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

randd1

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Not wishing to put words in Eskimos mouth but I suspect the differentiation is that a boycott is done privately and silently , whereas the Cancellation is shouting from the roof-tops.

In my early working days people spoke about "Walkers" and "Talkers" in terms of unhappy customers.

If you did something wrong/bad for a customer some will just walk away and simply never do business with you again. Talkers however will walk away AND tell all their friends about their experience to get them to walk away too.

For me , all that has happened here is that the "Talkers" now have a larger/louder platform to do what they have always done.

Fair enough. My view on the whole thing is:


Left wing crazies - I don't like that, I want it cancelled = Hopeful end result is the cancelled thing is no longer available because I don't like it.
Right wing crazies - I don't like that, I want it boycotted = Hopeful end result is the boycotted thing is no longer available because I don't like it.


ie, no difference.


As I said, both sides are just two cheeks of the same ars*.

randd1

o1s1n wrote: »

Boards.ie was very left leaning for a very long time. There was a huge upswing of lefties on here when 'woke' culture was but in it's infancy.

I've seen it move away from that in the last few years.

Drove away more like. You keep moving further to the left, then everything on the other side, is the on right, even if most would share your viewpoint.

randd1

randd1 wrote: »

Am I getting this right?

To being with

- A new news channel, which brands itself as right wing and conservative before it even airs
- Gets abused on twitter by left wing twitterati, "encouraging" companies/sponsors to withdraw or risk being cancelled/boycotted
- Some companies/sponsors decied to pull sponsorship/advertising from the news channel for business reasons
- Right wing supporters of the new news channel want said companies/sponsors cancelled/boycotted for pulling support

In summation

- Left wing twitter nuts want something they see is hateful cancelled, some companies/sposnors make a business decision not to get involved in bullsh*t, right wing twitter nuts want companies they see as woke cancelled.

Conclusions

- Twiiter is a cesspit of human depravity populated by a pathetic attention seeking cohort of angry, crazy €unts
- Said €unts tend to be either left or right, but always want something cancelled/punished, and claim they're standing up for the good of everyone
- The other 99% of us roll our eyes and wonder how humanity has reached the point where these angry, crazy €unts have a voice that people actually listen to instead of ignore
- And that the angry, crazy €unts on either side are pretty much two cheeks of the same ars* that full of sh*t.

Have I got that right?

Just like the end of the roman republic is often traced to the Gracchi brothers, so to the fall of western civilisation will be traced to the invention of Twitter

One eyed Jack

Had a quick look at it there.

‘Amateurish’ sums it up well.

1800_Ladladlad

The launch of this channel seems to be causing many bedwetters to screech incessantly. This is a good indicator that GBs presence amongst the other "news" channels is unsettling for them. If the other agencies and channels weren't so biased and reported on issues more accurately, the likes of GB wouldn't have felt the need to exist. Now we have an additional biased station to be compared with to the many other biased chan channels that have provided us with such one-sided crap for years. Alot of these people moaning about the channel simply do not like the fact that there is another news program questioning their ideologies and way of thinking, being a legitimate countering opinion. These are the type of individuals who would have no problem wiping any trace of GB from existence, from the airwaves, and from the internet etc The thought of people forming their own opinion (which isn't in line with theirs) bothers them.

Morgans

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

The launch of this channel seems to be causing many bedwetters to screech incessantly. This is a good indicator that GBs presence amongst the other "news" channels is unsettling for them. If the other agencies and channels weren't so biased and reported on issues more accurately, the likes of GB wouldn't have felt the need to exist. Now we have an additional biased station to be compared with to the many other biased chan channels that have provided us with such one-sided crap for years. Alot of these people moaning about the channel simply do not like the fact that there is another news program questioning their ideologies and way of thinking, being a legitimate countering opinion. These are the type of individuals who would have no problem wiping any trace of GB from existence, from the airwaves, and from the internet etc The thought of people forming their own opinion (which isn't in line with theirs) bothers them.

I think the bedwetters would be screeching even more incessently if it wasnt so laughably awful. I can't believe how little money it has to spend on production given its donors. Thought it was a cant miss opportunity. I hope its around in November just to see the size of the poppies.

Chris_Heilong

Good for them making something for those who feel their opinions are not being heard or spoken which is usually around 50% of a population in most countries would be conservatives, I hope it become successful but there will be those in the current media that will feel threatened just by the existence of a counter narrative as they wish to be the arbiters of truth as long as that truth falls in line with the left wing narrative and if it does not then just misrepresent or just dont cover it which is what has been seen for years in the UK.

Muahahaha

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The second that calculation flips negative for Tucker however, he's gone - plain and simple.

That is the case across the board always has been , always will be.

No one is "cancelled" because someone of Twitter has a hissy fit per se.

They get "cancelled" when the ratio of boycotters exceeds supporters.

That's just how TV/Media works and has always worked - If a show isn't making money (or is a drag on their wider profits) they stop making it or change things up.

Its a bit like that time George Hook got fired for trying to blame a victim of rape for her own rape. Newstalk could have hung on to him if they wanted to but if they did it would have meant a loss of advertising and them losing listeners. He was fired because ultimately he would have been a drag on their profits, therefore a commercial decision was made to cut him loose.

randd1

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

The launch of this channel seems to be causing many bedwetters to screech incessantly. This is a good indicator that GBs presence amongst the other "news" channels is unsettling for them. If the other agencies and channels weren't so biased and reported on issues more accurately, the likes of GB wouldn't have felt the need to exist. Now we have an additional biased station to be compared with to the many other biased chan channels that have provided us with such one-sided crap for years. Alot of these people moaning about the channel simply do not like the fact that there is another news program questioning their ideologies and way of thinking, being a legitimate countering opinion. These are the type of individuals who would have no problem wiping any trace of GB from existence, from the airwaves, and from the internet etc The thought of people forming their own opinion (which isn't in line with theirs) bothers them.

I think the bigger problem is that we have yet another "news" channel that doesn't actually have news, just opinions passed off as news. Basically, they offer nothing new, just a different type of nothing new.


To be honest, I'd have no bother with these "news" channels being biased at all, if it makes them money then fair enough, and if you don't like it, you don't have to watch it, it's not that hard really.


But passing opinions off as news is a problem, not matter which side does it. I would also argue there should be a law passed whereby a news channel has to declare on the bottom of the screen what is an opinion of the host and what is actually news (news would require the use of multiple sources, verifiable facts and unedited footage) to separate the two. At least people would know the difference.


That being said, it should also be noted that channels like it in the US tend to not bother with facts, and are often just making up sh*t for the sake of it.

Quantum Erasure

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There's no such thing as cancel culture. If companies don't want to associate themselves with GB News and its crew of professional edgelords then that's their decision.

https://boycottgbnews.org/advertisers

We are publishing this list of GB News advertisers so that if you are a customer you can contact them and let them know you will stop buying from them if they continue to advertise on GB News.
We have given companies' media/press contacts here – please politely let them know that their brand is being tarnished by association with GB News.

SteadyNed

o1s1n wrote: »

Boards.ie was very left leaning for a very long time. There was a huge upswing of lefties on here when 'woke' culture was but in it's infancy.

I've seen it move away from that in the last few years.

Has there ever been a poll on this? i.e. does the boards member see themselves as, left, right, centre-left/right, etc. It'd be fascinating.

There's definitely a tendency for people of one persuasion to claim they're outnumbered or victims of bias on a news/media/forum site.

Quin_Dub

Muahahaha wrote: »

Its a bit like that time George Hook got fired for trying to blame a victim of rape for her own rape. Newstalk could have hung on to him if they wanted to but if they did it would have meant a loss of advertising and them losing listeners. He was fired because ultimately he would have been a drag on their profits, therefore a commercial decision was made to cut him loose.

Exactly - Every example of someone being "cancelled" is the result of a pragmatic commercial decision.

It does seem that some companies are taking the path of least resistance and deciding that rather than fight for a specific person they reckon that they can replace them fairly easily.

It's a bit like an Insurance company settling the whiplash claim rather than fighting it, again based on a cold financial calculation.

And just like the ambulance chasers there are those that know this and are taking advantage to push their agenda.

But that doesn't change the basic truth of the media - You can pretty say and do what you want as long as you are making money for the machine.

It's as simple as that.

Quin_Dub

SteadyNed wrote: »

Has there ever been a poll on this? i.e. does the boards member see themselves as, left, right, centre-left/right, etc. It'd be fascinating.

There's definitely a tendency for people of one persuasion to claim they're outnumbered or victims of bias on a news/media/forum site.

Depending on the other posters viewpoint I've been accused of being all of the above at various stages!!

AllForIt

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/universities-to-comply-with-free-speech-duties-or-face-sanctions#:~:text=Universities%20to%20comply%20with%20free%20speech%20duties%20or%20face%20sanctions,-Landmark%20Bill%20will&text=A%20historic%20bill%20introduced%20in,students%2C%20academics%20and%20visiting%20speakers.

Landmark Bill will require universities to promote freedom of speech on campus and legal duties will also be extended to students' unions

This is a counter measue to cancel culture. You know the canel culture that some say doesn't exit.

Silentcorner

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

https://boycottgbnews.org/advertisers

These people are dangerous.

What would happen if the owners of GBNews decided to take legal action, would they encourage people to boycott the legal firm that represents them...is that where we are headed?

SteadyNed

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Depending on the other posters viewpoint I've been accused of being all of the above at various stages!!

That's the thing. Can anyone be a centrist any more?

hots

Silentcorner wrote: »

These people are dangerous.

What would happen if the owners of GBNews decided to take legal action, would they encourage people to boycott the legal firm that represents them...is that where we are headed?

It's just people voting with their feet? Free market at it's finest. If they were campaigning to have it blocked from the airwaves that would be different.

ohnonotgmail

Silentcorner wrote: »

These people are dangerous.

What would happen if the owners of GBNews decided to take legal action, would they encourage people to boycott the legal firm that represents them...is that where we are headed?

legal action for what, exactly? Are people not free to call for a boycott? Should the people calling for a boycott be punished for speaking?

Silentcorner

hots wrote: »

It's just people voting with their feet? Free market at it's finest. If they were campaigning to have it blocked from the airwaves that would be different.

They are attacking the companies advertisers.

It is wrong.

Now, if GBNews didn't see this coming that is their own fault, but this is not the free market if media companies are being pressured by groups, who we know little of, are exerting undue influence on advertisers.

We wouldn't tolerate this from the Church, we shouldn't tolerate it from these head bangers either.

ancapailldorcha

Silentcorner wrote: »

They are attacking the companies advertisers.

It is wrong.

Now, if GBNews didn't see this coming that is their own fault, but this is not the free market if media companies are being pressured by groups, who we know little of, are exerting undue influence on advertisers.

We wouldn't tolerate this from the Church, we shouldn't tolerate it from these head bangers either.

What are you going to do about it?

Silentcorner

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What are you going to do about it?

What has that got to do with anything...that is just a weak attempt to try to wind me up!!

Yakov P. Golyadkin

Silentcorner wrote: »

We wouldn't tolerate this from the Church, we shouldn't tolerate it from these head bangers either.

Tolerate what, political activism? This isn't North Korea.

ancapailldorcha

Silentcorner wrote: »

What has that got to do with anything...that is just a weak attempt to try to wind me up!!

Relax. Differing opinion isn't an attack.

It's a fair question. You said that we shouldn't tolerate what you perceive as an attempt to shut down GB News so it logically follows that you intend to actually do something about it.

fly_agaric

Silentcorner wrote: »

They are attacking the companies advertisers.

It is wrong.

Now, if GBNews didn't see this coming that is their own fault, but this is not the free market if media companies are being pressured by groups, who we know little of, are exerting undue influence on advertisers.

We wouldn't tolerate this from the Church, we shouldn't tolerate it from these head bangers either.

Don't really care about this whole circus, but are you being a bit hysterical about "dangerous" people etc?

This is nothing at all like the days of the pomp of the Catholic Church in Ireland. The fact you think it is indicates you are very young, or maybe not Irish. Page you linked earlier appears to be exhorting people (presume in the UK since it is "GB News" that is involved) to complain directly to the companies about them supporting/giving money to GB News (via buying adverts).

If general public (beyond a few angry activists setting up such campaigns) don't care about these companies spending money on GB News ad slots the companies will safely ignore it.

If companies choosing to advertise there don't really care about having the kind of people (perhaps fairly politically active + left wing) who will complain to them as customers, again they will ignore it.

There appears to be no difference between this type of thing and any other politically motivated campaign aimed at companies and how they spend their money in or around "politics", e.g. trying to get them not to donate/to donate to certain political parties or political causes etc. It seems to be standard political fare of a democracy to me.
What am I missing that is so sinister here?

Silentcorner

Yakov P. Golyadkin wrote: »

Tolerate what, political activism? This isn't North Korea.

Correct, let's try and keep it that way.

Silentcorner

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What are you going to do about it?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Relax. Differing opinion isn't an attack.

It's a fair question. You said that we shouldn't tolerate what you perceive as an attempt to shut down GB News so it logically follows that you intend to actually do something about it.

You are on a wind up....I am well used to the likes of you.

Just like you I am a participant in a thread in an online forum...I have about as much relevance as you. I am not going to put up with petty wind ups.

ancapailldorcha

Silentcorner wrote: »

You are on a wind up....I am well used to the likes of you.

Just like you I am a participant in a thread in an online forum...I have about as much relevance as you. I am not going to put up with petite wind ups.

It's a genuine question but if you would prefer not to engage in anything beyond moaning about woke then I can leave it there.

pjohnson

hots wrote: »

It's just people voting with their feet? Free market at it's finest. If they were campaigning to have it blocked from the airwaves that would be different.

Apparently companies shouldnt be allowed decide where there adverts are displayed.


You think people lauding "free speech" would support companies having freedom over the product but nope.

Silentcorner

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's a genuine question but if you would prefer not to engage in anything beyond moaning about woke then I can leave it there.

It's not a genuine question.

I won't engage with a wind up merchant.

pjohnson

A refusal/inability to engage in discussion is exactly why GBNews exists :pac: