Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1211212214216217279

Comments

  • Posts: 6,775 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    More empty dismissal.

    Being in the majority populist view on this thread doesn't make one right.

    The GB News boss has clearly stated the long-term business plan. It's not unusual for a business to make losses in Year 1 and Year 2, to eventually turn a profit in Year 3. It's pretty standard, in fact.

    Frangopoulos has also reaffirmed that there is plenty of financial mileage to run for at least a couple of years.

    GB News is here to stay, no matter how populist the alternative view happens to be on this thread.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,593 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    I think everyone knows that LGB Alliance are an anti-trans group and have very little to say on other issues gay people face. They sometimes make a half hearted effort to discuss topics relevant to gay people to cover ok that all they care about are trans issues but they're fooling nobody.

    As for Kathleen Stock (mentioned earlier) she is a massive hypocrite. She criticises the notions of uni students saying they "feel unsafe" saying that their feelings are.jot reality yet she left her uni not because she was fired but because she felt unsupported. Couldn't make this stuff up.



  • Posts: 6,775 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    You may be unaware of the death threats she has recieved.

    That aside, at least GB News is acknowledging the plight she and other abused academics have recieved. I wish it were more present on mainstream media, though.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,598 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Boss of company says company is doing great.

    How could it be anything except the truth lads 😂



  • Posts: 6,775 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Deliberately disingenuous interpretation of his extensive remarks across a wide range of topics - including things that should have gone better.

    Arrant hyperbole.

    Nothing more than that; a populist appeal for post Thanks.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,593 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    She did not say she felt unsafe due to death threats. She said she felt unsupported by the university and her union. She had already returned to campus so I don't think the death threats were credible or factoring into her decision.



  • Posts: 6,775 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Death threats should always be taken seriously.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,593 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Well you can discuss that with Kathleen Stock.

    As she never said that was part of her decision to resign and instead said she "felt unsupported" by her University and union then it's completely irrelevant to my point.



  • Posts: 6,775 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    So rather than condemn the death threats against her, you use this as a cheap opportunity to have some bizarre, irrelevant tangential dig at "right-wing nuts"?

    GB News and its staff should be proud of themselves for defending her.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    You mean the organisation that had as speakers and honoured guests at its recent inaugural annual conference one Graham Linehan, no introduction required, and labour mp Rosie Duffield whose "friend" [her own description] and regular social media correspondent Kurtis Tripp recently taunted a trans person by suggesting their suicide would be funny. Transphobic? Sure, GB News says it isn't so i suppose that's that.

    Elsewhere, I am laughing derisively at the suggestion Kathleen Stock isnt getting enough mainstream media attention. She's been frickin everywhere, long interviews on the bbc, articles in the telegraph and mail, as well as all the usual other outlets, relentlessly pressing her case for several weeks now. You know who isn't even a fraction of that platform to help educate and inform the public? Trans activists and communities, that's who.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,711 ✭✭✭AllForIt



    Fighting against trans ideology is in itself, if they did nothing else whatsoever, to the benefit of gay people particularly, as anyone who isn't clueless on this topic will know. That aspect of this has been discussed many times on other threads so you know full well what I'm referring to. If LGBA are just an 'anti-trans' group as you say - they why would it be posing as a gay advocacy group and not just a general anti-trans group? Some sort of cover maybe? Gay people have legitimate concerns in this issue and again you know that full well. You come in here saying they are an anti-trans group when in fact if anything they are an anti-trans ideology group which is not what everyone knows full well but is the actual truth of it.

    As for your comment on Stock, you are telling me that a woman who was subjected to "reputation-trashing" (classic cancel culture ) and bullied by her work colleges is somehow in the same league as student's "feeling unsafe", because of Stock simply expressing a view, which I might add the vast majority of the public agree with. Oh your are quite skilled at making things up, as are the trans revisionists that claim that trans people started the gay right movement in an attempt justify an lgbt+ alliance. Total lies and I can prove it now.

    Thanks to GBnews and LGBA support for gender ideology has taken a nosedive in recent months particularly as more and more people now understand what the specific issues are, as evidenced by many organizations ditching association with Stonewall and various journalist of the ilk of Suzanne Moore adding their support to name just one. But still there are those here who don't watch GBNews, comment on it daily, haven't a clue what the specific issue are, and make up some BS about GBNews fanning the flames of culture wars. Just supporting the Left without a seconds serious thought or investigation and feigning insight and knowledge on the issue when clearly they are clueless. That's devotion for you I suppose.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,593 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Nothing the LGBAlliance does benefits gay people. I think in the future they will have to pretend they are not an anti-trans group and focus on some non-anti-trans gay rights work and this may benefit gay people in the future. But their current focus will not help one gay person (unless making transphobic people who are gay feel better is helping them) and will do a lot more harm than good.

    As to why they have a specific gay anti-trans group and not a general anti-trans group that's pretty obvious. They can target a marginalised group by pretending they are aiding another marginalised group.

    Take a look at mumsnet which is basically the epicentre of anti-trans ideology. The threads on Stock are littered with posts from straight women who always describe Stock as a "lesbian" and not a "woman".

    Now Stock being a lesbian herself is not anything she uses herself in her arguments. So why do her straight supporters constantly mention it?

    Obviously because they think they can use gay people's sexuality to indemnify them from criticism. It's completely insidious.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,598 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985




  • Posts: 6,559 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    In other news, Lorraine of all people called out Stock for fact she wasn't actually "cancelled"...




  • Posts: 6,045 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I never claimed you accused him of being a paedo, not outright at least. You need to re-read what I posted. You INSINUATED he was, by comparing him to two people who are. Here it is in as simple a manner as I can put it.

    You were sullying his name by comparing him to two people. You claim that those people are famous for hiding behind their charity work for nefarious purposes. While, in reality, they are two of the most infamous sexual predators of our time. Nobody hears those two names and thinks "ah, those names are synonymous with getting rich off the back of charitable works." And I mean nobody, not even yourself thinks that. If you claim otherwise, you're a liar.

    You knew what you were doing, you 100% did it on purpose and once you were called on it, you spent weeks trying to weasel your way out of it. The fact the spectator article never surfaced is moot.

    I've asked you this type of question before and you ignored it. If someone compared you to both Josef Fritzl AND Ariel Castro, would you think they were calling you a child kidnapper/false imprisoner, or would you think they meant something else?



  • Posts: 6,775 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    That question has nothing to do with GB News so I won't answer it. If it were, I would. But it isn't, so I won't.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,916 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Just to get back to the actual Topic.

    Let's discuss the "Salient Excerpts" as you put it.

    Frangopolous says "this is not a TV station , it's multi-media"

    Well , OK - But they aren't doing particularly well on TV or on Digital

    TV Numbers are dire and YouTube numbers are mediocre to say the least - YouTube currently showing a 50% decline in Subscriber growth in the last 30 days according to Social Blade.

    And for Tiktok - According to Social Blade ,the widely accepted source for social media metrics , they currently have 72k followers , not 170k and have only added 2.5k subscribers in the last 30 days. There are teenage girls pouring milk over their heads that add more subscribers in an afternoon than that..

    Farage beat Sky News and BBC News during a single hour on a single Wednesday.

    OK , fair enough but what about all the other days and hours??

    If Farage did indeed get ~180k for one show on a recent Wednesday then that one single 1hr show accounted for 40% of the total views for the entire week as according to BARB they are currently pulling a total of about 450k over a seven day period. That's beyond appalling for advertising revenues.

    Turning Growth numbers into sustainable income is the ultimate goal

    Well - Duh! and therein lies their problem , the "growth" isn't great (in fact it's non existent) so the revenue won't be either and depending on the definition of "sustainable" it probably isn't sustainable either.

    Just because Frangopolous wants GB News to grow and be profitable (I mean of course he does) does not mean that it will be. ALL of the current trajectories are downwards - Rapidly declining TV Viewing numbers , rapidly declining growth on social media, virtually zero advertising income.

    Clearly the CEO (or whatever his title is) wants to be a success , but the current odds are heavily against that being the case.

    "Years of Financial Runway"

    Aside from the fact that he was hardly going to say "Our financial backers have given us 90 days to break even or they're pulling the plug" or whatever , it means nothing really.

    Implying that your bosses are ok with you continuing to lose money for a long time to come isn't really a great message now is it?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,913 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Who's Farage talking shìte with tonight?


    Will they be

    Old?

    White?

    A has been from days long gone?

    A racist/bigot/wife beater?


    All of the above?



  • Posts: 6,775 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,370 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    Yet you were more than happy to use this thread to smear Rashford.

    A true "thinking" conservative move indeed.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,913 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Ah I see Farage is toning it down then? Just a foul mouthed bully today to start off the week slowly and building up to the really nasty ones I suppose.



  • Posts: 6,775 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I'd rather trust the word of the GB News boss with a track record on this subject than to a random poster's view on an online forum - who hates the idea of the channel to begin with.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 42,495 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Why even bother typing that? It's a discussion forum and anytime someone presents an independent opinion, we're told to fawn over whatever wretch GB News are wheeling out.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,370 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    But not the boss who ran for the hills despite you claiming repeatedly that Neil would be back :D



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,916 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    So here's the thing.

    What I've posted isn't opinion , it's publicly available fact.

    TV numbers ARE Declining , Social Media growth IS slowly rapidly , Advertising Revenue IS very poor.

    Those aren't opinions , those are categoric facts.

    The GB News Boss has an even less objective viewpoint than you accuse me of having.

    Do you think that the CEO/COO of a company is going to sit for an interview and say - "Look, it's a disaster , we've missed every single conceivable growth target we've set for ourselves and we're hemorrhaging money".

    Of course he's going to put an upbeat spin on things and look for the bright spots to highlight positivity , That's his job - He wasn't giving an interview , he was doing a PR pitch.

    However , the FACTS currently don't support his sunny outlook.

    Could things turn around and GB News does what Frangopolous talks about?

    Of course they could , however all of the evidence available suggests that that would be an uphill battle to say the very least.

    News Organisations do not make money , an organisation that explicitly aligns itself with only a subset of an already small unprofitable market has even less chance of making money. That again is a simple fact and has nothing to do with the politics of the channel , the same would be true were it to be a "Woke" channel rather than the "Anti-Woke" channel . As I and many others have repeatedly stated it has a flawed business model that severely hamstrings it's ability to make money.

    In every one of my posts about GB News I have simply stated the facts as they are - GB News is NOT doing well as a business , all of the available industry accepted measurements show an organisation struggling badly , absent any evidence of meaningful growth or stability.

    I have no skin in this game and aside from disliking Nigel Farage intensely I have no particular animus toward GB News. Their success or failure is largely immaterial to me.



  • Posts: 6,045 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Translation: "I've been backed into a corner. Again. And instead of trying to defend my indefensible stance on this matter, I'm gonna accuse you of going off-topic, despite the fact that it was me who introduced this topic into the thread in the first place."

    Transparent AF.



  • Posts: 6,775 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    You are putting a terminally negative spin on the figures.

    And as I've said, GB News has miles of financial runway and it's not uncommon for businesses to make losses in years 1 and 2, only to turn a profit in year 3.

    GB News is here for the long haul, regardless of the spin placed on existing figures.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,916 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Of course businesses make losses in their early days - Set-up costs etc.

    A new business will start small but have large initial costs while it gets up to speed.

    BUT - It does have to show growth or at least some indication of future prospects, or at least it should.

    GB News is showing nothing but decline - A bit of early interest followed by a steady and continuous downward trend.

    It's TV numbers are already 50% below that initial peak and declining steadily each week.

    There is no spin - Simply statements of fact , there is no growth , there is no sign of future growth.

    It's decline in TV viewers each week is not being offset by the growth in Social Media activity. It's social channels are still growing , but they are all growing by much smaller rates than they were before.

    GB News may well be here for the "long haul" but it's long term future is not predicated on it growing and becoming profitable , it's future is entirely dependent on that "financial runway" provided by it's backers.

    When they reach the end of that runway , that is it - There is no line of sight to any kind of "take-off".

    That's not being "terminally negative" , that's simply realism.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,598 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    When did this new rule come in.

    You are the biggest culprit for pulling the thread down rabbit holes. The whole Rashford thing which you would not shut up about for ages was way off topic



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,598 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Former strategist no ?

    Generally highly critical of Labour more recently with all his stupid talk of "Trots" and communists



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement