[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by MTVN

It's strange that in an era where newspapers are in perennial decline they are still credited with dictating the opinion of the country and deciding elections. To say the Conservatives won the election because of the Sun was rubbish in 1992 and it's even more rubbish now.

Not sure.

I was only just born then but my Dad says he recalls absolutely loads of people mentioning the Sun's headline on election day 1992 as to putting the lights out if Kinnock had won.

Now however, I think the papers have less influence.

Also as to the polls,they were not necessarily wrong, all polls have a plus or minus error margin of up to 3% either way.
Most had labour and the Conservatives neck and neck on 34% each, take that 3% add it to the Conservatives you get 37% and then take that 3% from Labour to 31%.
That was actually spot on what the final tally of votes was.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

No you can't be suggesting that the media don't influence the electorate can you?.....
Where else do people get the information they base their opinions on?

It's more of a sociological than political issue in my view, we have the rise and rise of the bouquet family who think they're better off because they're in more dept than anyone else on the street
That justifies it in their minds to align themselves with the elite as they look down on anyone who can't afford a 10ft conservatory

Of course they have an influence but the power of the newspaper media has declined a lot in recent decades. People now have basically an infinite choice of places to get their news so that it is no longer the case that a few select titles have a monopoly over information. On top of that politics and politicians are generally more accessible than ever before, they are more accountable to the public and we are all able to witness first hand their claims and promises and see how they stand up on the television, on radio, online etc. I'm tired of hearing that Murdoch is to blame or that voters are so simple to have been duped by what they read in today's rag rather than having the capability to make their own mind up.

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Not sure.

I was only just born then but my Dad says he recalls absolutely loads of people mentioning the Sun's headline on election day 1992 as to putting the lights out if Kinnock had won.

Now however, I think the papers have less influence.

Also as to the polls,they were not necessarily wrong, all polls have a plus or minus error margin of up to 3% either way.
Most had labour and the Conservatives neck and neck on 34% each, take that 3% add it to the Conservatives you get 37% and then take that 3% from Labour to 31%.
That was actually spot on what the final tally of votes was.

I'm sure it lives long in the memory because it was a very successful, eye-catching headline. But I believe that the Kinnock campaign had been losing ground for some time before that and that his defeat had no longer looked so unlikely, a lot of people seem to point to the Sheffield rally in particular as doing a lot of damage.

Of course it was before my time and I won't claim to be an expert on that election but I think it is very easy to have hindsight distorted in crediting one headline or the efforts of one paper in deciding an outcome

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Of course they have an influence but the power of the newspaper media has declined a lot in recent decades. People now have basically an infinite choice of places to get their news so that it is no longer the case that a few select titles have a monopoly over information. On top of that politics and politicians are generally more accessible than ever before, they are more accountable to the public and we are all able to witness first hand their claims and promises and see how they stand up on the television, on radio, online etc. I'm tired of hearing that Murdoch is to blame or that voters are so simple to have been duped by what they read in today's rag rather than having the capability to make their own mind up.

Then how do you account for the corroboration in the collective mindsets of the Murdock owned readership coinkydink?...

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Then how do you account for the corroboration in the collective mindsets of the Murdock owned readership coinkydink?...

Who's to say they do think the same? Where the Sun is concerned I doubt there is a significant difference between Labour supporting readers and Tory ones. And anyway it's fairly natural for people to read the paper that is more likely to reflect their stance. Newspapers follow public sentiment more than they dictate it.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Who's to say they do think the same? Where the Sun is concerned I doubt there is a significant difference between Labour supporting readers and Tory ones. And anyway it's fairly natural for people to read the paper that is more likely to reflect their stance. Newspapers follow public sentiment more than they dictate it.

You have infinitely more faith in people than I do. That's all I can really say.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Who's to say they do think the same? Where the Sun is concerned I doubt there is a significant difference between Labour supporting readers and Tory ones. And anyway it's fairly natural for people to read the paper that is more likely to reflect their stance. Newspapers follow public sentiment more than they dictate it.

The collective statements give it away 'Labour spent all the money' 'people on benefits are scroungers' ' immigrants are cockroaches'

I would say those type of statements were predominantly from the right wing media and negatively influence their readership.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

The collective statements give it away 'Labour spent all the money' 'people on benefits are scroungers' ' immigrants are cockroaches'

I would say those type of statements were predominantly from the right wing media and negatively influence their readership.

Now now Kizzy, those people might have deduced for themselves that Labour lost all of the country's money by carefully going through the party's spending records over their years in power and carefully contrasting them against studies of good economic practice and theories on economic growth.

They definitely, definitely didn't just read it in The Sun or hear it from their dad "who knows about these things". Because people are "smart". Apparently.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Now now Kizzy, those people might have deduced for themselves that Labour lost all of the country's money by carefully going through the party's spending records over their years in power and carefully contrasting them against studies of good economic practice and theories on economic growth.

They definitely, definitely didn't just read it in The Sun or hear it from their dad "who knows about these things". Because people are "smart". Apparently.

I'm not saying that people are not influenced by the media - I'm saying that it is now a much more open arena than it's ever been before and one title or one viewpoint does not have a monopoly on information. The media is simply one factor in the sphere of public opinion and public interaction with politics. It's true that the UK printed press lean more to the right overall but not by enough to swing a whole election. And y'know, sometimes these views do actually have some basis and are not just lies conjured up to line pockets. Yes Labour didn't cause the financial crash blah blah blah but there is a legitimate debate to be had over whether there was an element of mismanagement in the UK economy which failed to shield us from the worst of it.

But I suppose I am the one coming out with the nonsense view and that it's easier to stick with the belief that the press = tory so people = tory. The press hate immigrants so the people hate immigrants. Public opinion is simply defined by whatever the Sun prints today and that is only ever going to be cynical.