Snap General Election called

[Digby]

The owners of the press certainly have access to money, but so do unions and left leaning parties, and it would be possible or organise through many other groups on the left centre-left. It is in effect either the left are bad at distributing (or marketing) news, or not enough people want to listen, and if people in a democracy don't want to listen to you then you probably shouldn't have much power

You have it all messed up. The media aren't favourable to the right because the right is good at marketing. How it works is business interests fund both the media and the right wing parties to get favourable policy. The profits (i.e. spare capital) of the sum total of the business interests of the country far far outweigh the resources of the left, even if you consider the unions in that estimation. The resources available to the left are peanuts in comparison.

Understanding the idea and concepts of marketing and PR would be a good start, though...

As would not having a whining can't do attitude.

There's more than enough money on the left to fund a publication, there's just not the unity and drive. They'd rather argue between themselves as to the purity of their vision.

Mind I'm also constantly amazed at the lack of use of the stock market by the left

[Zhivago]

You have it all messed up. The media aren't favourable to the right because the right is good at marketing. How it works is business interests fund both the media and the right wing parties to get favourable policy. The profits (i.e. spare capital) of the sum total of the business interests of the country far far outweigh the resources of the left, even if you consider the unions in that estimation. The resources available to the left are peanuts in comparison.

Understanding the idea and concepts of marketing and PR would be a good start, though...

As would not having a whining can't do attitude.

There's more than enough money on the left to fund a publication, there's just not the unity and drive. They'd rather argue between themselves as to the purity of their vision.

Mind I'm also constantly amazed at the lack of use of the stock market by the left

I disagree. Operating costs are around 250-300m euros for the Guardian. Where do you think the left would get such money? Labour get about 40 million annual in revenue from all sources. The trade unions have been in terminal decline since the 80s. The left doesn't have the money for such costly endeavors, that's why it focuses on cheaper options such as social media. There are a few leftist publications, such as Tribune, but they are pretty niche.

[Stom]

Understanding the idea and concepts of marketing and PR would be a good start, though...

As would not having a whining can't do attitude.

There's more than enough money on the left to fund a publication, there's just not the unity and drive. They'd rather argue between themselves as to the purity of their vision.

Mind I'm also constantly amazed at the lack of use of the stock market by the left

I disagree. Operating costs are around 250-300m euros for the Guardian. Where do you think the left would get such money? Labour get about 40 million annual in revenue from all sources. The trade unions have been in terminal decline since the 80s. The left doesn't have the money for such costly endeavors, that's why it focuses on cheaper options such as social media. There are a few leftist publications, such as Tribune, but they are pretty niche.

What's the Guardian, then?

I mean, come on. We're not talking about political parties funding a newspaper. If the Guardian can keep itself afloat, so can another with a less...elitist outlook than the Granuiad.

And that's not really the point being made here.

While there are hurdles to setting up a more anti-establishment newspaper, there are also hurdles to setting up ANY newspaper now, as investment is going to be hard to come by. Couple that with, with, a bit of the corruption you talk about and you do get a difficult situation.

But you don't get through a difficult situation by focusing on what you can't do.

[Zhivago]

As would not having a whining can't do attitude.

There's more than enough money on the left to fund a publication, there's just not the unity and drive. They'd rather argue between themselves as to the purity of their vision.

Mind I'm also constantly amazed at the lack of use of the stock market by the left

I disagree. Operating costs are around 250-300m euros for the Guardian. Where do you think the left would get such money? Labour get about 40 million annual in revenue from all sources. The trade unions have been in terminal decline since the 80s. The left doesn't have the money for such costly endeavors, that's why it focuses on cheaper options such as social media. There are a few leftist publications, such as Tribune, but they are pretty niche.

What's the Guardian, then?

I mean, come on. We're not talking about political parties funding a newspaper. If the Guardian can keep itself afloat, so can another with a less...elitist outlook than the Granuiad.

And that's not really the point being made here.

While there are hurdles to setting up a more anti-establishment newspaper, there are also hurdles to setting up ANY newspaper now, as investment is going to be hard to come by. Couple that with, with, a bit of the corruption you talk about and you do get a difficult situation.
But you don't get through a difficult situation by focusing on what you can't do.

It's called having a dose of humility and accepting the reality. Besides, the main reason the left doesn't get elected is that it is too disunited, and fights too many side battles.

[Digby]

And I'll note again you don't have to start the size of the Guardian. You can start smaller and build, if you can't build either nobody is interested which is telling in itself, or you're not doing it well which is also telling.

They've had decades to be working on this and so far haven't made any progress. They have decades to work on it, if they fail to organise in the first instance that's also telling when it's so often stated they face this big problem in the media

[Stom]

I disagree. Operating costs are around 250-300m euros for the Guardian. Where do you think the left would get such money? Labour get about 40 million annual in revenue from all sources. The trade unions have been in terminal decline since the 80s. The left doesn't have the money for such costly endeavors, that's why it focuses on cheaper options such as social media. There are a few leftist publications, such as Tribune, but they are pretty niche.

What's the Guardian, then?

I mean, come on. We're not talking about political parties funding a newspaper. If the Guardian can keep itself afloat, so can another with a less...elitist outlook than the Granuiad.

And that's not really the point being made here.

While there are hurdles to setting up a more anti-establishment newspaper, there are also hurdles to setting up ANY newspaper now, as investment is going to be hard to come by. Couple that with, with, a bit of the corruption you talk about and you do get a difficult situation.
But you don't get through a difficult situation by focusing on what you can't do.

It's called having a dose of humility and accepting the reality. Besides, the main reason the left doesn't get elected is that it is too disunited, and fights too many side battles.

You mean that the main reason the left doesn't get elected is because they don't have a clear marketing and PR strategy that everyone buys into?

Gosh, I wonder who said that.

Good thing is: that's fixable. See Marki-Zay Peter over here - though you wouldn't consider him left, he's probably left in today's climate, but he's definitely a conservative.

That's what's frustrating about it: a media on their side wouldn't change things. So your argument is moot because you accept the problems are of the left's own creating, not because of a biased media, that's just an aside/symptom.

[Zhivago]

What's the Guardian, then?

I mean, come on. We're not talking about political parties funding a newspaper. If the Guardian can keep itself afloat, so can another with a less...elitist outlook than the Granuiad.

And that's not really the point being made here.

While there are hurdles to setting up a more anti-establishment newspaper, there are also hurdles to setting up ANY newspaper now, as investment is going to be hard to come by. Couple that with, with, a bit of the corruption you talk about and you do get a difficult situation.
But you don't get through a difficult situation by focusing on what you can't do.

It's called having a dose of humility and accepting the reality. Besides, the main reason the left doesn't get elected is that it is too disunited, and fights too many side battles.

You mean that the main reason the left doesn't get elected is because they don't have a clear marketing and PR strategy that everyone buys into?

Gosh, I wonder who said that.

Good thing is: that's fixable. See Marki-Zay Peter over here - though you wouldn't consider him left, he's probably left in today's climate, but he's definitely a conservative.

That's what's frustrating about it: a media on their side wouldn't change things. So your argument is moot because you accept some of the problems are of the left's own creating, not because of a biased media, that's just an aside/symptom.

fixed that for you

The biased media is a fact of life. Building a left wing media is not a short term project. There are quicker wins to be had. The most pressing one is finding the right leader. Starmer isn't the right leader. Corbyn clearly wasn't either. But there needs to be someone out there who combines the seriousness of Starmer with the passion of Corbyn.

[Son of Mathonwy]

And I agree it's hard to start with a national, so don't. Start with something else and build.

Again it's the can't do attitude which makes it so easy for the right to offer something much more positive, no matter if what they're offering is bollocks

Okay, you accept that the market is dominated by a small number of providers and that it's hard to start a national newspaper to compete. Which makes it far from the ideal, free market, perfect competition situation. Do you think this is a problem?

Yes. But I think the solution comes out of hard work to deliver something better, and if you don't work hard or your work isn't effective then you need to keep trying. And if you cannot sell your message it might just be not enough people want to listen, and that isn't to be overlooked

Again they've had decades to be working on an answer to this, and they've achieved not a sodding thing.

Just whining about the situation speaks to why so many think the left are losers

You don't fix an unbalanced/monopolistic market by hoping some competitor will take down Microsoft, Amazon or Facebook. You need regulation. And the same is true here. There's only enough space in the market for a handful of profitable national newspapers and we can't afford to wait decades for the market to magically improve the situation.

We can't allow individuals (who just happen to be billionaires) to have such huge influence on people's opinions. Rules concerning shareholder control (for newspapers above a certain market share) need to be adjusted to prevent this (eg ultimate control by an individual or group of related individuals needs to be outlawed).

[Digby]

Why not bring change over decades? Change comes slowly to those who want it. And again, they could already have been doing this for decades, you can't not do something and then complain it's not been done, well not and sound sensible. That's making to HMG saying they cannot fix the sewers in the next year or so because some idiots have gone decades not addressing the problem

Also if the cruel media keep Labour locked out of power how are they going to gain enough power to effect the changes which will make it easier for them to gain power?

I am if one can bring forward a sensible bill in the realms of media publishing not averse to some changes being made, but blaming other people for thinking differently and for a present reality not being what you want isn't going to change much.

[Puja]

I have to say, this is a fascinating display of the persistence of the 'free market will solve things itself' dogma.

"This industry has high barriers to entry, there are only a few conglomerates in the market, and very little regulation. This has created an oligopoly which reduces consumer choice and raises the barriers to entry even higher."

"Why don't you just create new entrants onto the market instead of complaining?"


Note, the complaint here is not (necessarily) that the papers aren't owned by nice people, it's that over 60% of the market is directly owned by two men, across five papers (not counting the Sunday editions as separate entities) and most of the other 40% is tied up by another three men. All 5 are billionaires and they have a incredible hold over the market - they can hire away any writers they want, they have influence over vendors and distributors, there is little to no regulation to prevent collusion and market-fixing, and if they face any competition, they are not averse to using their papers as a loss leader. Hells, the Metro is given away for free every day - how exactly is a non-billionaire owned paper supposed to enter this market?

It is a market failure condition and "just try harder and complain less" isn't the solution. What we need is breaking up the oligopolies, instituting regulation to promote editorial independence, and actually having a regulator that has both the power and the desire to regulate (at bare minimum to punish bare-faced lying). What we're getting is Paul Dacre in charge of Ofcom by hook or by crook.

Puja

[Stom]

I have to say, this is a fascinating display of the persistence of the 'free market will solve things itself' dogma.

"This industry has high barriers to entry, there are only a few conglomerates in the market, and very little regulation. This has created an oligopoly which reduces consumer choice and raises the barriers to entry even higher."

"Why don't you just create new entrants onto the market instead of complaining?"


Note, the complaint here is not (necessarily) that the papers aren't owned by nice people, it's that over 60% of the market is directly owned by two men, across five papers (not counting the Sunday editions as separate entities) and most of the other 40% is tied up by another three men. All 5 are billionaires and they have a incredible hold over the market - they can hire away any writers they want, they have influence over vendors and distributors, there is little to no regulation to prevent collusion and market-fixing, and if they face any competition, they are not averse to using their papers as a loss leader. Hells, the Metro is given away for free every day - how exactly is a non-billionaire owned paper supposed to enter this market?

It is a market failure condition and "just try harder and complain less" isn't the solution. What we need is breaking up the oligopolies, instituting regulation to promote editorial independence, and actually having a regulator that has both the power and the desire to regulate (at bare minimum to punish bare-faced lying). What we're getting is Paul Dacre in charge of Ofcom by hook or by crook.

Puja

I agree, though. My point was more that 'the left' needs to get its marketing and PR right whatever the situation with the papers. If they can do that, they'll win half the battle. Again, look here with MZPs win. Really, it's something worth studying:

Former marketing exec turned politician hires another marketer to help run a campaign focused on telling the truth and...well...wins.

[Digby]

The free market will not do anything, but it also doesn't stop much.

And really what's the alternative? If you don't like the Tories in power when they're setting the rules why bother to have the hope the Tories will do something to fix/alter a system which aligns with their interests? So it needs change to who's in position to make the decisions, and that in part we're told needs a new media offering.

I doubt there's anything that can be done overnight, it's going to take I assume years of diligent and often frustrating grind. If someone has a better idea by all means mention, I just don't happen to agree those currently in power making important reforms in the name of decency looks likely, basically the horse has to go in front of the cart

[Son of Mathonwy]

The free market will not do anything, but it also doesn't stop much.

And really what's the alternative? If you don't like the Tories in power when they're setting the rules why bother to have the hope the Tories will do something to fix/alter a system which aligns with their interests? So it needs change to who's in position to make the decisions, and that in part we're told needs a new media offering.

I doubt there's anything that can be done overnight, it's going to take I assume years of diligent and often frustrating grind. If someone has a better idea by all means mention, I just don't happen to agree those currently in power making important reforms in the name of decency looks likely, basically the horse has to go in front of the cart

This isn't a free market, unless you're a billionaire.

You agree the situation is a problem but you're happy for the solution to take decades to arrive, if ever. Obviously you don't think it's much of a problem. I'd prefer a problem to be fixed a little faster than that.

What's the alternative? Regulation, as several people have said. This could be implemented immediately.

Of course the Tories won't do it, so we need someone else.

[Puja]

In amongst all of this, the usual papers seem to be turning on the Tories of late. The Mail on Sunday have run an "investigation" showing that Rees-Mogg's taken £6 million in director's loans from his company without declaring it. Maybe they are starting to look at the possibility of backing Starmer.

Puja

[Zhivago]

In amongst all of this, the usual papers seem to be turning on the Tories of late. The Mail on Sunday have run an "investigation" showing that Rees-Mogg's taken £6 million in director's loans from his company without declaring it. Maybe they are starting to look at the possibility of backing Starmer.

Puja

Or more likely, they're showing their teeth to make sure Tories are reminded of the value of keeping them on side. That, and of course, opportunism of a good scandal to sell papers.

[Digby]

The free market will not do anything, but it also doesn't stop much.

And really what's the alternative? If you don't like the Tories in power when they're setting the rules why bother to have the hope the Tories will do something to fix/alter a system which aligns with their interests? So it needs change to who's in position to make the decisions, and that in part we're told needs a new media offering.

I doubt there's anything that can be done overnight, it's going to take I assume years of diligent and often frustrating grind. If someone has a better idea by all means mention, I just don't happen to agree those currently in power making important reforms in the name of decency looks likely, basically the horse has to go in front of the cart

This isn't a free market, unless you're a billionaire.

You agree the situation is a problem but you're happy for the solution to take decades to arrive, if ever. Obviously you don't think it's much of a problem. I'd prefer a problem to be fixed a little faster than that.

What's the alternative? Regulation, as several people have said. This could be implemented immediately.

Of course the Tories won't do it, so we need someone else.

Why would the Tories implement regulation against their interests? And if that's the case you need to win power, and the point about winning power is it's being noted would be easier with more favourable media.

I think fwiw it's a big problem, I'm just expecting someone needs to do something about it not hope someone does something about it for them

I'm used of course to arguing a case and getting nowhere, just a fringe benefit of being a Lib Dem member. But it is what it is, we either do better or we continue to be something of an irrelevance. Just because we think we have some good ideas doesn't mean shit

[Digby]

In amongst all of this, the usual papers seem to be turning on the Tories of late. The Mail on Sunday have run an "investigation" showing that Rees-Mogg's taken £6 million in director's loans from his company without declaring it. Maybe they are starting to look at the possibility of backing Starmer.

Puja

Is that something he needs to declare, or is it technically one of those things against the spirit more than an offence?

[Son of Mathonwy]

In amongst all of this, the usual papers seem to be turning on the Tories of late. The Mail on Sunday have run an "investigation" showing that Rees-Mogg's taken £6 million in director's loans from his company without declaring it. Maybe they are starting to look at the possibility of backing Starmer.

Puja

More likely the possibility of backing Sunak.

If they abandon Boris, there are many options they'd prefer to Starmer. Although I agree it's something they could at least contemplate, something they would never have done with Corbyn.

[Son of Mathonwy]

The free market will not do anything, but it also doesn't stop much.

And really what's the alternative? If you don't like the Tories in power when they're setting the rules why bother to have the hope the Tories will do something to fix/alter a system which aligns with their interests? So it needs change to who's in position to make the decisions, and that in part we're told needs a new media offering.

I doubt there's anything that can be done overnight, it's going to take I assume years of diligent and often frustrating grind. If someone has a better idea by all means mention, I just don't happen to agree those currently in power making important reforms in the name of decency looks likely, basically the horse has to go in front of the cart

This isn't a free market, unless you're a billionaire.

You agree the situation is a problem but you're happy for the solution to take decades to arrive, if ever. Obviously you don't think it's much of a problem. I'd prefer a problem to be fixed a little faster than that.

What's the alternative? Regulation, as several people have said. This could be implemented immediately.

Of course the Tories won't do it, so we need someone else.

Why would the Tories implement regulation against their interests? And if that's the case you need to win power, and the point about winning power is it's being noted would be easier with more favourable media.

Obviously. But that's like saying that it's against Xi Jinping's interests to introduce democracy to China. Obviously true, but does that mean that the Chinese people should not want him to? Or that it's not, nonetheless, the right thing for him to do?

I think fwiw it's a big problem, I'm just expecting someone needs to do something about it not hope someone does something about it for them

I'm used of course to arguing a case and getting nowhere, just a fringe benefit of being a Lib Dem member. But it is what it is, we either do better or we continue to be something of an irrelevance. Just because we think we have some good ideas doesn't mean shit

That's the strange thing. You say that you're a LibDem, but you come across as an anti-regulation neo-capitalist. If you're a LibDem, don't you believe in regulation? Don't you want to break up an oligopoly?

[Digby]

This isn't a free market, unless you're a billionaire.

You agree the situation is a problem but you're happy for the solution to take decades to arrive, if ever. Obviously you don't think it's much of a problem. I'd prefer a problem to be fixed a little faster than that.

What's the alternative? Regulation, as several people have said. This could be implemented immediately.

Of course the Tories won't do it, so we need someone else.

Why would the Tories implement regulation against their interests? And if that's the case you need to win power, and the point about winning power is it's being noted would be easier with more favourable media.

Obviously. But that's like saying that it's against Xi Jinping's interests to introduce democracy to China. Obviously true, but does that mean that the Chinese people should not want him to? Or that it's not, nonetheless, the right thing for him to do?

I think fwiw it's a big problem, I'm just expecting someone needs to do something about it not hope someone does something about it for them

I'm used of course to arguing a case and getting nowhere, just a fringe benefit of being a Lib Dem member. But it is what it is, we either do better or we continue to be something of an irrelevance. Just because we think we have some good ideas doesn't mean shit

That's the strange thing. You say that you're a LibDem, but you come across as an anti-regulation neo-capitalist. If you're a LibDem, don't you believe in regulation? Don't you want to break up an oligopoly?

I think oligopolies are likely to be problematic, and I'm a Lib Dem partly because I believe in a regulated market. Still I don't put my faith in the current government legislating for the good in this, so I don't consider hoping for improved regulation to be any more useful than hoping for a lottery win.

And anyway, nothing is stopping people trying to build media options, other than mostly people cannot be bothered. And some better media outlets would be better. And yet despite complaining for decades about the unfairness of the media the left (including the Lib Dems for those like myself who'd consider them centre let) do nothing about it, granted sometimes they try, but even when they try they fail. And to succeed you need to win, which leaves trying again and being better as really the only practical option for mine. Or you could hope to win the lottery

[Stom]

This isn't a free market, unless you're a billionaire.

You agree the situation is a problem but you're happy for the solution to take decades to arrive, if ever. Obviously you don't think it's much of a problem. I'd prefer a problem to be fixed a little faster than that.

What's the alternative? Regulation, as several people have said. This could be implemented immediately.

Of course the Tories won't do it, so we need someone else.

Why would the Tories implement regulation against their interests? And if that's the case you need to win power, and the point about winning power is it's being noted would be easier with more favourable media.

Obviously. But that's like saying that it's against Xi Jinping's interests to introduce democracy to China. Obviously true, but does that mean that the Chinese people should not want him to? Or that it's not, nonetheless, the right thing for him to do?

I think fwiw it's a big problem, I'm just expecting someone needs to do something about it not hope someone does something about it for them

I'm used of course to arguing a case and getting nowhere, just a fringe benefit of being a Lib Dem member. But it is what it is, we either do better or we continue to be something of an irrelevance. Just because we think we have some good ideas doesn't mean shit

That's the strange thing. You say that you're a LibDem, but you come across as an anti-regulation neo-capitalist. If you're a LibDem, don't you believe in regulation? Don't you want to break up an oligopoly?

Digby likes to talk.

I took away that we both share similar views on this.

A) Yes, it would be lovely to have a better regulated press that is more representative of the political spectrum, BUT, we're not going to get that under this government, so
B) There's no point crying about it, and instead we should focus on what can be done, which is,
C) Running an actual marketing and PR campaign and learning how to better run campaigns.

It's not putting out our personal positions, more suggesting what position the less rabid right politicians should take. Less whining, more fixing what can be fixed. Right now that's internal, not regulation nor setting up a paper, neither of which are doable under the current climate.

[Digby]

I don't discount the press are representative of the political spectrum. The UK might simply be a centre right country. Certainly the left don't win many elections. And as much as the media influence the readers they also exist to pander to what the readers already thing, and perhaps the pandering is the bigger part

[Stom]

I don't discount the press are representative of the political spectrum. The UK might simply be a centre right country. Certainly the left don't win many elections. And as much as the media influence the readers they also exist to pander to what the readers already thing, and perhaps the pandering is the bigger part

Centre Right is one thing. This government is far right...

There has been a distinct lurch to the right in global politics, and it's very hard to get back to some kind of centre ground. I think most people want some mix of policies, that mix varies, but it's not all right wing like it is currently portrayed.

Anything remotely humane or moderate is shouted down.

[Puja]

I don't discount the press are representative of the political spectrum. The UK might simply be a centre right country. Certainly the left don't win many elections. And as much as the media influence the readers they also exist to pander to what the readers already thing, and perhaps the pandering is the bigger part

I don't know how true that is - when people have been presented with anonymised policies in surveys, I think it's the Greens' that actually turn out to be most popular. It's the brands that people vote on, whether that be "I've always voted X and so does my family" or "Socialism is evil" or "That leader can't eat a bacon sandwich/dances at the cenotaph/seems like a normal friendly chap" or "Labour and the Greens can't win here, vote Lib Dem" (which I believe is now the official party slogan).

As to media pandering, that's true to some extent, but they do very much lead public opinion as well as follow it. "It's the Sun Wot Won It" isn't a claim of their remarkable perspicacity in picking winners, but the fact that propaganda and advertising do work.

Puja

[Digby]

I don't discount the press are representative of the political spectrum. The UK might simply be a centre right country. Certainly the left don't win many elections. And as much as the media influence the readers they also exist to pander to what the readers already thing, and perhaps the pandering is the bigger part

Centre Right is one thing. This government is far right...

There has been a distinct lurch to the right in global politics, and it's very hard to get back to some kind of centre ground. I think most people want some mix of policies, that mix varies, but it's not all right wing like it is currently portrayed.

Anything remotely humane or moderate is shouted down.

This government has actually followed a number of leftish policies, in some areas, whether because that's their thing or to give Labour less room to manoeuvre and thus out of political expediency I leave to the individual. So are they right wing? I think they stupid, venal, authoritarian for a UK government, and without doubt by far the worst executive of my lifetime, but I don't know I'd call them far right. Or one needs to have a view of right wing which draws in policies like furlough, yes they might have done it out of there being no choice, but they did it, and it's not been the only move you'd in lazy terms ascribe as having more of a Labour bent than a Conservative one. That Labour would likely say they'd have gone further doesn't mean Boris wasn't acting in part with a lefty agenda, partially left isn't far right, although maybe one comes back to it being something of a circle of ideas