Latest Way They Influence Us (Tell Us. ) All How To Think

[Chekhov]

It just gets worse and worse.

 

I'd never heard of the Conscious Advertising Network before I read an article in The Times but its agenda is typical of way modern  woke society spreads its ideas about what should be "normal" and "acceptable".

It's co-founders were members of "Stop Funding Hate", a left wing campaign group, with a Motherhood and Apple pie name. But, of course hate to an over sensitive Woke-ist is not what most people would call "hate" anyway.

 

Amongst its political manifestos are the usual politically correct infatuations, e.g.  "Ad agencies should ensure that content is as diverse as the society it serves, from research to strategy to media placement" (though in actual fact what that usually means is for content to have a greater proportion of gay people, trans people and non-white people than the "society it serves").

 

And "Advertisers must take the responsibility to ensure they don’t fund mis/disinformation, click-bait and any intentionally misleading content." Again sounds reasonable, but hold on.... Who decides what is "disinformation" ? And, for example, would that include lockdown sceptics, who, we now know, were actually right in much of what they said at the time....

 

The group has campaigned to stop brands advertising in The Daily Mail, The Sun and the Mail, and GB News.

 

 It's deeply worrying, and I would be surprised if most people realised just how society is being manipulated in a thoroughly insidious manner.

[Anna B]

I don't agree with you on  everything, but on this I think you're right Chekhov.

 

We're only beginning to scratch the surface of how things really work. The sooner we realise how we're being manipulated the better.

 

"He that rules the media, rules the World, for he controls the minds of the Masses." 

 

Edited August 23, 2023 by Anna B

[Mister M]

This story was reported in the The Independent.

 

Senior Tories provoke advertising ‘boycott’ row with calls for PM to intervene | The Independent

 

I was initially drawn to the story because of the complaint by Dame Priti Patel, without any apparent irony, of "bullying".

Now we already know that when GBNews started broadcasting some companies pulled their advertising from that channel, as they didn't want to be associated with it, its ideology, or viewpoints .

 

In their defence, C.A.N said the following:

"The proposal for state intervention in the advertising industry called for in this letter is anti-freedom and anti-choice. Advertisers should be allowed to make commercial decisions that grow their brands and, by extension, the British economy."

“This means that hateful content and disinformation, wherever it is directed, is not commercially attractive for many. Do the MPs not support advertisers’ freedom to choose where they advertise, and ordinary Briton’s (sic) right to freedom from harm?”

 

Do you support the forcing of companies to pay to advertise on GBNews, which they do not wish to be associated with, simply because you agree with the views of GBNews?

 

EDIT: I should also add that it appears that GB News is hemorrhaging money 

GB News reports losses ten times greater than revenue (pressgazette.co.uk)

 

So why would Tories, who apparently believe in the free market, want to force companies to advertise on a channel they don't want to be associated with?

And why would Tories who don't believe in supporting 'lame duck industries', want to keep a company running and operational, which is losing money? 

Is it because GBNews pumps out the Government line, and is also being investigated (again) by Ofcom for breaches of its rules on impartiality?

Edited August 23, 2023 by Mister M

[Chekhov]

24 minutes ago, Mister M said:

the complaint by Dame Priti Patel, without any apparent irony, of "bullying".

I would be amazed, in fact absolutely astounded, is Patel was guilty of what I would consider "bullying".

I would have thought it would be far more likely that either :

 

1 - The "victim" was just a cotton wool wimp

or

2 - There was political over tones.....

[Mister M]

10 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

I would be amazed, in fact absolutely astounded, is Patel was guilty of what I would consider "bullying".

I would have thought it would be far more likely that either :

 

1 - The "victim" was just a cotton wool wimp

or

2 - There was political over tones.....

For the record:

Sir Alex Allan, appointed by the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson, investigated complaints from civil servants from a number of ministries where she was the minister responsible, and where there had been complaints of bullying by her.

Sir Alex, after having investigated the claims, found that on a number of occasions, Patel had indeed bullied those subordinate to her, and in so doing had broken the Ministerial Code. Breaking the Ministerial Code is, by tradition results in a resignation or dismissal. However 'Boris being Boris' wanted to form a line of defence around "the Pritster" (his description not mine). Consequently Sotr Alex Allan resigned from his role as Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards.

 

 

Edited August 23, 2023 by Mister M

[Chekhov]

39 minutes ago, Mister M said:

This story was reported in the The Independent.

Senior Tories provoke advertising ‘boycott’ row with calls for PM to intervene | The Independent

I was initially drawn to the story because of the complaint by Dame Priti Patel, without any apparent irony, of "bullying".

Now we already know that when GBNews started broadcasting some companies pulled their advertising from that channel, as they didn't want to be associated with it, its ideology, or viewpoints .

In their defence, C.A.N said the following:

"The proposal for state intervention in the advertising industry called for in this letter is anti-freedom and anti-choice. Advertisers should be allowed to make commercial decisions that grow their brands and, by extension, the British economy."

“This means that hateful content and disinformation, wherever it is directed, is not commercially attractive for many. Do the MPs not support advertisers’ freedom to choose where they advertise, and ordinary Briton’s (sic) right to freedom from harm?”

Do you support the forcing of companies to pay to advertise on GBNews, which they do not wish to be associated with, simply because you agree with the views of GBNews?

EDIT: I should also add that it appears that GB News is hemorrhaging money 

GB News reports losses ten times greater than revenue (pressgazette.co.uk)

So why would Tories, who apparently believe in the free market, want to force companies to advertise on a channel they don't want to be associated with?

And why would Tories who don't believe in supporting 'lame duck industries', want to keep a company running and operational, which is losing money? 

Is it because GBNews pumps out the Government line, and is also being investigated (again) by Ofcom for breaches of its rules on impartiality?

Nobody should be forced to do anything, but, the fact remains that this organisation is insidiously "encouraging" its woke view of the world on everyone.

 

"right to freedom from harm"

 

What kid of cobblers is that ?

I read their manifesto and it sounded like politically correct conditioning, nothing to do with "freedom from harm".

However, whenever I read stuff like "freedom from harm" it alarms me because is often a cover for "we think people are incapable of looking after themselves, so we will do it for them", like they tried to do during Covid  (censored).

Forget stuff like personal freedom and personal responsibility, that's old hat...

 

3 minutes ago, Mister M said:

For the record:

Sir Alex Allan, appointed by the then Prime Minister, investigated complaints from civil servants from a number of ministries where she was the minister responsible, and where there had been complaints of bullying by her.

Sir Alex, after having investigated the claims, found that on a number of occasions, Patel had indeed bullied those subordinate to her, and in so doing had broken the Ministerial Code. Breaking the Ministerial Code is, by tradition results in a resignation or dismissal. However 'Boris being Boris' wanted to form a line of defence around "the Pritster" (his description not mine). Consequently Sotr Alex Allan resigned from his role as Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards.

It comes down to how you define "bullying". And, as I said, I would be flabbergasted if Patel (or Dominic Raab for that matter) was guilty of what I would consider bullying.

But I am not a cotton wool wimp.

Edited August 23, 2023 by Chekhov

[Mister M]

12 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Nobody should be forced to do anything, but, the fact remains that this organisation is an insidiously "encouraging" its woke view of the world on everyone

 

"right to freedom from harm"

 

What kid of cobblers is that ?

I read their manifesto and it sounded like politically correct conditioning, nothing to do with "freedom from harm".

However, whenever I read stuff like "freedom from harm" it alarms me because is often a cover for "we think people are incapable of looking after themselves, so we will do it for them", like they tried to do during Covid  (censored).

Forget stuff like personal freedom and personal responsibility, that's old hat...

 

I don't know much about the organisation however if it is encouraging ethical advertising, or encouraging members to abide by Advertising Standards Authority codes and standards, well that's no bad thing.

I'm glad we have organisations like the Advertising Standards Authority which investigate complaints by members of the public. 

I don't regard "right to freedom from harm" as 'woke', as in being conscious of the world around you, just sensible.

I'm surprised you haven't picked up on the fact that it appears to be members of the Tory Party only who are condemning this organisation. But why should they? Aren't they trying to influence and tell people how to think by keeping GBNews going which promulgates a pro Conservative Government line?

Incidentally Checkov, I agree with you about personal responsibility - Patel should've shown personal responsibility by resigning her role as Home Secretary when she was found to have bullied staff. But of course she didn't. The party of personal responsibility are hypocrites of the first order.

Edited August 23, 2023 by Mister M

[Jack Grey]

Health and Climate Change 

 

Those have been weaponised to apply to any aspect of ours lives to be used to tax us and to undemocratically change laws and policy "For The Greater Good" 

[Mister M]

26 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

It comes down to how you define "bullying". And, as I said, I would be flabbergasted if Patel (or Dominic Raab for that matter) was guilty of what I would consider bullying.

Very easy to answer that one. Sir Alex Allan used the High Court's definition as interpreted by their analysis of the Ministerial Code.

Quote

But I am not a cotton wool wimp.

You did complain endlessly about having to wear a paper mask during the pandemic.

Edited August 23, 2023 by Mister M

[trastrick]

12 minutes ago, Jack Grey said:

Health and Climate Change 

 

Those have been weaponised to apply to any aspect of ours lives to be used to tax us and to undemocratically change laws and policy "For The Greater Good" 

When you run a society with strict rules based on subjective definitions of "harm", "hate", "bullying", and 'greater good". you are opening the door to charlatans who will define those terms, in any way they please! They will eventually deem them selves perpetual power, for the "greater good".

 

The definition of totalitarianism from Russia, Middle East to China and North Korea!

 

And why so called 'enlightened" populations, despite a thousand years of civilization can sink to economic and political chaos, and, of course the endless wars, that inevitably follow!

 

 

Edited August 23, 2023 by trastrick