Latest news with #Triggernometry
The National
19-05-2025
- Politics
- The National
Performative politics of many on the left is pushing people away
Take, for instance, a comment posted by Ruby Davies in response to your article 'Jimmy Carr shows 'should be cancelled' over secret pro-Israel party'. Here we had a comedian doing a paid gig, likely booked through an agent and probably unaware of the crowd dynamics that night. Ruby, in a fervour, likens him to individuals who entertained some of history's most heinous figures, such as Hitler or Pol Pot. This comparison isn't just excessive; it borders on delusional. It's not a quest for justice; it becomes a performative act devoid of real substance. READ MORE: First aid trucks enter Gaza after Israeli blockade lifted On the other side of the spectrum, we had politicians like Maria Eagle in the same venue boasting shamelessly about British military involvement in Israel's assault on Gaza. Did Ruby direct her outrage towards them? No, and that's telling. Confronting those in real positions of power takes courage, while chastising a comedian is a safer bet that garners attention and clicks. Regrettably, this tendency to misplace focus is emblematic of a wider issue. Take Stonewall's recent response to the UK's drop in the European Rainbow Index, which evaluates the legal and policy conditions for LGBT+ people across Europe. In their announcement, they unequivocally lumped the UK in with countries like Hungary and Georgia. This comparison is fundamentally flawed. In those nations, LGBT+ individuals face violent mobs, bans on education, and systemic silence enforced by the government. Here in the UK, while challenges remain, we are not at that level of crisis – and when individuals exaggerate these situations, they do not come off as courageous; they appear disconnected from reality. READ MORE: Israel 'will take control of all of Gaza', Benjamin Netanyahu says A striking example is Deborah Frances-White's appearance on the show Triggernometry. She faced a direct and polite question, yet her demeanour shifted dramatically. Rather than engaging in a constructive dialogue, she appeared as though she was under attack. Watching That interaction was painfully awkward; it encapsulated a troubling trend within too much of the left today – a fragility, defensiveness, and an inclination to interpret even neutral inquiries as hostile. This 'Fragile Left' mentality, where every critique is treated as an assault, is pushing people away. It's no wonder many are growing frustrated and tuning out entirely. The truth is that Most working-class individuals don't engage with this discourse. They are not active participants in the Twitter battlegrounds or immersed in endless online threads debating who is associated with whom. Instead, they live in the real world, juggling a myriad of responsibilities – bills to pay, children to raise, lengthy shifts, and the overarching stress of daily life. When everyday people observe those on the left melting down over a comedian's offhand joke at a dinner event, they don't interpret that as activism; they think, 'This crowd has completely lost the plot.' READ MORE: Labour 'breaking promise to reset devolution', John Swinney says If the working class feel marginalised, they are inclined to support anyone who doesn't talk down to them – even if that means rallying behind individuals like Farage. They don't see themselves reflected in the current leftist narrative, not out of love for right-wing populism, but rather because there is a desperate need for the left to reassess and recalibrate its approach. While Ruby may believe she is championing a righteous cause, her actions, and those like hers, are not drawing people in – they're alienating them. It is essential that we initiate genuine conversations about these dynamics. If we fail to unite and understand the real challenges facing our communities, the individuals and groups opposing our values will continue to thrive by default, leaving us further estranged from the very people we seek to uplift. James Murphy Bute SCOTLAND needs to concentrate on some canny voting next year. As much as we might disagree with the SNP government, inespecial where independence is concerned, we need to make sure it – or a combination of independence parties – gets the majority necessary to continue governing Scotland. We cannot afford to let Farage and his business team get anywhere near to entering Holyrood, regardless of what we might think about his only concern where immigration is concerned. READ MORE: Kenny MacAskill: Scotland can't survive Keir Starmer's migration crackdown Immigration is a fact of life for Scotland, as the country needs and welcomes immigrants to contribute to our public and NHS services. This has always been the situation before Johnson and his ridiculous Brexit plan, which has almost ruined the the UK economy. Voting for Reform UK on the single premise of immigration will not help a Scottish Government if it results in Farage becoming the leading opposition in Holyrood. Better it is/was with the Tories in that position. In North East Fife we do not have an SNP candidate as yet, although I understand one is being considered by the SNP election people. However, it is a strong LibDem constituency, so I will have to give it a well-considered 1 and 2 selection. Certainly not a Farage vote if his party is on the list. Please consider the next five years of government in Scotland, how we vote for what we can and will achieve as a sovereign nation responsible for effecting our independence. There is a way forward already in motion, via Salvo, that will help us achieve that without any unnecessary contacts or input with the UK/English parliament. Alan Magnus-Bennett Fife
Times
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Times
Triggernometry debates Guilty Feminist — and both sides lose
Deborah Frances-White, the host of the impeccably progressive podcast The Guilty Feminist, says she is interested in 'reaching across the divide'. Anyone who caught her incoherent appearance on Konstanin Kisin's popular anti-woke podcast Triggernometry will conclude that she didn't so much reach across the political divide as haplessly pratfall into it. The Kisin-White encounter — probably the single worst debate I have ever heard — represents the undignified collision of two echo chambers. Both antagonists have made successful careers telling their audiences what they want to hear (woke=good; woke=bad) and both seem to have rendered themselves mentally incapable of coping with another point of view. Listening to this conversation is about as intellectually edifying as watching two drunks headbutt each other in a pub
Spectator
05-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Spectator
Spare us from podcast host plugs
I've spent most of my working life producing radio commercials. You might expect me to say this, given my job, but when hosts read out ads on their own podcasts, I find it embarrassing. On commercial radio and television, viewers and listeners have always understood that the ads pay for the programmes and they're fine with that – on one condition. The ads must be separated from the programmes in a commercial break. This has always been the unspoken agreement between advertisers and their audiences: a programme might be interrupted but at least it stays honest to itself. Podcast hosts are trashing this time-honoured contract when they read out the ads themselves. Authoritative people such as Dominic Sandbrook and Tom Holland on The Rest is History, or Konstantin Kisin and Francis Foster on Triggernometry, risk appearing disingenuous and cheap. It's so jarring to hear them interrupt their own informative dialogue to read out copy for money, saying things they almost certainly don't believe. It somehow makes us slightly more suspicious of everything else they say. On TV, this would be unthinkable. Imagine an episode of Downton Abbey in which Lord Grantham suddenly turns to camera and says 'Hi, I'm Hugh Bonneville and I've just bought the new Samsung Galaxy S24', then demonstrates its features by WhatsApping a photo to the butler. The better the podcast, the worse the offence. For me, podcasts don't come much better than The Rest is Entertainment. I bow to no one in my admiration for everything Richard Osman and Marina Hyde write, say and do. Everything except for their inauthentic readings of ads on their podcast. The issue here is a big one. Listeners rely on these two for intelligent and impartial recommendations but they're now making us wonder how impartial they really are. In a recent episode, sponsored by Sky, they were shamelessly plugging a series called Hacks. Fine. Hacks is a Sky show, Uncle Rupert is paying for their endorsement, we get it. But five minutes later they're avidly puffing Amazon Prime's Last One Laughing. How do we know that Jeff Bezos isn't also paying for their joint effusion? I'm fairly certain that he isn't but we're no longer 100 per cent sure. In last week's episode, Marina went into weirdly gushing detail about Glen Powell's new range of sauces. And this wasn't even an official ad. Or was it? Who knows? When our favourite hosts start trying to flog us products we're pretty sure they don't use, it feels like betrayal When the hosts read out the ads themselves, their independence and integrity is compromised. This is particularly pertinent to podcasts because we develop a far more personal relationship with their presenters than we do on other platforms. Most of the time we switch on the TV or radio without really knowing what's on; with a podcast we make a very deliberate choice. We have our favourites, based on a liking for the topics and, importantly, for the hosts. So when our favourite hosts start trying to flog us products we're pretty sure they don't use, it feels like betrayal. When I've spoken to podcast producers, they try to tell me otherwise. They'll claim that listeners love these personal endorsements – but I don't think they do. The hosts are made to read out the ads because it costs nothing and the podcast companies can then charge clients a premium for these endorsements, however fake they might be. But in doing so, they abase their presenters by turning them into door-to-door salesmen, and not even very good ones. They're not actors so they tend to deliver their lines badly and awkwardly. They're either too loud and enthusiastic or they're flat, monotone and sound slightly ashamed. Which they should be. All this could be avoided if advertisers ran proper commercials, separate from the programme, just as they do on radio and TV. The hosts can retain their dignity and continue to command the respect of the listeners. Producers should do everything to preserve our sense of trust in presenters – because we love it when they tell us things, but we hate it when they try to sell us things.
