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
Good news everyone! The Boards.ie Subscription service is live. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

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

16162646667279

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,652 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    "Top quality hosts" is a very subjective term. They are big names though I'll give you that.

    As for GBeebies I don't think the shows backers and producers would it's early days in the kind of glowing light you are describing.

    You could have gotten a top job in the Politburo with your level of propaganda and double think



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,083 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    Why pick only one thing that you believe it compares favourably to?

    Or was that the result of a frantic Google?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,652 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    It will be a case of mission accomplished no need to continue or something along those lines.

    Either that or he will fall down the same black hole that swallowed all those pleasant Trump fans around 3am on election night and never be seen again



  • Posts: 6,775 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I think it's far more comparable than what some posters here have done, and compared GB News to some fanatical meme that beats pretty much every video, everywhere anyway.

    Better to compare apples and apples than apples with oranges.

    Even if Good Morning Britain had double their number of subscribers, GB News would have hit 10% of that within 28-days.

    To me that's progress, to others it's not.



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


    GMB is just a single show, isn't It? As opposed to an entire station. How many viewers does it have now? Obviously took a bit post Morgan abject hissy fit.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 6,775 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    True, but it's still a significant program.

    Even if you compare with Channel 4 News, GB News is now 10% of that total - again, in only 28-days.

    Channel 4 News joined in 2006.



  • Posts: 6,559 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    And it still amount to a news station that is struggling to get viewers. Gaining followers is not indicative of engagement btw... The fact that you have to jump to subscribers as a metric of success is showing what a crap month they've had...



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


    Sure, they'll do well to match C4, long way to go. C4 is limited in fairness, as it is not allowed to generate its own programming and has to use independents, so its not exactly like for like I would say.

    There is also no guarantee that viewership stays on a linear upward curve. It will face declines, peaks and troughs too. It's slightly worrying that they didn't have farage at the outset - why not? - but are running to him after a few weeks when they see the situation is bad. That suggests the overall product is weak, as opposed to people just needing time to realise its no doubt superior qualities. Farage won't carry it on his own and even Neil returning will hardly be enough. I don't think anyone else is making an impact in terms of viewers or publicity. Big problem there I think, unless they can make the likes of morgan an offer he can't refuse!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,652 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Morgan could be a game changer in terms of raising awareness of the channel which seems to be confined mostly to politically minded people from right or left.

    I think the channels biggest problem is that your average viewer isn't looking for a new channel. They stick Sky or BBC news on having the morning coffee or whatever because they are easily accessible and on a very wide range of boxes and providers. They are happy to get news and don't think too deeply about the source.

    GBnews really only matters to the likes of us here who really want a hard right alternative to support or are lefty's who watch to laugh at it. I don't see it breaking the mainstream



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,945 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Just to remind you again , in case you missed it.

    GB News is a Broadcast TV News Station not a YouTube Channel.

    Getting people to watch a 2 or 3 minute clip on YouTube is a million miles away from getting them to watch several hours of programming on TV.

    Whilst I'm sure the arrival of Farage will provide a short lived dead-cat bounce in the Broadcast viewing numbers for a while from sight-seers having a quick look , the overall trend will remain where it is , flat-lined approaching death.

    Now I will add that launching a TV channel in the Summer , during the Euros followed by really warm weather probably isn't helping anybodies ratings right now , but GB news are still dragging along the bottom of an already smaller volume.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 42,544 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    To add to that, I follow a few Youtube channels and, when they're clearly not low effort creators, they're constantly trying to drum up subscribers on platforms like Youtube memberships and Patreon and that's for the one person (+ editors for the wealthier creators) operations. A whole news channel on the other hand...

    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: 40,977 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    their online figures are meaningless. They are a TV station not a YT channel.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,213 ✭✭✭Mic 1972


    Liberals judge people by their action? i dont think so

    Liberals judge people by their identity



  • Posts: 6,775 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    No, you cannot separate the two.

    Social media views/shares show that there is interest in the output by the channel itself.

    Channels deploy social media to extend reach and seed interest; a tool of the channel. This isn't 1999 where only TV viewers count.

    Any station worth their salt will try to accumulate a massive social media following / engagement / share count. Only a complete fool would ignore the power that social media can yield for any kind of station.

    It's the equivalent of someone arguing, when setting up a business website, that social media isn't important because all that matters is how many people find the website through Google Search.

    It's such an outdated, ignorant, and naïve attitude.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,213 ✭✭✭Mic 1972


    I agree, he nailed the style and attitude. Starting a new channel with non-mainstream views was always going to be challenging. It will continue to grow from now on



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,160 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Is this some sort of 'Fridge Magnet phrase' you saw on Brietbart or in a Candace Owens retweet?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,977 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    if those online viewers don't translate into tv viewers then they are meaningless. we have seen nothing so far to suggest they have. You cant support a tv station on YT ad money.



  • Posts: 6,775 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I might be a creature that leans right, but I find the likes of Candace Owens and Laurence Fox opportunistic and utterly ghastly.

    Not one original thought could be created by merging their two frontal lobes.



  • Posts: 6,559 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Fox was literally one of the first people they put on the air so it's not saying much about the channel...



  • Posts: 6,775 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    He was all over mainstream channels for quite a considerable time.

    I don't care where he's found. He's awful.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,977 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    and he was mooned by somebody asking a question.



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


    Again, Farage "being all over GB News" isn't quite the endorsement people think. It just hints at over exposure, one guy covering up the cracks appearing elsewhere. Not something i would be getting carried away with anyway, in terms of the overall station and its viability.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 386 ✭✭Gentlemanne


    It's actually amazing to me how much you love Farage if you (correctly) think Candace Owens is an opportunistic ghoul



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Her's is a lot more blatant, to be fair. Farage, as dislikable as he is, at least has the ability to seem pretty normal to people of a little-English mindset, many of whom are educated and run about in the middle classes. Owens, on the other hand, relies on the the dumbest people around and in the US there's no shortage of them. Her grift is more like a Nigerian prince scam while Farage's is more like a Credit Default Swap. The difference is in the class of people being targeted. You can see it here too. The main Farage fan here can spell and knows what a thesaurus is while Owens's marks would think it was a creature in Jurassic park. There's definitely a difference and it's perfectly reasonable that those who fall for Farage would look down on someone who's grift is more obvious that the one that they are falling for.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,916 ✭✭✭✭MisterAnarchy




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,333 ✭✭✭✭extra gravy


    It's not new, he just keeps reposting it for attention like the pathetic loser he is.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,277 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    Farage at least has always been consistent with his views. He may have got more right wing over time, but it doesn't feel a grift with him.

    Owens its clearly a grift, she started off as a hardcore "SJW" and would have stuck with that but decided to go where the money is.

    She is clever at what she does sadly though, very sharp on social media and knows her base are mainly old white boomers who love the usual memes "the Dems are the party of slavery " etc.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,277 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    some of the pronoun stuff can be silly, but who cares really as its so utterly unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

    He is 43 ffs.



  • Posts: 6,775 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I'm very much against this "intellectual right"-kind of phenomenon that has swept the Internet in recent years.

    Whether it's Candace Owens, Dave Rubin, Steven Crowder, or Jordan B. Peterson etc. (and the rest, you know who they are) - I honestly don't find any original value in anything they say.

    It's intellectual commercialization and an appeal to simple thinking.

    Many of these people trot out the same lines, such as "...we just want to have an honest conversation in the marketplace of ideas". In reality, it's about simple-minded generalizations that offers no significant depth whatsoever.

    Even Jordan B. Peterson. Apart from suggesting that adults should be responsible and that we shouldn't be compelled by law to ventilate other's designated personal pronouns, what exactly does he offer? Those previous two ideas are hardly revolutionary. His musings on the religion/God question is nothing more than an incoherent verbal seizure.

    Candace Owens, too, cashing in. Katie Hopkins and Milo Yiannopoulos are extreme versions of this, of course, donning an act to create right-wing controversy for the sake of it, to generate publicity, and the media appearances and dollar signs that come flowing with it. Thankfully, both of those individuals have (pretty much) been consigned to the dustbin. Milo Yiannopoulos, in an attempt to remain relevant, even "came out as straight". What an attention-seeking, status yearning loser. That attempt failed, too, by the way.

    I don't see Nigel Farage as part of the above, though. Whilst you may consider him a "grifter", Farage has been consistent over the past 30-years about his desired political aim. You may disagree with the means through which he has achieved this, but he is nonetheless consistent. To confer legitimacy upon anyone, they must be consistent - and Farage at least boasts that metric in large volumes. The same cannot be said for the intellectual dark web-types - who, upon having some viral videos, decided to act up and cash in. They have no moral scruples or offer any honest intellectual value. They say what needs to be said to generate views, ad revenue, and tours.

    Nothing more.

    Empty vessels with not an original thought among them.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 6,775 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    In fact, they've gained a further 3,000 subscribers over the past 18-hours.

    Pretty consistent, even trending upward growth.

    At this rate, they'll hit the 200,000 mark in just 8-days from now.

    5-days ago they even advertised for many new positions. So much for a channel in terminal decline.




This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement