New Alternative News Channel "GB News" chaired by Andrew Neil launching - read OP before posting

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117679309#Comment_117679309

Very convenient that before the Brexit vote, it was quite clear what Brexit meant: leaving the customs union and single market; in other words, the predominant EU structures.

The second that Remain lost the referendum, they cleverly manufactured the propaganda terms Soft Brexit and Hard Brexit, as if it were an egg.

Soft Brexit = Remain Minus

Hard Brexit = the Brexit voters chose in the first place

Thankfully, after 2 General Elections and a European Election, the latter won.

Whilst it's not the perfect Brexit, it at least approximates to the Brexit that voters expected to receive in 2016.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117679263#Comment_117679263

Ah yes , the Electoral system where getting just 43% of the vote garners you a "Thumping Majority"..

Voters chose parties other than the Tories at a rate of almost 2:1 yet the glorious FPTP system gives the broadly unpopular Boris Johnson an 80 seat majority.

Democracy at it's finest.

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117679440#Comment_117679440

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/open-britain-video-single-market-nigel-farage-anna-soubry_uk_582ce0a0e4b09025ba310fce

some highlights include

Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market

Daniel Hannan MEP

Only a madman would actually leave the Market

Owen Paterson MP, Vote Leave backer

The Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initally attractive for some business people

Matthew Elliot, Vote Leave chief executive

Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK

Arron Banks, Leave.EU founder

No one had a clue what they wanted from Brexit. It was one of the most frustrating things around that vote is people didn't have a clear picture of what would happen if they voted for it. I remember Rees Mogg advocating for a 2nd referendum on what type of Brexit people wanted (this was quickly forgotten about).

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117679440#Comment_117679440

You're pants are on fire

And this beauty

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117679440#Comment_117679440

you have no idea what voters expected in 2016. they didn't know what they expected.

breezy1985

Those billboards were a great idea.

Who ever came up with them must have gotten top marks from Mensa

Faugheen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117679440#Comment_117679440

Did you follow the Brexit referendum at all? Absolutely nobody campaigned on leaving the customs union and the single market. In fact, nearly every prominent leave campaigner laughed at the possibility of leaving either.

You're actually making up stuff now. Bizarre behaviour.

If, by your logic, Brexit meant leaving the CU and SM then why did the likes of Farage and Hannen say neither of these would happen during the campaign? Brexit, in the eyes of some voters, didn't mean this at all because they were told it wouldn't happen.

Cabaal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117679502#Comment_117679502

Nobody mentioned Northern Ireland either :D

So saying people know what they voted for, they most certainly didn't. Not even BoJo and co knew exactly what they wanted.

Morgans

https://bylinetimes.com/2021/07/29/automated-culture-wars-digital-astroturfing-campaign-amplifies-fox-news-inspired-gb-news/

ancapailldorcha

As usual, I agree with Alex.

https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1420683957708939266

I watched most of this and it's exactly as dull and predicable as you'd expect. It's one thing for the BBC to use him as they so often did on Question Time for "balance" but in his little echo chamber, Nigel just becomes tedious to listen to.

silverharp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117679502#Comment_117679502

this I assume was sent to people's houses, Page 11 lists the major trade implications, seems clear enough that existing trade deals would cease and it could take up to 10 years to develop new ones.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/525022/20160523_Leaflet_EASY_READ_FINAL_VERSION.pdf

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117679225#Comment_117679225

And again you are showing that you haven't got a clue what I said.

I never mentioned Brexit, you keep bringing Brexit into the conversation as if Farage equals Brexit and nothing else.

Farahe attracts the low IQ people who agree with his racist beliefs.....NOTHING to do with Brexit

Do you understand now?

Frankie Machine

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117679727#Comment_117679727

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117679225#Comment_117679225

The condescending attitude towards English people who voted Brexit, and the sniffy attitude towards their poor socio-economic circumstances is quite simply, racist. Would be, if the boot was on the other foot, that is.

Anyone who has been to eg Hartlepool or any other of a number similarly forsaken towns ought to wonder whether things could be any worse out of the EU than they had come to after almost half a century within it. That train of thought is a consequence of being without prospects or optimism over generations, of desperation. It has nothing to do with intellectual ability.

But these Boards bores are the same people who can casually call an English man (who has achieved more than all of them put together would in ten lives) a racist, whose first wife was Irish, and whose second is German. An odd kind of racist, but who cares when the term is now utterly devoid of meaning.

Jim Davidson not appearing tonight. Perhaps he'll be rebooked for one of next week's shows.

Taking his place is Senator Ted Cruz.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117679852#Comment_117679852

Hmmm... Seems like you're further backing up the fact they're catering for a far right. Ted Cruz is an extremist, pushes conspiracy theories and egged on the storming of the capitol. Also weirdly you haven't addressed any of the very serious issues with Jim Davidson. Maybe they can have David Icke on next week?

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117679820#Comment_117679820

I call Farage a racist because he is a racist.

I'm not a racist because

A, English is not a race.

B, I am English, I live in England, can I be racist against myself?

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117679820#Comment_117679820

Give over.

The issue with places like Hartlepool and many other UK regional towns and cities is not that the EU were the cause of their downfall but that their government in Westminster discarded them as the decades passed and technologies and industries changed.

What exactly has Farage achieved which is so impressive? He clearly isn't the sole reason that the UK is out of the EU because it likely took vote leave and their shenanigans to get it over the line. He failed, repeatedly, to get elected to Westminster. He was elected to the EU and appointed to fisheries commission where he only attended a single meeting or something while arguing that they needed to leave the EU to benefit UK fishermen.

You clearly don't understand the term racist as you are confusing it with xenophobia in your defense of Farage.

Frankie Machine

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117679880#Comment_117679880

On the contrary, I quite easily understand that to refer to Farage as a little englander (sic) as has been done on this thread by a Boards ever-present is, particularly post-Brexit, to call him a xenophobe and a racist.

''He goes on about Great Britain but he is really just a little englander. and a tedious one at that.''

ohnonotgmail, 20/07/21, 4:49pm

Here is some basic English reading which the two of you are very clearly more in need of than I am...

an English person who thinks England is better than all other countries

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/little-englander

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/11/18/from-little-englanders-to-brexiteers

Frankie Machine

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117679946#Comment_117679946

I understand the more central role the UK has than the EU in the decay of English towns. But inter-generational despair leads to the thinking that the EU is at best of no beneficial consequence to them, otherwise they surely wouldn't be the depressing kips that they are. And secondly, compounding that, an EU that is led by a lunatic like Mutter Angela and her insane brainfart... isn't going to help matters any.

I understand the term racist very well. Like Labour MP Ann Cryer found out the hard way, I understand how it is used to stifle debate and to cover up, and used with a cynicism that has made a nonsense of it's meaning.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117679820#Comment_117679820

The people of Hartlepool et al were sold a pup , they've been told for decades by their Governments , aided and abetted by the a corrupt and compliant media. that all their ills were because of the EU and their stupid rules and regulations etc. etc. and that if only the UK were really in charge things would be so much better.

That is now and always was an outright lie.

The UK has the wealthiest region in Europe - "inner" London but also 6 of the 10 poorest regions as well.

Hartlepool (or any other "Not London" area in the UK) is a dump not because of the EU , but because of successive UK Governments failure to give a damn about them.

Brexit may or may not make their already miserable existences worse, but it categorically won't make it any bloody better.

Calling them stupid is perhaps harsh , but they swallowed the lies from the leaders and their media hook line and sinker so at the very least it's fair to call them gullible.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117679949#Comment_117679949

well done, you certainly understood my post.

Frankie Machine

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117680002#Comment_117680002

Perhaps gullible, yes. But perhaps also, lashing out. They know successive British governments don't care about them.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117679949#Comment_117679949

You've jumped into a side discussion re: Farage and you don't even have the first clue from where or whom it originated from. Do yourself and everyone else a favour and go back to the posts onwards from July 19th to read up on things and you might have a better idea. 😉

Frankie Machine

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117680015#Comment_117680015

Thank you.

It's a matter of keeping up to date with what terms actually mean in contemporary and informed usage, rather than being governed by one's vague idea as to what their meaning used to be.

Otherwise, people with a more current grasp of basic English than yourself are apt to misunderstand your post. But that would be your fault, and not theirs.

Ciao !

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117679990#Comment_117679990

More nonsense. This bit in particular.

"But inter-generational despair leads to the thinking that the EU is at best of no beneficial consequence to them, otherwise they surely wouldn't be the depressing kips that they are."

How did generation after generation of pointing the finger in the wrong direction suddenly mean that the EU were to blame for the demise of UK regions?

In Ireland we saw the regions experience development with signs on new roads and infrastructure specifically detail that the work was being done with EU regional development funds.

AllForIt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117676731#Comment_117676731

Kinda like the way you've asked me this silly question.

jamule

I think Frankie has almost summed up why brexit happened. The eu offered nothing tonthe slum dwellers, nothing changed for them when in the eu, so fook it.

The only thing Frankie seems to be missing is its the **** likes of fararge are the **** that keep them in thr slums

AllForIt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117676761#Comment_117676761

Yes of course, what they're saying hasn't the slightest bit of credibility. If they really believed that it's a far-right grifters channel then they should be outraged about it. There is noting wrong per se with a bit of outrage when it's warranted. But now they claim they're laughing at it which just goes to show they weren't genuine about their far-right claims in the first place or not genuine about laughing at it, or both. In fact I don't believe a word of what I'm reading here most of the time, that's why I said I found the thread amusing.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117680226#Comment_117680226

Spot on.

If they genuinely believed that GB News was "far-right", they wouldn't bother to tune in to the channel let alone watch it for comedic reasons.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117681197#Comment_117681197

Do you think we're tuning in?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117681214#Comment_117681214

We've heard ad nauseum that many posters here tune in, time and again, for the comedic value the channel apparently offers.

I recommend studying the past 20 pages for the extant evidence.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117681223#Comment_117681223

Pretty sure it's more a handful of posters have thrown it on to see what it's like... They're not regular viewers I imagine. In the same way I've maybe opened Breitbart twice to see what shite they're pushing. Your point at this stage isn't even arguing against them being far right...

Any reason why you ignored all the comments on your Jim Davidson love? Ignoring the domestic abuse? The demands for people in wheelchairs to be removed?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117681227#Comment_117681227

If we're going to talk about regular viewers, we must mention Farage reaching a peak of 128,000 viewers on Tuesday's show - suplexing both Sky News and the BBC. This peak was higher than his inaugural show. On here, we were led to believe that Farage's first show would be the zenith, with the nadir following shortly thereafter.

Yet Farage managed to secure 20% higher viewers over a week later. I was the only voice that made this prediction, and I turned out to be right - again.

First, we were told nobody would watch GB News. Then it transpired that they secured 4 million viewers.

So whilst many are in the secure majority here, it doesn't make you all right. Consensus can be comforting, I suppose, but it doesn't make you right.

In fact, I - one of the few voices defending GB News - have so far been more right in predictions than any of you.

Have you? It's a week in for the Farage show and so far it's sounding like you expect him to prop up the channel... Their overall viewing figures are lackluster and Farage maintaining that in the long term is far from certain, you're still in the novelty factor period.

Care to address my Jim Davidson query? Also you've failed to argue that they're not far right, you've just entirely moved on...

noelfirl

Indeed, even picking out individual nights of Farage (I thought we weren't allowed to do that by the way, doesn't seem very 'holistic'?) the figures for the channel are still generally dirge.

https://twitter.com/RTCoxwell/status/1420723099830468608

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117681282#Comment_117681282

GB News secured 4 million viewers in its first month, translating into 133,000 viewers per day.

Two days ago, Farage secured 128,000 for his show alone.

I suspect that July's figures for GB News will be significantly higher than June's.

listermint

flog a dead horse

Definition of flog a dead horse

informal

1

: to keep talking about a subject that has already been discussed or decided

I don't mean to flog a dead horse, but I still don't understand what happened.

2

: to waste time and effort trying to do something that is impossible

Is it just flogging a dead horse to ask for another recount of the votes?

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117681311#Comment_117681311

Why bother quoting the post showing the dire viewing figures for every other show on GB News if you're not going to make any comment on it?

"Yeah but they had loads of viewers in their first month when they were a new channel, and one of their shows is doing okay" isn't a counterpoint to what was posted. If Farage is pulling 130k viewers for his show, but the overall day pulls an average of 20k, if their schedule is 6am-1am, that's 19 hours.

That gives every other hour on the channel an average of under 14k.

Of course GB News had decent viewing figures in their first month. Of course Farage got decent viewing figures in his first few weeks. New things will always get an initial bump. The simple undeniable fact is that the channel as a whole is not retaining decent viewing numbers. It's too early to tell yet if Farage's numbers will peak and fall or continue to rise, but either way the channel is not Farage News. The numbers for the channel as a whole, are incredibly poor.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117681368#Comment_117681368

Quite simply because it doesn't paint the bigger picture. Neither does Nigel Farage's show alone, too.

In case we've forgotten, let's compare GB News versus the other stations over the same 1-month period (according to BARB statistics).

GB News - 3.7 million

Sky Sports News - 4.6 million

Sky News - 8.4 million

BBC News - 12.6 million

So whilst The Guardian and other disingenuous sources comb through the data to find "0 viewers" for clickbait headlines, the above statistics represent the actual reality of the broadcast scene. Similarly, if you were to listen to folks here, you'd get the impression that about 78 people watch the channel each day. It's misleading people, intentionally.

GB News secured 44% compared to Sky News and 29.3% compared to BBC News - in its first month.

Take the time to zoom out and see the bigger picture. Though I could be wrong, I suspect July's statistics to be even better.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117680048#Comment_117680048

indeed. my post was very clear. Farage is a racist. I'm glad we agree on that.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117681409#Comment_117681409

You're completely misrepresenting those statistics. GB News didn't secure 44% compared to Sky News, they secured 44% of Sky News' figure. Same with the BBC stat. By rights, if you add those 4 channels together for a total of 29.3m, then the audience share (ie. comparison) is as follows:

GB News - 12.7%

Sky Sports News - 15.7%

Sky News - 28.6%

BBC News - 43%

So they secured 12.7% compared to Sky News' 28.6%.

You then keep creating your own strawman arguments in what we've said (eg. Similarly, if you were to listen to folks here, you'd get the impression that about 78 people watch the channel each day.) - Nobody is claiming that or giving that impression, that's just something you've made up yourself. But there have been times where in terms of official viewer statistics, the ratings have been so low as to not be counted (ie. statistically zero).

But low viewing figures are low viewing figures. The ratings for several of their shows have been extremely low. More than 78, but also far less than 130k like Farage is pulling. That's undeniable.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117681311#Comment_117681311

GB News secured 4 million viewers in its first month, translating into 133,000 viewers per day.

That's just not how viewing figures work, at all.

4 Million people may well have flicked over to GB News at some point during the month , but how many came back a 2nd or 3rd time?

Based on the data shown above , it really doesn't look like all that many.

Right now , based on the data they have one show for an hour in the early evening that accounts for the vast majority of their viewers across the day. And that show has in the grand scheme of things pretty mediocre numbers.

Your earlier post talked of how the Farage show "suplexed" the BBC , but failed to qualify that what you meant was "BBC News" and not BBC1/BBC2.

At the same time as the Farage show , BBC have The One Show , that averages about 20 times the viewing figures , ITV have Emmerdale and Coronation Street with multiples of that - That is what allows the BBC and ITV to have news channels , because they don't pay for themselves.

Fundamentally - Farage getting 120k or even 250k for 1 hour every evening will not save the station.

I also don't believe that Farage can sustain figures he has today longer term.

This isn't about Political persuasion it's about economic reality - GB News will never be profitable and as I and many other posters have pointed out repeatedly , it will last only as long as the financial backers are willing to burn money keeping it on the air.

That might be 6 months , it might be longer , but the cold hard facts are that it does not have a sustainable business model in it's current state.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117681465#Comment_117681465

It also ignores that BBC Parliament was simulcasting BBC News, and the viewing figures for it when added to BBC News put it on par with Farage.

https://twitter.com/RTCoxwell/status/1420823571828518919?s=20

KildareP

According to BARB, in the prior four weeks to 18th July, GB News had a reach of 2.943m and a share of 0.3% of the audience across broadcast and catch-up.

It had an average daily view duration of 31 seconds, down from 40 seconds the previous rolling four weeks, which was an increase from 35 seconds the week before that again.

By comparison, Sky News had 8.173m reach (0.67%) and 68 seconds while BBC News had 12.328m reach (1.26%) and 128 seconds which remains steady for both across the same prior weeks.

It will be interesting to see can Farage bring the view duration up. Raw viewing numbers on their own are worthless if each of those viewers don't spend very much time watching your channel.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117681465#Comment_117681465

lets be honest all except the most diehard of Farage fans will get tired of watching his schtick on a daily basis.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117681282#Comment_117681282

And to reinforce the point about the viewing numbers.

https://twitter.com/RTCoxwell/status/1420722003322052609

So for GB News an average of 30k viewers for the 6 hours from 7pm to 1am. That is ~180k** total for the night , meaning that ~70k in total watched the rest of the night which is an average of about 14k.

BBC News on the other hand had about ~550k** for the night and Sky about ~300k** and both channels look to have had fairly consistent viewing numbers for the whole evening - BBC 93k for the Farage hour but average of 91k for the whole night for example.

** - Of course it could have been the same ~90k viewers for the whole night for the BBC as an example , but the key point is that both Sky and BBC seem to sustain their viewing numbers for the whole evening whether that's people watching the whole 6 hours or different people dipping in and out.

GB News are failing to do that miserably at present.

All we're seeing is deliberate misrepresentations of the data.

We could play the same games with other channels.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117681591#Comment_117681591

Yes, we are - primarily by you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117681598#Comment_117681598

Let's see where July's figures are at.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117681591#Comment_117681591

Let's face it, the reason you claimed GB News had a 44% share compared to Sky News was simply because 44% is a bigger number than 12.7%. Same reason you previously omitted the BBC News viewing figures on Farage's first night as Farage had beaten Sky News but not BBC News (yet you make sure to throw them in if Farage does beat BBC News), and why you keep parroting the 4m number for GB News' first month when in the grand scheme of things it's a largely irrelevant number now as current viewing figures are clearly showing they haven't retained anywhere near that number of viewers as regulars (and as stated many times by myself and others, they were always expected to get a big bump at the start because they were a new channel and people would be checking it out to see if it's something they're interested in and want to stick around to watch, which clearly, most didn't).

It's clear that whatever the biggest number you can find to post, you'll post. But when any of those numbers are viewed in proper context, they're poor. The only decent figures are what Farage's show is currently pulling (though again, obvious initial bump as a new show and it's the numbers after a month that will be most telling). But even then, Farage's one-hour a night cannot sustain the rest of the channel.