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

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761977#Comment_117761977

It really isn't. This fanatical defense of a glorified trolling operation makes no sense to me.

The fact that you have to invoke UFO's of all things to reasoned criticism of the failing business model of TV news in the 21st century comes across as shrill hysterics. Then again, given that you compared Marcus Rashford to Jimmy Saville, taking the knee to Nazi salutes and called an Englishman on the thread an Anglophobic racist, should I be surprised? No.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117762143#Comment_117762143

I think what we're witnessing is the death throes of a dying ideology. GB News is a perfect example of this. Modern conservative thought can be effortlessly distilled down to three components: corruption, trolling and cruelty. There's literally nothing else. I tried to name a conservative thinker who best captured the rightwing zeitgeist and the best I could do was Donald "Inject bleach to cure covid" Trump.

This is why conservatives must deflect all the time, hence the endless xenophobic and transphobic tangents. This is also the impetus for the incessant claiming of victimhood. In fairness, as someone who enjoys strategy games, it makes perfect sense to avoid engaging your opponent on ground favourable to them. It also makes sense to employ dishonorable tactics if honorable ones won't do.

It's the same reason behind the cheating that conservatives must employ to win elections such as gerrymandering or unrepresentative voting systems. Ditto for voter suppression tactics in response to an entirely fabricated voter fraud issue. So much easier to stop people voting or to disregard their votes entirely than to forumulate new ideas. Of course, then the issue is that global crises such as climate change and inequality (not to mention the associated toxic debating tactics and conspiracy theories) are the results of "common sense conservatism" so this is again entirely predictable.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761949#Comment_117761949

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761977#Comment_117761977

Whilst it's true to say no one has any idea how much cash they have on hand or how much their backers have put up or will put up in the future, we can say with absolute categoric certainty that they are not profitable.

They are losing money every minute they are on air - How much they are losing we don't know , how long they can sustain those losses we also don't know.

They will stay on air until the money runs out or their financial backers stop writing cheques - That could be days, weeks, months or maybe even years.

But they will never be profitable or financially self-sustaining.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117762115#Comment_117762115

You compared Rashford to the two most famous paedophiles of our time.

You didn't compare him to people who are famous for hiding behind charity work to further their own wants until you were pressed on the matter after the fact. Even then, you roped the Clintons into it. The Clintons who, of course, have long been tarnished with similar accusations of child abuse from the Conservatives in the states.

I am unaware of any of the Clintons ever having been charged with using their foundation as a Trojan Horse. Unlike, say, the Trumps, who are all banned from ever being involved with the upper tiers of charitable organisations after they did exactly what you are now claiming you were accusing Rashford for all along.....i.e. using Charity to feather their own nest.

This is a form of backtracking that you are using without actually backtracking......."What?....oh, no, you guys are mistaken, what I really meant was..X...and if you picked it up differently, then that's your fault"

If you were misinterpreted or misconstrued, then that is on your own shoulders. You should have picked better examples instead of those two scumbags who are primarily known for abusing kids and using their secondary traits as a yardstick. Look at it this way, if I claimed you were very like Josef Fritzl and Ariel Castro..........would you think I was commenting on your DIY and home improvement skills?......Or would you take issue with the fact that you were being associated with two monsters who imprisoned and abused young women for years?

But, again, you weren't misinterpreted or misconstrued because you deliberately and 100% unapologetically compared him to the two greatest child sex fiends this generation has known. Not to two people famous for hiding behind charity work, but to two people famous for having sex with kids. That was your implication. You know it, we know it, the dogs on the street know it.

At least have the guts to own it.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117762418#Comment_117762418

No - because as I've said 1,000x; the point was the legitimate relationship between big money, status, charity, self-promotion, and public relations. Even if I raised no celebrity name, that point is a legitimate and valid point.

We have moved on from this many times, yet this gets raised many times over. I'm not responsible for your misinterpretation of my remarks. Better for you to go back and re-read what I actually said rather than displace my words for the purposes of tarring my reputation on this thread.

We were discussing Hari and his resignation from GB News, so why raise Jimmy Saville into this discussion?

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117762484#Comment_117762484

You will never be allowed forget that you compared Rashford to Saville. It was one of the most disgusting insinuations I have seen on Boards and worst of all you didn't just say it you doubled down and defended it for ages

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117762498#Comment_117762498

The discussion has moved on to Hari and GB News, amongst other discussions, and so I'd rather not focus on Jimmy Saville to be perfectly honest with you.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117762624#Comment_117762624

One wonders why you brought him up in the first place, frankly.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117762624#Comment_117762624

Well you don't get to decide what is on topic here. Maybe apologise for the horrible things you said about Rashford and we will stop bringing it up.

As things stand it is relevant because it shows you will say any sort of horrible rubbish to attack someone you don't like

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117762670#Comment_117762670

I have never once called Marcus Rashford a paedophile, and never would. That's what you're trying to paint me as having said, and I never said it - and I never would. But as I say, no amount of evidence I produce will change your mind. Not one single post that I've produced has made that ridiculous claim, not one.

So, we'll have to simply just put it down as an amicable disagreement.

Now, in terms of GB News, Nigel Farage is back tonight at 7pm. Statistics from the Express show that viewing figures last week were not as high as we would like, that's for sure. But we'll see how this week's show shapes up. He recently tweeted about the upcoming migratory wave from Afghanistan, so I assume that the latest announcement from the UK, that passport-less migrants will be allowed into the UK, will feature heavily on tonight's show.

https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1427257165367193615

ancapailldorcha

HM Government doing the right thing for once. Must be that time of the decade again.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117762714#Comment_117762714

Well everyone who posts on this thread remembers exactly what you said and insinuated

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117762744#Comment_117762744

If you can produce evidence where I made that direct accusation, by all means produce it. Otherwise, you should retract this dreadful allegation. I've tried repeatedly to move things forward, but you are literally obsessed with the Jimmy Saville chapter of this thread.

I've never made those comments, and never would.

End of story.

VinLieger

Ahh yes of course Farage will go after Afghanistan refugees because the UK is entirely blameless for the current state of Afghanistan......

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117762759#Comment_117762759

You know there isn't a direct comment that says "Radford is a paedophile" but we all know what you were trying to do.

And unless you are a mod you have no right to tell anyone "end of story"

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117762759#Comment_117762759

It's rank hypocrisy that you constantly make outlandish accusations and comparisons while constantly refusing to provide one whiff of any proof while then going ahead to ask for it clearly intending to ignore it regardless.

I know what you said. At least take responsibility or is that within the "Fine for thee but not for me" portion of the "common sense conservative" doctrine?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117762484#Comment_117762484

A couple of points before I wash my hands of this nonsense:

You brought Saville & Epstein into this, nobody else. The only reason anyone is talking about them is because of you

You're correct in that you made the remarks. You are incorrect, however, that any misinterpretation is on others. The first thing someone thinks of when Jimmy Saville's name is mentioned, is abusing vulnerable people. Same with Epstein. Comparing someone to one or the other might be a mistake or a misunderstanding, but comparing someone to BOTH of them at the same time leaves no room for misinterpretation. You made a direct comparison to two paedophiles, and anyone with a rational brain can see this. I include you in this for I still believe, deep down, you knew what you were doing.

You are also incorrect in saying we have moved on from this, because we haven't.

You drew the comparison with paedophiles. You only made the claim about "Trojan horses" later when you were pulled on it, and even then it took a few posts for you to weasel that one in. Even now, you've changed the comparison again.....apparently it's about "big money, status, charity, self-promotion, and public relations" now. Why not pick any of the countless other celebs who've used their fame for self promotion and improved public relations, instead of two kiddie fiddlers? (spoiler alert: because you knew what you were doing alright).

That's why people haven't moved on and why the issue keeps resurfacing. You compared him to the worst kind of sexual predators we've ever seen, without cause, then tried to worm your way out of it by saying "I wasn't comparing him to them for their child sex abuse, it was because they used their fame for X, which he might be guilty of".

Nobody is buying it. Nobody is moving on until you acknowledge the fact that you compared him to two nonces, and the negative/slanderous implications of that are all your own doing. Until you do so, you will be reminded of this comparison until the sun swallows the earth, cos if one were to give you the benefit of the doubt, the comparison was extremely ill-advised at best.

Given your record in this thread and others, I see no reason to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Also, Hari may have resigned officially, but if you are trying to make the case that he did so of his own free will after his stunt and the backlash it received, then you can pull the other one.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117762773#Comment_117762773

Well, it's end of story for me, as far as I'm concerned. If you want to discuss it further, that's fine. But I won't engage with it. I said what I said, and I won't repeat it here. Other's can go back to the pages in question and determine for themselves whether what you've said is a valid interpretation of my well-intentioned remarks.

I'd rather focus my attention on Nigel Farage's show tonight on GB News.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117762788#Comment_117762788

We would love if you stuck to just talking about GBnews but sadly YOU are the one keeps derailing with talk of paedos and coats

hirondelle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117762788#Comment_117762788

So maybe don't repeatedly introduce your hot button issues throughout the thread of Romanian ATM theft, nasty hypocritical celebrities, the RNLI's role in facilitating mass immigration ad nausea.

While you are at it, you might also refrain from advising people not to speculate without evidence about issues here, when it is clear that you would really like the Spectator to show up with that article that you based an entire diatribe on.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117762788#Comment_117762788

Yes, you compared a man who is not even suspected of a crime to paedophiles. Utterly deplorable behavior.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117762888#Comment_117762888

Of course I'd love to see the article, who wouldn't? But they've decided against publishing the piece, and that's fine. They clearly determined that it wasn't as important as other matters that were deemed publishable.

Whatever we say about who says what, it's worth emphasizing that any interpretation is possible if messaging is unclear. And maybe my messaging on this question wasn't as clear as it should have been; it could have been better, perhaps? In phenomenology, for example, which talks about the structure of experience and consciousness, it's very easy to come to conclusions that may not be true - even if we feel that they are right. Emotional attachment to a position influences how we interpret the language of others, and our experience of same. Intentionality matters, too - where we can easily and falsely ascribe a malign motivation to someone that simply does not, and never has, existed. It's often better to detach yourself from personal biases and focus instead on whether there is evidence to suggest that something else may be at play, muddying the waters of understanding. It happens to us all. Maybe the other person has a point, but that you simply didn't see it.

Sometimes we just get our interpretations wrong, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Sometimes we just get our interpretations wrong, and there's nothing wrong with that.

And sometimes we get our interpretations correct because they were deliberately made to be interpreted that way. And that's NOT okay.

The sheer brass neck of you demanding others withdraw comments when you won't even acknowledge the fact that you indirectly called Rashford a paedo is disgusting.

banie01

Well, well, well...

The Express have decided the GBnews is dead now too.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1477575/GB-News-viewing-figures-Nigel-Farage-impact-BBC-Sky-News-evg

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1477575/GB-News-viewing-figures-Nigel-Farage-impact-BBC-Sky-News-evg/amp?__twitter_impression=true

But while it may seem that Mr Farage has managed to reignite GB News from its dimming embers, this is not the case.

Average viewing figures posted on August 13 show he failed to match up to the BBC last week.

When Farage started at 7pm on August 12, 64,000 viewers had tuned in, while 114,000 people watched Outside Source on the BBC News Channel.

The figures also show GB News is still losing viewers, with the average number of people tuning in having dropped by more than 20,000 per day since its debut in June.

Question for our doyen of **** maths? If they continue to lose 20k viewers per day? How long until their viewership is a negative number?😂

frag420

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761977#Comment_117761977

Eh...you do know what the "U" in UFO stands for yeah?

The individual who see's something in the sky and calls it a UFO is calling it that precisely because they dont know what it is!!

Thats because the thing they see in the sky is...

...Unidentified!!!

Ahwell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117762938#Comment_117762938

It wasn't published because it was all based on a hoax by a comedienne called Danielle Grufferty, who made it up. I have pointed this out to you on this thread already. We'll try again...

https://sunbeamsoutofcucumbers.substack.com/p/what-ever-happened-to-that-spectator

hirondelle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117762938#Comment_117762938

And off you go again- "they clearly determined that it wasn't as important as other matters that were deemed publishable"- OR- the proposed article went to the lawyers and was deemed unpublishable at it was potentially libellous tittle-tattle. Neither of us know, but you have determined the reason for it not appearing. More spoofing masquerading as fact on your part.

And as for the breathless "who wouldn't?" I will speculate and say that you are almost certainly the only person here who wanted such an article to appear- maybe a possible reason would be that it would provide confirmation for your bias towards that person? The mote in your own eye is stopping you from seeing clearly.

Fionn1952

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117763072#Comment_117763072

Sometimes the universe just sets a home run up for you 😂

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117762335#Comment_117762335

I agree with this to some degree. But, I think there always needs to be somewhat opposing ideologies. It's human nature and no matter what the topic is, there will always be some who argue for more or less of the options available to be implemented. Conservatism in various locations has become pre-occupied with ideologies focused on the extremes of every day life and what society is actually likely to be influenced by.

I don't think that people who are focused on ensuring that these extremes become part of the every day conversation will suddenly decide there is no need for that or that they will move back to the more balanced arguments about governance.

What we are seeing is the ramping up of the extreme positions. In the UK, the government is immediately moving to block potential refugees from a country which they helped to de-stablise within just the last 20 years. In the US, conservatives nationwide are demanding the right to not have any measures implemented to protect against Covid. They have an almost rabid hatred of Government and think any involvement of officialdom in this respect is impinging on their human rights. This, I think has grown in recent years, fueled by extremists in the media rather than being the dying embers of a mindset.

In the UK, whatever the motivation be it reminiscing for their imperialist past, a closeted xenphobia or growing racism emerging for whatever reason, again, we have seen this grow in recent years rather than fade away.

Conservatives worldwide seem to have a fundamental issue with the premise that as there are more and more people on the planet, or in a country then a form of structure and governance is required to give the best opportunity for a safe and secure society for everyone. When the founding fathers in the US wrote the constitution, the population of the country was only 1% of it was today. To think that the rules that applied then (or how they were interpreted then) in terms of every individuals rights superseding that of others or society in general just cannot be countenanced in a much more densely populated world. Aside from the dubious claim that it should ever be this way in any case.

You are right about many of the traits of modern day conservatives (gerrymandering/filibuster/FPTP) but there's plenty Democrats who are capable of participating politics for selfish and corrupt means also. But, as a general rule, they are thinking of society first rather than the individual which is the premise of those on the right.

I can understand if a farmer in North Dakota is wary of politicians in Washington who can arrive and tell them what to do with their land, but what is happening in many cases is the politicians are trying to protect the land from the 'Free Market' Capitalist oil companies who have been granted access to it by Republican politicians at the state level and the anger of the farmer is either misplaced, or focused in the wrong direction. But, given that there will never be enough money for everything a government could do, and invariably a government will not always do things perfectly, then there will always be opportunity for those who hate the idea of someone either telling them what to do, or preventing them make as much money as they could then there will always be a an argument conservatives can use. And they have embraced the dark forces, as you said, to ensure their argument is heard as loudly as possible by as many people as possible.

I see no meaningful examples of 'classic liberal conservatism' or 'common sense' conservatism gaining prominence in todays world and certainly in the last 25 years since I've been paying close attention to politics and current affairs. Conservative voices advocating for reasonable and sustainable government involvement have been quieter and quieter while those looking for reducing regulations, on the one hand while restricting peoples ability to challenge them on the other are what we are seeing more and more of.

TLDR: While the central tenants of Conservatism (less government involvement) are less and less relevant given increasing populations and need for sustainability. Conservative voices ramping up rhetoric to stoke sufficient members of society to become outraged on their behalf have become louder and more prominent. Ultimately I think they will be shown up for what they are but that could take a few generations and they could and will do a lot of damage in the mean time.

TLDR the TLDR: Many currently prominent Conservatives are painfully manipulative and dangerous and will be around for a while yet.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117762991#Comment_117762991

The latest BARB figures show that the weekly decline continues a pace.

The cumulative 4 week viewing total dropped by another 100k this week.

At a total of ~2.4M for the last 4 weeks , down from ~2.5M last week and

They have lost viewers each and every week since they launched.

So they are now down to ~75k viewers watching for less than 22 seconds each on any given day.

Viewing figures "Not as good as we'd like" is an understatement of fairly epic proportions to be fair.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117763274#Comment_117763274

Absolutely false.

Brexit, Trump, Marine Le Pen's current support in France; European population's demands to limit immigration from Muslim-majority countries. Opposition to far-left politics is rampant. Opposition to identity politics is growing everywhere. Jeremy Corbyn was slaughtered. Keir Starmer will also be slaughtered.

I could go on and on and on.

Right of centre politics is not in retreat; it's on the rise.

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117763303#Comment_117763303

You've just proven my point.

Many of those you mention; Trump, Brexit, Le Pen are driven on the back of fearmongering and influential media figures pushing a predominantly nationalist narrative. Both Trump and Brexit were shown, they are no longer predictions, to be entirely false as to how the reality compared to the promises.

People looked at Trump and how incompetent he was when given a chance and how wide of the mark Brexit is in terms of its supposed positive benefits and will eventually realise they have been sold a pup.

But as long as industry and media figures can influence the narrative (exactly as they did with Trump and Brexit) then these are problems we are going to have to deal with.

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117763302#Comment_117763302

"Not as good as we'd like" puts me in mind of this.

Leader of the Monster Raving Looney Party appearing on Talking Pints tonight.

That, and a debate on Afghanistan and economic migrant crossings, are the subjects of tonight's show.

Faugheen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117763302#Comment_117763302

But but YouTube.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117763302#Comment_117763302

It's a 4pc drop, not a Titanic reduction.

2.5 million viewers is an awful lot - especially for a channel that it's argued by some to have no market whatsoever.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117763274#Comment_117763274

There will always be competing ideologies. I should perhaps have clarified that I meant conservatism in its current form with the xenophobia and bigotry. It's a bit like how the homophobia argument was lost and then the Tory party here evolved and dropped it. You see the same with religion thankfully. I'm struggling to think of any churchgoing MP's aside from the hilariously inept Tim Farron of the Lib Dems.

The US was founded as a set of thirteen colonies in close proximity to each other and the constitution reflect this. It was never meant to be what it is today, evinced by John Adams' famous quote fearing the capture of American government by two parties hostile to the interests of the people they allege to serve though the GOP is all but openly fascist now so the Democrats are easily the lesser of two evils.

The UK Tory party has a habit of evolving which means ditching the lost arguments of the past. Young Tories I know here aren't remotely xenophobia (one worked at Calais as a volunteer for some time), they're pro-NHS and anti-Brexit. They have actual values they believe in unlike the paleo-English nationalists running the asylum at the moment. They resemble some sort of Eastern European proto-fascist outfit like Fidesz or PiS than a political force in a democracy as ancient as this one.

Fionn1952

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117763457#Comment_117763457

2.5 million views at an average of a few seconds really isn't very much for a channel claiming to be the voice of the silent so-called majority.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117763457#Comment_117763457

Are the silent majority out enjoying the nice weather by any chance?

22meehoovereinenschaft22

Looking forward to Farage's show this evening.

His section on the mining community last week was interesting. I liked the input and thoughts from the locals who had grown up in that area.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117763487#Comment_117763487

Let's put it like this.

2.5 million core supporters; and tens of millions in an outer circle who often don't care enough to watch a channel, but who nonetheless support many of the same conclusions.

Even when the views aren't with GB News, the views of the anti-woke agenda remain very high indeed.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117763487#Comment_117763487

Were the GBNews supporters telling us recently that viewership figures are on the rise?

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117763562#Comment_117763562

So now he has 2.5 million (and falling) viewers but "tens of millions" who just can't be arsed watching 🤣🤣🤣

Wow, you get more desperate by the day!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117763575#Comment_117763575

Tens of millions support gay marriage, but not all of these people watch Sky News.

Not everyone with certain political views watch a TV channel 24/7 a day.

Fionn1952

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117763562#Comment_117763562

This is a genuine question rather than a dig at GB News;

Are those 2.5 million viewers actually unique viewers, or a combination of all the people who watch each individual show? For example, if Billy down the road watches Farage for thirty minutes, turns the TV off to have a cup of British made tea substitute and then turns the TV back on to watch Dan Wooten for five minutes, is that one viewer or two as per the numbers reported?

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117763598#Comment_117763598

Or at all by the looks of it 🤣🤣🤣

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117763457#Comment_117763457

Again - It's NOT 2.4M viewers!!!

Given your obsession with YouTube let me try to explain it in Web traffic terms.

Websites have VISITS which are performed by VISITORS .

A single Visitor can account for many many Visits.

So to continue the analogy , GB News has had a total of 2.4M visits to the channel in the last 4 weeks, each lasting on average 22 seconds.

Given that no show has ever gotten above about ~150k viewers for a single episode/show , it's likely that the entirety of the GB News discreet viewership doesn't amount to much more than a few hundred thousand people at the absolute best.

Given the UK has a population of ~55M I'd reckon that a good deal less than 0.5% of the UK has actually EVER tuned into the channel.

Call it 300k, maybe.

Also , it's a 4% drop each and every week since they launched - They have not shown growth in any single week since they started , not once.

John Bolton now on Farage discussing the disaster of the Afghanistan withdrawal.

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117763609#Comment_117763609

I've tried explaining this but the fingers just go in the ears. Try the crayon and small word approach next time that might work🤷‍♂️

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117763611#Comment_117763611

John Bolton? The John Bolton who said

"withdrawal is in Americans' best interest"

That John Bolton?