I've been a fan of Gogglebox on Channel 4 for a number of years. I find it illuminating and amusing. The format is simple: have groups of 2 or 3 TV viewers -- family members or friends -- comment on each week's television programmes, either in praise, condemnation or mockery. The attraction of watching their reactions is that you come to know them and their individual tastes, prejudices, etc, and the producers make a special effort in choosing people with a witty or sardonic viewpoint, pithily expressed. Some of the best are unintentionally funny simply because of their naivety or ignorance.
The programmes chosen for comment are mainly light entertainment or current affairs rather than news and politics. Last night I watched a short segment of the latest Gogglebox that unusually dealt with the negotiations surrounding the war in Ukraine and the efforts by Trump to reach a ceasefire. The reactions of five or six of the resident groups were shown, and they were highly instructive.
A shot of Zelensky in his uniform of black shirt casual brought forth a sympathetic clucking of concern, as a mother for her besieged son, and I think I heard the word "hero" expressed, though I wouldn't swear to that. A brief shot of Starmer was greeted with appreciative heartfelt remarks that he was dong his very best to "hold the balance" between the US and EU in their differing levels of support for Ukraine.
In other words, the general feeling of the groups mirrored exactly the spin and slant that the media is employing in print, TV and radio. This is that Russia is the wicked aggressor of a 'full-scale invasion" (copyright BBC) and that Trump is sincere in trying to bring peace to the region (no mention in the reports shown of course that the US is supplying most of the arms to keep the war going. And no backstory of the West urging Ukraine to join Nato and Boris Johnson's sabotaging of peace talks. Etc etc etc.)
So what, you may ask, is the point of posting this on TGN? For me, watching just 10 minutes of this Gogglebox was a necessary corrective to my worldview and my involvement here. Because we are vigilant and instinctively untrusting of the media landscape we tend to forget (or I do) that the vast majority of the "ordinary" viewing public accept without query or doubt the BBC version of political reality. The people featured in the programme are not stupid or unfeeling or unkind, but their exposure to alternative and dissenting views is not far from zero. Coming here each day and following the links to Chris Hedges, Brian Berletic, Grayzone,, the Judge, ML, Caitlin Johnstone (and on and on) it's fatally easy to believe that most other people are as broadly interested and informed. Ten minutes of Gogglebox soon settled that.
Re: Gogglebox revisited
Posted by RaskolnikovX on March 13, 2025, 7:00 pm, in reply to "Gogglebox revisited"
Interesting post Scrabb. I'm aware of the show but never really watched it (saw bits of the one with Shaun Ryder and Bez just because they are always comedy gold) but the underlying point, as you summarise in the last paragraph, is something I have experienced.
When I mention something that I expect people to be completely aware of thinking they they will either agree and we'll exchange information or disagree and we can fight I often just get blank looks and blinking. As soon as you start talking about "doubting the official version" or "alternative media" you can see the "conspiracy theory" lights going on in their heads and the conditioning kicks in.
Sometimes you get someone that is open and says, well I don't know about that, tell me and then you can try and explain but more often they just want to pivot away or laugh it off. I'm talking here of acquaintances that I run into at very rare family/social gatherings rather than close friends.
Most of my close friends have always been to the right of me by a long way and now they seem to be influenced by social media and the more alt-righty side of things so when I mention Hedges or Caitlin, Media Lens or any of the ideas brought up regularly here it's like speaking a foreign language. One example from a while back, the subject of the BBC came up and they were saying how bad it was and various other comments and then one of them said something like, "They have this stupid agenda" and went into the "It's all woke" kind of spiel that you will see on Twitter all the time. When I chimed in with a criticism of it from the left the blank looks and blinking immediately came out.
The sad thing is, the propaganda works and it's hard not to sound like the "Wake up sheeple!" guy when you are talking to people fed only on that.The corporate media are complicit in the Gaza genocide. Never forget what they did. Never forgive them for it.
On topics like this, which I have spent countless hours of my life studying in detail, simply because these are the world-changing topics whose truth needs to be really, really understood if one is not to live a lie (and so what better way to spend one’s available time), I regard virtually everyone as having to be managed so that the interaction can go smoothly. I am not an activist in the sense of feeling entrapped by a mission to change anybody in any forum in which they have any excuse to not reflect on what I am saying for the reason I am self-evidently riff-raff. These are big events, but only non-speaking bit-parts to interactions that have their own local politics in which others will likely have defined me, based on what they already think they know about me, long before I ever enter the scene. It is therefore, much, much, much better to engage by listening and generally doing to them what they aimed to do to me, namely manage them as people who, in the fullness of time, will end up expressing strong or objectively extreme opinions that need to be handled as such, than to enter into any kind of discussion at all.
It's people like you wot give human beings a good name.The last working-class hero in England.
Clio the cat, ? July 1997 - 1 May 2016 Kira the cat, ? ? 2010 - 3 August 2018 Jasper the Ruffian cat ? ? ? - 4 November 2021
Re: Gogglebox revisited
Posted by Ian M on March 13, 2025, 7:31 pm, in reply to "Gogglebox revisited"
I'd caution against drawing conclusions about public opinions from a TV show. If one of the participants aired a dissenting view do you think C4 would even air it?
Yougov did some polling back in Feb which still shows fairly strong support for continuing the war & the UK's role in it. However on most of the questions there is usually a solid 20-30% opposed (over 50% opposed to the more maximalist aims of directly targeting Russian forces, sending troops to Ukraine etc]. Depressingly it seems like a lot of these are the Reform-voting libertarian right, but still it means that out of every 10 'normal' people you see represented in media, 2 or 3 should be criticising the official narrative or questioning political stances taken by the govt. I'd be very surprised if this turned out to be the case, for the usual reasons of the media's role being to manufacture consent for what the govt & corporations want to do.
cheers, I
*****
Ukraine war three years on – where do Britons stand on a potential peace deal?
Matthew Smith Head of Data Journalism Politics & current affairs International February 20, 2025, 9:37 AM
Britons think that Russia plans to attack Ukraine again anyway if it accepts a deal
Monday marks the third anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. With the US and Russia holding peace talks in the Saudi capital of Riyadh, a new YouGov survey explores British public opinion to the ongoing peace talks, as well as the wider conflict.
Notably, the Ukrainian government has found itself excluded from the US-Russia talks, which president Volodymyr Zelenskyy has diplomatically described as “surprising / disappointing”. Almost eight in ten Britons (78%) say it is unacceptable for Ukraine not to be included in peace negotiations – including 65% who describe it as “completely unacceptable”.
European leaders also find themselves shut out of the negotiations, and 58% of Britons likewise say it is unacceptable that European governments aren’t party to talks (although a much lower rate of 28% say it is “completely” unacceptable). What do Britons think is likely in terms of a peace deal?
The majority of Britons (55%) think it is likely that the US and Russia will agree a peace deal in the next few months, and more still (73%) believe that, if such a deal is reached, it is likely to leave Russia in possession of conquered territory.
Consequently, it is perhaps unsurprising that only 21% think that Ukraine would be likely to accept a deal agreed between the US and Russia – and especially so when 65% expect that, were Ukraine to accept a deal, Russia would launch another war on them in the next decade.
Separately, the survey also shows that 60% of Britons think it is likely that Russia will attack further European countries (other than Ukraine) within the next ten years.
In the event that a peace deal was reached that left Russia in control of conquered territory 55% of Britons say they would feel negatively about it. A further 21% say they would be neutral and only 10% pleased.
Britons say they want Ukraine to win, but they aren’t willing to provide more aid
When it comes to attitudes towards the war more generally, a total of 67% of Britons say that they both want Ukraine to win and care a great deal or fair amount that it does so.
However, only a plurality of 44% say that their preferred approach for the West to take is to support Ukraine until such a time as Russia withdraws, even if this means the war and its effects last longer. [32% were in favour of 'a negotiated peace to end the fighting, even if this means Russia still has control over some parts of Ukraine']
Only 11% believe that the West is providing Ukraine with sufficient aid to actually win the war, yet despite Britons’ stated desire to see Ukraine triumph, there is little support to increase our national contribution to that goal. While 41% are happy for the UK to maintain current levels of aid to Ukraine, only 24% want to see it increase.
These results represent something of a bounce-back from our last poll in December, when 62% had said it mattered a great deal or fair amount to them that Ukraine won, and only 36% had wanted to keep supporting Ukraine until victory – it is not clear to what extent the prior results were an outlier or if recent events have focussed minds on the issue.
Reform UK voters differ in their views of the Ukraine conflict
Other recent YouGov research has shown that Reform UK voters differ significantly in their views on the conflict to other voters, and this survey is no exception.
For instance, while 77-86% of Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem voters say they want Ukraine to win, and that it matters a great deal or fair amount to them that they do so, this figure falls to just 47% of Reform UK voters. One in ten Reform voters (10%) say that they want Russia to win, compared to 2-5% of voters from the other parties.
Reform voters are similarly much less likely to want to increase or maintain support to Ukraine, to say they would react negatively to a peace deal that left Russia in control of conquered territory, or to suspect that Russia is likely to cause more conflict in the next decade.
Other recent YouGov findings on the Ukraine conflict and defence issues include
Only 3% of Britons agree with Donald Trump’s apparent suggestion that the war is Ukraine’s fault In the event of a peace deal, 58% would support sending British soldiers to serve as peacekeepers alongside other European nations, as Keir Starmer has proposed By 46% to 28%, Britons would support the formation of a European Army that included the UK Only 30% would support increasing taxes in order to pay for greater defence spending
Posted by scrabb on March 13, 2025, 11:48 pm, in reply to "link"
Thanks Rask and Ian M for your thoughts.
Iam M: I'd caution against drawing conclusions about public opinions from a TV show. If one of the participants aired a dissenting view do you think C4 would even air it?
Yes I do. The show likes dissent. Politicians and celebrities are quite often criticised and mocked, sometimes in fairly crude working-class language. Trump is the favourite target for abuse, though not the only one
Having worked in TV I'm aware that "drawing conclusions about public opinions from a TV show" is probably not a good idea.
The point I was trying to make is that not a single view expressed in this particular segment (discussing Ukraine and the "peace" process) was at odds with the overall corporate media narrative, evidence to me that all their information came from establishment mainstream sources. Indeed, it would have been refreshing, and the producers would have seized on it, had one of the participants said we were to blame for starting the war and gave reasons for it. The plain fact is that none of them had bothered to seek opposing views from alternative sources. They all thought they had the correct overall picture, even if they had disagreements and differing interpretations of the "fact" amongst themselves.
I came away from the programme feeling it was a lesson and a warning to me not to assume that a sizeable proportion of "ordinary" TV viewers had the remotest notion of alternative dissenting views and where to find them.
Re: Gogglebox con'd...not Gogglebox but...
Posted by Ed on March 14, 2025, 12:14 am, in reply to "Gogglebox con'd"
...as you mentioned the "all singing from the same hymn book" sort of thing concerning Ukraine/Russia, I posted a while back about a TV series I was watching where in a scene where one woman is holding another woman prisoner in the cellar, the one holding the prisoner goes into a diatribe about wicked people, mentioning a few, including Putin, saying "We all know he's a psychopath". Ok, no big deal maybe, but it was said so casually and just highlighted to me how comfortable the writer and all those involved with this production (including the actors) were with including this line, almost as if they knew they were singing to the choir and it would just be accepted as fact, without even a flicker of dissent...like members of a club, all nodding sagely to each other. Stuff like that just jumps out at you when you are used to seeking out alternatives to the msm bollox.
I've never watched it but I vaguely remember the bloke from the Happy Mondays looking really rough and I think that it was from this programme. As is so often the case, experts moving out of their field can come off as knob-heads. I've never got over learning that Siouxsie Sioux shouldn't speak her mind, even when there's something it it. I'm glad that I was educated as a generalist even if it means that I'm skint for most of me life.The last working-class hero in England.
Clio the cat, ? July 1997 - 1 May 2016 Kira the cat, ? ? 2010 - 3 August 2018 Jasper the Ruffian cat ? ? ? - 4 November 2021
The little "casual" events like that ARE the big deal because they sneak by under the radar and everyone just nods and agrees without a further thought.
Thank you for your contribution, shyaku, even though I didn't understand a word of it. .
Re: Gogglebox con'd
Posted by Ian M on March 14, 2025, 8:22 pm, in reply to "Gogglebox con'd"
Scrabb said: 'Yes I do. The show likes dissent. Politicians and celebrities are quite often criticised and mocked, sometimes in fairly crude working-class language. Trump is the favourite target for abuse, though not the only one [...] it would have been refreshing, and the producers would have seized on it, had one of the participants said we were to blame for starting the war and gave reasons for it.' - Yeah, I can't see it ever happening. Some topics are just too sensitive to the PTB to pass through the filters. When Farage (of all people) said that NATO provoked the war the condemnation and accusations of treachery were wall-to-wall in the msm, so I think producers would feel very nervous about attracting that kind of attention, even if was good for ratings.
I don't watch much TV any more, but I do keep an eye out for comedy/entertainment programmes that bill themselves as edgy or politically controversial. They all come across as highly managed, blustering hard about certain topics and raging against the individual politicians who they're allowed to rage against, but incredibly sensitive about other subjects, either ignoring them completely or tiptoeing around them so carefully that you can't even understand the point they're trying to make.
The fact that none of the Gogglebox participants strayed outside the bounds to me indicates that this is one of those 'third rail' issues where dissent is completely unacceptable, to the point of being unthinkable.
Posted by Keith-264 on March 14, 2025, 9:27 pm, in reply to "Re: Gogglebox con'd"
"The fact that none of the Gogglebox participants strayed outside the bounds to me indicates that this is one of those 'third rail' issues where dissent is completely unacceptable, to the point of being unthinkable."
i.e. Frankie Boyle.The last working-class hero in England.
Clio the cat, ? July 1997 - 1 May 2016 Kira the cat, ? ? 2010 - 3 August 2018 Jasper the Ruffian cat ? ? ? - 4 November 2021
Re: Gogglebox con'd
Posted by Ian M on March 15, 2025, 12:41 am, in reply to "Re: Gogglebox con'd"
Actually he's the only one I could think of in recent years who would cross the line occasionally, esp when talking about war and imperialism. But then he got the BBC gig and made all his graun journalist friends and it was over. Stewart Lee flirts with the unsayable but always maintains the deniability of 'it's just the character' or steps back at the last minute. Bremner, Bird & Fortune were the last ones I remember being surprised that they would let them on the air, esp around the '03 Iraq invasion/occupation.Tell your story; Ask a question; Interpret generously http://storybythethroat.wordpress.com/tell-ask-listen/
Re: Gogglebox con'd
Posted by Keith-264 on March 15, 2025, 2:07 am, in reply to "Re: Gogglebox con'd"
Rap singersThe last working-class hero in England.
Clio the cat, ? July 1997 - 1 May 2016 Kira the cat, ? ? 2010 - 3 August 2018 Jasper the Ruffian cat ? ? ? - 4 November 2021
I concede your point Ian.
Posted by scrabb on March 15, 2025, 11:14 pm, in reply to "Re: Gogglebox con'd"
Looking back at how outspoken and controversial some comedians and commentators were allowed to be on mainstream television, and then today with the craven obedience of producers and performers on ALL mainstream channels, you realise how far we have fallen in terms of media integrity, independence and brave, forthright journalism. The BBC is one of the worst, if not THE worst offenders, yet preens itself on being ahead of the game.
Watching Clive Myrie fronting his commercial boasting of "working 24/7 to bring you the truth" makes me physically ill.
@Scrabb, thanks, agreed esp about the beeb. If one of the Gogglebox ppl do come out with a cracking dissenting line about Ukraine or Gaza, let us know - I'm happy to be proved wrong, it's just that with the state of the msm & political class and the incredible tightness of the narrative control currently, I'll believe it when I see it.
@Keith - Yeah, I've seen 'em. Down by the corn exchange.
Seems he's a deceitful git, pretty rich of him to claim the "working 24/7 truth" bollox. Over 300 grand a year too from the BBC still isn't enough for him! Got sick of seeing idiots on several forums oohing and ahhing about what a lovely chap he is as he was always mentioning his wife on those bloody travel shows he was doing. FFS! Sick bucket time.
quote: Clive Myrie: BBC presenter apologises for not declaring £145,000 in earnings Apologising in a written statement, Myrie blamed the error on "several administrative issues" and said he will not be taking part in paid external events for the "foreseeable future"...
...Figures suggest the 60-year-old newsreader earned at least £145,000, but it could have been more than £255,000, with the exact figure likely to be somewhere in between, according to retrospective entries to the BBC's external events register...
...According to figures from the corporation's latest annual report, Myrie's salary for the work he does for the BBC is listed as being between £310,000 and £314,999.
on March 13, 2025, 6:27 pm
I often just get blank looks and blinking. As soon as you start talking about "doubting the official version" or "alternative media" you can see the "conspiracy theory" lights going on in their heads and the conditioning kicks in. 
I