Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why politicians of all colours will have less to fear from
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why politicians of all colours will have less to fear from the press at GE2015
Sales drops & paywalls make press less important
When this Sun published in Sept 2009 sales 3,079,998
Now 2,258,359l pic.twitter.com/ak3sLVIVyZ
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Most of the broadcasters rely on print journalists to generate their content. It's just a change in delivery mechanism. How often does the BBC or ITV or Sky or C4 generate its own *news* - not very often at all.
It's the right hand column, it is the place to go for mindless celeb tittle tattle. But by God it's working.
The independent is clearly due to the I taking some of it, although how economically feasible the I at 20p per copy without the independent backing it up might be questionable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranulph_Fiennes#Politician
this is where the action is at!
the UCI congress is on. politics! bribes! dirty deals! dodgy (or otherwise) dossiers!
(sorry for being off topic)
And its filled with some of the biggest nutters out there, both ATL and BTL.
"When I get round to writing my book on the doctrine of the British Left, I intend to call it Banned, Compulsory or Free because those are the three offers that Labour loves to make....Labour has no answer, in its comfort zone, to the question it avoided in Brighton. Keen to debate the fact that households have too little money, Labour has still to say how it would cope without money.
The most intriguing moment of the week was the less than lukewarm endorsement of high-speed rail by Ed Balls, the Shadow Chancellor. Mr Balls never so much as brushes his teeth without strategic intent and it is likely that he wants the £50 billion earmarked for the project to “spend” on other promises. There are always a lot of free things to be paid for.
There was nothing though, from anyone, that challenged the hall. This is the consequence of Mr Miliband’s finest achievement as a leader. He has prevented the Labour party from descending into recriminations and he has done that by flattery. Every one of his Shadow Cabinet, with the partial exceptions of Mr Balls and the Shadow Welfare Secretary, Liam Byrne, followed suit rather slavishly. There was hardly an uncomfortable moment all week..." http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/philipcollins/article3880123.ece
Of course the beeb and like minded are lapping it up:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24292615
I guess the question is how many of their impressive number of readers ever move left from the celebrated sidebar of shame. Otherwise the only impact may be an increase in approval for the "all grown up" party "flaunting" its "curves".
Swing voters are more likely to be newspaper readers, and with these the Sun may be most important. You see a lot of copies on building sites and white vans. Professionals like me have internet at work. I rarely buy a paper.
Smartphone internet access is easier also, but the Sun may be bought for the Sport but the front page seen also. Surfing a sports website doesnt get the same passing trade.
I do not think Murdoch likes the two Eds, I expect they will be getting both barrels. That's astounding.
The Mail understands human nature. We want to be outraged and disgusted at others antics. It makes us feel better about ourselves.
Oh, and sex sells...always has done, always will do.
Services grew by 0.2% between June and July 2013: bit.ly/19yRF9h
Fitlass said: This is a pearl beyond price ! Posters who get almost everything wrong about everything are the best guide in the blogosphere when in comes to instant reaction to political developments?You missed a word out....the site is the best for instant over reaction to political developments.
As for people in the media and Westminster following this blog, they do so because of the knowledge and experience of Mike Smithson, not for the claptrap and hysteria that comes underneath in the comments section,
I've just been watching QT on catch-up and it was one of the most boring sessions in years.
LAB had Duggie Alexander and CON Michael Gove who are both incredibly polite which adds to the tedium.
Oh, and sex sells...always has done, always will do.
Hey, I'm not judging... it's not a curve unless it's flaunted, and it's not flaunted unless it's a curve. One of the more unusual tautologies of recent journalism. My point was more that I'm not sure there's much read-across (literally) from perving on the sidebar and absorbing the Mail's detailed political wisdom.
Each paper has a niche specialist set of strong points - the Times is very good on Law/Crime, the DT on Business and Health etc - the Guardian on the media.
Anyone who doesn't read something because they dislike its broader political agenda is a daft IMO - know thine enemy if nothing else.
What I find fascinating about the Mail is that it's generally v good at identifying a bandwagon to jump on - but sometimes it gets it totally wrong when it goes into stereotype/voyeurism territory and its readers call foul. They're a pretty sentimental lot who really don't like being mean to those who are clearly mentally ill but happen to be found eaten by their cats.
I hope to be treated well when I appear in an edition :^ )
No? I'm often confused by people who come here with obviously such a low opinion of the quality of comments here, and instead of trying to improve said quality just bleat. Look at me, i'm obviously superior to all you know nothing Hodge wannabe PBTories. Ya boo.
"Outrage at public nudity", photos page 3,6,8 & 13
Gove came over very well. I can see him as next leader. He is articulate and not afraid to stick up for what he believes. I can see him as LOTO if Miliband wins.
The influence of individual columnists is now often bigger than their newspapers, thanks to twitter and blogs. Those who write for the Times are severely handicapped on that front though. I can't recall the last time I troubled to read anything by Matthew Parris.
Cherwell Banbury Lab hold Lab 758 Con 323 UKIP 206
Mid Devon Way Con hold Con 189 LD 130 UKIP 60 Ind 15
Unspoofable ;^ )
Probably wasn't a patch on this one though - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hmv2sL2qkIM
Note the byline - David Dimbleby chairs political debate from Aldershot. The panel includes: Christopher Hitchens, Boris Johnson, Baroness Williams and Peter Hitchens.
And some other chap - Tony Mcnulty. Apparently he was the security minister at the time. Remember him ? No neither do I.
Quite a lot, if my experience is anything to go by. I spend a fair amount of time reading American news and comment websites and for most of them it's more common to see a discussion on a serious news topic illustrated with a link to a Mail article than with a link to almost any American newspaper outlet. The likes of Instapundit couldn't care less about which dress a Kardashian sister has fallen out of today.
You really shouldn't underestimate the reach the Mail has, even (especially) on serious stories.
I listen to AQ quite a bit, but mostly because I can work on my computer (or comment on PB) as I listen. Also, I'm often out and about in my car during the Saturday repeat.
But best of all is Any Answers or, as Mrs J calls it, Any Bigots. The views they air are often absolutely hilarious. The best are when they're unintentionally hilarious...
1) If opinions are not going to be formed by newspaper coverage as much as they used to be, how will opinions be formed?
2) Will this benefit one party rather than another? I suspect, for example, that the Telegraph and the Mail will have a very substantial impact on one important group, UKIP/Tory waverers, so I could see that particular segment of the media playing an important role one way or the other on whether we get Ed Miliband as PM, whereas perhaps Labour-leaning voters will be less influenced by newspaper coverage.
3) Following on from this, will the fall in the impact of newspapers tend to depress turnout, especially amongst those demographics which are already less likely to vote?
I'd rather have another coffee in Costa.
And that seems rather parasitical for someone who earns more interest on their earnings than the £2pw to pay for it themselves.
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of paper buying readership by age group. Going by the procession of middle aged and elderly gents I regularly see each weekend heading back from the local Newsagents, I suspect it is a cultural thing. Creatures of habit and all that.
My view seems to be increasingly common.
It could be that people simply aren't interested, which would be consistent with the general decline in election turnout. Or it could be that people are reading their news mostly for free on the internet - which means that some newspapers could still have a large impact, but the echo chambers of sites like, for example, mumsnet, could be having a growing influence.
http://www.hl.co.uk/royal-mail/share-offer
https://www.barclaysstockbrokers.co.uk/Pages/royal-mail-ipo-2.aspx
2. Almost certainly as soon as you like
One noticeable change in guardian is the willingless to put (in the CiF section) opinion pieces which are designed to provoke people. Much like what SeanT is clearly paid to do in the telegraph, being serious and dull isn't good clickbait.
Red = Mark Hamill
Both actors who were best suited in the 70's and early 80's but don't go on to much.
(a) People not very interested in politics. Hard to engage between elections. Don't read papers, or if they do probably skip the politics pages.
(b) Pointy-headed intellectuals. Read the Times, Telegraph and/or Guardian. Quiz you extensively on your views on Syria while your canvass team impatiently paws the ground..
I think the Mail has a significant impact through general flavour of coverage (reinforcing the "They all suck" message which feeds UKIP, but also undermining Labour in particular). The Sun seems to have a negligible impact on swing voters these days, but Broxtowe may not be typical - our newsagents stock the Mail and the broadsheets most and I've rarely seen anyone reading the Sun (or Mirror or Star).
In addition, as the old saying goes, 'opinion's are like arseholes, everyone's got one'. Commentators opinions have no 'great' value over yours or mine, or whichever, apart from rare cases, opinions don't provide true or news of anything, especially when you typically know that persons opinions anyway.
SeanT has a wise method of turning what might be traditional views on their head, and then going in almost the opposite direction as predicted.. that is at least entertaining.
One thing that Boris Johnson has achieved is to engage those in (a), by making his politics fun. People have an opinion on him, the same way that they have an opinion about Ant & Dec. While I would not want all of our politicians to be like that, we could certainly do with more characters to keep the public engaged.
Or maybe the public just doesn't think much of any politicans at all labour and tory included..thats if they do think about it in the first place
In fact, the Times has been going downhill for some time, and is now the worst of the bunch, the only one I never really buy.
The Sunday Times is hilarious too. The size of a breeze block but absolutely nothing interesting to read.
I'm very surprised - it seems a rather open-and-shut case. Then again, IANAL.
Michael Deacon@MichaelPDeacon15m
Uh-oh. Polly's on the warpath RT @meropemills On Guardian noticeboard: "I hope you enjoyed my Tesco FINEST Paella you thieving little shit!"
You're right about Boris - definitely cuts through to engage the detached group.
I'm not necessarily convinced that Jim Messina is going to do it for the Tories this time, but at some point somebody like that is going to get the recipe right and knock everybody on their arses.
At this rate, there could even be a poll with a blue lead if there is a conference bounce for them to come - mind you, after 3 conferences so far you wouldn't say there's a lot of evidence of them actually happening at all this year!
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lloyd-embleys-mirror-madeuthink-manifesto-2280019?icid=iban_catgifbanner
Then again I really like Gove and can't stand Will Self.
Funny how appearing school masterly works against Gove, I would have thought it was a positive for a future PM.
Douglas Alexander seemed to be in a difficult position regarding who knew what about McBride. He said that it was himself, EdM and A Darling that got rid of him.
Patrick O'Flynn of Ukip looked different to how I'd seen him before... Looked kind of middle eastern version of Colonel Parker, w a broken nose! he didn't get to talk much as is usually the case for ukip, but spoke quite well, especially when a woman asked why the media kept involving Islam when talking about the Kenyan terrorist attack!
The female journalist was a bit annoying
Presumably she's a NIMBY?
For £2pw - I learn more from The Times and the comments under their stories than I do elsehwhere - so I pay for them.
AIUI, the government's idea was to reduce the complexity and make it easier for people to compare and contrast the tariffs; as a side issue, it would make it harder for the companies to take advantage of consumers.
Take the energy tariff I mentioned yesterday: the energy company gives money to a cancer charity. A noble cause, but the offer just makes it harder to compare and contrast the real costs of the tariff. If the company want to give money to charity, they should do it from their profits without the added complexity.
Just go onto uSwitch and see how many tariffs each firm has. The only way the consumer has any control is through websites such as uSwitch, and even that is far from perfect.
There will be competition even after the change; just fewer tariffs that are designed to do little but increase profits. Whereas competition may well go out of the window with Miliband's plan.
As far as 'proving it wrong' is concerned that has already happened. The predictions made by this theory have shown to be incorrect. As such the theory is dead in its current form and needs reconfiguring.
My favourite comment from my favourite scientist:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
My 345th posting ..... has the site crashed as a result to stop me now moving to the important 346th one?
Was it worth the wait?
My Yvette bet isn't looking as good now no matter what Populus say!
I've just taken in 3 4 week old kitties I found in my garden yesterday - I wish they'd stay this size and this cute :^ )
When you or we wanted to know whether Ed's speech was going down well, we checked the papers. Probably more than one, and certainly more than one journalist's opinion. The television then summarise the views of the papers. If you want to know what to think, you're still told by the newspapers. Only a replacement could change that: and web news still means the newspapers, Twitter news means the newspapers or (if you're a politico) the press offices partly retweeting the newspapers. There's a smattering of independent opinion, but not much - and no fall on the scale of 30%.
In the long term I cannot see them performing well. It is a dying business.
Then again I utterly despise Gove. One of the very few people in public life who I find downright repulsive.
The theory has not been proved wrong. There is no basis for making that claim. You also misunderstand the nature of a "natural" experiment. This is very different from a lab experiment, because one can not control the inputs to the experiment in nature in the way that one can in the lab.
So, for example, the climate scientist can not control whether there will be a volcanic eruption, or a greater frequency of La-Nina events, and the occurrence of such events may - to a naive person - appear to invalidate the theory behind consequently erroneous projections made with a climate model. Really, they do not.
The point I was making in my original intervention is that scientists are culturally a very argumentative lot. You simply could not create and maintain a multi-decade long global conspiracy of scientists to "fiddle the records" as MikeK originally alleged.
its the comments at the end of articles that I find fascinating because they can give you a clue as to public sentiment turning.
For example on the Mail's site this morning the most liked comment on the 'work for benefits' story was one saying 'OK -but no to slave labour for private companies'
This suggests to me that the tory advantage on benefits is almost played out, and they have to be very careful pushing things much further.
Obviously these aren't polls, but I find them interesting nevertheless.
Or is there content invisible to you if you view in this way, that is accessible only if you login with paid-for credentials?