Tory activists swarm round cyberspace..

[omnipleasant]

If you've ever wondered why the "mood" on the internet is so laughably pro-Tory, this is a beautiful example.

These cnuts have hundreds of little puffed up activists posting on blogs, message boards, editing wikipedia etc. The incredible thing is that the Mainstream media often take their lead from what they read in these places - part of the reason even the smallest Westminster Village non-story can easily snowball if it's anti-Labour.

Is it any surprise that they are fawning over Cameron rather than asking any questions? The whole operation makes Nu Labour's media manipulation in the mid 90s look small time.

Depressing.

The Tories have admitted a member of staff altered a Wikipedia entry on the artist Titian after a row between Gordon Brown and David Cameron.

During exchanges at prime minister's questions, the Tory leader mocked Mr Brown for talking of Titian at 90, when he said in fact he had died age 86.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7884121.stm

[flatandy]

Hahaha! What utter sad losers.

[mids]

None story. Storm etc...

Not as bad as Mr Jacqui Smith writing letters to his local paper (which funnily enough isn't where their 'main' residence is...) bigging up his husband and not admitting to the fact that he's her wife.

[voice]

Well Snooty has been a member of News for years and he's obviously posting from Con Central

[omnipleasant]

I'm not sure there's many of the pointless little drones on here.

You'll find them swarming round the Guardian Comment is Free like flies round sh!t though, especially when there's an article by particular high-profile Labour supporters.

And the big political blogs and websites.

Feckin losers.

[minge tightly]

Of course, they must all be Tory moles and not people who simply dislike Nu Labour. No no no, conspiracy theories are so much more comforting

[omnipleasant]

Not all of them. But the Tories do have stacks of people happily chuntering away on the internet. As per this wikipedia episode.

Not a conspiracy, just the way modern politics works I suppose.

[voice]

Cyberspace is the new battle ground, Obama proved this, he dominated the web in their election.

[Muz]

Has your tin hat fallen off omni? Your article reports of one member of staff changing one article in Wiki and you equate that to "hundreds of little puffed up activists posting on blogs, message boards, editing wikipedia etc". You might even have one hiding under your bed.

[ricklinc]

Oh dear. Finding excuses for nu labour losing the next general election already. Cyberterrorism now. Nothing to do with failed ideology creating failed policies in a big fat failure administration.

[mids]

Here's Labour's top cyberspace man. He lied on his CV.

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/12/derek-draper-politics-cv-errors

[jonren]

"Has your tin hat fallen off omni? Your article reports of one member of staff changing one article in Wiki and you equate that to "hundreds of little puffed up activists posting on blogs, message boards, editing wikipedia etc". You might even have one hiding under your bed." - - - - - - Muz


Last week, I assumed Omni had returned to the real world. Seems I was sadly mistaken,

[flatandy]

Derek Draper was a self-important tool even when he was trying to run Manchester University students stuff.

[mids]

He's just the man to run Labour's entire blogging campaign then.

[wetkingcanute]

Omni, this is exactly the type of story that, if it were the other way round, ie Labour supporters posting in support of Brown, you would be the first on saying " NON STORY -nothing to see here - move along".


and anyway...are you really upset that Tory supporters want to support their own side?

It's like a boxing saying "it's not fair ...he hitting me!"

[omnipleasant]

Oh, the wikipedia thing is a non-story WKC. That's why I made the wider point about how well the Tories are managing to set the tone on the internet.

Labour, as #12 and #13 hint at, seem to be stuck in 1995 as far as their PR goes.

[tarrant]

I somehow doubt that anyone will be particularly swayed by what they read on the net.

They will, hopefully be informed. There is a lot of good information. Wikipedia, despite the contempt shown by sections of academia, is a good source simply because it is cross checked so frequently.

Sadly, in the UK, elections tend to be decided on by the strength of the economy.

Other factors may be important, but ultimately, few care.

[omnipleasant]

It's about influencing the media agenda and narrative, Tarrant. More than just fiddling with wikipedia. The Rightwingers do it very well, unfortunately.

[tarrant]

Influencing the media?

The process of public attitudes is a bit more complex than that.

It's about finding a hook.

Example. Reliant cars. Perfectly good vehicles. Reliable, Expensive to buy. Cheap to run. Enormous carrying capacity. Basically good vehicles.

A very tallented and funny comedian, Jasper Carrot decided to use Reliant as one of his hook. It eventually became his principal hook.. Various stories all centred on the notion that these were toys which turned over easily.

Result, Reliant goes out of business.

There use to be a TV program on called Spitting image which portrayed public figures acording to a caracture.

In the 80s, I was involved with a survey on public attitudes. We asked people to describe in one word their impressions of various things.

Thatcher. Most people responded along the lines of stuck up.

David Steel. Immature.

Queen mother. Drunk.

Reagan. Mad.

And so on.

All based upon the hooks that were created by this TV program.

I realise that most of us like to believe we think for ourselves. Most of us generally do. But most of us prefer to go with the crowd and think along the lines that others tell us.

Many psychologist make their living out of measuring individual's conformaty to social trends.

[omnipleasant]

"The process of public attitudes is a bit more complex than that."

No it's not.