|
|
Post by Jan on Feb 22, 2018 9:54:46 GMT
Totally incorrect.
We have a political system which allows parties to form and project unlimited opinions across the political spectrum.
The Daily Mail being popular and Labour only winning 3 elections in the last 40 years isn't mutually exclusive.
You say totally incorrect and then say nothing to actually refute my point. I didn't say the Mail is the reason for the relative lack of success of the Labour Party. I would count the Blair/Brown government as part of the political class that was more concerned about what the Mail said than any other newspaper. No you are wrong. Blair considered the Sun (much higher readership than Mail at the time, and a different demographic) to be the key newspaper which is why he courted Murdoch so diligently - this paid off in 1997 when it switched sides to back him in the general election that year - it continued to support Labour for 12 years till Brown was in power in 2009 and he too regarded the support of that paper as key and did all he could to retain it. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Snow on Feb 22, 2018 9:59:20 GMT
I don't know - should the police or the army be right wing? They are publicly funded as well after all. So we should just accept everything the Daily Mail does because otherwise its readers will go rabidly racist and homophobic seems an odd argument particularly when the British political class has spent the last 30 years listening to the Mail above any other newspaper yet the Mail still prints front pages calling judges traitors for doing their job and is just as rabidly anti immigrant as it ever has been. What do you do about a media outlet which is happy to lie and inflame on issues such as Brexit and faces no serious consequences. Personally I couldn't care less whether the boycott or not but organisations make these kind of decisions all the time on commercial grounds and this is hardly an attempt to stop it publishing. NO they shouldn’t. I accept organisations seem to have a natural biase, but I think we are really in agreement here. Imagine the out cry if I wrote “but I think the idea of right-wing police and military organisations actively dissociating themselves from publications that they don't agree with politically isn't exactly an anti-free speech/pro-censorship stance” and one can see how wrong that statement was. We don’t have to accept everything they say but I believe it is wrong to dismiss everything they say/believe. RE Media outlets. Back when everyone actually read newspapers it was common to hear someone say “but then you can’t believe everything you read in the Newspapers”. It was not uncommon to know people who read both the Times and The Guardian or The Mirror and The Mail and they had a healthy scepticism of what was in both. These days people seem to accept the paper that is on ‘their side’ has a monopoly on the truth and that some other outlet must be demonised for producing nothing but ‘fake news’. Let us not forget that both the Mirror and The Sun were caught phone tapping. Do you want to suggest a media out let that is not accused of bias? Personally I think this is getting worse across the board. You reference Brexit. Dio you now accept the Medai in general were guilty of sins of ommission in undereporting the pro feelings in the lead up to the vote. Thats why the result came as a shock to so many people. IMO there was clear bias towards the status Quo. It may also have led to a certain apathy leading to remainers not doing enough to make the case. Re the commercial grounds. As was pointed out in the opening post (not by me) stopping advertising in the Mail would likely hit the industry in their own pocket and most relevant to the way this discussion has evolved, reduce the exposure of Theatre going Mail readers to ‘alternative’ naratives. As I said, it’s complicated. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2018 11:15:23 GMT
It isn’t that complicated. Theatre is for everyone. It can be a powerful arena where the voices of the marginalised can be heard. It can investigate society in the most powerful of ways. It should be a means of speaking of things that journalism elects to ignore. For example when Brexit was declared most papers revealed the rise in racial attacks but they couldn’t give you the sense of what that means for the ordinary person who was the victim of that: I heard that around that time a lot of Muslim students stopped going into university because they encountered threats on transport (trains etc) and were terrified; Or the impact of this climate of austerity on those experiencing poverty, a class of person reduced to the status of benefit scrounger by the DM. I am not convinced that its readers will come and watch plays that might give you a humane insight into these and other issues. In any case the boycott is of the DM not its readers. I think it is important that theatres declare their position here. And I don’t necessarily think that’s at all political.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2018 13:52:17 GMT
It isn’t that complicated. Theatre is for everyone. It can be a powerful arena where the voices of the marginalised can be heard. It can investigate society in the most powerful of ways. It should be a means of speaking of things that journalism elects to ignore. For example when Brexit was declared most papers revealed the rise in racial attacks but they couldn’t give you the sense of what that means for the ordinary person who was the victim of that: I heard that around that time a lot of Muslim students stopped going into university because they encountered threats on transport (trains etc) and were terrified; Or the impact of this climate of austerity on those experiencing poverty, a class of person reduced to the status of benefit scrounger by the DM. I am not convinced that its readers will come and watch plays that might give you a humane insight into these and other issues. In any case the boycott is of the DM not its readers. I think it is important that theatres declare their position here. And I don’t necessarily think that’s at all political. 'It isn't that complicated, theatre is for everyone?'
You're spot on with the latter part of your statement but sadly deluding yourself with the first.
Of course it's complicated!
Do you think everyone who steps foot inside a theatre is left-wing, pro-EU, pro-same sex marriage and pro-refugees?
Do you think that people's political conscience forms according to what they do in their bedroom a few times a week and who to?
Do you not understand how UKIP picked up more voters from Labour's traditional Northern support than they did from the Tories?
Do you not know that Jeremy Corbyn is staunchly against our membership of the EU if you look at his documented statements throughout his career?
LIFE IS COMPLICATED!!!!!!!!!
And as for 'I think it is important that theatres declare their position here '... why? You do know that for 146 years it has been acknowledged in this country that political conscience is a personal and private thing, don't you?
I don't read the Daily Mail but providing it doesn't break the law - criminal or civil -it has a right to say whatever it wants regardless of what you, I or anyone else thinks. People are entitled to their own beliefs you know...
So, it is complicated and theatre IS for all whether they are left or right wing... Ah, did you not realise that that is acknowledging diversity too?
LIFE IS COMPLICATED!!! LONG MAY IT CONTINUE!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2018 15:36:53 GMT
It isn’t that complicated to make a decision about whose services you use in order to promote your own “products”. Center Parcs didn’t find it that complicated. They considered that their brand would have been compromised had they chosen to advertise in a paper they considered anti-family, meaning family in all it’s possible permutations. As a company they had the right to do that and theatres can make the same choice if they wish to. I feel that this debate is running away from us. All the arguments about freedom of speech etc don’t seem to take into account the idea that theatres have freedom of choice about where they place their ads etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2018 15:39:11 GMT
It isn’t that complicated. Theatre is for everyone. It can be a powerful arena where the voices of the marginalised can be heard. It can investigate society in the most powerful of ways. It should be a means of speaking of things that journalism elects to ignore. For example when Brexit was declared most papers revealed the rise in racial attacks but they couldn’t give you the sense of what that means for the ordinary person who was the victim of that: I heard that around that time a lot of Muslim students stopped going into university because they encountered threats on transport (trains etc) and were terrified; Or the impact of this climate of austerity on those experiencing poverty, a class of person reduced to the status of benefit scrounger by the DM. I am not convinced that its readers will come and watch plays that might give you a humane insight into these and other issues. In any case the boycott is of the DM not its readers. I think it is important that theatres declare their position here. And I don’t necessarily think that’s at all political. 'It isn't that complicated, theatre is for everyone?'
You're spot on with the latter part of your statement but sadly deluding yourself with the first.
Of course it's complicated!
Do you think everyone who steps foot inside a theatre is left-wing, pro-EU, pro-same sex marriage and pro-refugees?
Do you think that people's political conscience forms according to what they do in their bedroom a few times a week and who to?
Do you not understand how UKIP picked up more voters from Labour's traditional Northern support than they did from the Tories?
Do you not know that Jeremy Corbyn is staunchly against our membership of the EU if you look at his documented statements throughout his career?
LIFE IS COMPLICATED!!!!!!!!!
And as for 'I think it is important that theatres declare their position here '... why? You do know that for 146 years it has been acknowledged in this country that political conscience is a personal and private thing, don't you?
I don't read the Daily Mail but providing it doesn't break the law - criminal or civil -it has a right to say whatever it wants regardless of what you, I or anyone else thinks. People are entitled to their own beliefs you know...
So, it is complicated and theatre IS for all whether they are left or right wing... Ah, did you not realise that that is acknowledging diversity too?
LIFE IS COMPLICATED!!! LONG MAY IT CONTINUE!!!
You don’t have to shout at me about life being complicated. I know quite a few black and immigrant people who voted for Brexit. I don’t agree with them but that is their choice. I’m not sure that this is the issue here. .. Jeez, i can’t be bothered to explain. Let’s just say that I support The decision of Centerparcs and other companies to not do business with DM and will support theatres who do the same. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Feb 22, 2018 15:50:18 GMT
I think a lot of the distain for Media Studies I think a lot of the disdain for that course over the years has come from a class of people who already have their foot in the media door, which they make use of when their offspring leave Oxford. For kids with no family connections and no London base, it looked like a possible way in to it. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Snow on Feb 22, 2018 15:58:25 GMT
It isn’t that complicated to make a decision about whose services you use in order to promote your own “products”. Center Parcs didn’t find it that complicated. They considered that their brand would have been compromised had they chosen to advertise in a paper they considered anti-family, meaning family in all it’s possible permutations. As a company they had the right to do that and theatres can make the same choice if they wish to. I feel that this debate is running away from us. All the arguments about freedom of speech etc don’t seem to take into account the idea that theatres have freedom of choice about where they place their ads etc. A few posters have tried to minimise this debate by saying its just a simple commercial decision. Have you ever run a business? I repeat that the opening poster stated this. "Because, despite their very right-wing angle, it's one of the the country's most read papers and most direct routes to 'Middle Englanders' with disposable income who tend to buy expensive theatre tickets, particularly to plays Read more: theatreboard.co.uk/thread/4375/petition-theatre-industry-boycott-daily#ixzz57qwSXr6b" I bet the Daily Mail have much deeper pockets than ANY Theatre in the land. Boycott them and I know who'll go bust first. I agree. Thats simple economics. However no one's done anything to convince me this is just a commercial decision. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2018 16:23:35 GMT
'It isn't that complicated, theatre is for everyone?'
You're spot on with the latter part of your statement but sadly deluding yourself with the first.
Of course it's complicated!
Do you think everyone who steps foot inside a theatre is left-wing, pro-EU, pro-same sex marriage and pro-refugees?
Do you think that people's political conscience forms according to what they do in their bedroom a few times a week and who to?
Do you not understand how UKIP picked up more voters from Labour's traditional Northern support than they did from the Tories?
Do you not know that Jeremy Corbyn is staunchly against our membership of the EU if you look at his documented statements throughout his career?
LIFE IS COMPLICATED!!!!!!!!!
And as for 'I think it is important that theatres declare their position here '... why? You do know that for 146 years it has been acknowledged in this country that political conscience is a personal and private thing, don't you?
I don't read the Daily Mail but providing it doesn't break the law - criminal or civil -it has a right to say whatever it wants regardless of what you, I or anyone else thinks. People are entitled to their own beliefs you know...
So, it is complicated and theatre IS for all whether they are left or right wing... Ah, did you not realise that that is acknowledging diversity too?
LIFE IS COMPLICATED!!! LONG MAY IT CONTINUE!!!
You don’t have to shout at me about life being complicated. I know quite a few black and immigrant people who voted for Brexit. I don’t agree with them but that is their choice. I’m not sure that this is the issue here. .. Jeez, i can’t be bothered to explain. Let’s just say that I support The decision of Centerparcs and other companies to not do business with DM and will support theatres who do the same. So, and correct me if I'm wrong, you'd support all inclusive and diversity supporting theatres boycotting The Mail even if it meant that people with a different political belief to you missed out on tickets simply because of the paper they read? Can you remind me how 'theatre is for all' or does that only apply to people you find acceptable? |
|
5,062 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Feb 22, 2018 16:30:16 GMT
No doubt that the Daily Mail is a well read papers and provide the needs for middle England, it also does some terrific investigative journalism at times, however unfortunately it also has opinions of one that can be divisive and nasty. A newspaper that shamefully backed the Blackshirts in the 1930's, to today pixilating the face of the poor Syrian child washed up on a beach and a paper that was less than sympathetic of the murder of Jo Cox. So what has changed in 80 years?
As for Baz who I think is terrific and I can emotionally divorce him from the paper he writes for, why wouldn't he write for the most popular newspaper, he hasn't shared his newspaper opinion. We all know that his exclusive scoops are paid for product launches via marketing budgets, so not really a coup de theatre.
The paper doesn't have a theatre reviewer, it just has an awful journalist that shares his role with politics, he chooses to attend the National Theatre only when he knows he will get offended and use it as a stick to beat the way the theatre is funded, I also notice he is very reluctant to review at subsidised Northampton and Dernsgate Theatre, I wonder why, perhaps the AD will know!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2018 17:28:44 GMT
You don’t have to shout at me about life being complicated. I know quite a few black and immigrant people who voted for Brexit. I don’t agree with them but that is their choice. I’m not sure that this is the issue here. .. Jeez, i can’t be bothered to explain. Let’s just say that I support The decision of Centerparcs and other companies to not do business with DM and will support theatres who do the same. So, and correct me if I'm wrong, you'd support all inclusive and diversity supporting theatres boycotting The Mail even if it meant that people with a different political belief to you missed out on tickets simply because of the paper they read? Can you remind me how 'theatre is for all' or does that only apply to people you find acceptable? I am not at all interested in the political views of other audience members. I don’t think this is an issue of censoring readership or the views of the readership. It is about the DM and the way it thinks it can get away with its rampant sexism, the way it objectifies (especially very young) women and in ways that are both subtle and unsubtle espouses and promotes homophobia. Readers of DM who are interested in Theatre can do what the rest of us do to find out about shows...go online. Every single theatre has an online presence. By the way, you have given me something new to think about...perhaps we should boycott theatres that support the DM. And Wright’s fgs please don’t take that last comment literally and start shouting at me again. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2018 17:58:47 GMT
So, and correct me if I'm wrong, you'd support all inclusive and diversity supporting theatres boycotting The Mail even if it meant that people with a different political belief to you missed out on tickets simply because of the paper they read? Can you remind me how 'theatre is for all' or does that only apply to people you find acceptable? I am not at all interested in the political views of other audience members. I don’t think this is an issue of censoring readership or the views of the readership. It is about the DM and the way it thinks it can get away with its rampant sexism, the way it objectifies (especially very young) women and in ways that are both subtle and unsubtle espouses and promotes homophobia. Readers of DM who are interested in Theatre can do what the rest of us do to find out about shows...go online. Every single theatre has an online presence. By the way, you have given me something new to think about...perhaps we should boycott theatres that support the DM. And Wright’s fgs please don’t take that last comment literally and start shouting at me again. But not everyone does find them offensive so, I'll ask again, why do you believe that your opinion is Gospel and the opinion of others is wrong? Why would you think it is acceptable to arrange boycotts of Theatres and potentially put them out of business simply because a Newspaper said something you found offensive? Joke or no joke. I'm genuinely intrigued and interested. See, far from appearing as the all embracing, diversity championing person you think you're being you are coming across as a rather intolerant person who only wants certain views to be acceptable. If theatre is for all that includes everyone whether they vote Labour, Green, Liberal, Tory, UKIP or the Monster Raving Looney party regardless of what Newspaper they read! The Daily Mail is held accountable to law - both criminal and civil - and beyond that can say whatever they want. You can either accept that people see the World differently from you or be offended. I know what way I choose to be. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2018 18:22:05 GMT
@wrighty I have decided to leave this forum but before I do so I will answer your question: yes, I am intolerant of sexism and homophobia. Very much so. I am not a saint, far from it but as far as I am able to I do try to live by my beliefs. I don’t champion anyone but myself by the way. I am not in any position to do so, being neither a journalist, Theatre AD or politician.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Feb 22, 2018 18:30:23 GMT
People please consider carefully before using CAPITAL LETTERS.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Snow on Feb 23, 2018 10:01:45 GMT
“I am not at all interested in the political views of other audience members. “
Concisely defines the real problem here. There is less attempt to understand and find consensus in society than I can ever recall. Newspapers are under threat and so they reduce their message to apply to the die hards only. Social media produces tribes. And both “sides” are becoming more totalitarian.
And with that depressing summary I wish you all a pleasant day.
|
|
2,496 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Feb 23, 2018 11:39:40 GMT
I like Baz, but the Mail is homophobic and racist, and its about time they stopped benefitting from leaks from the theatre companies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Feb 23, 2018 12:03:43 GMT
A newspaper that shamefully backed the Blackshirts in the 1930's The Daily Mirror did too. Interestingly even into the late 1960s when it was generally a Labour-supporting paper the Mirror owner was criticising Harold Wilson for being too slow in joining the EU which he saw as a racially pure bulwark against Russia and the USA, as did his close friend Oswald Mosely. I'm not sure holding organisations to task for their opinions in distant history is valid - for example the Democrat Party in USA was the party of the slave owners and (in many instances subsequently) of segregationalism and the KKK too - at what point does that cease to be relevant ? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2018 12:52:19 GMT
Iam convinced that one of the reasons why Hillary Clinton lost is because her people did not listen to the views of enough people. They cocooned themselves inside their own little bubble, talking only to their supporters and tame PR outlets. Ignore/sideline the Daily Mail at your peril. Make their readers feel they are shunned and you open their ears to Tommy Robinson/Donald Trump. If only Clinton had campaigned to get the key support of Russian oligarchs and white nationalists the way that Trump did. Kleptocrats are supposed to stick to hollowing out their own economy and taking over the levers of power but I guess they’ve been so successful in Russia that they appear to be diversifying to competitor nations now. That element exists within British society too but they already shun mainstream media, getting their ‘fake news’ from the likes of Robinson, Alex Jones and so on. As such, The Daily Mail doesn't get off the hook just because there are people more extreme than them. Should they banned? No. They should be treated with scorn and contempt instead. |
|
2,496 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Feb 23, 2018 13:13:05 GMT
A newspaper that shamefully backed the Blackshirts in the 1930's The Daily Mirror did too. Interestingly even into the late 1960s when it was generally a Labour-supporting paper the Mirror owner was criticising Harold Wilson for being too slow in joining the EU which he saw as a racially pure bulwark against Russia and the USA, as did his close friend Oswald Mosely. I'm not sure holding organisations to task for their opinions in distant history is valid - for example the Democrat Party in USA was the party of the slave owners and (in many instances subsequently) of segregationalism and the KKK too - at what point does that cease to be relevant ?
Considering their fawning coverage of Marie La Pen, the daily mail hasn't changed since the 30's
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2018 13:14:19 GMT
See, far from appearing as the all embracing, diversity championing person you think you're being you are coming across as a rather intolerant person who only wants certain views to be acceptable. .... The Daily Mail is held accountable to law - both criminal and civil - and beyond that can say whatever they want. You can either accept that people see the World differently from you or be offended. I know what way I choose to be. Well, certain views are most definitely unacceptable (although different for different people and existing independently of any legal system). If you disagree can you now please explain why expressing antisemitistic views is acceptable? Can you please explain why propounding ideas of racial superiority are acceptable? That murder is acceptable? That’s the road you are on, or maybe accept that everyone finds different views acceptable or otherwise. Laws merely reflect the society they are created in, as such a law is also not always acceptable to everyone, so hiding behind the law is no answer either. Look at laws demanding racial segregation in America, for example. When the law isn’t enough, break it. There is no definite right or wrong, just fighting for what you find acceptable. The hope is that you win, the fear is that you don’t but it’s a battle, always a battle. ‘Acceptable’ is an individual’s view of the world and that makes it a never ending fight. |
|
5,062 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Feb 26, 2018 17:06:18 GMT
A newspaper that shamefully backed the Blackshirts in the 1930's The Daily Mirror did too. Interestingly even into the late 1960s when it was generally a Labour-supporting paper the Mirror owner was criticising Harold Wilson for being too slow in joining the EU which he saw as a racially pure bulwark against Russia and the USA, as did his close friend Oswald Mosely. I'm not sure holding organisations to task for their opinions in distant history is valid - for example the Democrat Party in USA was the party of the slave owners and (in many instances subsequently) of segregationalism and the KKK too - at what point does that cease to be relevant ? Daily Mail have run a story this weekend that no one is truly homeless in Ely and quoted the local police officer, which is fair enough, except, we are about to enter the coldest time this Winter and plenty of genuine homeless people will suffer, where people will have second thoughts about donating, if they printed this in the Spring it would be prefable. The Daily Mail is the Javert of the media. |
|
1,972 posts
|
Post by sf on Feb 26, 2018 17:33:42 GMT
And let's not forget that they've spent YEARS dismissing Media Studies as a Mickey Mouse subject, To be fair I think a lot of the distain for Media Studies is students studying it moaning about having to pay tuition fees.
Why should we have to foot the bill for them to study such a subject?
We live in a world that is changing very, very quickly, and the changing nature of mass media is one of the most significant forces driving social and political change. We're seeing a political landscape in which, particularly across the Atlantic, the political discourse is being shaped to fit the needs of a ratings-driven mass media - that's why those "town halls" on the American news networks so often descend into gladiatorial confrontation: conflict makes good television. I'd say it's absolutely a worthwhile field of study - though perhaps more at the postgraduate level. I do think it's a subject that is not always taught well, and that does not always do the greatest job of justifying itself, but those are separate issues. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2018 18:47:22 GMT
I'm honestly baffled at some newspapers. There was an occasion a while back where the Mail was challenged over one of its EU-bashing stories and a spokesperson from the paper admitted that the story was fabricated but defended it by saying that the paper wanted to show its readers what would happen if it had been possible (without ever admitting the fictional nature of the story in the paper itself, of course).
So what is it that makes some people think "I want to be a journalist, so I can spread lies and create a false reality, lead my readers into making misguided or flat-out wrong decisions, spread hatred and violence, and generally do what I can to wreck people's lives, because as things are right now there just isn't enough misery in the world"? Why would a journalist set out to write a story that they know is a lie? Is the pay that good?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2018 20:52:24 GMT
Brexit, Trump and the larger than expected vote Catweazle Corbyn got last year were all almost anti establishment protests. A lot of theatre goers could well read the Daily Mail so asking Theatre Industry to boycott it would probably have an adverse effect on the industry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2018 8:45:17 GMT
I've long resisted posting here as genuinely I find it a difficult one. I find the Mail abhorrent in it's views, and I seriously think they walk dangerously close to a line of what's legal in our libel and privacy laws at times, as well as those on 'hate speech'. But equally, if they aren't breaking the law, I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of the press so who am I to say they should be outright shut down if I don't agree with them?
Alongside that I recognise that the Mail is a key player in theatre marketing. If you look at their weekend supplements they run interviews/features/reviews in those magazines on theatre with equal regularity as say, the Guardian and they give theatre a hell of a lot of air time- something we all cry out for. And they reach 'middle England' (as it were). Again who I am to say that these people shouldn't be allowed to buy, or encouraged to buy theatre tickets? if they're buying tickets that keep the very theatres I love afloat.
So while it's a vile hate filled rag of a newspaper, it's readers probably think the Guardian is...well we know what they think that is. So how can I ask for it to be shut down (as long as it stays on the right side of that law).
As for Baz, the logistics of the PR aside- that's a media game and we all know it. I find the personal attacks on him at best distasteful and at worst hypocritical from those decrying the Mail. (I'm not talking about having a valid debate about what he does or says, that's obviously fair game). Personally Baz has been a great supporter, and I can't say a bad word against the man personally as much as I know him. Where he chooses to work is frankly his own business (equally some of my extreme Guardian reading friends would decry my current temp job for being 'evil' and 'part of the problem' but a gal's gotta eat...).
|
|
