Gript-A source of misinformation. **Read OP before posting**

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121559769#Comment_121559769

Funny how the Far Left infiltration of the Dublin media didn't manage to, for example, influence political outcomes and keep their Labour buddies in power or anything.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121558906#Comment_121558906

They provide full details of their funding here; https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/supporters/

How many sources would you like?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/arid-30929727.html

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121559870#Comment_121559870

It did get MDH elected, but that was left on left violence :)

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121554638#Comment_121554638

Alternative views or alternative "facts" ?

Gript make up stuff and tell their audience what they want to hear.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121558906#Comment_121558906

What source would you find credible?

Breitbart?

mariaalice

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121559769#Comment_121559769

The old consensus is shifting in a way that is hard to capture.

A member of People Before Profit was interviewed last year about the fringe right groups anti-vax, and anti-asylum seekers, they were perplexed and unset at the type of individuals in the groups to paraphrase ...these people are poor and marginalised the exact cohort who the daft left and labor in its hay day though they represented.

It was much easier in a non-multi-cultural Ireland and before the internet.

Labor could talk about socialist medicine and abolishing fee-paying schools, the daft left could blame the rich and D4. FG and FF were always in government in one way or another, everyone knew their place, but now that's all falling away.

mariaalice

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121559870#Comment_121559870

Far too interested in sitting around theorising, getting involved in the teachers union, blaming the rich, and fighting the culture wars. They nearly got there a few times though.

jmcc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121560943#Comment_121560943

The publishing model also changed. It was formerly a one (the publisher) to many (the audience) model with the publications and news organisations controlling what was published. That made it easier for the politicians and their cronies to control the message. Gript was a very late beneficiary of the shift from one to many model to a many to many model. Social Media provides the means for the many to communicate with the publishers and some of the publishers absolutely hate it because it highlights shoddy journalism and "opinions" about fake tans. Gript and McGuirk seem to thrive on it as it allows them to tailor their content more precisely for their audience.

Gript is at a kind of inflection point where it has the chance to go "mainstream" if it lasts over the next few years. It is not because it is catering for particular viewpoints. It is because the successive FFG/Lab governments have screwed up on Housing, Health and Immigration. Immigration was not a major election issue in 2020. It has become one for the next GE and, more importantly, the Local Elections and European Parliament elections. The incompetence of the FFG government has allowed it to become a major election issue.

People who consider that the legacy media does not represent their views are more likely to look for other media coverage. Gript is in a position to benefit from that. It also benefits from the inability of the Far Left to get its viewpoints across in the media. Muttering about "the Fash" might sound cool for student union level politics but it seems childish to people who have to cope with real world issues. Gript's market isn't the "Far Right". It is the people of the neglected Middle that feel that they have been ignored by the successive FFG/Labour governments over Housing, Health and now Immigration. The print media and RTE is already losing that audience. Where it goes next is a big question.

Regards...jmcc

crusd

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121561252#Comment_121561252

Is "tailor their content" a euphemism for "misrepresent, cherry pick and lie" to drive an agenda?

jmcc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121561390#Comment_121561390

It is a bit more sophisticated. Apart from having used AggregateIQ a few years ago, the process is to identify the psychological triggers of the audience and keep adjusting the content for those triggers. It is market research but not as you know it.

Regards...jmcc

crusd

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121561436#Comment_121561436

That sounds like old fashioned populist propaganda

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121561493#Comment_121561493

It's just click baiting, regardless of how hard you try to wrap it up to look fancy.

Silentcorner

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121559908#Comment_121559908

Can I ask a genuine question. Do you think the standard in that article you posted is of a higher/more trusting nature than what you will see in Gript? Because I can't tell the difference, that article in the Examiner is high on emotive content and low on facts, on the surface you might be taken in by it, but there is nothing substantial in that article, we have seen now, time and time again how media operates these days...I don't read Gript with the same trust that I used to read articles in media in general, for that very reason.

If you actually believe that the "far right" are funding propaganda then you'd have to wonder why they are allowed access to politicians in the press corp as they have been of late, Ben Scallan has become a well known figure and I haven't seen a single question he has asked a politician that would be considered in any way extreme? Something isn't adding up!

crusd

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121561590#Comment_121561590

If you cant tell the difference its a little scary. This is typical of McGuirks "writing"

Imagine a scenario where you are tied up in a basement with no windows. You see a large man in a balaclava walking towards you menacingly, holding a knife. Somehow, you manage to free yourself from your bonds, and, on pure adrenalin, overpower and defeat your assailant, injuring him in the process.

In court, where you are being prosecuted for assault, your assailant says that he was actually coming over to cut your bonds and set you free. Unfortunately, the prosecution says, as you sit in the dock, you injured him because you were guilty of imagining a lot of misinformation, disinformation, and rumour. Why, he was coming to rescue you.

In that scenario, you might well wonder: Why didn’t he just say “hang on buddy, I’m coming over to set you free!”

The same question might be posed of the state in relation to the building in Ringsend, and other accommodation centers that have, in fact, transpired to be migrant accommodation venues.

https://gript.ie/the-state-has-nobody-to-blame-for-misinformation-other-than-itself/

jmcc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121561493#Comment_121561493

It isn't. The advantage that Gript has is that its opponents don't understand what it is doing and how it is doing it. Populist propaganda isn't targeted. It is very much a shotgun approach whereas Gript is using a more sniper-like approach to its content. It doesn't have the abilities or the resources to cover every topic and is not really populist. The word "populist" is generally used by increasingly unpopular politicians jealous of the support for others.

Regards...jmcc

Jizique

FT has a piece on this today

"This oversight is problematic because misinformation coming from the top is likely to have a far greater impact than that from most other sources, whether social media posts by ordinary people, hostile actors, or commercial scammers. People pay more attention to what prominent politicians say, and supporters of those politicians are more inclined to believe it and act on it. We know this from years of research. Millions of Americans believed there was systematic voter fraud in the 2020 elections, that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, that human activity played little role in climate change, and that the risks and side effects of Covid-19 vaccines outweighed the health benefits. What all these misleading beliefs have in common is that they have been systematically advanced by political actors — by the right in the US. But in, for example, Mexico, there is plenty of misinformation coming from the left."

Forget technology — politicians pose the gravest misinformation threat (ft.com)

Silentcorner

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121561624#Comment_121561624

That is shocking alright!

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121559924#Comment_121559924

I thought it was the FF decision to put forward a glossy shyster like Gallagher with a dark history that lost them the election?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/how-sean-gallagher-nearly-became-president-of-ireland-in-2011-1.3611550

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121561590#Comment_121561590

Nothing substantial, other than international funding of four separate extreme conservative campaigning organisations, trying to push Ireland back to the 1950s?

Silentcorner

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121561996#Comment_121561996

Is there anyone funding extreme campaigning organisations on the left? The article didn't say...

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121561493#Comment_121561493

With AI thrown in

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121562057#Comment_121562057

Which glossy online far left publications with full-time journalists did you have in mind?

Silentcorner

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121562099#Comment_121562099

The Journal? That thing has never turned a profit....

You are the one making wild accusations about dark funding from extreme far right international organisations by the way, I am merely asking is there any similar organisations funding extreme campaigning entities, media or NGOs on the extreme left? Valid Question...neither article you presented made any mention of them, so either they don't exist or the media articles you posted are ignoring them?

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121562127#Comment_121562127

TheJournal? Far Left?

Honestly, if you think TheJournal is far left, you're so far gone to the far right that you've slipped off the edge of the planet.

I'm guessing the reason that they might appear as far left is because their fact checkers keep debunking far right myths. That doesn't make them far left. It makes them fact based.

I've no idea who owns them these days tbh.

Silentcorner

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121562164#Comment_121562164

You are the one making all the allegations here,....I don't care who funds the The Journal or Gript for that matter, The Journal has a pretty obvious political slant and it ain't leaning right, as for the "Fact Checkers" I've no idea how they are funded or what their revenue model is so I pay no attention to anyone who calls themselves a FactChecker. But as you point out they seem only interested in "fact checking" one political side...

Ash.J.Williams

In a world where we're not even sure if humans are writing articles anymore i would be suspicious of all media , just go with what you think is right

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121562221#Comment_121562221

Is there any of their fact checking conclusions that you'd like to dispute?

Silentcorner

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121562309#Comment_121562309

I pay no attention to any of them....simple as that!!! Why should I? Just because they called themselves "Fact Checkers" is it?

TomTomTim

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121562164#Comment_121562164

No it makes them partisans, as they never hold their own side to the same standards. Their own "journalism" could easily result in daily fact checks that wouldn't go well for them.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121562321#Comment_121562321

No, it's because they present rational analysis based on verifiable facts. I know that approach would be somewhat alien to Grift readers.