By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
I’m not a big fan of social media and minimise usage to occasionally browsing stuff you don’t have to sign up to (these days not a great deal!)
The club’s twitter account is one I would check in on quickly an hour before a game for the line up and a quick screenshot before it locks you out.
It is interesting to see what’s going on with that platform at the moment, rumours this morning that the whole thing is on the verge of potentially collapsing. Considering he only just paid $44bn for it that would be some blow out.
Half the workforce already gone, staff locked out of offices again today, those that didn’t sign up to be ‘extremely hardcore’ going forward told not to bother coming back.
The world would be in a much better place if Twitter was switched off permanently.
I'm not meaning to have a go at you or anyone else but there are hateful bile and evil lies on every social media platform.
Twitter is the main digital communication channel for many organisations, clubs and societies and serves them well. It's highly interactive, works OK as a bidirectional tool, and let's you easily follow what you are interested in. As a member of the public, it's the main way I follow most of my interests and keep abreast of the latest news.
As a worker, I used to run my company's UK Twitter site and it was a powerful communications tool, not just for telling potential customers what we were up to but also for dealing with their technical issues.
My wife is a part-time administrator of the Twitter site of a professional association and has found it ideal for communicating with existing and potential members of said association.
That said, you can get disgruntled users or customers causing a disproportionate amount of trouble for you, although they can also show you that one of your business processes is actually inadequate, allowing you to make important improvements.
I also want to say that I think the way Musk is carrying on is bizarre, misguided and unacceptable. He should be treating his employees with respect, rather than in the way a pharaoh would slaves building a pyramid. Poor.
"Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1."
It's interesting isn't it, how we talk about the platform being the cause of negative effects, rather than big tech's refusal to properly moderate those platforms.
After all, when it comes to Marmite, no one hates the jar
Twitter like all SM i would presume if used for gathering events around the globe is a very useful tool. To much content in today`s broadcast news never goes beyond that days narrative, set out by that papers/news broadcast political slant. SM gives the reader insight into so much more with a new type of journalist, with "citizen journalism". The type who let the camera roll long after msm have packed their bags and hit the pub.
'You didn't know that was wrong, but now you do. If you do it again, I'll know you are doing it on purpose.'
Re this thread I have read through It and can only comment that I haven't got a clue what any of you are on about.
They do say "ignorance is bliss" and In the case of Twitter I'll quite happily stay Ignorant.
Ted. I’m with you 100%. What the f@@k is everyone on about? Paper and Pencil…. that’s the answer. We might be from a different era Ted, but…… they’ll miss us when we’ve gone. That’s the price we pay for the youth of today…. Give ‘em a leg to stand on…. and they kick you up the arse with it.
Skinny Jeans? Beards? Check Shirts? Designer Coffees? Getting in touch with your inner feelings?
Total Bollocks.
Get on the beer. Get on the cigs. Get on the fried food. Shag a few along the way.
There's a lot of bad stuff and people on there, but I find they are easily avoided. Definitely less easily if you are more prominent like Clive and have idiots actively targeting you.
Its been a great source of truth during elections campaigns etc when the Murdoch press is doing its usual thing. This was particularly noticeable during the election here in Oz earlier this year. Clips showing journalist behaviour at press conferences, that wouldn't get shown on the main TV channels, showing them up for exactly what they are when attacking the side their paper doesn't like led to a couple having to close their accounts when they got a big reaction - and deservedly so.
The likes of Trump and Hopkins being kicked out was great, not that I saw much of their bile anyway as I'd muted them. But occasionally someone I follow would retweet them and then be swiftly unfollowed.
Definitely has its good and bad points. I'm seriously considering logging out for the duration of the world cup due to the amount of anti English crap there was during the Euros, and that's despite the fact there is often absolutely brilliant football related banter on there, the recent #kissgate stuff being a very good example.
I agree with all this but there is another side to it as I have been on Twitter since 2009 when journos were tweeting live from the Amanda Knox trial which I was particularly interested in.
Then really started using it during lockdown, made many Twitter "friends" and it was a big release from the running of a loss making business during the pandemic. I stay clear of picking fights with those of opposing political and environmental views as it just makes you angry and you rarely change their mind.
Other than that if there are topics you are interested in, then I find it a good way to learn, keep in touch and seek out articles for further reading.
My two biggest bugbears with the platform are misinformation and non fact checking, you often see tweeps retweeting stuff because it suits their argument as opposed to checking it is actually correct first.
There's a lot of bad stuff and people on there, but I find they are easily avoided. Definitely less easily if you are more prominent like Clive and have idiots actively targeting you.
Its been a great source of truth during elections campaigns etc when the Murdoch press is doing its usual thing. This was particularly noticeable during the election here in Oz earlier this year. Clips showing journalist behaviour at press conferences, that wouldn't get shown on the main TV channels, showing them up for exactly what they are when attacking the side their paper doesn't like led to a couple having to close their accounts when they got a big reaction - and deservedly so.
The likes of Trump and Hopkins being kicked out was great, not that I saw much of their bile anyway as I'd muted them. But occasionally someone I follow would retweet them and then be swiftly unfollowed.
Definitely has its good and bad points. I'm seriously considering logging out for the duration of the world cup due to the amount of anti English crap there was during the Euros, and that's despite the fact there is often absolutely brilliant football related banter on there, the recent #kissgate stuff being a very good example.
"Its been a great source of truth during elections campaigns etc when the Murdoch press is doing its usual thing"
Comments like this just blow my mind. The blindness and bias is just off the scale
Honestly how do you square an opinion like that in the run up to the Trump Biden election NY Post posted an article on Twitter that revealed the contents of the laptop of Joe Biden's crackhead sons laptop.
As well as the videos, photos and messages of Hunter Biden drug taking and use of prostitutes. It also revealed details indicating bribery and corruption directly linked with "the big man". These in part involved with his role on the board of the Ukrainian Energy company Burisma
The article and references to it were removed from Twitter. It was labelled as "fake news", "Russian disinformation". Anyone talking about it negatively was either banned or had a fact check underneath their post.
Well a couple of years later it was proven... shocker... it was in fact true.
This story was suppressed. To influence a US election. This is why this thread is full of ridiculous whiny statements. Because they are upset "their side" can't censor and suppress the opposing views
Twitter was a tool for censoring right of centre and boosting the prominence of left of centre views. If it's made in to an equal playing field that terrifies the left. As had they not had this tool before then Trump would still be in power.
Also, how will Twitter cope with hardworking staff like this...
I agree with this. On the one hand Twitter has been great for people building careers from scratch, there’s a guy who reports on the TV business which is my day job called Scott Bryan and he’s literally built himself up from Twitter into somebody who’s on BBC News everyday, and he’s absolutely great.
On the other it’s made a lot of journos and newspapers higher up incredibly slapdash and lazy. When you’ve got Laura Kuennesberg, the BBC political correspondent, standing on News at Ten reading out a Tweet from Dominic Cummings, without checks, without balances, without checking it’s accurate or true, that’s abysmal. Alastair Campbell would have had a fcking field day with that back in the day.
Quick story. We were interviewing for a new reporter on my team at work a little while back - as journo jobs go it’s a good one, fairly paid, good company, and a lot of international travel. The standard of applicant was abysmal, properly abysmal. We had a girl in from The Express, a national newspaper let’s not forget, I asked her one of my stock questions which is “if you’ve been away for a couple of weeks, and you come back in on Monday morning, where are you getting your news lines from that day?” The answer I want, basically, is PICK UP THE PHONE. Ring contacts, ring sources, how’s it going, what have I missed, what’s the gossip, what’s the latest on that thing? So many reporters now are terrified of the phone. She said, in a job interview, “I’d see what was trending on Twitter and Reddit and do my version of that.” I threw her a bone, nice lad that I am, and said “that absolutely won’t work on my team, how would you modify your approach?” She thought, sucked her teeth, and said “I’d probably have to change who I follow on Twitter and Reddit”.
So many wannabe journos think that’s the job now. Rather than building contacts, relationships, sources, give and take with a friendly copper etc.Demise of local newspapers has exacerbated this, and Twitter certainly has.
NorthernR I encourage you to watch this short interview between a young Andrew Marr and Noam Chomsky. The bit right at the end I think about whenever you go off on the tangent you do again in this thread.
I think, like Andrew Marr your opinions are sincere but this video is revealing of the blind spot you have. Which by definition you cannot see
It's because of this citizen journalism is so important. The current example is that SBF/ FTX/ Alameda fraudulent theft of tens of billions of dollars of customer money has this week resulted in puff pieces about SBF (the Democrats second largest donor) in Bloomberg, Reuters, Washington Post and NY Times. But it's citizen journalists exposing the extent of this theft and his family links to Democrat party. The MSM is bought and selects as Chomsky indicated
Wouldn't it be stranger if the left didn't have their own versions of Dacre and Murdoch with their own self interested agenda...
NorthernR I encourage you to watch this short interview between a young Andrew Marr and Noam Chomsky. The bit right at the end I think about whenever you go off on the tangent you do again in this thread.
I think, like Andrew Marr your opinions are sincere but this video is revealing of the blind spot you have. Which by definition you cannot see
It's because of this citizen journalism is so important. The current example is that SBF/ FTX/ Alameda fraudulent theft of tens of billions of dollars of customer money has this week resulted in puff pieces about SBF (the Democrats second largest donor) in Bloomberg, Reuters, Washington Post and NY Times. But it's citizen journalists exposing the extent of this theft and his family links to Democrat party. The MSM is bought and selects as Chomsky indicated
Wouldn't it be stranger if the left didn't have their own versions of Dacre and Murdoch with their own self interested agenda...
In 20 years of running LFW I'd be amazed if I'd read the term 'citizen journalism' on here once until very recently, suddenly Elon Musk says it and it's coming up a lot. Very strange phenomena watching adults parrot the catchphrases and talking points of their favourite billionaire.
Nevertheless, I actually agree with you, and Sharpy higher up, about the potential merits and importance of "citizen journalism" in this day and age to a certain extent.
The vandalism and ultimately death of local newspapers is fcking disastrous for local justice and democracy. If there's nobody there at these God awful council meetings, planning boards, magistrate court hearings, they can and will get away with all sorts of stuff. Look at the 'New Bermondsey' scandal that Labour Lewisham tried to force through a couple of years back, councillors and officers with their fingers all over an off the shelf development company. That was only really brought to light and stopped because a Guardian sports journo was a Millwall fan and used his platform to spotlight it and mobilise opposition. That used to be the job of local newspapers and without them there's loads of that sort of sht going on all over the country unchecked. Much of the campaigning, spotlighting, opposition now comes from 'citizen journalists' and bloggers. Up here in Barnet the Tory council offloaded basically the whole job to Capita at a cost of £638m a year to tax payers and the total collapse of local services - with no decent paper to speak of covering the area it's been left to four or five local residents running blogs to keep up the pressure, hold their feet to the fire and eventually it's led to a change in council.
Similar in football. The coverage from broadcasters and newspapers has gone not only to the Premier League, but to the top six teams in the Premier League. The coverage for clubs lower downs is now done by fan media. You, and others on this thread, clearly fcking hate me, but who else is going to go out and publish 10,000 words of interview with the QPR CEO? Once upon a time it might have been the Hammersmith and Fulham Gazette, now it's sites like this.
That's the good stuff.
The drawback is without an editor, without a sub editor, without media law training, the only thing stopping you setting up an anonymous Twitter account and/or blog, and going after somebody or something unfairly, inaccurately and maliciously is a libel action - which is expensive to bring for your everyday person, and difficult to win. I'm conscientious, I've done the media law, so I wouldn't do this, but let's say I decide I hate Rob Dickie and don't think he should be at our club. I could literally log into Twitter now and start shtposting about him. Could say anything. Could make up some horrible heinous sht about him. Try and properly ruin him. Because I've built up a following online, it could fly, people could believe it, if I did it well enough. Is it true? Doesn't matter. There's nothing to stop people doing it, so that's the potentially dangerous and damaging side of people running around calling themselves 'citizen journalists'.
"Its been a great source of truth during elections campaigns etc when the Murdoch press is doing its usual thing"
Comments like this just blow my mind. The blindness and bias is just off the scale
Honestly how do you square an opinion like that in the run up to the Trump Biden election NY Post posted an article on Twitter that revealed the contents of the laptop of Joe Biden's crackhead sons laptop.
As well as the videos, photos and messages of Hunter Biden drug taking and use of prostitutes. It also revealed details indicating bribery and corruption directly linked with "the big man". These in part involved with his role on the board of the Ukrainian Energy company Burisma
The article and references to it were removed from Twitter. It was labelled as "fake news", "Russian disinformation". Anyone talking about it negatively was either banned or had a fact check underneath their post.
Well a couple of years later it was proven... shocker... it was in fact true.
This story was suppressed. To influence a US election. This is why this thread is full of ridiculous whiny statements. Because they are upset "their side" can't censor and suppress the opposing views
Twitter was a tool for censoring right of centre and boosting the prominence of left of centre views. If it's made in to an equal playing field that terrifies the left. As had they not had this tool before then Trump would still be in power.
Also, how will Twitter cope with hardworking staff like this...
You do realise that what you call the left is really the friends of Big Business for globalisation? The only reason they throw minorities a few mercies is so, that they can get them to be wage slaves as well. More cheap workers for their rich company owners.
Please stop comparing the capitalist right with the socialist left just because you see a few capitalists chuck a few tiny mercies for just some but not all minorities and only now and again.
Democrats and Republicans are 100% pro-big business and markets. They will find every excuse to keep big business and the rich in charge. It's just the Republicans are more honest about it, which I have great respect for them as they are being transparent and honest about it.
Hunter is the son of their top man for being the main advocate of markets and big business so, yes they protected him as long as Sleepy Joe does their bidding, that's the deal no doubt they made with him. Big business makes deals like this all the time, they are good at it, it's what they do well.
It's interesting you say the so-called left doesn't like Twitter, as I remember the right in the USA saying that Twitter was full of avocado toast-eating lefties and Fox News is where proper news was (I hate avocado, I am a pie and chips man). Of course when the Christo-fascist right is blocked by the capitalist right (as the fascists sometimes don't always support the interests of Big Business and can get in the way of globalisation) then somehow it's the left's fault, even though no socialist has any power over these platforms or the media whatsoever in the USA.
The so-called left has zero political capability in the US, Sanders is too old and the Squad has zero power. Nancy Pelosi and the other capitalist Democrats have blocked them time and again. In addition, the rise of Christo-fascism has never been in the past challenged by the Democrats as both capitalist groups have the common idealogy of supporting Big Business and eroding the rights of the working people. So, they were tolerated, remember the Tea Party? That was the foundation of MAGA you see today and that was allowed to grow and grow, unchallenged by the so-called cancel culture lefties. As Frankie Boyle pointed out if MAGA peeps are cancelled so much how come we always hear them yelling about it so much and for so long?
Or course when it went too far with anti-abortion (which means private healthcare cannot make money) and ripping up trade deals that they spent decades crafting (NAFTA), then and only then did Biden come out and say they had gone too far. Only when they realised they needed the votes to stop the MAGA lot from ruining their Big Business deals internationally then and only then was MAGA bad.
Obama was no better, promised to close down Gitmo, but failed to do so, BLM as a movement was started under his watch and the protests got louder as he failed to do anything for Black people in America. So, let's just get this straight, Obama who claimed he was for change (failed to change by not closing Gitmo and he promised it) had the BLM movement start and grow under his watch as President because he was so bad at looking after Black people in the USA as he did zero for them so loony leftie corrupt BLM movement was created under his watch. Obama dealt with the great recession with the policies of austerity of course. Which we now know only helped the rich as was his intention. Obama is such a failure that his wife, who isn't a politician is considered better than him and it's well noted she is somewhat left of his policies.
What I think you really mean is the freedoms of protest and free speech without being monitored or blocked have been aggressively eroded over the years? Yes, you are correct and it's been done 100% by the right whingers.
We know this as no loony leftie like Corbyn has been anywhere near any power since Clem Attlee govt back in the 40s. We are heading towards almost 100 years ago now with no lefties in power!!!
Let's have some real evidence of this as I would not want you to feel snowflake cancelled. The latest example from the right is Braverman bringing in NEW sweeping powers (they already have enough) to block all protests (edging ever closer to Putin style). And big oil is right in there ensuring it happens, that is a real example of how yes indeed big business is involved in doing this to us and not some made-up loony leftie crybaby snowflake woke whingers. It's happening now and it is the right whingers who are doing it to us once again ... Source: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/public-order-bill-suella-braverman-anti-protest
To be clear here it is Braverman a right winger who is putting it into law to be enabled for big business to cancel you hard, not any loony lefties!
Even in the UK the only left-wing media paper is the Mirror and then it only supports the working class getting more socialist rights but not a fully socialist system. The Guardian is clearly a Starmer pro-big business fan and never really challenges the status quo of the markets. For every loony lefty Owen Jones, The Guardian has like 20 more sell-out Polly Toynbee's. The right will be after the Mirror next, it's the only one remaining so, they will target it for sure. Then GB News can grow unchallenged.
You talk about an equal playing field, what you really mean is 100% right-wing control of all media. Where is the balance for the socialist left in the UK media? Forgot about that did you? We on the left must be snowflakes for mentioning these facts.
You see it's not us loony lefties (as we have never had power) who do this, it's your lot on the right. And you keep voting for them or at least supporting their narrative. Now you complain when you are buried by them just like the left has always been, the difference is we don't support these people and then blame the other side for the actions of our own lot.
You will notice I have attacked Biden and Obama more than people like Braverman as at least Braverman is honest about her intentions. Not like slimy Biden, Obama and Starmer. Yes, we on the left have been complaining about these people long before you, please form an orderly British queue behind us, wait your turn.
This is the classic leopards ate my-face situation. You support these types of Braverman people who are doing it to you.
So, I shall put it in simple terms so I can be clear.
See the dividing lines now? I hope I was clear enough on the differences.
No one on the left has been anywhere near your rights or bullied you, as no one on the left has had any power to do so or even come close to it. This is nothing to do with us on the left, you don't even need to leave us out of it, we have no powers and are not in it anyway.
But keep supporting the leopards if it fuels your fantasy but don't think you will be "owning dem libtards" anytime soon as that would mean we would actually have some pull on anything!!!
I agree with this. On the one hand Twitter has been great for people building careers from scratch, there’s a guy who reports on the TV business which is my day job called Scott Bryan and he’s literally built himself up from Twitter into somebody who’s on BBC News everyday, and he’s absolutely great.
On the other it’s made a lot of journos and newspapers higher up incredibly slapdash and lazy. When you’ve got Laura Kuennesberg, the BBC political correspondent, standing on News at Ten reading out a Tweet from Dominic Cummings, without checks, without balances, without checking it’s accurate or true, that’s abysmal. Alastair Campbell would have had a fcking field day with that back in the day.
Quick story. We were interviewing for a new reporter on my team at work a little while back - as journo jobs go it’s a good one, fairly paid, good company, and a lot of international travel. The standard of applicant was abysmal, properly abysmal. We had a girl in from The Express, a national newspaper let’s not forget, I asked her one of my stock questions which is “if you’ve been away for a couple of weeks, and you come back in on Monday morning, where are you getting your news lines from that day?” The answer I want, basically, is PICK UP THE PHONE. Ring contacts, ring sources, how’s it going, what have I missed, what’s the gossip, what’s the latest on that thing? So many reporters now are terrified of the phone. She said, in a job interview, “I’d see what was trending on Twitter and Reddit and do my version of that.” I threw her a bone, nice lad that I am, and said “that absolutely won’t work on my team, how would you modify your approach?” She thought, sucked her teeth, and said “I’d probably have to change who I follow on Twitter and Reddit”.
So many wannabe journos think that’s the job now. Rather than building contacts, relationships, sources, give and take with a friendly copper etc.Demise of local newspapers has exacerbated this, and Twitter certainly has.
Thats really sad to hear Clive, my whole career was contacts, and digging a bit of information out, (helped by large quantities of alcohol from time to time).
It's no wonder political extremism is on the march, when it's so easy to put up unchallenged "news"
I agree with the comment above, about not saying anything you wouldn't say to someone's face in a pub.
In 20 years of running LFW I'd be amazed if I'd read the term 'citizen journalism' on here once until very recently, suddenly Elon Musk says it and it's coming up a lot. Very strange phenomena watching adults parrot the catchphrases and talking points of their favourite billionaire.
Nevertheless, I actually agree with you, and Sharpy higher up, about the potential merits and importance of "citizen journalism" in this day and age to a certain extent.
The vandalism and ultimately death of local newspapers is fcking disastrous for local justice and democracy. If there's nobody there at these God awful council meetings, planning boards, magistrate court hearings, they can and will get away with all sorts of stuff. Look at the 'New Bermondsey' scandal that Labour Lewisham tried to force through a couple of years back, councillors and officers with their fingers all over an off the shelf development company. That was only really brought to light and stopped because a Guardian sports journo was a Millwall fan and used his platform to spotlight it and mobilise opposition. That used to be the job of local newspapers and without them there's loads of that sort of sht going on all over the country unchecked. Much of the campaigning, spotlighting, opposition now comes from 'citizen journalists' and bloggers. Up here in Barnet the Tory council offloaded basically the whole job to Capita at a cost of £638m a year to tax payers and the total collapse of local services - with no decent paper to speak of covering the area it's been left to four or five local residents running blogs to keep up the pressure, hold their feet to the fire and eventually it's led to a change in council.
Similar in football. The coverage from broadcasters and newspapers has gone not only to the Premier League, but to the top six teams in the Premier League. The coverage for clubs lower downs is now done by fan media. You, and others on this thread, clearly fcking hate me, but who else is going to go out and publish 10,000 words of interview with the QPR CEO? Once upon a time it might have been the Hammersmith and Fulham Gazette, now it's sites like this.
That's the good stuff.
The drawback is without an editor, without a sub editor, without media law training, the only thing stopping you setting up an anonymous Twitter account and/or blog, and going after somebody or something unfairly, inaccurately and maliciously is a libel action - which is expensive to bring for your everyday person, and difficult to win. I'm conscientious, I've done the media law, so I wouldn't do this, but let's say I decide I hate Rob Dickie and don't think he should be at our club. I could literally log into Twitter now and start shtposting about him. Could say anything. Could make up some horrible heinous sht about him. Try and properly ruin him. Because I've built up a following online, it could fly, people could believe it, if I did it well enough. Is it true? Doesn't matter. There's nothing to stop people doing it, so that's the potentially dangerous and damaging side of people running around calling themselves 'citizen journalists'.
The crucial point here is it comes down to reputation. Everything comes back to that.
Using your example at the end. You use yourself as an example where after all these years of building a reputation so people would be in inclined to at least at first believe you if everything went rogue and to cash that all in to go after in this example Rob Dickie.
Let's carry that scenario on... what would happen next is it would eventually be revealed you were wrong/lying. So it would then be known that you cannot be trusted and the reputation you had built up would be lost or severely harmed. So if you then decided to move on and do the same to another player it wouldn't have the same impact.
So if any old nutter was to start making stuff up on Twitter (many of course do so). No one cares. They havent built a reputation so there is a higher bar to being believed and maintaining a following.
If in your bizarre example someone wants to cultivate a reputation over decades then just start blatantly lying that will erode or destroy their reputation depending on the extent of the lie. So I think your concerns although valid are overstated
While I think your concerns around MSM using the cloak of reputation that their institutionally brand names bring them to steer a narrative that is in the interests of big business or an elite totalitarian minority are understated.
Also on your insults around using the term "citizen journalist" I find a little bizarre. While you used the term "wannabe journalist". I didn't see the need to use a derogatory term
We were both talking about the exact same thing. I used that word because it is well understood what I am referring to as it's out there in common language now.
If you think you used a derogatory phrase because it harms your ego as you want to elevate the status of a more traditional journalist by attacking the out group.
(Lastly - I don't hate you. I find you irritating at times. But 99% of the time I very much enjoy your match reports and previews)
You do realise that what you call the left is really the friends of Big Business for globalisation? The only reason they throw minorities a few mercies is so, that they can get them to be wage slaves as well. More cheap workers for their rich company owners.
Please stop comparing the capitalist right with the socialist left just because you see a few capitalists chuck a few tiny mercies for just some but not all minorities and only now and again.
Democrats and Republicans are 100% pro-big business and markets. They will find every excuse to keep big business and the rich in charge. It's just the Republicans are more honest about it, which I have great respect for them as they are being transparent and honest about it.
Hunter is the son of their top man for being the main advocate of markets and big business so, yes they protected him as long as Sleepy Joe does their bidding, that's the deal no doubt they made with him. Big business makes deals like this all the time, they are good at it, it's what they do well.
It's interesting you say the so-called left doesn't like Twitter, as I remember the right in the USA saying that Twitter was full of avocado toast-eating lefties and Fox News is where proper news was (I hate avocado, I am a pie and chips man). Of course when the Christo-fascist right is blocked by the capitalist right (as the fascists sometimes don't always support the interests of Big Business and can get in the way of globalisation) then somehow it's the left's fault, even though no socialist has any power over these platforms or the media whatsoever in the USA.
The so-called left has zero political capability in the US, Sanders is too old and the Squad has zero power. Nancy Pelosi and the other capitalist Democrats have blocked them time and again. In addition, the rise of Christo-fascism has never been in the past challenged by the Democrats as both capitalist groups have the common idealogy of supporting Big Business and eroding the rights of the working people. So, they were tolerated, remember the Tea Party? That was the foundation of MAGA you see today and that was allowed to grow and grow, unchallenged by the so-called cancel culture lefties. As Frankie Boyle pointed out if MAGA peeps are cancelled so much how come we always hear them yelling about it so much and for so long?
Or course when it went too far with anti-abortion (which means private healthcare cannot make money) and ripping up trade deals that they spent decades crafting (NAFTA), then and only then did Biden come out and say they had gone too far. Only when they realised they needed the votes to stop the MAGA lot from ruining their Big Business deals internationally then and only then was MAGA bad.
Obama was no better, promised to close down Gitmo, but failed to do so, BLM as a movement was started under his watch and the protests got louder as he failed to do anything for Black people in America. So, let's just get this straight, Obama who claimed he was for change (failed to change by not closing Gitmo and he promised it) had the BLM movement start and grow under his watch as President because he was so bad at looking after Black people in the USA as he did zero for them so loony leftie corrupt BLM movement was created under his watch. Obama dealt with the great recession with the policies of austerity of course. Which we now know only helped the rich as was his intention. Obama is such a failure that his wife, who isn't a politician is considered better than him and it's well noted she is somewhat left of his policies.
What I think you really mean is the freedoms of protest and free speech without being monitored or blocked have been aggressively eroded over the years? Yes, you are correct and it's been done 100% by the right whingers.
We know this as no loony leftie like Corbyn has been anywhere near any power since Clem Attlee govt back in the 40s. We are heading towards almost 100 years ago now with no lefties in power!!!
Let's have some real evidence of this as I would not want you to feel snowflake cancelled. The latest example from the right is Braverman bringing in NEW sweeping powers (they already have enough) to block all protests (edging ever closer to Putin style). And big oil is right in there ensuring it happens, that is a real example of how yes indeed big business is involved in doing this to us and not some made-up loony leftie crybaby snowflake woke whingers. It's happening now and it is the right whingers who are doing it to us once again ... Source: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/public-order-bill-suella-braverman-anti-protest
To be clear here it is Braverman a right winger who is putting it into law to be enabled for big business to cancel you hard, not any loony lefties!
Even in the UK the only left-wing media paper is the Mirror and then it only supports the working class getting more socialist rights but not a fully socialist system. The Guardian is clearly a Starmer pro-big business fan and never really challenges the status quo of the markets. For every loony lefty Owen Jones, The Guardian has like 20 more sell-out Polly Toynbee's. The right will be after the Mirror next, it's the only one remaining so, they will target it for sure. Then GB News can grow unchallenged.
You talk about an equal playing field, what you really mean is 100% right-wing control of all media. Where is the balance for the socialist left in the UK media? Forgot about that did you? We on the left must be snowflakes for mentioning these facts.
You see it's not us loony lefties (as we have never had power) who do this, it's your lot on the right. And you keep voting for them or at least supporting their narrative. Now you complain when you are buried by them just like the left has always been, the difference is we don't support these people and then blame the other side for the actions of our own lot.
You will notice I have attacked Biden and Obama more than people like Braverman as at least Braverman is honest about her intentions. Not like slimy Biden, Obama and Starmer. Yes, we on the left have been complaining about these people long before you, please form an orderly British queue behind us, wait your turn.
This is the classic leopards ate my-face situation. You support these types of Braverman people who are doing it to you.
So, I shall put it in simple terms so I can be clear.
See the dividing lines now? I hope I was clear enough on the differences.
No one on the left has been anywhere near your rights or bullied you, as no one on the left has had any power to do so or even come close to it. This is nothing to do with us on the left, you don't even need to leave us out of it, we have no powers and are not in it anyway.
But keep supporting the leopards if it fuels your fantasy but don't think you will be "owning dem libtards" anytime soon as that would mean we would actually have some pull on anything!!!
I think you are having an argument with a preconceived construct of a type/group you perceive on social media but that very much is not me. You are entirely wrong about who I support.
I think your tangent you shot off on comes down to an issue of labelling. As I agree, Left and right labels no longer work in this current sense. I think you hit the nail on the head when you say Republicans and Democrats are pro big business.
It's the same here with Labour and Tory. As both are entirely captured by the Globalist big business agenda. COP27 recently. What the hell was Klaus Schwab doing there?! It's so transparent now
Our own billionaire Prime minister who no one voted for was there. Our tax burden is the highest it's been since WW2 but he's just turned that up even more. That's not right wing. He's got no intention of controlling immigration either. There is no Left or right in the UK anymore or the US political parties. Only big business
So when you talk of the controls on protests. I would refer you back to your own opening paragraph. It is the globalists and WEF who are in charge. That just happens to be that Tories are in power now. They are doing what the establishment tells them. Just as Starmer would as well. That Chomsky line, "you wouldn't be in that seat if you didnt do that" rings true here as well as not all are directly being bribed. The Thornberry, Abbots and Lammy's are just their useful idiots
Also on your off the mark comments about the leaning of the press. GB news can grow unchallenged because every other TV station is left wing (old labelling) Or in Sky News case a purely globalist agenda. C4, BBC and ITV are all heavily Labour/Lib Dem.
Google, Meta and until now Twitter are where most people consume news. This was curated with a Left / globalist bias. No doubt about that. That's the point you are missing
Do you remember how nuts people went about Cambridge Analytica. Since then this has been 1000x worse. As these companies have God mood to steer the algorithm and ban who they like without consistency applied on opposing opinions
I would suggest you and Frankie Boyle listen to the Joe Rogan Podcast with Jack Dorsey, the now sacked Vijaya Gadde and Tim Pool if you want to fill your knowledge gap about the one sided bias on the Twitter bans.
When you say, "No one on the left has been anywhere near your rights or bullied you, as no one on the left has had any power to do so"
The point your missing. Is what this thread is all about. The importance of the social media giants. Twitter a key part of this. Is run and controlled by people who would be labelled under the banner of the Left.
Has it stopped functioning yet? Did it die from a lack of humanities graduates being available to highlight their favourite "Moments" and "Discussions" of the day?
I might rejoin to see what it's like on there nowadays. Whatever it is, it surely can't be worse than when I left it in 2018/19 and everyone was still pretending Corbyn was a viable future PM.
Edit - I imagine if I called John McDonnell a marxist on here I'd be called a conspiracy theorist. But John McDonnell is my local MP and I've engaged with quite a lot of his guff, he is indeed a marxist. Glad we've all come around to accepting this.
Also GB News has both sides of the argument on every program, right? So, while not always the most convincing, not sure how they're being branded as "Unchallenged" - Peter Edwards ex-Labour List editor is on there fairly regularly disarming right-wing arguments. He's very good at it.
[Post edited 21 Nov 2022 10:29]
"Someone despises me. That's their problem." Marcus Aurelius
I think SM has it's place in the manner Clive described but it feels to me that accounts for a small proportion of its use. The rest is just a platform for a very surreal virtual world.
The crucial point here is it comes down to reputation. Everything comes back to that.
Using your example at the end. You use yourself as an example where after all these years of building a reputation so people would be in inclined to at least at first believe you if everything went rogue and to cash that all in to go after in this example Rob Dickie.
Let's carry that scenario on... what would happen next is it would eventually be revealed you were wrong/lying. So it would then be known that you cannot be trusted and the reputation you had built up would be lost or severely harmed. So if you then decided to move on and do the same to another player it wouldn't have the same impact.
So if any old nutter was to start making stuff up on Twitter (many of course do so). No one cares. They havent built a reputation so there is a higher bar to being believed and maintaining a following.
If in your bizarre example someone wants to cultivate a reputation over decades then just start blatantly lying that will erode or destroy their reputation depending on the extent of the lie. So I think your concerns although valid are overstated
While I think your concerns around MSM using the cloak of reputation that their institutionally brand names bring them to steer a narrative that is in the interests of big business or an elite totalitarian minority are understated.
Also on your insults around using the term "citizen journalist" I find a little bizarre. While you used the term "wannabe journalist". I didn't see the need to use a derogatory term
We were both talking about the exact same thing. I used that word because it is well understood what I am referring to as it's out there in common language now.
If you think you used a derogatory phrase because it harms your ego as you want to elevate the status of a more traditional journalist by attacking the out group.
(Lastly - I don't hate you. I find you irritating at times. But 99% of the time I very much enjoy your match reports and previews)
The reputation stuff is true to a certain extent, but it's undermined slightly by recent QPR history.
When I started overseeing this website in its Rivals format there was a poster on there who liked to think of himself as a bit of an "in the know" sort, with an inside track on what was going on at the club. The problem was, he kept getting stuff wrong. He'd say we were signing this player or that, and it wouldn't happen, and people on the Rivals board laughed and took the pis out of him. His 'reputation', in as much as any message board poster has a reputation, was that he was a bullshtter.
He subsequently went and set up his own QPR message board and website which he used to a) pedal his mostly incorrect transfer rumours, b) put stuff into the public domain on behalf of Gianni Paladini, c) chuck sludge around about me, Finney and several others. Now, 95% of this stuff wasn't true. He liked to tell people that I earned a tonne of money for running the QPR Rivals site, for instance - laughably false.
But people flocked to it. That message board is still there today, albeit now split into two rival sites itself and both under different ownership and control. By your post, he'd have been posting on there by himself, because his reputation on the Rivals board, and on the official message board when that existed, was that he was full of sht. But people went for it, and it quickly became one of the busiest QPR sites. People would ask him if he had "any more news" on when Ched Evans and Danny Graham would be signing, and he'd tell them "Danny Graham hasn't bought that house in Sunbury for no reason has he?" When Ched Evans and Danny Graham didn't sign, it didn't seem matter, just onto the next rumour he went, and everybody went with him. His reputation for lying did not preclude him from quickly establishing a following, a busy message board and then getting a job hosting the club's official podcast and pre-match shows etc.
(This all eventually led to a Paolo Sousa losing his job as a direct result of something posted on that message board. The legals of that nearly cost the producers of The Four Year Plan their deal with the BBC to show the doc because BBC compliance couldn't get their head around it and were nervous).
So to continue your overstate, understate theme... I think you may be overstating the value of a reputation when it comes to this sort of stuff - particularly if the person is saying something you want to hear or agree with. Alex Jones has an abysmal reputation, but he's able to build followings, channels, donations, careers, fortunes because he's saying things a certain demographic want to hear - the fact that it's mostly bullsht doesn't seem to matter.
In a couple of month's time, watch how many "bored intermediary/secret agent" anonymous Twitter accounts set themselves up pedalling false transfer rumours for the January window, watch how quickly they build a following, and watch how many sane, reasonable and sensible people start Tweeting them for "any news?" It's some spotty virgin on his mum's computer, but it flies.
Part of the problem is that people are addicted to rumors so it fuels sites like described above.
Yeh like I say, reputation, accuracy, truth matters a lot less to people when the source is saying something they agree with or something they want to hear.
The reputation stuff is true to a certain extent, but it's undermined slightly by recent QPR history.
When I started overseeing this website in its Rivals format there was a poster on there who liked to think of himself as a bit of an "in the know" sort, with an inside track on what was going on at the club. The problem was, he kept getting stuff wrong. He'd say we were signing this player or that, and it wouldn't happen, and people on the Rivals board laughed and took the pis out of him. His 'reputation', in as much as any message board poster has a reputation, was that he was a bullshtter.
He subsequently went and set up his own QPR message board and website which he used to a) pedal his mostly incorrect transfer rumours, b) put stuff into the public domain on behalf of Gianni Paladini, c) chuck sludge around about me, Finney and several others. Now, 95% of this stuff wasn't true. He liked to tell people that I earned a tonne of money for running the QPR Rivals site, for instance - laughably false.
But people flocked to it. That message board is still there today, albeit now split into two rival sites itself and both under different ownership and control. By your post, he'd have been posting on there by himself, because his reputation on the Rivals board, and on the official message board when that existed, was that he was full of sht. But people went for it, and it quickly became one of the busiest QPR sites. People would ask him if he had "any more news" on when Ched Evans and Danny Graham would be signing, and he'd tell them "Danny Graham hasn't bought that house in Sunbury for no reason has he?" When Ched Evans and Danny Graham didn't sign, it didn't seem matter, just onto the next rumour he went, and everybody went with him. His reputation for lying did not preclude him from quickly establishing a following, a busy message board and then getting a job hosting the club's official podcast and pre-match shows etc.
(This all eventually led to a Paolo Sousa losing his job as a direct result of something posted on that message board. The legals of that nearly cost the producers of The Four Year Plan their deal with the BBC to show the doc because BBC compliance couldn't get their head around it and were nervous).
So to continue your overstate, understate theme... I think you may be overstating the value of a reputation when it comes to this sort of stuff - particularly if the person is saying something you want to hear or agree with. Alex Jones has an abysmal reputation, but he's able to build followings, channels, donations, careers, fortunes because he's saying things a certain demographic want to hear - the fact that it's mostly bullsht doesn't seem to matter.
In a couple of month's time, watch how many "bored intermediary/secret agent" anonymous Twitter accounts set themselves up pedalling false transfer rumours for the January window, watch how quickly they build a following, and watch how many sane, reasonable and sensible people start Tweeting them for "any news?" It's some spotty virgin on his mum's computer, but it flies.
This post has been edited by an administrator
I don't think your message board example is entirely clear cut. It's valid. But I don't agree with your assessment to then dismiss the entire field of "wannabe journalists". Especially those that are genuinely independent
A message board can have a life of its own. People are there for all sorts of reasons
This board itself is selecting for very Left leaning Boomer types. Another board outside that (certainly generally speaking on the political spectrum) is a gap in that (small) market.
An individual posting articles or getting a Twitter following can only sustain that if they are reliable and have a decent hit rate. The market staying interested in educated guesses about Danny Graham signing is quite a small one if they are regularly wrong. Q Block Pete isn't becoming the next Fabrizio Romano based off that
Entertainment is a factor in all this as well. Which is another part of the dynamic. People can get attention for being entertaining. But that doesn't mean they are seen to have credibility even by those who consume their content
But that happens at all levels. Which fits in well with your line:
"reputation, accuracy, truth matters a lot less to people when the source is saying something they agree with or something they want to hear"
You seem to imply the "real" journalists get accuracy and truth and aren't equally at risk of just printing stuff that they or their readers want to hear. Or I would add publishing just big news so they get attention
Well let's look at two examples from just this week that I think disprove that the Established Press is any less guilty of the negative behaviours.
The Associated Press published a false article that two Polish citizens had been killed in Poland by Russian missiles. Potentially triggering a chain of events that could have caused WW3. Turns out they were wrong and they had been given bad information. Whoops!!
Also let's look CBS and CNN. 769 days after the NY Post (censored) story on the Hunter Biden laptop which they stated was disinformation and helped influence the elections. They now state it was in fact real:
But let's remember what they were saying before the election to influence the election using disinformation and censorship:
The CNN lies though on something as significant as Hunter Biden show that the MSM are just as if not more culpable then the "wannabe journalists". Twitter censorship that unsurprisingly leaned in favour of the Establishment potentially threw an election. So now it's good it's saying it will now be balanced in its treatment.
MSM has no credibility. They have abused the trust in their institutional names.
So independent media (Substack - Patreon funded is the least bad option). Reputation is the currency. MSM has lost its reputation in my view
I don't think your message board example is entirely clear cut. It's valid. But I don't agree with your assessment to then dismiss the entire field of "wannabe journalists". Especially those that are genuinely independent
A message board can have a life of its own. People are there for all sorts of reasons
This board itself is selecting for very Left leaning Boomer types. Another board outside that (certainly generally speaking on the political spectrum) is a gap in that (small) market.
An individual posting articles or getting a Twitter following can only sustain that if they are reliable and have a decent hit rate. The market staying interested in educated guesses about Danny Graham signing is quite a small one if they are regularly wrong. Q Block Pete isn't becoming the next Fabrizio Romano based off that
Entertainment is a factor in all this as well. Which is another part of the dynamic. People can get attention for being entertaining. But that doesn't mean they are seen to have credibility even by those who consume their content
But that happens at all levels. Which fits in well with your line:
"reputation, accuracy, truth matters a lot less to people when the source is saying something they agree with or something they want to hear"
You seem to imply the "real" journalists get accuracy and truth and aren't equally at risk of just printing stuff that they or their readers want to hear. Or I would add publishing just big news so they get attention
Well let's look at two examples from just this week that I think disprove that the Established Press is any less guilty of the negative behaviours.
The Associated Press published a false article that two Polish citizens had been killed in Poland by Russian missiles. Potentially triggering a chain of events that could have caused WW3. Turns out they were wrong and they had been given bad information. Whoops!!
Also let's look CBS and CNN. 769 days after the NY Post (censored) story on the Hunter Biden laptop which they stated was disinformation and helped influence the elections. They now state it was in fact real:
But let's remember what they were saying before the election to influence the election using disinformation and censorship:
The CNN lies though on something as significant as Hunter Biden show that the MSM are just as if not more culpable then the "wannabe journalists". Twitter censorship that unsurprisingly leaned in favour of the Establishment potentially threw an election. So now it's good it's saying it will now be balanced in its treatment.
MSM has no credibility. They have abused the trust in their institutional names.
So independent media (Substack - Patreon funded is the least bad option). Reputation is the currency. MSM has lost its reputation in my view
Fair degree of putting words in my mouth there. I'm not "dismissing an entire field", I literally wrote a post on this thread outlining some of the areas I think so-called 'citizen journalism' is really good and valuable. But then you knew that.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
