On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 13:10:39 +0100, "tim..." wrote:



"Trolleybus" wrote in message
.. .
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.

that might have worked 20 years ago when perhaps 50% of people took a daily
paper

but now that we are down at less than 15%, not sure it's gonna hold true



And even those who still read newspapers now have many other, faster, sources of news.