Do you want to discuss boring politics? (4 Viewers)

[Grendel]

I was just pointing out how the different opinions access their information and how it would explain why the majority of papers his son delivers are right leaning.

But they don't - half of newspaper readers are under 55 and the main source of news for non Newspaper readers is the TV. There is not much difference on social media between non newspaper and paper readers.

Also age of readership hasn't shifted much for decades - its generally declining but in equal proportion

Its like when you make dumb comments about many wanting massive changes in capitalism - you just make nonsense up with no foundation

 

---

[COV]

But they don't - half of newspaper readers are under 55 and the main source of news for non Newspaper readers is the TV. There is not much difference on social media between non newspaper and paper readers.

Also age of readership hasn't shifted much for decades - its generally declining but in equal proportion

Its like when you make dumb comments about many wanting massive changes in capitalism - you just make nonsense up with no foundation

I am not disputing your figures but where is the source? Everything I see says that average age of readership is increasing & readership overall decreasing.

This is a good study, loads of data here. Having had a quick look its hard to disagree with what the Dreamer guy says?

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/116529/news-consumption-2018.pdf

* Circulation of national newspaper titles has decreased from almost 30 million in 2003 to 12.4 million in 2017.
* National Sunday titles have gone from 13.9 to 5.4 million and national daily titles from 13.3 to 7 million.
* Among the two fifths of adults who claim to consume news through newspapers, the most-used titles are the Daily Mail (31%), Metro (23%), The Sun (21%) and The Mail on Sunday (20%).
* 16-24s are more likely than those aged 65+ to read more of the titles. Those aged 65+ are more likely than 16-24s to read the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday.
* EMGs are more likely than non-EMGs to read more of the titles. Non-EMGs are more likely to read The Mail on Sunday

.. so younger people are more likely to read a range of papers, whereas older people are more likely to be rigid to the Mail, who'd have thought that

 

[shmmeee]

But they don't - half of newspaper readers are under 55 and the main source of news for non Newspaper readers is the TV. There is not much difference on social media between non newspaper and paper readers.

Also age of readership hasn't shifted much for decades - its generally declining but in equal proportion

Its like when you make dumb comments about many wanting massive changes in capitalism - you just make nonsense up with no foundation

Not sure that’s true, from:People most likely to vote Conservative are the least likely to get news online

 

[skybluetony176]

But they don't - half of newspaper readers are under 55 and the main source of news for non Newspaper readers is the TV. There is not much difference on social media between non newspaper and paper readers.

Also age of readership hasn't shifted much for decades - its generally declining but in equal proportion

Its like when you make dumb comments about many wanting massive changes in capitalism - you just make nonsense up with no foundation

That’s subscribers to print and online content not just print.

 

[Grendel]

I am not disputing your figures but where is the source? Everything I see says that average age of readership is increasing & readership overall decreasing.

This is a good study, loads of date here

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/116529/news-consumption-2018.pdf

* Circulation of national newspaper titles has decreased from almost 30 million in 2003 to 12.4 million in 2017.
* National Sunday titles have gone from 13.9 to 5.4 million and national daily titles from 13.3 to 7 million.
* Among the two fifths of adults who claim to consume news through newspapers, the most-used titles are the Daily Mail (31%), Metro (23%), The Sun (21%) and The Mail on Sunday (20%).
* 16-24s are more likely than those aged 65+ to read more of the titles. Those aged 65+ are more likely than 16-24s to read the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday.
* EMGs are more likely than non-EMGs to read more of the titles. Non-EMGs are more likely to read The Mail on Sunday

Yougov is the source - why should i provide the link when Dreamer can't - everyone knows its a decline but the belief that young people have more intelligent sources to find whats going on is bonkers. Where do they look? Love Island?

 

[COV]

Yougov is the source - why should i provide the link when Dreamer can't - everyone knows its a decline but the belief that young people have more intelligent sources to find whats going on is bonkers. Where do they look? Love Island?

The report I just linked shows that younger people are more likely to use a variety of sources for news whereas older groups don't vary as much- you can argue that "more" is not the same as "more intelligent" but you could also argue that a wider range of sources could give more perspectives & promote individual thinking- but either way how is he so badly wrong in what he says?

 

[shmmeee]

Yougov is the source - why should i provide the link when Dreamer can't - everyone knows its a decline but the belief that young people have more intelligent sources to find whats going on is bonkers. Where do they look? Love Island?

Yes G the all on their iBerries watching Love Island and listening to hippety hop.

Its not that out there to suggest digital natives use digital natively.

 

[COV]

 

[Grendel]

The report I just linked shows that younger people are more likely to use a variety of sources for news whereas older groups don't vary as much- you can argue that "more" is not the same as "more intelligent" but you could also argue that a wider range of sources could give more perspectives & promote individual thinking- but either way how is he so badly wrong in what he says?

The report I just linked shows that younger people are more likely to use a variety of sources for news whereas older groups don't vary as much- you can argue that "more" is not the same as "more intelligent" but you could also argue that a wider range of sources could give more perspectives & promote individual thinking- but either way how is he so badly wrong in what he says?

Half of all print and online news subscribers are over 55, survey shows

Half of all current newspaper subscribers are aged over 55, new Yougov research shows.

www.pressgazette.co.uk

 

[COV]

Half of all print and online news subscribers are over 55, survey shows

Half of all current newspaper subscribers are aged over 55, new Yougov research shows.

www.pressgazette.co.uk

I don't see how that proves that what Dreamer said is wrong

 

[Grendel]

I don't see how that proves that what Dreamer said is wrong

Because he says more access stuff online - what that means and how Twitter is more sophisticated than say The Times one can only speculate - but it says not many source news online at all doesn’t it?

 

[COV]

Because he says more access stuff online - what that means and how Twitter is more sophisticated than say The Times one can only speculate - but it says not many source news online at all doesn’t it?

No on the contrary I think, the opposite.

The scary thing is how many people apparently get their news from Instagram, Facebook & Twitter... however the report also says thats part of a combination of sources, so its not so bad.

I think the general gist is that younger people hoover up their news from all kinds of sources all over the place online, as opposed to rely on one single source which is what older people tend to do. For me I just browse- I might see the same story in multiple places, and all that happens is that I marvel at how the same event can be described so differently in different places, and end up making a (subconscious I guess) assumption on what the truth actually is.

Not expressing an opinion on whether thats good/ bad/ indifferent but the ofcom report does tend to back up what he was saying

 

[Grendel]

No on the contrary I think, the opposite.

The scary thing is how many people apparently get their news from Instagram, Facebook & Twitter... however the report also says thats part of a combination of sources, so its not so bad.

I think the general gist is that younger people hoover up their news from all kinds of sources all over the place online, as opposed to rely on one single source which is what older people tend to do. For me I just browse- I might see the same story in multiple places, and all that happens is that I marvel at how the same event can be described so differently in different places, and end up making a (subconscious I guess) assumption on what the truth actually is.

Not expressing an opinion on whether thats good/ bad/ indifferent but the ofcom report does tend to back up what he was saying

But the You Gov data says that’s not the case? It says the only news source significant deviation is TV

 

[Grendel]

“Older people use one single source”

Aging Well

Aging Well resources

www.ag.ndsu.edu

 

[COV]

But the You Gov data says that’s not the case? It says the only news source significant deviation is TV

I am referring to the one I put up:

"TV is the most-used platform for news nowadays by UK adults (79%), followed by the internet (64%), radio (44%) and newspapers (40%). However, the internet is the most popular platform among 16-24s (82%) and ethnic minority groups (EMGs) (73%)."

I may be wrong but the yougov survery seems to have a sample of 2,145 whereas the Ofcom one is three times that?

Its not big deal either way, but I think the facts & data show that Mr Dreamer is nowhere near as off the mark as you say, thats all.

 

[SBAndy]

What a bizarre hill to die on.

 

[Deleted member 4439]

What a bizarre hill to die on.

on which, what a great and brave film that was for its day

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Yougov is the source - why should i provide the link when Dreamer can't - everyone knows its a decline but the belief that young people have more intelligent sources to find whats going on is bonkers. Where do they look? Love Island?

Point out exactly where I said younger people had "more intelligent" sources? I said they primarily had different sources, which they do. An alarming number of people go to Facebook/Twitter or some such which is IMO worse as a large amount of the time the info isn't even fact checked. The papers often have a political slant to put on things and will ignore stories that don't suit their narrative or big up ones that do even if there's little story there.

I only know four households that still have a paper delivered. Three of those are retired (2 in their 60's, one in their 70's) and 2 get the Mail. The other one, and the last household who are a bit younger (50's) get the Sun,

I'll also point out that the point being made was about paper deliveries. Although you'd have thought it may have altered a bit with home working and the pandemic, Younger people now weren't getting a paper delivered because they've mainly gone to work before it gets delivered nowadays so whats the point. People that have time to do that are those that are retired i.e. older. Younger people will look online. If they do read a physical paper it'll be one they pick up themselves or a free Metro on their commute.

 

[Grendel]

Point out exactly where I said younger people had "more intelligent" sources? I said they primarily had different sources, which they do. An alarming number of people go to Facebook/Twitter or some such which is IMO worse as a large amount of the time the info isn't even fact checked. The papers often have a political slant to put on things and will ignore stories that don't suit their narrative or big up ones that do even if there's little story there.

I only know four households that still have a paper delivered. Three of those are retired (2 in their 60's, one in their 70's) and 2 get the Mail. The other one, and the last household who are a bit younger (50's) get the Sun,

I'll also point out that the point being made was about paper deliveries. Although you'd have thought it may have altered a bit with home working and the pandemic, Younger people now weren't getting a paper delivered because they've mainly gone to work before it gets delivered nowadays so whats the point. People that have time to do that are those that are retired i.e. older. Younger people will look online. If they do read a physical paper it'll be one they pick up themselves or a free Metro on their commute.

According to PVA Facebook is swamped by older people and I’ve linked a post that says there’s huge growth in older people using online - what are you on about?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

According to PVA Facebook is swamped by older people and I’ve linked a post that says there’s huge growth in older people using online - what are you on about?

There is growth in the older market because as is to be expected they're more slow to switch to new forms. There can't be much growth in an age-group that almost exclusively uses online sources already.

I see you ignored the point I made that I said it was different sources, not "more intelligent" ones.

 

[Grendel]

There is growth in the older market because as is to be expected they're more slow to switch to new forms. There can't be much growth in an age-group that almost exclusively uses online sources already.

I see you ignored the point I made that I said it was different sources, not "more intelligent" ones.

To be fair I switch off when you put most of your diatribe together - if you think anyone reads the shite you put together you are delusional

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

To be fair I switch off when you put most of your diatribe together - if you think anyone reads the shite you put together you are delusional

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

To be fair I switch off when you put most of your diatribe together - if you think anyone reads the shite you put together you are delusional

So, just proving you have your opinion and anything different you just ignore or dismiss. You have a closed mind. And thus remove any modicum of credibility you may have had. No wonder you're pretty much a meme and a bit of a laughing stock on here.

I do read what you put even though most of it is complete crap and just the regurgitation of what those people you doff your cap to want you to think. But it does give me a good laugh at times. And it's also a good acid test. "Does Grendel disagree with me? Yes? Good, I'm probably on the right lines."

 

[Grendel]

So, just proving you have your opinion and anything different you just ignore or dismiss. You have a closed mind. And thus remove any modicum of credibility you may have had. No wonder you're pretty much a meme and a bit of a laughing stock on here.

I do read what you put even though most of it is complete crap and just the regurgitation of what those people you doff your cap to want you to think. But it does give me a good laugh at times. And it's also a good acid test. "Does Grendel disagree with me? Yes? Good, I'm probably on the right lines."

Most of the country disagrees with you and your constant views based on some chip on shoulder bitterness

What made you so bitter and resentful?

 

[shmmeee]

Most of the country disagrees with you and your constant views based on some chip on shoulder bitterness

What made you so bitter and resentful?

You’ve swallowed a bit too much American political discourse. The polling doesn’t back you up at all. Brits are mostly pro public services and pro supporting the vulnerable. The majority are economically on his side not yours. All polling in the last decade or so confirms this.

 

[shmmeee]

No words.



I’d love to have been a fly on the wall in her selection meeting. Imagine how pissed you’d be to have her selected over you. WTAF.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

No words.



I’d love to have been a fly on the wall in her selection meeting. Imagine how pissed you’d be to have her selected over you. WTAF.

Great come back from Raab. However the question stands. I would have said ok that’s a no and moves on

 

[shmmeee]

Great come back from Raab. However the question stands. I would have said ok that’s a no and moves on

This is what bothered me most about Corbyns time. The quality of MPs we got because they were selected for loyalty and not quality. And it’s basically a job for life.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

This is what bothered me most about Corbyns time. The quality of MPs we got because they were selected for loyalty and not quality. And it’s basically a job for life.

Maybe not in the Labour Party presently

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Great come back from Raab. However the question stands. I would have said ok that’s a no and moves on

Ugh.

But no, the electorate aren't stupid at all, nope!

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Most of the country disagrees with you and your constant views based on some chip on shoulder bitterness

What made you so bitter and resentful?

What are you talking about? I mention about you have a closed mind and just repeat the mantras of the powerful and apparently the majority of the population disagree with me? I didn't realise you were so famous and popular that we'd polled the country on your thought processes.

Plus if we're talking about governance by popular opinion then China holds over 10% of the world's population and their method of governance is almost universally popular there. Putin has a massive popularity level as well. Meanwhile here we largely think the PM is a buffoon, albeit a charismatic one and in the US it's split pretty much down the middle. So I guess going by what is popular we ought to ditch our systems and follow ones more akin to theirs. Do you not agree? Or do you think the popular opinion is flawed due to the inherent biases and controls of the system itself?

I'm not bitter or resentful, just exasperated and frustrated that so many people are taken in by the guff they get fed on all sides of the political spectrum.

 

[Philosoraptor]

What are you talking about? I mention about you have a closed mind and just repeat the mantras of the powerful and apparently the majority of the population disagree with me? I didn't realise you were so famous and popular that we'd polled the country on your thought processes.

Plus if we're talking about governance by popular opinion then China holds over 10% of the world's population and their method of governance is almost universally popular there. Putin has a massive popularity level as well. Meanwhile here we largely think the PM is a buffoon, albeit a charismatic one and in the US it's split pretty much down the middle. So I guess going by what is popular we ought to ditch our systems and follow ones more akin to theirs. Do you not agree? Or do you think the popular opinion is flawed due to the inherent biases and controls of the system itself?

I'm not bitter or resentful, just exasperated and frustrated that so many people are taken in by the guff they get fed on all sides of the political spectrum.

To be honest with you SBD, Democracy itself is flawed but it is the least harmful of the systems of Government.

What makes Democracy worthwhile is the intrinsic natures of Liberty and Equality found within it.

It is a shame that the political parties within this democratic framework do not have the same high standards.

 

[Grendel]

What are you talking about? I mention about you have a closed mind and just repeat the mantras of the powerful and apparently the majority of the population disagree with me? I didn't realise you were so famous and popular that we'd polled the country on your thought processes.

Plus if we're talking about governance by popular opinion then China holds over 10% of the world's population and their method of governance is almost universally popular there. Putin has a massive popularity level as well. Meanwhile here we largely think the PM is a buffoon, albeit a charismatic one and in the US it's split pretty much down the middle. So I guess going by what is popular we ought to ditch our systems and follow ones more akin to theirs. Do you not agree? Or do you think the popular opinion is flawed due to the inherent biases and controls of the system itself?

I'm not bitter or resentful, just exasperated and frustrated that so many people are taken in by the guff they get fed on all sides of the political spectrum.

Will Boris Johnson be one of the great prime ministers?

Boris Johnson may have been unable to work his magic on the burghers of Chesham as he did on fellow G7 leaders last weekend at Carbis Bay. But as he approaches his second anniversary in power next month, it is worth asking whether he is on track to become one of the landmark prime ministers

www.spectator.co.uk

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Will Boris Johnson be one of the great prime ministers?

Boris Johnson may have been unable to work his magic on the burghers of Chesham as he did on fellow G7 leaders last weekend at Carbis Bay. But as he approaches his second anniversary in power next month, it is worth asking whether he is on track to become one of the landmark prime ministers

www.spectator.co.uk

Not registered, but didn't realise the Spectator had taken up scriptwriting for stand-up.

 

[skybluetony176]

Will Boris Johnson be one of the great prime ministers?

Boris Johnson may have been unable to work his magic on the burghers of Chesham as he did on fellow G7 leaders last weekend at Carbis Bay. But as he approaches his second anniversary in power next month, it is worth asking whether he is on track to become one of the landmark prime ministers

www.spectator.co.uk

That article might have a minuscule amount of credibility if it didn’t dismiss the PM who delivered the longest period of sustained growth in U.K. history as a landmark PM.
Introduced the minimum wage, banned fox hunting, Britannia was cool again, GDP went through the roof, devolution, GFA. I can’t stand the bloke and believe the Iraq war was a lie he should face justice for but to not recognise the good things he done and dismiss him as a landmark PM the article is clearly written by someone with an agenda and therefore completely unbalanced.