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

The Raging Bile Duct · 18-06-2021 01:33PM

Silentcorner wrote: »

So why target the advertisers and not the viewers?

Can you clarify this for me. I don't know what you're getting at.

Silentcorner · 18-06-2021 01:38PM

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

Can you clarify this for me. I don't know what you're getting at.

Have you been reading this thread?

There has been an ongoing campaign by an online group targeting advertisers on the channel.

I'll bet the Bishops are kicking themselves they never thought of that!!!

MisterAnarchy · 18-06-2021 01:56PM

Silentcorner wrote: »

Have you been reading this thread?

There has been an ongoing campaign by an online group targeting advertisers on the channel.

I'll bet the Bishops are kicking themselves they never thought of that!!!

Stop Funding Hate its called.
Ironic really.

There seem to be plenty of these active and vocal activistic groups against ‘Hate’ with Hate in their name.
Many are censorial, intolerant, loud mouthed and often driven by bigotry – particularly against those who have a different viewpoint.
If you have a difference of opinion with them, you are considered to be not merely in error but in sin.
You are a racist, a homophobe or whatever the villain of the day happens to be.

Are people so weak-minded that just watching GBNews will suddenly turn them into indoctrinated zombies?

Wise people read broadly, they don’t shut themselves away intellectually speaking.
A feature of cultish brainwashing is only limiting themselves to approved texts and narratives to keep themselves ‘pure’.

The Raging Bile Duct · 18-06-2021 02:02PM

Silentcorner wrote: »

Have you been reading this thread?

There has been an ongoing campaign by an online group targeting advertisers on the channel.

I'll bet the Bishops are kicking themselves they never thought of that!!!

Why? The Bishops had control of the state's moral compass and could get the government to enact laws that agreed with their teachings.

Calling for a boycott is just consumer activism. You can quite as easily call for a boycott of a company's products if you feel they're being too woke.

Do you believe people should not have the choice to refrain from buying products if they disagree with the actions of a company?

Silentcorner · 18-06-2021 02:04PM

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

Why? The Bishops had control of the state's moral compass and could get the government to enact laws that agreed with their teachings.

Calling for a boycott is just consumer activism. You can quite as easily call for a boycott of a company's products if you feel they're being too woke.

Do you believe people should not have the choice to refrain from buying products if they disagree with the actions of a company?

You haven't been reading this thread...I'm not going round and round in circles again.

If you don't like the content, contact the broadcasting regulators, that is what they are there for.

Tacitus Kilgore · 18-06-2021 02:10PM

Silentcorner wrote: »

You haven't been reading this thread...I'm not going round and round in circles again.

If you don't like the content, contact the broadcasting regulators, that is what they are there for.

Well if enough proud GB news supporters like yourself contacted IKEA and Kopparberg and the like, and told them you'd buy their stuff if they advertised on GBnews I'm sure they'd blow with the wind, they don't give a fcuk either way, they just want to make money.

The Raging Bile Duct · 18-06-2021 02:11PM

Silentcorner wrote: »

You haven't been reading this thread...I'm not going round and round in circles again.

If you don't like the content, contact the broadcasting regulators, that is what they are there for.

So do I have the freedom to not buy a company's products if I don't agree with their actions?

Smee_Again · 18-06-2021 02:11PM

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

Why? The Bishops had control of the state's moral compass and could get the government to enact laws that agreed with their teachings.

Calling for a boycott is just consumer activism. You can quite as easily call for a boycott of a company's products if you feel they're being too woke.

Do you believe people should not have the choice to refrain from buying products if they disagree with the actions of a company?

He said they shouldn't be allowed organise a boycott because otherwise we'll end up like North Korea if we do.

I'm paraphrasing but that was the gist of it.

I don't quite understand how, but that's what he afraid of. Or at least that's how he justifies his authoritarian stance.

Tell me how · 18-06-2021 02:14PM

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Stop Funding Hate its called.
Ironic really.

There seem to be plenty of these active and vocal activistic groups against ‘Hate’ with Hate in their name.
Many are censorial, intolerant, loud mouthed and often driven by bigotry – particularly against those who have a different viewpoint.
If you have a difference of opinion with them, you are considered to be not merely in error but in sin.
You are a racist, a homophobe or whatever the villain of the day happens to be.

Are people so weak-minded that just watching GBNews will suddenly turn them into indoctrinated zombies?

Wise people read broadly, they don’t shut themselves away intellectually speaking.
A feature of cultish brainwashing is only limiting themselves to approved texts and narratives to keep themselves ‘pure’.

Two things are True

74M voted for a proven incompetent liability to continue as President in the US last year.
Fox News is by a distance the most watched cable news outlet and they carried unrestricted propaganda on his behalf before, during and since his Presidency.

I don't think you are stupid enough to ignore the reality of these facts.

Tony EH · 18-06-2021 02:14PM

A Twitter campaign isn't even remotely the same as an actual authority that has the power to restrict what a populace can view/read/enjoy. The example of a nation's leadership banning the likes of 'The Life of Brian', the sale of condoms or whatever isn't even in the same league as a few people online who are against the politics of a shitty so called "news" channel that exists merely to feed a line of propaganda to small cadre of other people that only want to hear their own views repeated back at them because their convictions are so weak in the first place.

The Twitter mob are expressing an opinion. An opinion some may not like. But it's still their opinion. I wouldn't be particularly enamoured with their cause myself, but they are no way even remotely comparable to governmental bodies that have actual power to ban books, movies or people's ability to make a decision regarding their own lives.

Silentcorner · 18-06-2021 02:17PM

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

Well if enough proud GB news supporters like yourself contacted IKEA and Kopparberg and the like, and told them you'd buy their stuff if they advertised on GBnews I'm sure they'd blow with the wind, they don't give a fcuk either way, they just want to make money.

Ah will you stop...you are like a child.

18-06-2021 02:24PM

Silentcorner wrote: »

Have you been reading this thread?

There has been an ongoing campaign by an online group targeting advertisers on the channel.

I'll bet the Bishops are kicking themselves they never thought of that!!!

And boycotts are a democratic right. Nothing is being banned, advertisers are simply being aware of how it may result in people changing their purchasing habits. It's free protest and capitalism in action. In fact, you've got more in common with the bishops since you want to make it illegal to engage in such protests. Do you also oppose ongoing boycotts against the likes of The Sun? That goes back thirty years now.

Silentcorner · 18-06-2021 02:34PM

Deleted User wrote: »

And boycotts are a democratic right. Nothing is being banned, advertisers are simply being aware of how it may result in people changing their purchasing habits. It's free protest and capitalism in action. In fact, you've got more in common with the bishops since you want to make it illegal to engage in such protests. Do you also oppose ongoing boycotts against the likes of The Sun? That goes back thirty years now.

This is why I really shouldn't get involved in these kinds of threads...I'd have much more moderate tendencies but you guys make it impossible to take a reasonable position.

This station might fail commercially, I haven't seen too much of it but I believe they have had serious technical difficulties...if their content can't find an audience and a sustainable one they are doomed....same as any media company, but to attack the commercial base of a new company because you don't like the content is not consistent with a free and liberal society no matter how you attempt to justify it!

That is where I am on this station, I'd love to see an alternate station in this country but that will never happen, we don't do balance or reason well in this country, never have done....we think that anyone who doesn't go along with the herd is some how unpure, just ask any liberal you know from the 70s or 80s.

The Sun were boycotted by the people of Liverpool for a very specific and understandable reason...they were not boycotted the first day they published, there is a big difference, to my knowledge they haven't targeted the advertisers in that newspaper either.

Larbre34 · 18-06-2021 02:43PM

No, but they didn't need to. The targeting of Sun newspaper advertisers is a big effort and goes far beyond Liverpool. The Shop Funding Hate campaign have been up their arse for years.

18-06-2021 02:43PM

Silentcorner wrote: »

This is why I really shouldn't get involved in these kinds of threads...I'd have much more moderate tendencies but you guys make it impossible to take a reasonable position.

So moderate that you believe people shouldn't engage in boycotts. Pull the other one.

Silentcorner · 18-06-2021 02:47PM

Yakov P. Golyadkin wrote: »

So moderate that you believe people shouldn't engage in boycotts. Pull the other one.

This is exactly what I mean.

I already stated that I have no issue with an orchestrated boycott of the station, or even a campaign of complaints to the regulators...

I have an issue with a vocal unelected minority controlling what my viewing choices are...

So if you want to stand outside the head quarters waving your placards, best of luck to you!

The Raging Bile Duct · 18-06-2021 02:52PM

Silentcorner wrote: »

This is exactly what I mean.

I already stated that I have no issue with an orchestrated boycott of the station, or even a campaign of complaints to the regulators...

I have an issue with a vocal unelected minority controlling what my viewing choices are...

So if you want to stand outside the head quarters waving your placards, best of luck to you!

So you're against people holding effective boycotts?

18-06-2021 02:56PM

Silentcorner wrote: »

This is exactly what I mean.

I already stated that I have no issue with an orchestrated boycott of the station, or even a campaign of complaints to the regulators...

I have an issue with a vocal unelected minority controlling what my viewing choices are...

So if you want to stand outside the head quarters waving your placards, best of luck to you!

Nobody is preventing you from watching it but equally consumers have every right to boycott products associated with the channel. You don't get to decide if or why a group wishes to boycott. You are opposing peaceful freedom of expression for pretty terrible reasons.

Tacitus Kilgore · 18-06-2021 02:57PM

Silentcorner wrote: »

This is exactly what I mean.

I already stated that I have no issue with an orchestrated boycott of the station, or even a campaign of complaints to the regulators...

I have an issue with a vocal unelected minority controlling what my viewing choices are...

So if you want to stand outside the head quarters waving your placards, best of luck to you!

Unelected?? Controlling??

And I am childish...

So you're not against boycotting but want to dictate how it's done so it's as ineffective as possible, have I got it right now?

Silentcorner · 18-06-2021 02:57PM

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

So you're against people holding effective boycotts?

Well, if you organise a boycott of viewers, and wave enough placards, and the content you are boycotting is offensive enough to enough people then you've just launched an effective boycott.

But attacking the commercial base of what you perceive to be a news station that offends your political sensitivities is very dangerous territory....which is why the likes of you are compared to Bishops/Priests/Nuns...you behave just like them!

Tacitus Kilgore · 18-06-2021 02:59PM

Silentcorner wrote: »

Well, if you organise a boycott of viewers, and wave enough placards, and the content you are boycotting is offensive enough to enough people then you've just launched an effective boycott.

But attacking the commercial base of what you perceive to be a news station that offends your political sensitivities is very dangerous territory....which is why the likes of you are compared to Bishops/Priests/Nuns...you behave just like them!

I'm not sure anyone perceives GBNews as an actual news station tbh.

Silentcorner · 18-06-2021 02:59PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Nobody is preventing you from watching it but equally consumers have every right to boycott products associated with the channel. You don't get to decide if or why a group wishes to boycott. You are opposing peaceful freedom of expression for pretty terrible reasons.

If nobody watches the content the advertisers will be the first to cop on....they won't need a bunch of rosary bead waving zealots expressing outrage!

But beware...we all remember what happened with The Passion of St Tibulus!

18-06-2021 03:04PM

Deleted User wrote: »

And boycotts are a democratic right. Nothing is being banned, advertisers are simply being aware of how it may result in people changing their purchasing habits.

If that were what's happening, then I would agree. But it's not just individuals seeing ads for a product they usually use or are considering using, deciding to no longer use that product on that basis, and letting the company know.

It's an organised cabal of authoritarian far-leftists who have all signed up to the email list of an organisation which regularly disseminates lists of advertisers to be targeted because they advertise with media outlets that don't toe the ideological line of the activists. It's not a "boycott", since there is no consideration for whether an activist uses the product or not. They are issued with lists of companies and contact details, and often with form emails or tweets to use, and away they go—with the explicit goal of snuffing out the funding of the wrong-think media outlet or publication. If you think all these people mobbing Ikea were about to kit out a full family home from there... I have a bridge to sell you.

It works because a relatively small online mob of fascists can seem very large when they all work in concert like this, and corporations abhor controversy so they bow to shut it up. One thing that is interesting is that Andrew Neil's speech on GB News about it was the first time that anyone who isn't very 'online" will have heard of such groups, since the other media largely ignore them. SFH have been celebrating this as a "they only care because we're having an impact" sort of moment, but I wonder how long that will last now that the companies that have pulled funding are beginning to backpedal on their statements, and GB News is (for now) the best ratings bet in the UK news channel market.

I predict that there will be a (long-overdue) response to this sort of censorious stuff in relatively short order, whereby, albeit grudgingly, right-wing, centre and left-liberal/moderate people will begin to organise to let the companies that bow to SFH and their ilk know that *they* will be boycotting their services, in fact, because the company bowed. Which will ultimately leave the companies between a rock and a hard place, and they'll eventually just have to learn to ignore internet noise and return to being the money-grabbing bastards they always were and follow the audience size.

One can only hope.

Smee_Again · 18-06-2021 03:06PM

Silentcorner wrote: »

If nobody watches the content the advertisers will be the first to cop on....they won't need a bunch of rosary bead waving zealots expressing outrage!

But beware...we all remember what happened with The Passion of St Tibulus!

Without these GB News would just be an empty studio.

hirondelle · 18-06-2021 03:06PM

Silentcorner wrote: »

This is exactly what I mean.

I already stated that I have no issue with an orchestrated boycott of the station, or even a campaign of complaints to the regulators...

I have an issue with a vocal unelected minority controlling what my viewing choices are...

So if you want to stand outside the head quarters waving your placards, best of luck to you!

I don't think it is possible to say you have no issue with an orchestrated boycott of the station but you have an issue with a vocal unelected minority controlling what your viewing choices are- the purpose of the boycott in this case is to put pressure on the sponsors to withdraw sponsorship of the channel.

You agree with the principle of boycott or you don't- you can't qualify it by saying you agree with boycotts unless they affect you, or people who share your viewpoint, negatively.

GB News set out their stall in advance with Woke Watch, "if it matters to you, it matters to us" lowest common denominator topic choices etc. The people, tweeting or emailing the companies that advertise are perfectly entitled to make their opinions known and the companies then make commercial decisions on foot of that. This isn't a situation where the ability to hear or see the "news" is being censored, you can get the news (and as much anti-woke messaging as you want) via the rightwing print media in the UK (by far the majority of the papers), this is a capitalism in action where the consumer makes choices in order to get the producer to act in a certain way.

Hell, my boycott of McDonalds (in operation since 1983 when they sold me a "veggie" burger (a bun with a gherkin in it) for the same price as an actual burger) is bound to start showing results soon!

The Raging Bile Duct · 18-06-2021 03:10PM

Silentcorner wrote: »

Well, if you organise a boycott of viewers, and wave enough placards, and the content you are boycotting is offensive enough to enough people then you've just launched an effective boycott.

But attacking the commercial base of what you perceive to be a news station that offends your political sensitivities is very dangerous territory....which is why the likes of you are compared to Bishops/Priests/Nuns...you behave just like them!

The whole point of a boycott is hurt the person/company you're targeting financially. That was how it came into existence.

I don't know why you keep trying to compare people that partake in it to Nuns and Priests. It makes zero sense.

Silentcorner · 18-06-2021 03:14PM

hirondelle wrote: »

I don't think it is possible to say you have no issue with an orchestrated boycott of the station but you have an issue with a vocal unelected minority controlling what your viewing choices are- the purpose of the boycott in this case is to put pressure on the sponsors to withdraw sponsorship of the channel.

You agree with the principle of boycott or you don't- you can't qualify it by saying you agree with boycotts unless they affect you, or people who share your viewpoint, negatively.

GB News set out their stall in advance with Woke Watch, "if it matters to you, it matters to us" lowest common denominator topic choices etc. The people, tweeting or emailing the companies that advertise are perfectly entitled to make their opinions known and the companies then make commercial decisions on foot of that. This isn't a situation where the ability to hear or see the "news" is being censored, you can get the news (and as much anti-woke messaging as you want) via the rightwing print media in the UK (by far the majority of the papers), this is a capitalism in action where the consumer makes choices in order to get the producer to act in a certain way.

Hell, my boycott of McDonalds (in operation since 1983 when they sold me a "veggie" burger (a bun with a gherkin in it) for the same price as an actual burger) is bound to start showing results soon!

OK, let me put it to you another way.

If a strip club opened up on your main st, and you took offense to it's presence there, then you can stand in front of the doors with your like minded and attempt to close it down, that is your right.

But if you and your like minded start threatening the Electricity Provider, the Phone Company, The drinks Company etc with boycotts that is too far for me...just because you can doesn't mean you should.

And media companies are in my view, more important to society than strip clubs and the people who attempt to do that should never be allowed to succeed.

Zealots should never be allowed more influence than their vote provides them.

Silentcorner · 18-06-2021 03:17PM

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

The whole point of a boycott is hurt the person/company you're targeting financially. That was how it came into existence.

I don't know why you keep trying to compare people that partake in it to Nuns and Priests. It makes zero sense.

Because we can all relate to the over bearing influence the Church had in this country, and normal people can recognize the tendencies in today's ideologues!

Tacitus Kilgore · 18-06-2021 03:17PM

Silentcorner wrote: »

Zealots should never be allowed more influence than their vote provides them.

Agreed, so - by your logic GBnews shouldn't really be on air then?

Silentcorner · 18-06-2021 03:21PM

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

proud GB news supporters like yourself.

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

Agreed, so - by your logic GBnews shouldn't really be on air then?

Honestly, I'm not going to waste my time engaging with you!

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

Comments