Laurence Fox and Dan Wootton

foggy said:
It doesnt even broadcast in HD and the graphics are a mess. Maybe it isn't descernible to you, and if you dont care or notice it's no big deal, but whenever I have watched it, it looks awful. It's kind of by the by, but since we are talking about it, I cant stress enough how cheap it looks - and is.

News isnt like that. Most news doesnt produce clickbait. You wont see the BBC writing crap clickbait like that. It's bile, dross, just something for SEO and to get clicks from facebook. It produces no journalistic value whatsoever. It's embarassing.

Farage is a very influential person in British politics. When he talks people listen. The story was covered by every major news channel. I can't see a case that this story wouldn't have happened without GB News. The BBC made an error in reporting what Coutts or Natwest told them, I cant remember which, but in fairness the CEO did lie to them, IIRC, and they apologised and corrected. They weren't burying it, they just got it wrong, it happens from time to time.

You have said they were taking on the media elite bubble, I would say pointing out that they exist as part of the media elite bubble is quite relevant. I find it quite revolting that Jacob Rees Mogg can be said to be 'speaking the language of the common folk', and often times I think people who think that don't really know what 'common folk' think. Most working class voters support net zero, for example. Most will be voting Labour at the next election, for example. We could talk about this much more in depth, but last week I saw Rupert Murdoch. Literally Rupert Murdoch, the King of western Media and literal billionaire, saying he is fighting against 'elites'. Nigel Farage discovered this years ago, and Donald Trump, with his toilet made of gold, realised it too. How people get suckered into these insanely rich people who drink a pint of beer and pretend they are part of the ordinary working people, I will never know. And I find it incredibly patronising to the wealth of diversity in the working class. The idea that you can broadcast from behind a pub bar and 'talk common sense' and that's just going to unluck the votes of millions of northerners I find incredibly patronising and insulting
Click to expand...
foggy, how does TalkTv do in comparison?
 
Bend it like Suddick said:
foggy, how does TalkTv do in comparison?
Click to expand...
In terms of viewing figures significantly worse. It captured 0.12% of the TV audience last month which was about the same as PBS America. But it's not really a TV channel, it's a radio station which decided to dedicate a few hours to simulcasting on TV with some of their bigger presenters and then got Piers Morgan in and got a bit of traction for a few weeks before viewership significantly died off. It will be incredibly cheap to make but they can't be making any money. Maybe they trundle on for some reason, there are a lot of TV channels out there after all. But my best guess is the Talk TV closes down and they just stick to radio. Maybe if GB News closed they would take over but that's the only way I see them doing anything.
 
foggy said:
In terms of viewing figures significantly worse. It captured 0.12% of the TV audience last month which was about the same as PBS America. But it's not really a TV channel, it's a radio station which decided to dedicate a few hours to simulcasting on TV with some of their bigger presenters and then got Piers Morgan in and got a bit of traction for a few weeks before viewership significantly died off. It will be incredibly cheap to make but they can't be making any money. Maybe they trundle on for some reason, there are a lot of TV channels out there after all. But my best guess is the Talk TV closes down and they just stick to radio. Maybe if GB News closed they would take over but that's the only way I see them doing anything.
Click to expand...
Thank you, interesting
 
foggy said:
At this point I think you need to tell me what "media elite" is. Because apparently it doesn't include people who have worked for mainstream news in very high up positions for years, doesn't include knights of the realm and doesn't include privately educated city bankers. The most powerful people on screen and behind the scenes are rich and long established in mainstream media. I've pointed out the person who set up the channel, the people who fund the channel, the CEO of the channel, several of its key presenters. This clearly a pretty comprehensive view of the people with the most influence.

Yes a lot of the content they do which is popular is the royal soap opera. Wittering on about Harry and Megan doesn't strike me as vital public interest journalism tbh, and I see no difference between this and coverage which already exists in red top tabloids.

The working class are currently supporting Labour. You might not, but all polling shows Labour has a heavy lead in the old Labour heartlands. You can't seriously tell me that the Deputy Conservative Chairman interviewing the Home Secretary is 'anti establishment'. I can see you want it to be, but unfortunately it just isn't is it? It's people within power interviewing other people within power. It's the Conservative party that has been in charge for 13 years now.

I don't know what you think I've made my mind up about. I'm aware it is popular among a certain audience and I think it will continue to do well in this regard. But I also know quite a bit about how this industry works, having studied and worked in it for over a decade now. I know for a fact that it's a right wing channel and we have had a right wing party in power for 13 years. I know for a fact the people in charge are mostly from big mainstream broadcasters and from privileged backgrounds. I know for a fact how the YouTube algorithm works and how it creates echo chambers, and I'm well experienced enough to spot when a channel is playing into that, like GB News is. Clearly you like to think of it as the outsider that is destroying the traditional way of doing things, but I can't see any evidence that it is reaching an audience that didn't already agree with everything it was saying in the first place.
Click to expand...

The media elite aren't on the fringe as you say, they are the established media, not GB news trying to change the landscape. They have a range of people, yes some from well off backgrounds, MP's etc and many from far different backgrounds. It's not even about who the people are it's about a message that resonates with normal people, that's why they won the award, the most loved news brand. It really doesn't matter if it's Nigel Farage or one of the comedians. Many people felt their voices aren't represented by mainstream channels, GB News seeks to provide that and to me it does it pretty well. You hear debate and opinions you wouldn't elsewhere, some might be offended by that, but a lot would agree with it and be happy that the obvious views that some are scared to say are being voiced and discussed.

The Royal point was to show its the content that captures more than the title.

Most people are clueless and only vote Labour 'because we've always done it' or something stupid like that. They will likely win and we probably do need a change, however you can't deny they aren't what they used to be and to me they jave lost me on many things. I 'should' be voting for them, but yet I won't be.

As for that interview you're focusing on 1 tiny segment, I've attached the show above, nowt wrong with it at all, decent show, opinion from all sides.

You may have worked in the industry but this is about opinion as well. We know it's a right leaning channel, but they do add some balance, but also the freedom for presenters to speak their mind. Occasionally that'll lead to someone saying something you wouldn't hear on a traditional news channel where presenters are almost robots and often to the left too. Presumably you'll also know that left wing organisations have effectively captured many institutions etc and effectively control many narratives, there would be little need for GB news if we lived in a more sensible world. Much of the main broadcast media is left leaning.

A lot of common sense speaking from the general public puts them right wing these days, given how ridiculously woke we've become on so much. People who were on the left on many topics have found that today, their views might be seen as to the right. So a lot of the so called right wing views are actually, IMO, given the amount of people that would agreed with them, not even that far to the Right. It's only in the day and age where the left has gone a bit mad on some things.

I've already covered the people on the channel and there's a wide range of backgrounds, in media terms and messaging against the far more established and powerful competitors, it is an outsider trying to disrupt the landscape.

If you think a channel can do that without some serious financial backing, getting some big influential personalities involved and using anything it can to gain a foothold in the arena, then I'd say that's naive. Also when trying to disrupt they're obviously going to upset some, be attacked left right and centre, actually before a word was spoken, advertisers pressured etc. Clearly cut off without as much advertising revenue you need big backing and also need to reach your audience however you can in this modern world, they won't ever get near the big players if they didn't. So I don't really care if they put a leading title on a video saying someone SLAMMED for their opinion or whatever. You've got to play the game.

Maybe they won't change too many minds, but it doesn't even have to, vast swathes of the public agree with these common sense messages and policies, as brexit showed, it'll tap into that, they just need to reach them. It may change some opinion though, as when people realise some of the madness going on like what kids are taught in schools and what the BBC were pushing, like there was 100 genders, people will lose faith in the common sense of the woke mainstream and turn elsewhere.

If the established mainstream aren't willing to speak the language of normal people, others will and there's no doubt some fear the rise of a GB News, as it ruins their monopoly and control of the narratives.
 
Halifax71 said:
Just one example. Where is the impartiality - breach of Ofcom rules
https://twitter.com/x/status/1707157332243747296
Click to expand...
So yep Adam Boulton, Gordon Brown, a tory MP, plus no doubt more all called for it to basically be shut down. Seems some agree it's a bit dodgy for 'another broadcaster' to be calling for them to be shut down.


The MP appeared on the channel a fair bit and apparently lied about appearing on some.

www.gbnews.com

Caroline Nokes appeared on GB News nine times before demanding channel be 'shut down'

The Tory MP made the comment after the suspension of presenters Laurence Fox and Dan Wootton
www.gbnews.com www.gbnews.com
 
Last edited:
JJpool said:
The TV channel is SD I think but on YT it's 1080p, I don't really care about TV, I don't watch it.

But I'm sure they'd up it as it grows or if advertisers weren't boycotting from the get go. People could have waited for it to broadcast before wanting it shut down, definitely no agenda there...

Modern articles and content uses it and it works, that's a reality. It's annoying on many areas, you might see an article that says "this one food that leads to a happier life"

You think, typical clickbait nonsense, not clicking that. Well go on then out of interest what is the bloody thing, quick look, scroll down past the first paragraphs, ahh it's cheese, brilliant.

I said that could have happened elsewhere, but he still used it to help him, I mentioned other things too.

They certainly aren't in the media elite but I've never cared what people are, only if their message is hitting home.

Most people will have been fed things on net zero and most want to make a difference, but it's when it comes to people being hit in the picket and their lives completely disrupted, it's already been shown their support is not what you think when that happens. Yes some people at times pander to what people want to hear, but they do that on all sides.

There aren't many politicians that are like the common folk now, Labour don't stand for what they used to, I used to vote for them, not anymore.

They may well win but is anyone really any more confident in them, it's quite worrying some of the things they will do.

But I'm not actually that bothered, sometimes a change is needed as it's gone stale, not sure they are what's needed but we're stuck with a crap system that limits choice and I won't be voting either, if at all.

People absolutely hate the Labour Council in Blackpool, tbh I've often defended them in some areas. Whoever is in power will be absolutely verbally battered and it's the times we live in and we see it in many areas across society and on social media. Meltdowns, abuse, intolerance, hate under the guise of inclusion.

Looking at the bbc youtube, which is clearly a very well established news brand, they don't seem to get 14 x the number of views GB News does, given they have over 14M subs. So I don't think it's doing too bad considering.
Click to expand...
You didn't explain how Tory MPs interviewing Tory MPs met any sense of impartiality.

You can throw in how the multi millionaire, assets abroad, non tax payer, Sir Jacob Rees Mogg isn't part of the Establishment/ elite. I'm awaiting with interest. Ditto that ** Farage.
 
JJpool said:
The media elite aren't on the fringe as you say, they are the established media, not GB news trying to change the landscape. They have a range of people, yes some from well off backgrounds, MP's etc and many from far different backgrounds. It's not even about who the people are it's about a message that resonates with normal people, that's why they won the award, the most loved news brand. It really doesn't matter if it's Nigel Farage or one of the comedians. Many people felt their voices aren't represented by mainstream channels, GB News seeks to provide that and to me it does it pretty well. You hear debate and opinions you wouldn't elsewhere, some might be offended by that, but a lot would agree with it and be happy that the obvious views that some are scared to say are being voiced and discussed.

The Royal point was to show its the content that captures more than the title.

Most people are clueless and only vote Labour 'because we've always done it' or something stupid like that. They will likely win and we probably do need a change, however you can't deny they aren't what they used to be and to me they jave lost me on many things. I 'should' be voting for them, but yet I won't be.

As for that interview you're focusing on 1 tiny segment, I've attached the show above, nowt wrong with it at all, decent show, opinion from all sides.

You may have worked in the industry but this is about opinion as well. We know it's a right leaning channel, but they do add some balance, but also the freedom for presenters to speak their mind. Occasionally that'll lead to someone saying something you wouldn't hear on a traditional news channel where presenters are almost robots and often to the left too. Presumably you'll also know that left wing organisations have effectively captured many institutions etc and effectively control many narratives, there would be little need for GB news if we lived in a more sensible world. Much of the main broadcast media is left leaning.

A lot of common sense speaking from the general public puts them right wing these days, given how ridiculously woke we've become on so much. People who were on the left on many topics have found that today, their views might be seen as to the right. So a lot of the so called right wing views are actually, IMO, given the amount of people that would agreed with them, not even that far to the Right. It's only in the day and age where the left has gone a bit mad on some things.

I've already covered the people on the channel and there's a wide range of backgrounds, in media terms and messaging against the far more established and powerful competitors, it is an outsider trying to disrupt the landscape.

If you think a channel can do that without some serious financial backing, getting some big influential personalities involved and using anything it can to gain a foothold in the arena, then I'd say that's naive. Also when trying to disrupt they're obviously going to upset some, be attacked left right and centre, actually before a word was spoken, advertisers pressured etc. Clearly cut off without as much advertising revenue you need big backing and also need to reach your audience however you can in this modern world, they won't ever get near the big players if they didn't. So I don't really care if they put a leading title on a video saying someone SLAMMED for their opinion or whatever. You've got to play the game.

Maybe they won't change too many minds, but it doesn't even have to, vast swathes of the public agree with these common sense messages and policies, as brexit showed, it'll tap into that, they just need to reach them. It may change some opinion though, as when people realise some of the madness going on like what kids are taught in schools and what the BBC were pushing, like there was 100 genders, people will lose faith in the common sense of the woke mainstream and turn elsewhere.

If the established mainstream aren't willing to speak the language of normal people, others will and there's no doubt some fear the rise of a GB News, as it ruins their monopoly and control of the narratives.
Click to expand...
Your definition of 'not media elite' then is basically anything new. Lots of people who have worked in the mainstream media for years would have fallen into your definition of media elite back then, but now they are working together on something new, they don't anymore. That's pretty flimsy isn't it. You are right you don't see much of what GB News says in the mainstream because you are comparing it to News channels, and they are subject to objectivity and impartiality laws. GB News isn't because it says it isn't a news channel and for some reason ofcom agrees. So you get to have your cake and eat it too. You can say it's great because it does things Sky and BBC don't do, but other news channels legally aren't allowed to do what it does. And as I pointed out elsewhere, is there a left wing version of GB News? No. Now ask yourself why the right wing version can exist and a left wing version can't. The answer is...media elites.

You are saying the message resonates with ordinary people but then saying "most people are clueless". Which is it? Is GB News speaking the language of the common folk, the vast majority of which agree with them, or are the common folk all idiots who don't have a clue what they want? Because you seem to contort your view whenever confronted with new evidence. GB News speaks for the working class! Oh wait the working class are actually voting Labour? Oh well the working class are all clueless! I don't think I've ever seen something as insulting as what you just said, which is basically that they can't think for themselves and only vote Labour 'because they've always done it'. A lot of those traditional Labour seats voted Tory in 2019, and now they are going to vote Labour. So it seems like they can make choices based on how they perceive the parties currently.

I don't think a channel can setup without major financial backing. And I never claimed otherwise. It's just factually incorrect to portray them as not part of the media elite. It's kind of like looking at the constituency of Brentwood. The Tories won 70% of the voter there in 2019. Yes you have to be a Tory to win power there, but it is meaningless compared to the rest of the country. That's just the cost of entry.

You should care whether the channel's biggest news stories are crappy clickbait rubbish because if you are trying to say it has an important journalistic part to play in changing the narrative the fact that most of their views come from crappy clickbait rubbish is a problem.

Oh and one final point. GB News is not 'Britains most loved news brand'. ITV/Sky,/BBC all ranked higher, except they are categorised as 'broadcasters' and GB News was categorised as 'News'. It won a competition against nobody. They lied to you. They tell Ofcom they aren't a news channel because that means they aren't beholden to the regulations they should be, but when they can pretend they are a news channel, they take the glory and lie. I don't want you to ignore this part when you reply to me. You have brought this up several times now. This is 100% a falsehood. Told to you by GB News. That should inform your thinking somewhat. Ask yourself. Why is this channel lying to me?
 
Wizaard said:
You didn't explain how Tory MPs interviewing Tory MPs met any sense of impartiality.

You can throw in how the multi millionaire, assets abroad, non tax payer, Sir Jacob Rees Mogg isn't part of the Establishment/ elite. I'm awaiting with interest. Ditto that ** Farage.
Click to expand...
I'm sure I've covered it in one of my longer posts. Also it's not for me to set the rules, it's for ofcom. I think they say mps can go on as long as not reading the news, which they aren't.

If you watch some of the interviews they put points to them from opposition.

Although I don't go to the channel for Tory stuff, it's all to the rules ot seems.

I wouldn't really care if they stopped it or changed it.
 
foggy said:
Your definition of 'not media elite' then is basically anything new. Lots of people who have worked in the mainstream media for years would have fallen into your definition of media elite back then, but now they are working together on something new, they don't anymore. That's pretty flimsy isn't it. You are right you don't see much of what GB News says in the mainstream because you are comparing it to News channels, and they are subject to objectivity and impartiality laws. GB News isn't because it says it isn't a news channel and for some reason ofcom agrees. So you get to have your cake and eat it too. You can say it's great because it does things Sky and BBC don't do, but other news channels legally aren't allowed to do what it does. And as I pointed out elsewhere, is there a left wing version of GB News? No. Now ask yourself why the right wing version can exist and a left wing version can't. The answer is...media elites.

You are saying the message resonates with ordinary people but then saying "most people are clueless". Which is it? Is GB News speaking the language of the common folk, the vast majority of which agree with them, or are the common folk all idiots who don't have a clue what they want? Because you seem to contort your view whenever confronted with new evidence. GB News speaks for the working class! Oh wait the working class are actually voting Labour? Oh well the working class are all clueless! I don't think I've ever seen something as insulting as what you just said, which is basically that they can't think for themselves and only vote Labour 'because they've always done it'. A lot of those traditional Labour seats voted Tory in 2019, and now they are going to vote Labour. So it seems like they can make choices based on how they perceive the parties currently.

I don't think a channel can setup without major financial backing. And I never claimed otherwise. It's just factually incorrect to portray them as not part of the media elite. It's kind of like looking at the constituency of Brentwood. The Tories won 70% of the voter there in 2019. Yes you have to be a Tory to win power there, but it is meaningless compared to the rest of the country. That's just the cost of entry.

You should care whether the channel's biggest news stories are crappy clickbait rubbish because if you are trying to say it has an important journalistic part to play in changing the narrative the fact that most of their views come from crappy clickbait rubbish is a problem.

Oh and one final point. GB News is not 'Britains most loved news brand'. ITV/Sky,/BBC all ranked higher, except they are categorised as 'broadcasters' and GB News was categorised as 'News'. It won a competition against nobody. They lied to you. They tell Ofcom they aren't a news channel because that means they aren't beholden to the regulations they should be, but when they can pretend they are a news channel, they take the glory and lie. I don't want you to ignore this part when you reply to me. You have brought this up several times now. This is 100% a falsehood. Told to you by GB News. That should inform your thinking somewhat. Ask yourself. Why is this channel lying to me?
Click to expand...
No it's not, gb news as a channel is not the established mainstream, you apparently work in the industry yet can't figure that out, bizarre.

Now you're pushing conspiracies, saying a right wing channel can only exist because of media elites. Has anyone tried to create a LW version, or is there any point with the LW ones out there already...

I said most are clueless when it comes to who they vote for and used to fall back on tradition, despite what the parties stand for being vastly different, that strikes me as stupid. But yes there's a mix of both isn't there, some aren't that smart and some aren't tuned in to issues in politics, so side with whatever they've always done. There's a difference between choosing a political party in a system where you have a limited choice and on some issues your often voting for 2 sides of the same arsehole and having some common sense or plain language and speak resonating with an audience. Does anything really ever change for people at the bottom, not really.

It's not really insulting is it, the tories have been in power, not done well is the assessment by many, many lent their vote for brexit and who they've always voted for plays a big part. People feel like they're betraying their tradition or community by voting away from labour, so it's clearly a strong pull to vote for it. A huge issue like brexit managed to draw some away temporarily, but many will fall back to Labour without such an issue. Of course policy plays soke part but there's no denying overcoming voting tradition is a huge ask.

They aren't just crappy clickbait otherwise people would watch once there, there has to be something behind it.

You seem to want to change the landscape of the debate more than gb news does. LOL.

You're not going to change my mind on the channel no matter how hard to try. They haven't lied to me at all, they won in the category they are in, it's not their fault the other brands have multiple channels etc that put out content that would affect the rating of that brand and its hard to seperate down to just news. Of course they are going to push that they won the most popular news brand, it's good PR. They are more regularly beating the specific channels news figures more and more, so that speaks to what's happening. They still beat all the other well known news brands from whatever form of media. I don't really care what they tell ofcom, thats not lying to me is it. They are a news channel but a different one, it's not rolling news, it's mostly discussing current affairs. So it's probably hard to accurately categorise as there isn't that much like it. Maybe thats why it's doing well and upsetting some...

Anyway I cba writing tons of essays, you're not a fan and that's your choice.
 
Last edited:
JJpool said:
No it's not, gb news as a channel is not the established mainstream, you apparently work in the industry yet can't figure that out, bizarre.

Now you're pushing conspiracies, saying a right wing channel can only exist because of media elites. Has anyone tried to create a LW version, or is there any point with the LW ones out there already...

I said most are clueless when it comes to who they vote for and used to fall back on tradition, despite what the parties stand for being vastly different, that strikes me as stupid. But yes there's a mix of both isn't there, some aren't that smart and some aren't tuned in to issues in politics, so side with whatever they've always done. There's a difference between choosing a political party in a system where you have a limited choice and on some issues your often voting for 2 sides of the same arsehole and having some common sense or plain language and speak resonating with an audience. Does anything really ever change for people at the bottom, not really.

It's not really insulting is it, the tories have been in power, not done well is the assessment by many, many lent their vote for brexit and who they've always voted for plays a big part. People feel like they're betraying their tradition or community by voting away from labour, so it's clearly a string pull to vote for it. A huge issue like brexit managed to draw some away temporarily, but many will fall back to Labour without such an issue.

They aren't just crappy clickbait otherwise people would watch once there, there has to be something behind it.

You seem to want to change the landscape of the debate more than gb news does. LOL.

You're not going to change my mind on the channel no matter how hard to try. They haven't lied to me at all, they won in the category they are in, it's not their fault the other brands have multiple channels etc that put out content that would affect the rating of that brand and its hard to seperate down to just news. Of course they are going to push that they won the most popular news brand, it's good PR. They are more regularly beating the specific channels news figures more and more, so that speaks to what's happening. They still beat all the other well known news brands from whatever form of media. I don't really care what they tell ofcom, thats not lying to me is it. They are a news channel but a different one, it's not rolling news, it's mostly discussing current affairs. So it's probably hard to accurately categorise as there isn't that much like it. Maybe thats why it's doing well and upsetting some...

Anyway I cba writing tons of essays, you're not a fan and that's your choice.
Click to expand...
Huh? You said it yourself, a news channel cannot exist without funding. 'A farmer' can't set this up, remember? Said funding is coming from elites. How is that a conspiracy? You have to be powerful and have money to be able to do this. I agree with you. The fact that a right wing version exists and a left wing doesn't...should tell you some things. About how it's easier to make one and not the other, because one is already in the mainstream and established.

It is crappy, the top news stories on GB News website do not offer journalistic value. Look them up yourselves. You wanted to portray it as important to changing narratives. These are low value stories.

You told me several times they won 'best news brand' as if it was something to be proud of. Be honest, you did not know that every other news brand one might have heard of was not included in that. You realise there is a difference. You intellectually know this. The correct thing to do is say, oh fair enough it actually doesn't mean what I thought it did, forget that.

As for your musings on the working class. You said the channel speaks for them and then said they are all clueless when I pointed out most will vote for Labour and don't agree with GB News. It's pretty transparent. You were hailing GB News as a voice for the common folk until it wasn't expedient for you and then you threw the common folk aside as useless idiots. You used them as a political football. Completely insulting and shows how shallow your beliefs on this are. You like the message of GB News because they say things you already agree with. Like everyone else who likes them. They give you the content you want because it's an echo chamber. Do yourself a favour and drop the working class common folk pretense, we have seen how quickly you will drop that. They say things you like. That's fine. They have their audience. And that audience will find them on YouTube recommendations along with all the rest of their safely curated content that aligns with their views. It's the way the internet works, on all sides
 
foggy said:
Huh? You said it yourself, a news channel cannot exist without funding. 'A farmer' can't set this up, remember? Said funding is coming from elites. How is that a conspiracy? You have to be powerful and have money to be able to do this. I agree with you. The fact that a right wing version exists and a left wing doesn't...should tell you some things. About how it's easier to make one and not the other, because one is already in the mainstream and established.

It is crappy, the top news stories on GB News website do not offer journalistic value. Look them up yourselves. You wanted to portray it as important to changing narratives. These are low value stories.

You told me several times they won 'best news brand' as if it was something to be proud of. Be honest, you did not know that every other news brand one might have heard of was not included in that. You realise there is a difference. You intellectually know this. The correct thing to do is say, oh fair enough it actually doesn't mean what I thought it did, forget that.

As for your musings on the working class. You said the channel speaks for them and then said they are all clueless when I pointed out most will vote for Labour and don't agree with GB News. It's pretty transparent. You were hailing GB News as a voice for the common folk until it wasn't expedient for you and then you threw the common folk aside as useless idiots. You used them as a political football. Completely insulting and shows how shallow your beliefs on this are. You like the message of GB News because they say things you already agree with. Like everyone else who likes them. They give you the content you want because it's an echo chamber. Do yourself a favour and drop the working class common folk pretense, we have seen how quickly you will drop that. They say things you like. That's fine. They have their audience. And that audience will find them on YouTube recommendations along with all the rest of their safely curated content that aligns with their views. It's the way the internet works, on all sides
Click to expand...
No, thats not the conspiracy I mentioned, you're saying that somehow a left wing channel can't exist (the answer was because of media elites you said), despite many of the main ones being to the left. Has anyone tried to make a LW version of gb news or wanted to? If not then you can't really say. Are there dark forces stopping them? Or is it because many are already openly left on some things so no need to.

They may have some rich backing but most media does, it doesn't mean the channel in a media landscape is the media elite.

You seem to want to have it both ways yourself. On the one hand you want to argue it's the media elite channel aka the establishment. On the other you say it's not making much of an impact and is miles behind other channels. Unless we're getting our wires crossed on terminology here.

The value of 'crappy' News stories depends on your outlook and what you care about, also what's currently in the news at that time to report on. I happen to care about what kids will be taught in schools for e.g.

I was giving examples when you were downplaying what they've done so far. In reply to you comparing it vs entertainment channels (gold+1) and saying they didn't have the cultural footprint I imagined, also that their 'only success' was clickbait videos, so I listed off some things. This was still an achievement and that the award, like it or not they won that category and against some well known news brands that you'd expect to be far more popular. I had read about it at the time and they said they beat very popular brands like the Sun, Daily Mail, Guardian etc. All those bands are very popular to their audience, far more well known and have been around decades, if gb news is so shit how did it beat them and you claim it had little success or impact? Again, it's not their fault some others were categorised more broadly which is fair as it's hard to split up a brand given some love it for the other tv. But there isn't another direct comparison to draw apart from how popular they were against what was on offer and also their direct viewing figures against the big boys, which they are beating more and more as time goes on. They have regular slots that beat the big news channels, not always but it's happening, not sure what more you want to compare. People also overuse the old outdated viewing figures comparison but again people leave thier tv on at home sometimes for comfort, or are watching other programmes. Tv figures are less and less relevant.

Answer this, do or did people vote largely based on habit or not? We know the answer, many do or did, because it's still seen as the party for the working class and people can't stand to vote tory. Many voted that way for generations, you know that full well. Is it not possible for many to be not at all that clued up politically but know common language and how that appeals to them, also understand common sense on current affairs that effect them? It's not that hard to grasp. Many on here claim people must be thick voting for brexit and probably think that about the masses. There's a big difference between voting with tradition, knowing little about politics and a TV channel appealing to people with plain speak.

People don't have to know the intricacies of the manifestos or much about a political party to understand a message about the number of genders, or that not everything shouldn't be based on someone's race. So yes a channel can appeal to some who aren't that politically clued up at all. So of course it's a voice for common folk. What on earth are you on about? I am part of working class.

I've said sometimes a change is needed, although I have concerns, sometimes things go stale, but they'll probably win as the tories haveny been great, although had a difficult hand, after many years of one party its obvious you'll get some wanting the other side, some people get sick of those in power after a bit. However you'll still get those entrenched people who voted for Labour or the tories regardless, which if they've completely changed their values for e.g. or failed, can only be seen as a bit odd to me.

Yes on algorithms we know that, for anyone, so a content creator has to navigate the system if they want to be heard and have an impact. GB news takes multiple routes, tv, radio, online, trying to cover all bases. You still have to ve content behind the title.
 
JJpool said:
No, thats not the conspiracy I mentioned, you're saying that somehow a left wing channel can't exist (the answer was because of media elites you said), despite many of the main ones being to the left. Has anyone tried to make a LW version of gb news or wanted to? If not then you can't really say. Are there dark forces stopping them? Or is it because many are already openly left on some things so no need to.

They may have some rich backing but most media does, it doesn't mean the channel in a media landscape is the media elite.

You seem to want to have it both ways yourself. On the one hand you want to argue it's the media elite channel aka the establishment. On the other you say it's not making much of an impact and is miles behind other channels. Unless we're getting our wires crossed on terminology here.

The value of 'crappy' News stories depends on your outlook and what you care about, also what's currently in the news at that time to report on. I happen to care about what kids will be taught in schools for e.g.

I was giving examples when you were downplaying what they've done so far. In reply to you comparing it vs entertainment channels (gold+1) and saying they didn't have the cultural footprint I imagined, also that their 'only success' was clickbait videos, so I listed off some things. This was still an achievement and that the award, like it or not they won that category and against some well known news brands that you'd expect to be far more popular. I had read about it at the time and they said they beat very popular brands like the Sun, Daily Mail, Guardian etc. All those bands are very popular to their audience, far more well known and have been around decades, if gb news is so shit how did it beat them and you claim it had little success or impact? Again, it's not their fault some others were categorised more broadly which is fair as it's hard to split up a brand given some love it for the other tv. But there isn't another direct comparison to draw apart from how popular they were against what was on offer and also their direct viewing figures against the big boys, which they are beating more and more as time goes on. They have regular slots that beat the big news channels, not always but it's happening, not sure what more you want to compare. People also overuse the old outdated viewing figures comparison but again people leave thier tv on at home sometimes for comfort, or are watching other programmes. Tv figures are less and less relevant.

Answer this, do or did people vote largely based on habit or not? We know the answer, many do or did, because it's still seen as the party for the working class and people can't stand to vote tory. Many voted that way for generations, you know that full well. Is it not possible for many to be not at all that clued up politically but know common language and how that appeals to them, also understand common sense on current affairs that effect them? It's not that hard to grasp. Many on here claim people must be thick voting for brexit and probably think that about the masses. There's a big difference between voting with tradition, knowing little about politics and a TV channel appealing to people with plain speak.

People don't have to know the intricacies of the manifestos or much about a political party to understand a message about the number of genders, or that not everything shouldn't be based on someone's race. So yes a channel can appeal to some who aren't that politically clued up at all. So of course it's a voice for common folk. What on earth are you on about? I am part of working class.

I've said sometimes a change is needed, although I have concerns, sometimes things go stale, but they'll probably win as the tories haveny been great, although had a difficult hand, after many years of one party its obvious you'll get some wanting the other side, some people get sick of those in power after a bit. However you'll still get those entrenched people who voted for Labour or the tories regardless, which if they've completely changed their values for e.g. or failed, can only be seen as a bit odd to me.

Yes on algorithms we know that, for anyone, so a content creator has to navigate the system if they want to be heard and have an impact. GB news takes multiple routes, tv, radio, online, trying to cover all bases. You still have to ve content behind the title.
Click to expand...
You misunderstood my point. That a left wing channel doesnt exist is not because of some dark shadowy forces. It is because the values that GB News have that they like to pretend are new and risque are already part of established views. People within government have them. Most people behind the scenes in the media are older white men who skew to the right. GB News is easy to make. A left wing channel wouldn't be, it just wouldn't have the same support structure. That's not conspiratorial, just demographics. It’s why many left wing channels exist but are smaller, independent, and social media based, appealing to the youth. They wouldn't even think of creating a TV channel. That's old, traditional media. GB News exists within it.


You have stumbled upon the concept of media polarisation. GB News has an audience that loves it, because even though they were set up by media veterans and are run by privately educated toffs with bags of money who all think the same thing, they portray themselves as anti-establishment and outside the bubble. News programmes like BBC/Sky/C4/ITV are still popular and trusted in the UK. We have broadcasters who follow the ofcom code and have to act with impartiality and objectivity. They all hover at about 50% approval and only 10-20% disapproval. GB News on the other hand plays to polarisation. It only needs to capture a small share of the audience but that small share are rabid in defending it. This is simply more proof of the echo chamber it is in. YouGov polling has 19% of people having a favourable view of it, with 22% disapproving, and another 60% of people who have no opinion or have never heard of it. Papers like The Guardian and The Sun which you mentioned, 95-99% of people have heard of it. More proof of the lack of cultural GBN’s footprint. More proof that it is just serving up the content that small (but still sizeable) chunk of the country want. Living in your own bubble. Enjoy it, have fun! It’s perfectly natural. What I would caution is that its fans like it a lot. An amount I don’t think is particularly healthy in a relationship between an individual and where they get their news from.

What I am talking about is on the one hand you bigging up the channel for appealing to the working class, then casting aside the working class as idiots when you realised they wont vote for the Tories. Media like GB News like to portray the culture war as a big massive thing where all the London lefty lawyers want 1000 genders and the real working people are dead against it and their voices are just unheard (let's get Jacob Rees Mogg to speak for them!). In truth, working class people want a good economy. They want a government they can trust on defense issues. Among C/D/E social classes the most important issues are as follows (respondents are allowed to tick up to three): Economy (54%), Healthcare (44%), Immigration & Asylum (39%), Environment (27%), Housing (22%). Issues like gender and trans groups and lgbt rights and whether people can identify as a cat or whatever other culture war bollocks GB News wants to peddle do not appear, they are grouped into every other issue that polls under 1%. Interestingly, the environment does appear and is growing quite quickly. It turns out working class people don’t like air pollution and climate change either. But mostly 'common folk' care about the economy and housing and healthcare. Like they always do. Four years ago working class people trusted Boris Johnon and the Tories more on that. Now they trust Starmer and Labour more. The only issue listed that is remotely culture war-y is immigration, an issue that had dropped to record lows (20% as most important) only a couple of years ago but is now having a resurgence in salience. And believe me, you get plenty of coverage on small boats in the media without GB News, and there's nothing I can hear on there I can't already hear on Jeremy Vine phone ins. Britain has always had an uneasy relationship with immigration. I remember the first TV debate in 2010 being dedicated entirely to it. I remember Labour putting 'control migration' on mugs they sold. This is a mainstream issue.

Your last point is trying to portray GB News as if they are trying to get around the algorithms. Please, and I don't always want to do this but sometimes it is necessary as a shortcut - as someone who has studied/worked in this industry for more than a decade now, and understands how easily identifiable this stuff is. I promise you, they want the algorithm. A quick look at their YT video list shows me that. The algorithm is their friend. They want to feed content to this echo chamber. It's how they get their views. They aren't trying to avoid it, and maybe this will lead you to some profound realisation you don't want to look at or admit, but they want it.
 
foggy said:
You misunderstood my point. That a left wing channel doesnt exist is not because of some dark shadowy forces. It is because the values that GB News have that they like to pretend are new and risque are already part of established views. People within government have them. Most people behind the scenes in the media are older white men who skew to the right. GB News is easy to make. A left wing channel wouldn't be, it just wouldn't have the same support structure. That's not conspiratorial, just demographics. It’s why many left wing channels exist but are smaller, independent, and social media based, appealing to the youth. They wouldn't even think of creating a TV channel. That's old, traditional media. GB News exists within it.


You have stumbled upon the concept of media polarisation. GB News has an audience that loves it, because even though they were set up by media veterans and are run by privately educated toffs with bags of money who all think the same thing, they portray themselves as anti-establishment and outside the bubble. News programmes like BBC/Sky/C4/ITV are still popular and trusted in the UK. We have broadcasters who follow the ofcom code and have to act with impartiality and objectivity. They all hover at about 50% approval and only 10-20% disapproval. GB News on the other hand plays to polarisation. It only needs to capture a small share of the audience but that small share are rabid in defending it. This is simply more proof of the echo chamber it is in. YouGov polling has 19% of people having a favourable view of it, with 22% disapproving, and another 60% of people who have no opinion or have never heard of it. Papers like The Guardian and The Sun which you mentioned, 95-99% of people have heard of it. More proof of the lack of cultural GBN’s footprint. More proof that it is just serving up the content that small (but still sizeable) chunk of the country want. Living in your own bubble. Enjoy it, have fun! It’s perfectly natural. What I would caution is that its fans like it a lot. An amount I don’t think is particularly healthy in a relationship between an individual and where they get their news from.

What I am talking about is on the one hand you bigging up the channel for appealing to the working class, then casting aside the working class as idiots when you realised they wont vote for the Tories. Media like GB News like to portray the culture war as a big massive thing where all the London lefty lawyers want 1000 genders and the real working people are dead against it and their voices are just unheard (let's get Jacob Rees Mogg to speak for them!). In truth, working class people want a good economy. They want a government they can trust on defense issues. Among C/D/E social classes the most important issues are as follows (respondents are allowed to tick up to three): Economy (54%), Healthcare (44%), Immigration & Asylum (39%), Environment (27%), Housing (22%). Issues like gender and trans groups and lgbt rights and whether people can identify as a cat or whatever other culture war bollocks GB News wants to peddle do not appear, they are grouped into every other issue that polls under 1%. Interestingly, the environment does appear and is growing quite quickly. It turns out working class people don’t like air pollution and climate change either. But mostly 'common folk' care about the economy and housing and healthcare. Like they always do. Four years ago working class people trusted Boris Johnon and the Tories more on that. Now they trust Starmer and Labour more. The only issue listed that is remotely culture war-y is immigration, an issue that had dropped to record lows (20% as most important) only a couple of years ago but is now having a resurgence in salience. And believe me, you get plenty of coverage on small boats in the media without GB News, and there's nothing I can hear on there I can't already hear on Jeremy Vine phone ins. Britain has always had an uneasy relationship with immigration. I remember the first TV debate in 2010 being dedicated entirely to it. I remember Labour putting 'control migration' on mugs they sold. This is a mainstream issue.

Your last point is trying to portray GB News as if they are trying to get around the algorithms. Please, and I don't always want to do this but sometimes it is necessary as a shortcut - as someone who has studied/worked in this industry for more than a decade now, and understands how easily identifiable this stuff is. I promise you, they want the algorithm. A quick look at their YT video list shows me that. The algorithm is their friend. They want to feed content to this echo chamber. It's how they get their views. They aren't trying to avoid it, and maybe this will lead you to some profound realisation you don't want to look at or admit, but they want it.
Click to expand...
You said it can't exist. People in government have views all across the spectrum. The fact is the lefts views are happily pushed and upheld by mainstream media.

I never said sky, bbc weren't popular, infact I like the bbc for many things, I get a bit annoyed at it for others.

Gb news will keep growing, where it'll top out who knows. But it's nowehere near there yet.

It's only been going a few years, give it chance, of course its got a way to go to catch age old institutions, backed by the government. I actually get news and information from all over, so im not living in a bubble thanks, but good that you seem to know me, but like anything on here you get into a debate and suddenly you're thrust into debating like you own the thing. All I do is enjoy some of the content and some is needed and refreshing to hear some common sense points being raised.

For me you need a healthy left and right to keep each other in check, the left have gone mad on many things and the supposed right view is actually far more sensible.

That's not what I did at all, they can be idiots, but can also understand a common sense messages too.

People still want to hear issues debated, trans, the lefts unhealthy race baiting, immigration, the economy, which did better than predicted again.

It's well known that the algorithms give people similar content, I'm a sub and just view what I want, so makes no difference to me. Of course they're trying to reach more people. I didn't say they're trying to get round it you've assumed again, you will be lost in a sea of noise on YT if you don't stand out.

Theres a bit of a condescending tone creeping in your posts that I should heed your expert knowledge and reconsider, because they want people to keep watching somehow that's bad, yet all news outlets or most YT channels want that. You haven't said anything revolutionary that wasn't already known and you yourself are approaching the channel with your own bias about it. Did you watch the 2 programmes I put up?

I don't have the time to be going round in circles getting nowhere debating this, so please try and keep it short or agree to disagree. You don't like it and have clearly made your mind up, that's fine, not a lot more to say.
 
JJpool said:
You said it can't exist. People in government have views all across the spectrum. The fact is the lefts views are happily pushed and upheld by mainstream media.

I never said sky, bbc weren't popular, infact I like the bbc for many things, I get a bit annoyed at it for others.

Gb news will keep growing, where it'll top out who knows. But it's nowehere near there yet.

It's only been going a few years, give it chance, of course its got a way to go to catch age old institutions, backed by the government. I actually get news and information from all over, so im not living in a bubble thanks, but good that you seem to know me, but like anything on here you get into a debate and suddenly you're thrust into debating like you own the thing. All I do is enjoy some of the content and some is needed and refreshing to hear some common sense points being raised.

For me you need a healthy left and right to keep each other in check, the left have gone mad on many things and the supposed right view is actually far more sensible.

That's not what I did at all, they can be idiots, but can also understand a common sense messages too.

People still want to hear issues debated, trans, the lefts unhealthy race baiting, immigration, the economy, which did better than predicted again.

It's well known that the algorithms give people similar content, I'm a sub and just view what I want, so makes no difference to me. Of course they're trying to reach more people. I didn't say they're trying to get round it you've assumed again, you will be lost in a sea of noise on YT if you don't stand out.

Theres a bit of a condescending tone creeping in your posts that I should heed your expert knowledge and reconsider, because they want people to keep watching somehow that's bad, yet all news outlets or most YT channels want that. You haven't said anything revolutionary that wasn't already known and you yourself are approaching the channel with your own bias about it. Did you watch the 2 programmes I put up?

I don't have the time to be going round in circles getting nowhere debating this, so please try and keep it short or agree to disagree. You don't like it and have clearly made your mind up, that's fine, not a lot more to say.
Click to expand...
You are writing just as much as me. You have points, I respond to them.

A left wing news channel like GB News can't exist, yes. Or perhaps, it is exceedingly unlikely to exist. GB News caters to its echo chamber of mostly right wing boomers who still watch TV and get YT links from FB. Left wing media like Novara aims for a left wing, young audience, which exists mostly outside traditional media.

There is no LW equivalent of GB News. You sort of have to pretend Sky and BBC are but we both know that isn't true. And the fact that they are broadly liked by most of the public and trusted shows this. A real left wing institution, such as the guardian, and I will only loosely define it as LW, it's more liberal, but it is as polarised as GB News. Just with more people knowing about it. You did try to compare GBN to these organisations, but the name recognition falls way behind, a decent proxy for its cultural footprint.

I'm sorry to have to appeal to my expertise in this area, but if you don't want essays, we have to take shortcuts don't we? So I'll try it again in the only way you have allowed me. I know about this stuff because I work in it and GB News is working inside the algorithm intentionally. I have been civil and polite and if you want to discuss this more, I will happily write more about it. You said they were 'covering all bases' as if the algorithm was just a natural part of YT they couldn't help. Everything they do online is algorithm based. Not just YouTube, but all their online links they get from Facebook. And this is where the vast majority of their audience is. The vast majority of GBNs reach is done through algorithms to an audience that already watched similar content and agrees with them. They are not changing minds.

You said 'old institutions backed by the government' as if GB News isn't. Half of its presenters at Tory MPs. Let's be serious here. I don't understand this need to believe it is anti establishment. It is a right wing channel. We have had a right wing party in charge for 13 years. The Deputy Chairman of the Tories who says migrants should fuck off back to France is interviewing the Home Secretary who says multiculturalism has failed on GBN. This is the establishment. Suella Braverman is in power. This could not happen on the BBC or Sky no matter how left wing they secretly are. Because have to be impartial and objective. It would literally be illegal for them to do this. It is not illegal for GBN because they exist in a loophole in ofcom.

Working class people aren't 'understanding' the common message though are they? How do you square this circle? Why are working class people going to vote for Labour if GB News is at the same time reaching them and changing narratives? Two things can't be true at the same time. And we know these people voted Tory in the last election, so something has changed in the last four years. I tried to explain it to you in my last post. It's the economy. It's housing. It's the NHS. Not a fake news story about a child pretending to identify as a cat that every news station talks about for a day. These main issues are what people really care about. And people rate the Tories very lowly on both. Originally you tried to say that GB News was changing minds. Now you are saying they are catering to debate and entertainment people want. Ok that may be true. There is a section of people who want to see someone angrily shouting about 'woke of the week'. But this isn't important. This isn't serving an important journalistic need. Nobody really cares strongly about this stuff. They care about the NHS and the environment.
 
foggy said:
You are writing just as much as me. You have points, I respond to them.

A left wing news channel like GB News can't exist, yes. Or perhaps, it is exceedingly unlikely to exist. GB News caters to its echo chamber of mostly right wing boomers who still watch TV and get YT links from FB. Left wing media like Novara aims for a left wing, young audience, which exists mostly outside traditional media.

There is no LW equivalent of GB News. You sort of have to pretend Sky and BBC are but we both know that isn't true. And the fact that they are broadly liked by most of the public and trusted shows this. A real left wing institution, such as the guardian, and I will only loosely define it as LW, it's more liberal, but it is as polarised as GB News. Just with more people knowing about it. You did try to compare GBN to these organisations, but the name recognition falls way behind, a decent proxy for its cultural footprint.

I'm sorry to have to appeal to my expertise in this area, but if you don't want essays, we have to take shortcuts don't we? So I'll try it again in the only way you have allowed me. I know about this stuff because I work in it and GB News is working inside the algorithm intentionally. I have been civil and polite and if you want to discuss this more, I will happily write more about it. You said they were 'covering all bases' as if the algorithm was just a natural part of YT they couldn't help. Everything they do online is algorithm based. Not just YouTube, but all their online links they get from Facebook. And this is where the vast majority of their audience is. The vast majority of GBNs reach is done through algorithms to an audience that already watched similar content and agrees with them. They are not changing minds.

You said 'old institutions backed by the government' as if GB News isn't. Half of its presenters at Tory MPs. Let's be serious here. I don't understand this need to believe it is anti establishment. It is a right wing channel. We have had a right wing party in charge for 13 years. The Deputy Chairman of the Tories who says migrants should fuck off back to France is interviewing the Home Secretary who says multiculturalism has failed on GBN. This is the establishment. Suella Braverman is in power. This could not happen on the BBC or Sky no matter how left wing they secretly are. Because have to be impartial and objective. It would literally be illegal for them to do this. It is not illegal for GBN because they exist in a loophole in ofcom.

Working class people aren't 'understanding' the common message though are they? How do you square this circle? Why are working class people going to vote for Labour if GB News is at the same time reaching them and changing narratives? Two things can't be true at the same time. And we know these people voted Tory in the last election, so something has changed in the last four years. I tried to explain it to you in my last post. It's the economy. It's housing. It's the NHS. Not a fake news story about a child pretending to identify as a cat that every news station talks about for a day. These main issues are what people really care about. And people rate the Tories very lowly on both. Originally you tried to say that GB News was changing minds. Now you are saying they are catering to debate and entertainment people want. Ok that may be true. There is a section of people who want to see someone angrily shouting about 'woke of the week'. But this isn't important. This isn't serving an important journalistic need. Nobody really cares strongly about this stuff. They care about the NHS and the environment.
Click to expand...
It's unlikely to exist as there not much need as they already push some left wing narratives. Has anyone tried or wanted to set anything up? You can't say it can't exist if no one has tried.

Yet it beat the guardian in that survey. It's still in it's infancy really and has been attacked from before it even started. I'd say that shows bias of some who weren't even willing to give it a chance.

I said they were covering all bases and then said tv, radio, online, that makes sense. No they are obviously wanting to keep their existing viewership and reach new people too, and they are as the subs are growing, they are doing American content, have people who watch from all around the world and it'll only grow. There's plenty who will agree with it who don't yet know it's there or to tap into and it's influence will grow.

You know what I meant about the BBC, with it's licence fee, its been going for ages and is a powerhouse backed by government. Trying to compare that to gb news having some Tories on is not the same at all.

Yep I'm not a huge fan of all the tories on there tbh, if some went I wouldn't miss them, quite enjoy Anderson though. But his interview was fair, there was nothing wrong with it, he put opposition points to her and then had a wide range of views on after that. Looked pretty fair to me. But it's just a conversation and people are losing it over it.

Gb news isnt all about the tories and anti Labour, it has some on who support Labour. I'm on about common sense messages on certain subjects. These are important issues but they never override the big election issues, bar brexit or immigrationwhich was always there. I've also said there's many elements, some die hards who vote that way regardless, even aginst their interests it seems at times. There's people who get bored of the current lot and like to hate on whoever is in power. The channel is reaching people, but it's got 1m subs, that not enough to influence the country is it. But as said its early days and its growing. It's doing better than talk TV. Your point acts like gb news has managed to reach all working class people, rather than when it does its message often hits home. So that's how I square that circle. It also doesn't have 1 unified message, it has all sorts and no one agrees with everything.

It'll take time and it also has the established media and groups that claim to stop hate but often spread hate against it.

Brexit did change thr landscape, it was such a strongly felt issue that people who have voted Labour their whole lives lent their vote. The truth is we don't know of they will just fall back out of habit or other reasons.

The fact you mention identifying as a cat and woke of the week as examples proves the bias in which you've approached it with, these are minute parts of the channel, yet held up as your examples. Nothing wrong with calling out the nonsense of letting kids identify as anything though is there? As it can lead down a dangerous path with young impressionable minds pushed down a path of life changing consequences, all from that ideology that shouldn't be promoted like it is. The dangers of that ideology are very real and yet its only a tiny fraction of the population who it benefits.

People will do their bit for the environment but as shown, when it means being hit in the pocket and the reality of what it all means hits home, they suddenly aren't as keen.
 
JJpool said:
So we've had Gordon Brown get involved, Adam Boulton, MP's and many political commentators, many calling for the channel to be shut down.

How sad and what an agenda some have.

Yet the BBC protected Savile and other channels have had people who have done things infinitely worse. A presenter says something wrong and crass, got rightly punished and suddenly it should be shut down by ofcom, with Boulton admiting that is upsetting the broadcast ecology.

Laughable. Meanwhile the channel is going from strength to strength. It's helping change the narratives and the trusted media are fearful of it, that's for sure. People wanted it shut down before it had even broadcast a single word.
Click to expand...
Been on LSD again JJ ?
 
Ollygon said:
Really?

... and GB News is going from strength to strength ??????

Delusional
Click to expand...
Over a million subscribers in a few years is doing alright to me, regularly beating sky and bbc on certain shows is doing alright considering. Talk TV been around much longer, although was talk radio and is already falling way behind.
 
JJpool said:
It's unlikely to exist as there not much need as they already push some left wing narratives. Has anyone tried or wanted to set anything up? You can't say it can't exist if no one has tried.

Yet it beat the guardian in that survey. It's still in it's infancy really and has been attacked from before it even started. I'd say that shows bias of some who weren't even willing to give it a chance.

I said they were covering all bases and then said tv, radio, online, that makes sense. No they are obviously wanting to keep their existing viewership and reach new people too, and they are as the subs are growing, they are doing American content, have people who watch from all around the world and it'll only grow. There's plenty who will agree with it who don't yet know it's there or to tap into and it's influence will grow.

You know what I meant about the BBC, with it's licence fee, its been going for ages and is a powerhouse backed by government. Trying to compare that to gb news having some Tories on is not the same at all.

Yep I'm not a huge fan of all the tories on there tbh, if some went I wouldn't miss them, quite enjoy Anderson though. But his interview was fair, there was nothing wrong with it, he put opposition points to her and then had a wide range of views on after that. Looked pretty fair to me. But it's just a conversation and people are losing it over it.

Gb news isnt all about the tories and anti Labour, it has some on who support Labour. I'm on about common sense messages on certain subjects. These are important issues but they never override the big election issues, bar brexit or immigrationwhich was always there. I've also said there's many elements, some die hards who vote that way regardless, even aginst their interests it seems at times. There's people who get bored of the current lot and like to hate on whoever is in power. The channel is reaching people, but it's got 1m subs, that not enough to influence the country is it. But as said its early days and its growing. It's doing better than talk TV. Your point acts like gb news has managed to reach all working class people, rather than when it does its message often hits home. So that's how I square that circle. It also doesn't have 1 unified message, it has all sorts and no one agrees with everything.

It'll take time and it also has the established media and groups that claim to stop hate but often spread hate against it.

Brexit did change thr landscape, it was such a strongly felt issue that people who have voted Labour their whole lives lent their vote. The truth is we don't know of they will just fall back out of habit or other reasons.

The fact you mention identifying as a cat and woke of the week as examples proves the bias in which you've approached it with, these are minute parts of the channel, yet held up as your examples. Nothing wrong with calling out the nonsense of letting kids identify as anything though is there? As it can lead down a dangerous path with young impressionable minds pushed down a path of life changing consequences, all from that ideology that shouldn't be promoted like it is. The dangers of that ideology are very real and yet its only a tiny fraction of the population who it benefits.

People will do their bit for the environment but as shown, when it means being hit in the pocket and the reality of what it all means hits home, they suddenly aren't as keen.
Click to expand...
It does exist just not as a TV channel. Because TV is old school traditional media for older people. True left wing movements and publications tend to be more bottom up and disparate. We cannot pretend Sky/BBC on the one hand and GB News on the other is balance. Sky/BBC are centre and have to live by impartiality rules that GBN don't. You could maybe persuade me Sky/BBC have a liberal tilt, at times. That is not left wing. GB News is right wing. You can weakly point to some Labour MPs appearing on it, but you can't seriously be trying to argue it isn't staunchly and proudly right wing. It makes no claim to not be biased.

The survey is designed for marmite brands to win. The people who like GBN really love it. I don't think this is a good thing. I don't think it is particularly healthy. You seem to be attaching a lot of significance to this award and I'm not sure why. GB News has an audience. That audience existed before hand and they are pretty devoted to anything that serves them the content they like. I don't dispute that at all, it's my entire point. I am also sure that the rabid right of America also like it and more will discover it. Again, serving up content to people already agree.

My point about Anderson and Suella is that literally cannot happen on the BBC or Sky. It is to show you how trying to equate them is impossible. One can be nakedly biased, the other legally can't. Therefore the BBC, as left wing as you may think it is, will never been a counter balance to GBN.

Your point was that it was changing minds and narratives, not mine. You have to prove that. Just looking at subs numbers is meaningless, because you have no proof any of those people thought differently anyway. And I have proof to the counter, the YT algorithm. That's why I talk about working class people you think are the common folk who appreciate this message. There is no evidence in polling to support that. 4 years ago they voted Tory, now they will vote Labour. It's actually inversely correlated to GB News.

I mention the war on woke segments because you have continually mentioned such segments yourself as evidence of their role in public discourse. You made several references to kids and 100 genders and other such nonsense. My point is, none of this matters to voters. You replied saying they still want to watch it. Yes, they may do. But it's fluff. Light entertainment and outrage cycles. It is not important and polling shows this. It isn't changing narratives. It's serving up content to the audience that hated political correctness gone mad, the health and safety brigade, and now the woke BS. Nothing new here. Nothing you can't get in the Sun, or in Jeremy Vine phone ins. Pretty mainstream and traditional. Already existing in traditional media. A part of the literal Prime Minister of the United Kingdom's re-election strategy. You may notice a reference to 'stopping 15 minute cities' in his upcoming conference speech. That is a wink and a nod to the more conspiratorial on the right. This is inside number 10. You cannot get more establishment than that.

Btw, the fact that people like policies but like it less if it financially hurts them is not exclusive to the environment. It's pretty much a general trend across every policy area.
 
JJpool said:
Over a million subscribers in a few years is doing alright to me, regularly beating sky and bbc on certain shows is doing alright considering. Talk TV been around much longer, although was talk radio and is already falling way behind.
Click to expand...
The Beano's doing well too.
 
JJpool said:
Glad you appreciate it, otherwise who would you have to talk down to.
Click to expand...
Stop playing the victim, it's been a civil, polite debate. I just disagree with you. You asked me to shorten my replies so I tried a shortcut of describing how this is my wheelhouse so there's certain things I know due to my expertise in it, but you didn't like that either. Nobody is attacking or venting at you.
 
foggy said:
Stop playing the victim, it's been a civil, polite debate. I just disagree with you. You asked me to shorten my replies so I tried a shortcut of describing how this is my wheelhouse so there's certain things I know due to my expertise in it, but you didn't like that either. Nobody is attacking or venting at you.
Click to expand...
Calm down it was a joke to you.

We all know how tolerant the left can be 🥴

I'll come back to your other post when I get chance.
 
foggy said:
It does exist just not as a TV channel. Because TV is old school traditional media for older people. True left wing movements and publications tend to be more bottom up and disparate. We cannot pretend Sky/BBC on the one hand and GB News on the other is balance. Sky/BBC are centre and have to live by impartiality rules that GBN don't. You could maybe persuade me Sky/BBC have a liberal tilt, at times. That is not left wing. GB News is right wing. You can weakly point to some Labour MPs appearing on it, but you can't seriously be trying to argue it isn't staunchly and proudly right wing. It makes no claim to not be biased.

The survey is designed for marmite brands to win. The people who like GBN really love it. I don't think this is a good thing. I don't think it is particularly healthy. You seem to be attaching a lot of significance to this award and I'm not sure why. GB News has an audience. That audience existed before hand and they are pretty devoted to anything that serves them the content they like. I don't dispute that at all, it's my entire point. I am also sure that the rabid right of America also like it and more will discover it. Again, serving up content to people already agree.

My point about Anderson and Suella is that literally cannot happen on the BBC or Sky. It is to show you how trying to equate them is impossible. One can be nakedly biased, the other legally can't. Therefore the BBC, as left wing as you may think it is, will never been a counter balance to GBN.

Your point was that it was changing minds and narratives, not mine. You have to prove that. Just looking at subs numbers is meaningless, because you have no proof any of those people thought differently anyway. And I have proof to the counter, the YT algorithm. That's why I talk about working class people you think are the common folk who appreciate this message. There is no evidence in polling to support that. 4 years ago they voted Tory, now they will vote Labour. It's actually inversely correlated to GB News.

I mention the war on woke segments because you have continually mentioned such segments yourself as evidence of their role in public discourse. You made several references to kids and 100 genders and other such nonsense. My point is, none of this matters to voters. You replied saying they still want to watch it. Yes, they may do. But it's fluff. Light entertainment and outrage cycles. It is not important and polling shows this. It isn't changing narratives. It's serving up content to the audience that hated political correctness gone mad, the health and safety brigade, and now the woke BS. Nothing new here. Nothing you can't get in the Sun, or in Jeremy Vine phone ins. Pretty mainstream and traditional. Already existing in traditional media. A part of the literal Prime Minister of the United Kingdom's re-election strategy. You may notice a reference to 'stopping 15 minute cities' in his upcoming conference speech. That is a wink and a nod to the more conspiratorial on the right. This is inside number 10. You cannot get more establishment than that.

Btw, the fact that people like policies but like it less if it financially hurts them is not exclusive to the environment. It's pretty much a general trend across every policy area.
Click to expand...
It is what it is, it's not tried to hide that. But they do try and provide some balance from the other side, but it's not a rolling news channel like the others can be. It's got lots of opinions on topics of the day. The BBC can, at times, pander to extreme ideology of the trans movement and doesn't call out openly racist views made against white people.

I'm not attaching much significance, I brought it up when you claimed the channel hadn't done anything. Well it still beat some big brands. Plus more than half the country voted brexit and has many views that align with the channel, so maybe it doesn't need to change people on the lefts minds, it just needs to tap into what's already there, which it is doing, but again it's not reached everyone yet.

I never claimed the BBC was the counter balance for GB news. I've only demonstrated the popularity of a fledgling growing channel that speaks to a lot of peoples common language and why some are clearly worried about that rise in the establishment media.

It will be changing some peoples minds, when some realise the extent of wokeness on some topics they often end up in alignment with views of the right these days. I've seen people on their programmes who are probably not from the right but caught up in some woke nonesense, they will certainly be more sympathetic. By speaking out about the march to net zero that'll impact peoples lives financially, or by being against ULEZ for eg, it'll gain some support there. Being on the side of motorists, speaking up against concerning things children can be taught. All things like this will appeal to normal people who aren't that political, or whichever way they lean. I'm not saying that'll change an election result.

Your 'proof' that people aren't is nonsense, the algorithm will keep people seeing similar things but people can still find new things. It's also a radio and TV channel, people drift on it and like it or don't, go or stay, don't come back or do.

But tbh it's probably better to say that by expressing people's opinions that usually weren't aired and giving a home to many people who's views they felt weren't being represented, it'll tap into that 'brexit crowd', which is huge. Of course in an election there's multiple things people vote for. You seem obsessed with tories and Labour when the channel's issues are far wider than that.

There's more to influence than just a closed shop election vote. We know this because despite a tory RW government we've still sees a rise of far left ideologies in many areas. It comes from the US too.

What I find funny is some people want it shut down. But then at the same time some say it doesn't get any viewers. Hmm.

Adam Boulton wanting it shut down because of this and some other minor incidents.

It's laughable, if that was the case we'd have no news channels or broadcast media.

The bbc with Jimmy Savile, other channels with brand or whoever. Most have had far bigger issues than an inappropriate comment that was dealth with and will do again.

The BBC have admitted it should have tried harder to find a better balance of panel for that newsnight show. I think 2 of them worked for talk tv, who have been all over GB news no doubt wanting the big competitor gone.

People go on about how the channel is doing, but on the YouTube side is over a million subscribers in 2 years a good return? I'd say yes and it's surpassed talk TV, which was going as talk radio before that I think.

Some are clearly worried about it growing and getting more and more influence.
 
JJpool said:
It is what it is, it's not tried to hide that. But they do try and provide some balance from the other side, but it's not a rolling news channel like the others can be. It's got lots of opinions on topics of the day. The BBC can, at times, pander to extreme ideology of the trans movement and doesn't call out openly racist views made against white people.

I'm not attaching much significance, I brought it up when you claimed the channel hadn't done anything. Well it still beat some big brands. Plus more than half the country voted brexit and has many views that align with the channel, so maybe it doesn't need to change people on the lefts minds, it just needs to tap into what's already there, which it is doing, but again it's not reached everyone yet.

I never claimed the BBC was the counter balance for GB news. I've only demonstrated the popularity of a fledgling growing channel that speaks to a lot of peoples common language and why some are clearly worried about that rise in the establishment media.

It will be changing some peoples minds, when some realise the extent of wokeness on some topics they often end up in alignment with views of the right these days. I've seen people on their programmes who are probably not from the right but caught up in some woke nonesense, they will certainly be more sympathetic. By speaking out about the march to net zero that'll impact peoples lives financially, or by being against ULEZ for eg, it'll gain some support there. Being on the side of motorists, speaking up against concerning things children can be taught. All things like this will appeal to normal people who aren't that political, or whichever way they lean. I'm not saying that'll change an election result.

Your 'proof' that people aren't is nonsense, the algorithm will keep people seeing similar things but people can still find new things. It's also a radio and TV channel, people drift on it and like it or don't, go or stay, don't come back or do.

But tbh it's probably better to say that by expressing people's opinions that usually weren't aired and giving a home to many people who's views they felt weren't being represented, it'll tap into that 'brexit crowd', which is huge. Of course in an election there's multiple things people vote for. You seem obsessed with tories and Labour when the channel's issues are far wider than that.

There's more to influence than just a closed shop election vote. We know this because despite a tory RW government we've still sees a rise of far left ideologies in many areas. It comes from the US too.

What I find funny is some people want it shut down. But then at the same time some say it doesn't get any viewers. Hmm.

Adam Boulton wanting it shut down because of this and some other minor incidents.

It's laughable, if that was the case we'd have no news channels or broadcast media.

The bbc with Jimmy Savile, other channels with brand or whoever. Most have had far bigger issues than an inappropriate comment that was dealth with and will do again.

The BBC have admitted it should have tried harder to find a better balance of panel for that newsnight show. I think 2 of them worked for talk tv, who have been all over GB news no doubt wanting the big competitor gone.

People go on about how the channel is doing, but on the YouTube side is over a million subscribers in 2 years a good return? I'd say yes and it's surpassed talk TV, which was going as talk radio before that I think.

Some are clearly worried about it growing and getting more and more influence.
Click to expand...
Ok I'm glad you finally agreed they are tapping into a market that is already there. All I've been asking is to drop the pretense that this is some vital public service provided by brave freedom fighters. It's performative outrage about 'woke nonsense' and Tory MPs pretending they aren't in the establishment. Lots of people who spend their day on Twitter complaining about 'woke BS' will naturally find a home in it. But most people don't care all that much for culture war issues. They care about if they can afford their weekly shopping, if they can afford to turn their heating on, when rent is due, and how long they have to wait for an NHS appointment. GB News caters to the terminally online who spend more time taking about toilets and gender.

I never claimed the channel "hadn't done anything". That's a misquote. There's always money to be made in serving content to a right wing audience and when you pretend it's somehow news 'they' want to shut down, and say things like 'metropolitan elites' and 'liberal bubbles' there's even more money to be made. They do well, as I've said many times. But they do well catering to their echo chamber. Their most successful online articles are embarrassing clickbait. Their YT videos get remarkably few views for their supposed subscriber base, unless it's about Prince Harry of course. Those are the only videos that reach even 5% of their 1m 'subscribers'. No wonder they milk it for all its worth. Take those away and the average views would be in the single thousands.

Nobody is scared of GB News. Let them keep making videos about the Royal Family. Just stop breaking the law when it comes to the Ofcom code.
 
Last edited:
foggy said:
Ok I'm glad you finally agreed they are tapping into a market that is already there. All I've been asking is to drop the pretense that this is some vital public service provided by brave freedom fighters. It's performative outrage about 'woke nonsense' and Tory MPs pretending they aren't in the establishment. Lots of people who spend their day on Twitter complaining about 'woke BS' will naturally find a home in it. But most people don't care all that much for culture war issues. They care about if they can afford their weekly shopping, if they can afford to turn their heating on, when rent is due, and how long they have to wait for an NHS appointment. GB News caters to the terminally online who spend more time taking about toilets and gender.

I never claimed the channel "hadn't done anything". That's a misquote. There's always money to be made in serving content to a right wing audience and when you pretend it's somehow news 'they' want to shut down, and say things like 'metropolitan elites' and 'liberal bubbles' there's even more money to be made. They do well, as I've said many times. But they do well catering to their echo chamber. Their most successful online articles are embarrassing clickbait. Their YT videos get remarkably few views for their supposed subscriber base, unless it's about Prince Harry of course. Those are the only videos that reach even 5% of their 1m 'subscribers'. No wonder they milk it for all its worth. Take those away and the average views would be in the single thousands.

Nobody is scared of GB News. Let them keep making videos about the Royal Family. Just stop breaking the law when it comes to the Ofcom code.
Click to expand...
Have you thought about writing a book on 'how not to run a country'.
 
foggy said:
Ok I'm glad you finally agreed they are tapping into a market that is already there. All I've been asking is to drop the pretense that this is some vital public service provided by brave freedom fighters. It's performative outrage about 'woke nonsense' and Tory MPs pretending they aren't in the establishment. Lots of people who spend their day on Twitter complaining about 'woke BS' will naturally find a home in it. But most people don't care all that much for culture war issues. They care about if they can afford their weekly shopping, if they can afford to turn their heating on, when rent is due, and how long they have to wait for an NHS appointment. GB News caters to the terminally online who spend more time taking about toilets and gender.

I never claimed the channel "hadn't done anything". That's a misquote. There's always money to be made in serving content to a right wing audience and when you pretend it's somehow news 'they' want to shut down, and say things like 'metropolitan elites' and 'liberal bubbles' there's even more money to be made. They do well, as I've said many times. But they do well catering to their echo chamber. Their most successful online articles are embarrassing clickbait. Their YT videos get remarkably few views for their supposed subscriber base, unless it's about Prince Harry of course. Those are the only videos that reach even 5% of their 1m 'subscribers'. No wonder they milk it for all its worth. Take those away and the average views would be in the single thousands.

Nobody is scared of GB News. Let them keep making videos about the Royal Family. Just stop breaking the law when it comes to the Ofcom code.
Click to expand...
Well that parts obvious, but of course they will gain some people who weren't previously sympathetic. I think it does serve a purpose and also it does cover the issues you raise there. The reasons for high energy, inflation etc is covered too, one of those is the rampant push for net zero whilst other countries continue to build coal power stations. It's not that we shouldn't do anything but crippling ourselves is not the answer, many agree, many disagree. I think people do care about smaller societal issue too, but for an election the big issues always are always there.

I think actually you said their only success, which prompted some examples.

'They' as in the existing news channels do not want more competition and a new player trying to disrupt the industry. We see examples of that with some who want it shut down and also elements of the left do too, since it was targeted before launched.

They do alright on videos I've seen, sometimes things hit, sometimes they don't. Not many similar YT channels that pump out that number of videos has anywhere near the number of views as their sub count. Look at the bbc and over 14m subs. You get some bigger ones but some are similar levels to gb news. It's the nature of it for most, pump out more clips for more revenue hoping some hit.

Could say that about anything, again like the bbc. Take away their higher viewed clips and they're no better than a lowly gb news...

Again, establishment media won't be keen on it growing and potentially exerting more influence to the debates. One of the ofcom breaches was for promoting a don't kill cash campaign....
 
foggy said:
As someone who works in broadcasting I can tell you this is definitely not true. Their operation was a shambles, all ran from one desk in the corner of a room somewhere without basic broadcasting functionality (not because of their politics, because they are cheap and have inexperienced people working for them). They are the 33rd most watched channel by monthly average in the UK, in between 5Action which pretty much only shows old black and white cowboy films and Gold, but not even the actual Gold channel, just Gold +1. They are slightly ahead of a channel called Pick which I have honestly never heard of. I don't think they have the cultural footprint on the UK you seem to think, nor do I think they are 'changing' narrative or ideas. Their only success is now pumping out hundreds of short form YouTube videos every week in the hope one gets a bit big. I can see them riding this for sure, and it will help them stick around. But they are serving up content to an audience that already agrees with them on everything. They aren't changing anything, just another echo chamber existing solely from the help of YouTube algorithms
Click to expand...

That's spot on. There's left wing equivalents in the mediasphere like the Canary and suchlike. When you read or watch them, they're always very keen to sell you the idea that 'the mainstream' are fearful of them and they're giving some sort of particular insight. Generally, I've found that they don't. A serious source of news would spend 100% of its time actually letting news speak for itself instead of endlessly plugging itself.

I think it's quite telling that both the Canary (left) and GB News (right) have ended up estranged from their founders.
 
JJpool said:
Well that parts obvious, but of course they will gain some people who weren't previously sympathetic. I think it does serve a purpose and also it does cover the issues you raise there. The reasons for high energy, inflation etc is covered too, one of those is the rampant push for net zero whilst other countries continue to build coal power stations. It's not that we shouldn't do anything but crippling ourselves is not the answer, many agree, many disagree. I think people do care about smaller societal issue too, but for an election the big issues always are always there.

I think actually you said their only success, which prompted some examples.

'They' as in the existing news channels do not want more competition and a new player trying to disrupt the industry. We see examples of that with some who want it shut down and also elements of the left do too, since it was targeted before launched.

They do alright on videos I've seen, sometimes things hit, sometimes they don't. Not many similar YT channels that pump out that number of videos has anywhere near the number of views as their sub count. Look at the bbc and over 14m subs. You get some bigger ones but some are similar levels to gb news. It's the nature of it for most, pump out more clips for more revenue hoping some hit.

Could say that about anything, again like the bbc. Take away their higher viewed clips and they're no better than a lowly gb news...

Again, establishment media won't be keen on it growing and potentially exerting more influence to the debates. One of the ofcom breaches was for promoting a don't kill cash campaign....
Click to expand...
Yes Ofcom is investigating them because broadcasters aren't allowed to run campaigns. And they are running a campaign. It kind of flies in the face of the whole 'balance' thing. The BBC and Sky do not run campaigns on public policy issues or take an editorial side. If GB News gets shut down it will be because they are completely amateur and cannot abide by the law. I have seen this first hand. There are strict rules that broadcasters must not broadcast more than 12 minutes of advertising per clock hour. To go beyond this is a serious breach that can cost a significant amount in fines. In transmission suites it is standard for a channel to have an automated counter that alarms whenever a day's upcoming schedule may be in breach, and working with live news and sport sees operators such as myself tasked with working with galleries to make sure clock hours are maintained. GB News did not have this functionality in their playout system, they didn't even know it could be implemented. They didn't seem to even know the rule, despite it being The Rule everyone in transmission knows. They were breaking the law through sheer incompetence. It isn't a conspiracy to try put them out of business, it's a regulator upholding laws that should be remarkably easy to follow.

The main channels know GB News is not a competitor. It gets a fraction of the viewership. It targets a niche demographic. It is intentionally divisive and antagonistic and wants only to make content it knows its viewers will like. Of those who have heard of GB News it has a negative approval rating. The mainstream channels have very high approval and trust ratings.
 
foggy said:
Yes Ofcom is investigating them because broadcasters aren't allowed to run campaigns. And they are running a campaign. It kind of flies in the face of the whole 'balance' thing. The BBC and Sky do not run campaigns on public policy issues or take an editorial side. If GB News gets shut down it will be because they are completely amateur and cannot abide by the law. I have seen this first hand. There are strict rules that broadcasters must not broadcast more than 12 minutes of advertising per clock hour. To go beyond this is a serious breach that can cost a significant amount in fines. In transmission suites it is standard for a channel to have an automated counter that alarms whenever a day's upcoming schedule may be in breach, and working with live news and sport sees operators such as myself tasked with working with galleries to make sure clock hours are maintained. GB News did not have this functionality in their playout system, they didn't even know it could be implemented. They didn't seem to even know the rule, despite it being The Rule everyone in transmission knows. They were breaking the law through sheer incompetence. It isn't a conspiracy to try put them out of business, it's a regulator upholding laws that should be remarkably easy to follow.

The main channels know GB News is not a competitor. It gets a fraction of the viewership. It targets a niche demographic. It is intentionally divisive and antagonistic and wants only to make content it knows its viewers will like. Of those who have heard of GB News it has a negative approval rating. The mainstream channels have very high approval and trust ratings.
Click to expand...
I think it's a good campaign though 😏

They chose to be regulated by ofcom, I guess they could just go online, although that space will eventually be controlled too at some point.

Where they shut down 'misinformation' no doubt, but who decides what's misinformation... as seen with covid legitimate things were shut down.

Again, it's beating some channels on some of its slots, if that doesn't concern some competitors then ahh well. An apparent negative rating based on campaigns against it no doubt and the majority who hate it won't have watched it, but that's the world we live in.

Anyway, this thread has gone way off topic, the top and bottom of this is some like it some don't, it's growing and seeing as no-one in the industry is concerned about that, they won't be calling for it to be shut down, happy days.
 
JJpool said:
Again, it's beating some channels on some of its slots, if that doesn't concern some competitors then ahh well. An apparent negative rating based on campaigns against it no doubt and the majority who hate it won't have watched it, but that's the world we live in.

Anyway, this thread has gone way off topic, the top and bottom of this is some like it some don't, it's growing and seeing as no-one in the industry is concerned about that, they won't be calling for it to be shut down, happy days.
Click to expand...
Nah I think people just dont like it mate because most peple think guys like Dan Wootton, Jacob Rees Mogg, Laurence Fox etc are massive bellends. People can make their own mind up. Not everyone is brainwashed because they dont like something you like.

At the end of the day its content gets a few thousands views unless its something about Prince Harry and Meghan or an attack on trans people. I dont think it's big enough for me to care about wanting to get shut down even if I did skew that way. But if it keeps breaking the ofcom code like it did with Fox the other night I hope it does for no other reason than I'm sick of our regulators being so toothless.
 
foggy said:
Nah I think people just dont like it mate because most peple think guys like Dan Wootton, Jacob Rees Mogg, Laurence Fox etc are massive bellends. People can make their own mind up. Not everyone is brainwashed because they dont like something you like.

At the end of the day its content gets a few thousands views unless its something about Prince Harry and Meghan or an attack on trans people. I dont think it's big enough for me to care about wanting to get shut down even if I did skew that way. But if it keeps breaking the ofcom code like it did with Fox the other night I hope it does for no other reason than I'm sick of our regulators being so toothless.
Click to expand...
Well they might be gone anyway, this will be a kick up the arse. I didn't say they were brainwashed, nor is someone who would chose to watch some of it. But some against the channel before day 1 clearly have agendas.

It does a bit better than that as you know, you're downplaying it and you've clearly fundamentally understood the trans debate, it's not against trans, they have trans people on who speak sense, but against pushing an ideology on kids with young impressionable minds, that's a very real and legitimate concern. To dismiss that shows a lack of understanding or wanting to understand. I can only presume you're one of these where it doesn't affect, which are usually the people who stick up for it for this and claim no issue.
 
Last edited:
JJpool said:
Well they might be gone anyway, this will be a kick up the arse. I didn't say they were brainwashed, nor is someone who would chose to watch some of it. But some against the channel before day 1 clearly have agendas.

It does a bit better than that as you know, your downplaying it and you've clearly fundamentally understood the trans debate, it's not against trans, they have trans people on who speak sense, but against pushing an ideology on kids with young impressionable minds, that's a very real and legitimate concern. To dismiss that shows a lack of understanding or wanting to understand. I can only presume your one of these where it doesn't affect, which are usually the people who stick up for it for this and claim no issue.
Click to expand...
You did say it has a negative approval rating "based on campaigns against it no doubt". That is saying people can't think for themselves, that it isn't because people can come to their own conclusion that most people on it are bellends.

No it doesn't, I went through the YT page over the last few weeks of content. Vast majority of videos are in the single thousands or teens.
 
foggy said:
You did say it has a negative approval rating "based on campaigns against it no doubt". That is saying people can't think for themselves, that it isn't because people can come to their own conclusion that most people on it are bellends.

No it doesn't, I went through the YT page over the last few weeks of content. Vast majority of videos are in the single thousands or teens.
Click to expand...
Well you've basically argued no one is watching it, so based on that why would many people hate it if not based on campaigns or negative press against it... Some have made minds up with no real knowledge of it.

BBC news YT follows a similar pattern only starting from a much higher subs base, so therefore numbers are increased.
 
JJpool said:
Well you've basically argued no one is watching it, so based on that why would many people hate it if not based on campaigns or negative press against it... Some have made minds up with no real knowledge of it.

BBC news YT follows a similar pattern only starting from a much higher subs base, so therefore numbers are increased.
Click to expand...
Because it is very loud and brash about its ethos and people can make their minds up about this quickly. Also videos such as what Fox did tend to get shared around Twitter and most people can recognise bellends pretty quickly without committing to hours of their content. That's just how human beings form opinions. I'm amazed this is surprising to you. GBN has firmly planted its flag in the ground on where it is, fairly far to the right. Most people in this country are not there. They are centre or to the left, or moderately on the right. Sure many could at some point watch enough footage of GBN that they will find something they invariably agree with, but you don't get to make your whole brand about how everyone else is wokey snowflakes and how you are trying to appeal to a very certain demographic and then whine when other people are put off. Again, as I'm trying to explain to you, GB News is not trying to reach a wider audience. It wants to appeal to the people who agree with them because that's still a big enough audience to make money.


Yes BBC has more views because it is vastly more popular. And also it is not reliant on YT videos. Millions of people watch the BBC News at 10. Its online player on the website does very well too.
 
foggy said:
Because it is very loud and brash about its ethos and people can make their minds up about this quickly. Also videos such as what Fox did tend to get shared around Twitter and most people can recognise bellends pretty quickly without committing to hours of their content. That's just how human beings form opinions. I'm amazed this is surprising to you. GBN has firmly planted its flag in the ground on where it is, fairly far to the right. Most people in this country are not there. They are centre or to the left, or moderately on the right. Sure many could at some point watch enough footage of GBN that they will find something they invariably agree with, but you don't get to make your whole brand about how everyone else is wokey snowflakes and how you are trying to appeal to a very certain demographic and then whine when other people are put off. Again, as I'm trying to explain to you, GB News is not trying to reach a wider audience. It wants to appeal to the people who agree with them because that's still a big enough audience to make money.


Yes BBC has more views because it is vastly more popular. And also it is not reliant on YT videos. Millions of people watch the BBC News at 10. Its online player on the website does very well too.
Click to expand...
Anyone can put a few clips together of some bad moments of anything. Most won't have watched much if any and be judging it based on their political outlook. They'll want to tap into the very skeptical nation on many topics (brexit etc) and gain any new people it can.

We're on about a direct comparison between the bbc given it's sub numbers and GB, given its approx 14 times higher. So you'd expect views in line with that.

Anyway we've drifted way off topic here and we're just going round in circles rehashing the same things.
 
JJpool said:
Anyone can put a few clips together of some bad moments of anything. Most won't have watched much if any and be judging it based on their political outlook. They'll want to tap into the very skeptical nation on many topics (brexit etc) and gain any new people it can.

We're on about a direct comparison between the bbc given it's sub numbers and GB, given its approx 14 times higher. So you'd expect views in line with that.

Anyway we've drifted way off topic here and we're just going round in circles rehashing the same things.
Click to expand...
Yep, if you aren't strongly right wing you don't want to watch strongly biased right wing content with no balance or objectivity. Not much of a mystery or conspiracy there 👍

I will keep tuning in every now and then. Me and my gf get a great giggle randomly flicking over to it. Absolute bin juice level intellect on there. Proper car crash TV.
 
foggy said:
Yep, if you aren't strongly right wing you don't want to watch strongly biased right wing content with no balance or objectivity. Not much of a mystery or conspiracy there 👍

I will keep tuning in every now and then. Me and my gf get a great giggle randomly flicking over to it. Absolute bin juice level intellect on there. Proper car crash TV.
Click to expand...
You have your opinion, doesn't make it right, no matter how much you seem to want to steamroller the debate.

I'm sure that'll make you feel very intelligent indeed. There was nothing car crash about the 2 links I posted a while back now, which of course you won't have watched. But I suppose it's good you tune in, no matter the reason, so they can add you to their numbers of converted fans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top