask and reveals he was Chris Morris all along.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
More fallout from the Barroso-Cameron spat over the weekend: Barroso's having a go at pretty much everybody for pretty much everything, Dave's come over all populist all of a sudden, and Ken Clarke continues to lead the world in Being Ken Clarke. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2798680/no-s-not-economy-stupid-s-immigration-says-james-forsyth.html Clarke, who had been a fixture in every Tory government since Ted Heath’s until Cameron retired him in the last reshuffle, growled that by talking up immigration, Cameron was playing into Nigel Farage’s hands. He argued the Tories should not try to out-Ukip Ukip and attempt to satisfy the public’s ‘insatiable appetite’ for action on immigration. Instead, he said, the Tories should be concentrating on the economy. Those present tell me that hackles were raised by the intervention. Those on the right thought it was Clarke – one of the last pro-Europeans in the party – being drippingly Wet. A surprisingly large number of Tory MPs, however, feel that the old stager has a point. They worry that the leadership is losing sight of its own agenda and they complain that the party has said almost nothing in the past fortnight about the popular tax cuts it unveiled at its conference earlier this month. Cameron countered Clarke with a robust defence of his strategy. I’m informed that he rose to his feet and said ‘the people are our bosses’ and that if voters are concerned about immigration, their representatives should be too. Meanwhile, Barroso's using his most aggravating tones and ill-considered phrasing to chide Cameron and other senior Tories for striking an unhelpful and counterproductive tone when talking about Europe and immigration, and pro-Europeans in the UK for not standing up to make their case: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/president/news/archives/2014/10/20141020_1_en.htm It is an illusion to believe that space for dialogue can be created if the tone and substance of the arguments you put forward question the very principle at stake and offend fellow member states. It would be an historic mistake if over these issues, Britain were to continue to alienate its natural allies in Central and Eastern Europe when you were one of the strongest advocates for their accession. But would the UK have been able to accept the costs of climate change mitigation without knowing that competitors would make the same commitment? Could the UK alone have imposed capital market sanctions on Russia without others making similar efforts? In short, could the UK get by without a little help from your friends? My answer is "probably not". And you need to start making that positive case well in advance because if people read only negative and often false portrayals in their newspapers from Monday to Saturday, you cannot expect them to nail the European flag on their front door on Sunday just because the political establishment tells them it is the right thing to do. In fact, even if I understand that emotionally the case for keeping the United Kingdom is different in nature, rationally many of the arguments used by the three main political parties in the Scottish debate are just as relevant for British membership of the EU. The SNP took the opportunity to have a pop at Cameron while apparently being unable to grasp the incongruity of praising arguments they were so keen to dismiss as bluffs and threats only a few short weeks ago. A month's a long time in politics, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_Gn7TEEB-M The follow up UKIP Single
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
I read through Barroso's speech and didn't find anything 'ill-considered', though it's certainly aggravating for the various people he's directing it at and rightly so. First off, Barroso has literally a week and a half left in power and has nothing to lose by being blunt, and he's speaking to Chatham House, no-nonsense stuff being kind of their shtick. As far as his actual speech goes: his comments towards pro-Europeans are spot on and will hopefully be a wake-up call, I've been involved on-and-off in pro-European advocacy for half a decade at this point and if anything it's become more of a disorganised shambles than it was when I started even though there's a great deal of sympathy for it within the FCO and MOD. As for his comments on foreign policy -- well, them's the facts. A lot of people in the UK establishment -- though typically not the people actually involved in foreign policy -- have a vastly overinflated conception of their influence within the EU at the moment, as the nonsense over Juncker showed, and apparently equally little realisation of the extent to which the UK depends on Europe. Barroso's absolutely right that the discourse within the UK is dominated by illusions in all sorts of ways.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
Zohar posted:I read through Barroso's speech and didn't find anything 'ill-considered'...
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Labour have proposed a £250 per month mansion tax on properties valued over 2 million, not sure if it scales up with value E: £250 is the minimum and it will scale upwards
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
Three grand a year on a two million pound house? They'd spend more if you broke every window of such a house. Pitiful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 03:28 |
|
|
Zero Gravitas posted:Three grand a year on a two million pound house? They'd spend more if you broke every window of such a house. Watch as this tepid, token progressive policy is decried by the media as the horrifying first sign of a socialist resurgence worthy of Lenin himself Just like when they announced price controls for utilities and everyone burst into some sort of communist tourette's, STALIN GLASNOST CHERNOBYL SPUTNIK
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 16:49
|
|
