On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 21:11:17 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 19/10/2020 10:38, tim... wrote:

not helped by biased headlines like this:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...sted-cash.html



Serious question: would many Daily Mail readers be expected to vote for
Khan at the best of times? While Bailey is not exactly a stereotypical
Mail reader's dream candidate either, he does seem to say things which
might align with their views on everything apart from that.


To what extent are readers' votes influenced by newspaper headlines? For
example, the Sun scrupulously says whatever Rupert dictates, but do typical
Sun readers share his politics views? The Mail traditionally appealed to
younger women, who aren't likely to be nearly as right wing

I remember having a heated alcohol-fuelled argument on just this with
a mature friend who was taking a media studies degree (in pre-Internet
days). I claimed that if you're only ever exposed to one side of an
argument then, of course, you'll tend to favour it. I was told that
people are exposed to many sources of information and I was accusing
newspaper readers of being too stupid to think for themselves.

The older I get the more I think I was right, as a generalisation. And
clearly the press barons are spending their money for a reason.

I don't claim to know the answer but it took me many years to realise
how strongly confirmation bias affects our opinions and just how
illogical human minds are.

It's therefore easy to come to the conclusion that getting your
opinion in early is the way to create a supporter for life (the Jesuit
approach?) but my political views were changed at University from
right to left, and this was at a place where many students' union
postholders were known to be Conservative but there was a ban on
standing for a post on a political or religious platform. What did it
for me were the well-attended union meetings (they were quorate which
meant, I think, 20% of the students present) which were the remains of
the debating society and conducted on that basis, with a structure
that allowed a wide range of views to be expressed with equal
emphasis, and an atmosphere that politely received the range of
opinions.

One union meeting included a talk on the free market by Keith Joseph.
He was applauded by all at the end, and the Q&A was polite but pointed
at times.

At another meeting we debated whether we would accept Enoch Powell
coming to speak to one of the academic departments. There was a no
platform policy adopted across the University of London but we voted
that an eminent speaker on classics was welcome, so long as he was
speaking about his specialisation, which he was.

It's only now, writing this, that I realise just how far we've fallen.