How is Europe going to resist succumbing to murdoch style rightwing media?

[Marla_Singer]

Good music always lasts, it transcends generations or cultures to touch directly our human souls. It's universal.

 

[Voidwalkin]

just a reasonably relevant tangent on this: i'll stress that hotel california is a great song. like it quite a bit. it is by no means horrible, nor is it dreck.

but it is absolutely boomer. peak dad rock playlist material.

this particular exchange is not generational or new. it's songs getting old; whoever told you this recognized that, and music has basically always been substantive to identity. it doesn't really build towards your general point, whether i agree with the rest or not. this is actually just my field of education i can invoke: it's literally just someone yelling at someone over identifying ties to music. always has been.

This individual has also jokingly suggested democide, and I strongly suspect does not actually think Hotel California is a bad song.

 

[Angst]

This individual has also jokingly suggested democide, and I strongly suspect does not actually think Hotel California is a bad song.

sure. doesn't change anything. hotel california is still boomer, and it's not substantive as an argument for things having changed today - specifically being treated cruely over music tastes.

 

[Akka]

Then why are the jobless voting blue and the well employed upper middle class voting red to hurt the jobless, and their litany of perceived uglies

Why are the secure the anxious ones in your model and the anxious ones the prosocial voters? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM


HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Maybe you should check again who is voting for populists then.

 

[Hygro]

Maybe you should check again who is voting for populists then.

I did, but you just imagine

 

[Akka]

I did, but you just imagine

Nope, you didn't.

 

[Hygro]

Ok grandpa back to bed.

 

[Akka]

I guess it's easier to be in denial than to actually check facts I guess.
And it also explains the whole problem leading to this very thread.

 

[Hygro]

No it’s absurd you are so in your head that after knowing me 22 years you think I’m lying. Like, do you even know where you are?

 

[Marla_Singer]

Nope, you didn't.

You're someone who values rationality. Then, why is it that no matter who gets elected (Sarkozy, Hollande, Macron), policies still end up feeling like they go against people’s interests? After all, politicians want to be elected and reelected, which means convincing a majority of voters. And in France, electoral campaigns private financing is strongly limited, and populists have their own news channels and social networks.

People today put more trust in the sources they have selected themselves and they see that as progress. Wouldn’t you think that, in such a context, simply telling people what they want to hear should be the easy way? Whereas denying what people assume to be true is actually the hard way?

Take Meloni, for instance. She managed to get her right-wing base to accept more immigration in Italy, precisely because she’s a post-fascist Mussolinist and therefore seen as legitimate on that issue. The real-world constraints remain the same, regardless of political discourse. What matters in politics isn’t always what you actually do, but how legitimate you are in doing it. And the easiest way is still to tell people what they want to hear. Don’t you agree?

 

[Hygro]

@Akka I mean you didn’t even quote the right post where I’m addressing the real figures and that was on a refresher. “Wow Trump got the working lower middle class” sure, he made gains there, but his core constituency isn’t that. It never was. And the truly economically anxious and low paid and unemployed… broke for Kamala.

Furthermore the data attribution is faulty for the narrative. That’s ok, most people don’t get attribution. Per my last email as I posted earlier once you start controlling for education and region and cost of living against actual income and employment, you will see the majorities of higher income that broke for Kamala are explained by other factors of conscientiousness. But the income factor alone skews to Trump.

Causal inference is a difficult subject.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Trump won lower income Americans if you ignore all lower income black, hispanic, Asian, and Native Americans, which immediately gies you an insight into the writer when they do that.

 

[Akka]

You're someone who values rationality. Then, why is it that no matter who gets elected (Sarkozy, Hollande, Macron), policies still end up feeling like they go against people’s interests?
After all, politicians want to be elected and reelected, which means convincing a majority of voters. And in France, electoral campaigns private financing is strongly limited, and populists have their own news channels and social networks.

People today put more trust in the sources they have selected themselves and they see that as progress. Wouldn’t you think that, in such a context, simply telling people what they want to hear should be the easy way? Whereas denying what people assume to be true is actually the hard way?

Can you check wealth distribution and immigration numbers in the past 25 years ?
I mean, obviously social media makes for easy echo chambers and ability to hide facts behind telling people what they want to hear. But there still is a bedrock of actual, real-world complaints that somehow have gotten worse with time.

@Akka I mean you didn’t even quote the right post where I’m addressing the real figures and that was on a refresher. “Wow Trump got the working lower middle class” sure, he made gains there, but his core constituency isn’t that. It never was. And the truly economically anxious and low paid and unemployed… broke for Kamala.

Man, your whole thread is about how Europe will face it, and I specifically spoke about "populists" in general. The least you could do when being told to check your assumptions would be to check actual EUROPEAN populist parties and their voters, not just get fixated on Trump's case in the USA with the very specific two-parties situation.

 

[Marla_Singer]

@Akka I mean you didn’t even quote the right post where I’m addressing the real figures and that was on a refresher. “Wow Trump got the working lower middle class” sure, he made gains there, but his core constituency isn’t that. It never was. And the truly economically anxious and low paid and unemployed… broke for Kamala.

Furthermore the data attribution is faulty for the narrative. That’s ok, most people don’t get attribution. Per my last email as I posted earlier once you start controlling for education and region and cost of living against actual income and employment, you will see the majorities of higher income that broke for Kamala are explained by other factors of conscientiousness. But the income factor alone skews to Trump.

Causal inference is a difficult subject.

I agree with you there. Trump’s base isn’t really the very poor or unemployed who still mostly go Democrat (if they vote at all). His strength is more in the lower-middle class, less motivated by material deprivation than by the fear of what their country is becoming.

Trump plays on that fear, then presents himself as the cure. The anxieties he points to (economic decline, cultural change, insecurity) are real enough to be credible, then he amplifies them with the help of social media until nothing else matters. That’s powerful because there’s no easy answer: downplay the issues and you look like you’re in denial, acknowledge them and you make it sound like Trump was right. Fear of loss, more than poverty itself, is what holds his supporters together.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Can you check wealth distribution and immigration numbers in the past 25 years ?
I mean, obviously social media makes for easy echo chambers and ability to hide facts behind telling people what they want to hear. But there still is a bedrock of actual, real-world complaints that somehow have gotten worse with time.

“Things getting worse” can mean a lot of different things. 25 years ago, unemployment was higher than it is now, de-industrialization was hitting hard with whole towns devastated, insecurity was already there, French gangsta rap was on mainstream radio calling for riots, bombs were exploding in the Paris RER, Internet was barely starting out, Wikipedia didn’t even exist.

Some things have definitely deteriorated, but others have improved. We live longer, we have better high speed rail connections, cheaper flights. On the other hand, wages have stagnated and the country’s relative position is weaker. So I think you need to clarify what exactly you mean, because as you put it, I’m not really sure which “worse” you’re talking about.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Wow Trump got the working lower middle class” sure, he made gains there, but his core constituency isn’t that. It never was. And the truly economically anxious and low paid and unemployed… broke for Kamala.

Do you think it's more true to say that the media creates the sentiment, or that the media is created to satiate it?

 

[r16]

in Turkish experience it might be correct to say the media reinforced the shamelessness some people had . Which in turn decreased the resistance in many more . Chicken or eggs , but the media should definitely be countered by news coverage , honest and hard to bury under charges of "Gay Communist Jews are trying to steal our most perfect country" .

 

[Snowygerry]

But more generally I think we can say that there is no single comercial entity that covers the entire "European" media landscape like the Murdoch corporation dominates the anglosphere, complete with overt ties to elected politics.

Whether the Sun and other Murdoch titles really ever did, or still do, have such influence on British politics is up for debate — but there’s no doubt the proprietor acted like it. Murdoch was in and out of No. 10 over the decades, rubbing shoulders with prime ministers and seeking to pull strings in British politics.

Rupert Murdoch dominated UK politics. He may be the last of his kind

‘Upsetting Rupert was definitely a no-go area,’ says Labour grandee Peter Mandelson — as experts mull what comes next.

www.politico.eu

Whatever message you want to peddle, you will have a hard time reaching the entire European audience in a consistent manner with a single coherent (news) story.
What sells in one place, may be entirely ignored in another, or the same story may well be regarded in a totally different manner.

Closest thing I can think of is RTL, they cover Benelux, France, Germany etc. but they leave news almost entirely to local public broadcasters, focusing mainly on entertainment.

Strategy

company.rtl.com

Some agencies try to collect news stories from all countries but as you can see it is incredibly diverse, and as far I can see there is no single narrative being pushed there...

European press roundup

Strong opinions from leading media in 32 European countries in German, English, French, Russian and Turkish.

www.eurotopics.net

 

[r16]

and why do you imagine that matters any single bit ? The PM has reportedly a "seven step algorithm" he uses to answer any question he might be asked , if he hadn't had the questions vetted before , which falls to three steps if he doesn't have the time . It all falls down to an image of being the winner forever . As long as that is on , it doesn't matter he says Black to something which he had White yesterday . He can change views , a full 180 degrees within 15 minutes , in the very same TV show interview . It means nothing that in Belgium or the EU calls him one thing , if his media here can twist it , invoke Sho-ross somewhere and tell the gullible masses that the PM is the only one who can fight the global cabal , because thd Europeans have attacked him . Even if the PM met Sho-ross a couple of times , his Party primarily uses colours and stuff approved by Sho-ross and this is the most successful of the colour revolutions . The EU is not an alternative . The Europeans are not an alternative .

 

[EnglishEdward]

Do you think it's more true to say that the media creates the sentiment, or that the media is created to satiate it?

In my opinion in general, it is very much the latter.

The media reflects, rather than creates, opinion.

To survive and prosper commercial media has to provide the reader what they like;
It is therefore intrinsically populist and sometimes hysterically sensationalist.

Populists tend to reflect what the population wants. It may be psychologically very
convenient for those who do not share majority opinion to convince themselves that
the media has brain washed the uneducated masses, rather than deal with that reality.

There are two major exceptions.

Authoritarian governments may direct the media to expound their views,
and financial capitalists also bias the media to be less critical of capitalism.

I have no doubt that Rupert Murdoch influenced governments by threatening
to campaign against them, but I doubt the claims of his influence on the public.

And I think his influence was less in Europe than in English speaking countries.