Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Voll Blau

Press freedom

40 posts in this topic

11 minutes ago, Ashley said:

Good. 

 

They all post shit stories taking the attention away from the actual news that needs to be publicised throughout the world.

Even in shit newspapers the majority of stories are 'actual news'. It wouldn't be a good thing for newspapers to completely disappear investigative journalism is important as well newspapers being good platforms to criticise governments or whatever regardless of political allegiance.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Who's going to publicise them when they've gone.

True that. Wish they'd stop posting shit though drawing attention from stories which do need to be aired.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

And that justifies treating all journalists as guilty, even if they're found innocent? 

 

This is isn't about journalistic ethics, it's about preventing anyone from uncovering improper conduct from public officials. Ignoring that it would amount to an abolition of the free press, you're endorsing losing the ability to hold people to account because of a couple of bad eggs.

More than a couple of bad eggs. Just look at the daily mail to see how they try and influence the population. 

 

The worry for me is people are defending them, which highlights people take it all in. 

 

They try and influence the population, always have, it's a rotten industry.

 

You can't commend an industry where they try and influence the votes.  You get labour papers, you get conservative ones, all putting their spin on stories. How anyone can back them up I just don't understand it 

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rob1742 said:

More than a couple of bad eggs. Just look at the daily mail to see how they try and influence the population. 

 

The worry for me is people are defending them, which highlights people take it all in. 

 

They try and influence the population, always have, it's a rotten industry.

 

You can't commend an industry where they try and influence the votes.  You get labour papers, you get conservative ones, all putting their spin on stories. How anyone can back them up I just don't understand it 

 

 

You're not forced to read them.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is really that critical thinking is at an all time low. Aristotle wrote his 13 fallacies 2500 years ago. Poor Aristotle.


Edited by bovril
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Rob1742 said:

More than a couple of bad eggs. Just look at the daily mail to see how they try and influence the population. 

 

The worry for me is people are defending them, which highlights people take it all in.

 

They try and influence the population, always have, it's a rotten industry.

 

You can't commend an industry where they try and influence the votes.  You get labour papers, you get conservative ones, all putting their spin on stories. How anyone can back them up I just don't understand it 

 

 

 

Better to have an imperfect press than for the news to be state controlled propaganda where any independent voices who try to pull back the curtain can be silenced by frivolous lawsuits. Libel laws have taken great steps in recent years to try and get rid of the guilty until proven innocent assumption and the libel tourism image. This would be a massive retrograde move.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

 

Better to have an imperfect press than for the news to be state controlled propaganda where any independent voices who try to pull back the curtain can be silenced by frivolous lawsuits. Libel laws have taken great steps in recent years to try and get rid of the guilty until proven innocent assumption and the libel tourism image. This would be a massive retrograde move.

A lot of it is already state controlled propoganda, hence papers backing the government and writing all sorts of crap to ensure the government remain in power.

 

This conversation is irrelevant anyway, it is exactly like backing either of the two main political parties in an argument.

 

The press, like how politicians treat the public is so broken that it is not worth discussing.

 

How can you have a discussion when the argument is one bad thing is leas bad than another.

 

The sooner we as consumers stop complying with the voting system and stop buying the papers we won't change anything.

 

Only if we finally say we won't be treated like this and don't vote / buy papers will these people realise we need a better situation. 

 

It has started in a small way, the vote for brexit and putting Trump into power shows we have all had enough of being treated how they want to treat us, but we will only get a real and proper press is if we stop buying the crap that is out there at the moment and then and only then it will change.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Webbo said:

You're not forced to read them.

Don't worry I don't. But the concern is the people that do and believe in what is written 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rob1742 said:

Don't worry I don't. But the concern is the people that do and believe in what is written 

If you don't believe it why should anyone else?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Webbo said:

If you don't believe it why should anyone else?

Because not everyones is as smart as rob. People buy coffee and own dogs, you cant trust people.


Edited by Strokes
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rob1742 said:

A lot of it is already state controlled propoganda, hence papers backing the government and writing all sorts of crap to ensure the government remain in power.

 

This conversation is irrelevant anyway, it is exactly like backing either of the two main political parties in an argument.

 

The press, like how politicians treat the public is so broken that it is not worth discussing.

 

How can you have a discussion when the argument is one bad thing is leas bad than another.

 

The sooner we as consumers stop complying with the voting system and stop buying the papers we won't change anything.

 

Only if we finally say we won't be treated like this and don't vote / buy papers will these people realise we need a better situation. 

 

It has started in a small way, the vote for brexit and putting Trump into power shows we have all had enough of being treated how they want to treat us, but we will only get a real and proper press is if we stop buying the crap that is out there at the moment and then and only then it will change.

 

 

Except for every telegraph there's a guardian, every sun has a mirror - and even then having an editorial political preference isn't the same as forcing every news outlet to sign up to the state authorised line or be forced to pay legal fees even if found innocent in libel trials. 

 

As as for how we can have the argument - the press as it is is a far more appealing proposition than this. Imagine something like the cash for peerages or the expenses scandal occurred again. Grevious misuses of power, but this would mean that investigative journalism couldn't bring them to light without the probability of being bankrupted by legal fees. Iirc defendants tend to struggle with legal fees for libel laws as is, without the expectation of them having to pay for the claimants fees even if the claimant is in the wrong.

 

what you are arguing for is blocking a way of abuse of power being uncovered and gutting the industry because you don't like that the papers aren't completely impartial. Using a sledgehammer to crack a nut is a more proportional response.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am saying neither option is a good one. And until we stop buying papers and show we won't be treated in such a shabby way, we won't get an ideal solution. 

 

I agree that it plays in the hands of the government, but both the government (whoever is in power) and the press are not to be trusted, and we are arguing which is the worst of the two. 

 

I do though quite like to see the press squirm about though, just like I did when the expenses scandal came about, with the government squirming.

 

Two bullies, who we bow down too, fighting amongst themselves is quite satisfying and I don't know why we should back one or the other. 

 

Just dont vote, and don't buy newspapers and then and only then will they wake up and smell the coffee.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rob1742 said:

I am saying neither option is a good one. And until we stop buying papers and show we won't be treated in such a shabby way, we won't get an ideal solution. 

 

I agree that it plays in the hands of the government, but both the government (whoever is in power) and the press are not to be trusted, and we are arguing which is the worst of the two. 

 

I do though quite like to see the press squirm about though, just like I did when the expenses scandal came about, with the government squirming.

 

Two bullies, who we bow down too, fighting amongst themselves is quite satisfying and I don't know why we should back one or the other. 

 

Just dont vote, and don't buy newspapers and then and only then will they wake up and smell the coffee.

 

 

It's not about backing the people in an industry, it's about protecting a freedom that prevents huge corruption or scandals going unchallenged. I mean I'm no fan of police officers but that doesn't mean I'd like to see them disempowered because it's funny. 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Rob1742 said:

I am saying neither option is a good one. And until we stop buying papers and show we won't be treated in such a shabby way, we won't get an ideal solution. 

 

I agree that it plays in the hands of the government, but both the government (whoever is in power) and the press are not to be trusted, and we are arguing which is the worst of the two. 

 

I do though quite like to see the press squirm about though, just like I did when the expenses scandal came about, with the government squirming.

 

Two bullies, who we bow down too, fighting amongst themselves is quite satisfying and I don't know why we should back one or the other. 

 

Just dont vote, and don't buy newspapers and then and only then will they wake up and smell the coffee.

 

 

This is ridiculous - so you don't want press freedom, which helps uncover corruption from politicians (see again the expense scandal) and you're advocating not voting, another way in which the corrupt can be held to account. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Rob1742 said:

The Sun Hillsborough anyone?

 

They take sides in elections to influence the voters?

 

I could go on and on and on, including choosing who to attack and who to leave alone. 

So we crush the press in 2017 because of a dodgy front page in the mid 1980's?

 

Have you even read what this law is about? It isn't going to stop them supporting political parties at elections or trying to influence voters, all it will do is stop the voters finding out things about the people trying to court their vote that should be in the public arena.

 

10 hours ago, Rob1742 said:

The sooner we as consumers stop complying with the voting system and stop buying the papers we won't change anything.

I buy The Times every day and the Mail on Sunday at weekends, both are excellent papers worth buying for the columnists and the investigative journalism that has exposed everything from child grooming to corrupt politicians, why on earth would I stop buying these

 

As for not complying with the voting system, have you now seen what voters can do to the establishment with it? Just look at the past 12 months.

 

27 minutes ago, Rob1742 said:

I do though quite like to see the press squirm about though, just like I did when the expenses scandal came about, with the government squirming.

The irony here of course being that we wouldn't have found out about the expenses scandal if you had your way and this law was implemented, as the Telegraph wouldn't have been able to print it knowing they would have to pay for 300 court cases even if the stories were proven 100% true.

 

It really is weird to see someone arguing against the government yet supporting the most draconian laws they are trying to implement.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.