Post

I’m confused doesn’t it show the opposite happening, people are concerned about immigration so daily mail prints more articles about it.

The graphs do not prove causation. What’s the evidence for that?

Ah, spannend, danke für den Hinweis! Dann war ich vielleicht ja gar nicht auf dem Holzweg…

Unsurprising

Put that in my file for Social Problems in the fall

The oligarch press can always trigger the hard of thinking into handing them more power. Power which they can use to enrich themselves.

The media narrative on crime in NYC is also how we keep ending up with awful mayors here. Straight up manipulation of public opinion based on vibes.

And not just there and not just in tabloids. “Legit” media yammer on endlessly about the “migrant crisis.”

Yep. Immigration is always a scapegoat for power grabs.

Hi Grace, do you have a link to the FT article pls?

Love our illiberal liberal media so much.

Yeah, unless I'm missing something, this graph seems to indicate that concern precedes coverage???

People are deeply, deeply stupid. #sorry

Pretty much - that was my point. I don't love our tabloids but they don't always lead, sometimes they follow.

I probably agree with your position, but doesn't the graph show that, in the last decade, the reporting followed the general sentiment and not the contrary? Not trying to be annoying or anything, maybe I'm missing something.

📌

It doesn't even have to be noticeable. It works with statements that are false, and which the subject knows to be false. If the Daily Mail had spent 30 years telling us that the world is flat, a lot of well-educated people in the UK would now at least think it's debatable. See also: climate change

📌

The fascist party wants to replace the migratory labor with children. Read them like an open book.

would you look at that bsky.app/profile/seam...

Also threadreaderapp.com/thread/10964...

I spoke with countless voters over the phone, up and down the country during the GE. The Tories took over hotels, filled them full of migrants and deliberately caused social unease. I was astonished how often it came up with voters from all social classes and political persuasion. It’s real.

📌

My concern about Daily Mail articles is directly proportional to their coverage in other media.

It is indeed real, here is a data-driven insight: youtu.be/3XuSYEjwres

I had no idea what "Ofcom" was because I'm not from the UK, but apparently they're some sort of regulation, yes. But, in a neoliberal society where the rich have *ALL* the power, obviously someone who gets their paycheck from these assholes are going to be kept on a tight leash.

Can you link to the story with this chart? I'm having trouble tracking it down and want to send it to someone.

I think that both might be true - that one reinforces the other and vice versa. But what is also true is that the media *should* be in a better position to vet information and to think about it critically than the public is. This is (or used to be) one of its primary roles.

Can confirm, it's the same thing here in America The Biden administration pushed one of the most restrictive immigration platforms in modern US history and set records for apprehending migrants, but the media ran with the Trump narrative that it was an "open border" so it became the #1 voter issue

this makes me so sad, that some rag is dictating peoplea reality and they just take it for granted; I blame the public education system that failed generations of people making access to higher educated reserved only for rich elites

Ooh ooh now do “crime”

Fox News is destroying America

Because they cover what the people trying to shape public opinion are saying?

Actually bad take, it’s more tabloid entertainment masquerading as press. Y’know, like Fox News which had to clarify it was as such to get out of a lawsuit.

📌

Chris Lightfoot undefeated after 20(!) years. web.archive.org/web/20230321...

📌

Hi sorry do you have a link to the article that it’s from?

📌

Given how most of the mainstream media got consolidated by tycoons over the decades? Pretty much. It's also not a new phenomenon; Pulitzer vs Hearst trying to out-sensationalize the other is how we got the term "yellow journalism" in the first place.

It’s definitely true and a major enabler is Murdoch-owned media, which is incentivised to lie (or at least exaggerate) about immigration to make friends and money. The more Murdoch media you have in your country (US and UK vs Canada and NZ) the worse it is.

See this also: doi.org/10.1093/ijpo... «With its salience as a politically contested issue increasing, negative yet previously less relevant immigration preferences and evaluations transform more often into politically tangible attitudes and behaviors, such as support for far-right parties.»