Stop Funding Hate

[Barky]

14 minutes ago, theessexfox said:

I'd argue the hallmark of a healthy, pluralist democracy is a pressure group lobbying a company in this way. The pressure group isn't deciding anything, but if the supermarkets want to continue their partnership with the newspaper then it may harm their own business. What sort of democracy do you want to live in, where companies can't be lobbied about different aspects of their business? I think your version of illiberal and anti-democratic differs to mine.

 

Mine too. It's a group of people offering their opinion. Nobody is under any obligation to act on their wishes. It is, if anything, democracy in action rather than anti-democratic.

 

You've got someone who complains about the left telling people how to think, trying to say the free thoughts of others are unacceptable because he doesn't agree with them. The hypocrisy is outstanding.

[sphericalfox]

9 minutes ago, Webbo said:

How would you have handled it. What would your headline have been?

 

Btw people who have to uni have a right to an opinion same as everybody else, the point is going to uni doesn't make your opinion more worthy than anyone else.

 

Who the **** said it does Webbo? Sounds to me like you're the one banging this drum. Get a grip and stop being bumhurt cos you read the DM and people are suggesting it might have an inappropriate agenda, provide evidence to contrary to your opinion, and making the assertion that everyone is assuming because of that, you too support and or agree with their campaign. You simply cannot argue that the inflammatory language used by both these papers within their headlines and stories, including editorials is objective or factually correct even as an uneducated yet well read individual.

 

You are stuck on the record that this campaign is to try to put these papers out of business, and censor right wing opinion. It is not. It won't happen. It's an attempt to pressurise companies to reconsider their affiliation with papers that distort fact, and campaign with an insidious agenda against minorities. No one says that papers can't publish what they choose, whatever political side they represent or support. 

 

Heavy fines is not the answer to published lies, hypocrisy, and untruths. The minimal fine gets paid, the apology hidden in a small box and never gets read or acknowledge by the readers. 

 

Your belief that it is undemocratic to put pressure on companies to hold them to account to where they make their profits off the back of, is as deluded as your belief that the DM & Sun are doing no wrong.

 

If serious issues, or issues that are genuinely impacting average people of this country are debated without the rhetoric or BS that gets printed in ALL media, then we could actually address them with solutions, not reactionary prohibitions, and deepening divisionary methodology.

 

[GazzinderFox]

Is anyone concerned that if this sort of thing takes off that editorial content  of newspapers could be dictated to by commercial sponsors to a far greater extent than it is now?

 

If something like the horse meat scandal was to break tomorrow then these newspapers would now be under great pressure not to report it.

 

Just an example but surely this is worth consideration?

 

[sphericalfox]

3 minutes ago, GazzinderFox said:

Is anyone concerned that if this sort of thing takes off that editorial content  of newspapers could be dictated to by commercial sponsors to a far greater extent than it is now?

 

If something like the horse meat scandal was to break tomorrow then these newspapers would now be under great pressure not to report it.

 

Just an example but surely this is worth consideration?

 

Don't worry, the multi billionaire owners of these papers will retain editorial dictatorship. They have deep pockets, and retain significant political persuasions.

 

 

[Nick]

19 hours ago, Finnegan said:

The Mail, Express and Sun are absolutely awful and should rightly fvck off. I despair at anyone that defends them.

 

I have absolutely no problem with there being a right wing press or newspapers I disagree with. 

 

But some of what we publish in this country is absolutely vile. It's not just the tabloids mind, the vile dross they push in "gossip" magazines and the equally awful muck you find in "blokes" mags are just as shit and just as responsible for turning the population in to blithering idiots.

[GazzinderFox]

15 minutes ago, sphericalfox said:

Don't worry, the multi billionaire owners of these papers will retain editorial dictatorship. They have deep pockets, and retain significant political persuasions.

 

 

For arguments sake let's assume that's true, what about the precedent it sets for the rest? I'm not talking about how it applies to the DM I'm talking about the idea philosophicaly of commercial sponsors dictating media editorials...

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

1 hour ago, sphericalfox said:

 

Who the **** said it does Webbo? Sounds to me like you're the one banging this drum. Get a grip and stop being bumhurt cos you read the DM and people are suggesting it might have an inappropriate agenda, provide evidence to contrary to your opinion, and making the assertion that everyone is assuming because of that, you too support and or agree with their campaign. You simply cannot argue that the inflammatory language used by both these papers within their headlines and stories, including editorials is objective or factually correct even as an uneducated yet well read individual.

 

You are stuck on the record that this campaign is to try to put these papers out of business, and censor right wing opinion. It is not. It won't happen. It's an attempt to pressurise companies to reconsider their affiliation with papers that distort fact, and campaign with an insidious agenda against minorities. No one says that papers can't publish what they choose, whatever political side they represent or support. 

 

Heavy fines is not the answer to published lies, hypocrisy, and untruths. The minimal fine gets paid, the apology hidden in a small box and never gets read or acknowledge by the readers. 

 

Your belief that it is undemocratic to put pressure on companies to hold them to account to where they make their profits off the back of, is as deluded as your belief that the DM & Sun are doing no wrong.

 

If serious issues, or issues that are genuinely impacting average people of this country are debated without the rhetoric or BS that gets printed in ALL media, then we could actually address them with solutions, not reactionary prohibitions, and deepening divisionary methodology.

 

What a load of rubbish, as per usual.

[sphericalfox]

Just now, DANGEROUS TIGER said:

What a load of rubbish, as per usual.

please elaborate...

[Jimothy]

1 minute ago, DANGEROUS TIGER said:

What a load of rubbish, as per usual.

Wonderful argument.

 

You'd get a lot more respect and people would listen to your point more if you actually tried to counter his post rather than make stupid pointless comments that say nothing.

[Benguin]

Can anyone for this campaign answer this: How can a liberal be against freedom of speech?

 

Of course you can argue that there should be a distinction between 'hate speech' and 'freedom of speech' but can't you see that, as with everything else in the past, once you set a precedent of stripping something down, it will inevitably spiral out of control.

 

Why is it do you think that we are unable to cope with this 'hate'? Given what human beings have been through in the past, do you think we have become to soft and vulnerable? Or do you have another explanation?

 

 

[theessexfox]

Just now, Benguin said:

Can anyone for this campaign answer this: How can a liberal be against freedom of speech?

 

Of course you can argue that there should be a distinction between 'hate speech' and 'freedom of speech' but can't you see that, as with everything else in the past, once you set a precedent of stripping something down, it will inevitably spiral out of control.

 

Why is it do you think that we are unable to cope with this 'hate'? Given what human beings have been through in the past, do you think we have become to soft and vulnerable? Or do you have another explanation?

 

 

Who's against freedom of speech?

[Benguin]

Just now, theessexfox said:

Who's against freedom of speech?

This campaign is....

[theessexfox]

Just now, Benguin said:

This campaign is....

Why? The paper is free to print what it wants, the customers are free to lobby the supermarkets, the supermarkets are free to withdraw their custom. No one's being arrested, attacked or shut down for what they're writing. 

[Webbo]

1 hour ago, sphericalfox said:

people are suggesting it might have an inappropriate agenda,

 

And there we have it, an inappropriate agenda, says who? You say so, so it must be true.

 

The Mail online broke the story of Anthony Weiner sexting a 15 year old girl. All the American papers knew about it but decided not to print it. I'm sure if it had been someone connected to the Trump camp it would have been appropriate. When wikileaks published emails that caused trouble in the middle east it was important that the truth came out, when they published Clintons emails all of a sudden the media didn't want to know.

 

If only 1 side decide what's appropriate we only get 1 side of the story. I'm not trying to stop left wing papers. I quite often read The Guardian online. 1 or 2 decent columnists and quite a few utter twats but you know what? If people want to read that it's up to them, I'm not going to tell them what's appropriate.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Can anyone for this campaign answer this: How can a liberal be against freedom of speech?

 

Of course you can argue that there should be a distinction between 'hate speech' and 'freedom of speech' but can't you see that, as with everything else in the past, once you set a precedent of stripping something down, it will inevitably spiral out of control.

 

Why is it do you think that we are unable to cope with this 'hate'? Given what human beings have been through in the past, do you think we have become to soft and vulnerable? Or do you have another explanation?

 

 

The point is being missed, possibly intentionally by some on here. The objective is not to suppress freedom of speech, the point is to lobby companies to perhaps change where they advertise, which is perfectly reasonable in a free market. The newspapers involved are still free to write what they like, and (if necessary) find new companies for their advertising space and pursue alternate revenue streams as needed. Just as every single business (whether in media or otherwise) has done in the past in a free market.

 

Edit: How many times does the above need to be said?

[Benguin]

Just now, leicsmac said:

The point is being missed, possibly intentionally by some on here. The objective is not to suppress freedom of speech, the point is to lobby companies to perhaps change where they advertise, which is perfectly reasonable in a free market. The newspapers involved are still free to write what they like, and (if necessary) find new companies for their advertising space and pursue alternate revenue streams as needed. Just as every single business (whether in media or otherwise) has done in the past in a free market.

How is what you wrote not trying to quash freedom of speech? "OH NO, the nasty mean paper is spreading unbearable hate and I don't like it, lets try and get its funding cut off so it can't post 'hate' anymore"

 

Why not just ignore it, if you don't like it?

[leicsmac]

Just now, Benguin said:

How is what you wrote not trying to quash freedom of speech? "OH NO, the nasty mean paper is spreading unbearable hate and I don't like it, lets try and get its funding cut off so it can't post 'hate' anymore"

 

Why not just ignore it, if you don't like it?

Yes, because saying a newspaper is free to write what it likes and find alternative methods of funding, as well as companies being free to buy or not buy advertising space in those papers based on public opinion, is somehow "trying to quash freedom of speech".

 

I'm tired of saying it but I'll say it again. This. Is. The. Way. The. Free. Market. Has. Always. Worked.

 

Good grief, is this missing the point what I sound like when I start going on about mankind having to get along or else and won't hear much to the contrary? If it is, I really need to consider tending it down.

[sphericalfox]

37 minutes ago, GazzinderFox said:

For arguments sake let's assume that's true, what about the precedent it sets for the rest? I'm not talking about how it applies to the DM I'm talking about the idea philosophicaly of commercial sponsors dictating media editorials...

What about scientific papers/ lobbying papers sponsored by corporations that dictate policy or the laws of the country that directly impact your pocket, health, or well-being?

 

8 minutes ago, Webbo said:

And there we have it, an inappropriate agenda, says who? You say so, so it must be true.

 

The Mail online broke the story of Anthony Weiner sexting a 15 year old girl. All the American papers knew about it but decided not to print it. I'm sure if it had been someone connected to the Trump camp it would have been appropriate. When wikileaks published emails that caused trouble in the middle east it was important that the truth came out, when they published Clintons emails all of a sudden the media didn't want to know.

 

If only 1 side decide what's appropriate we only get 1 side of the story. I'm not trying to stop left wing papers. I quite often read The Guardian online. 1 or 2 decent columnists and quite a few utter twats but you know what? If people want to read that it's up to them, I'm not going to tell them what's appropriate.

What the **** does the above got to do with the conversation we're having about campaigns of inappropriate headlines directed against minorities/foreigners/ those on benefits using aggressive, insidious, and language that incites hate?

 

Well done to them for actually doing some journalism and using facts and not filling their front page full of shit.

 

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yes, because saying a newspaper is free to write what it likes and find alternative methods of funding, as well as companies being free to buy or not buy advertising space in those papers based on public opinion, is somehow "trying to quash freedom of speech".

 

I'm tired of saying it but I'll say it again. This. Is. The. Way. The. Free. Market. Has. Always. Worked.

 

Good grief, is this missing the point what I sound like when I start going on about mankind having to get along or else and won't hear much to the contrary? If it is, I really need to consider tending it down.

It's not public opinion though. If the public were against these papers they'd be out of business already. It's a small pressure group trying to enforce it's narrow world view on the rest of us.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, sphericalfox said:

What about scientific papers/ lobbying papers sponsored by corporations that dictate policy or the laws of the country that directly impact your pocket, health, or well-being?

 

What the **** does the above got to do with the conversation we're having about campaigns of inappropriate headlines directed against minorities/foreigners/ those on benefits using aggressive, insidious, and language that incites hate?

 

Well done to them for actually doing some journalism and using facts and not filling their front page full of shit.

 

It only seems to be inciting hate in you. I don't hate foreigners.

[Benguin]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Yes, because saying a newspaper is free to write what it likes and find alternative methods of funding, as well as companies being free to buy or not buy advertising space in those papers based on public opinion, is somehow "trying to quash freedom of speech".

 

I'm tired of saying it but I'll say it again. This. Is. The. Way. The. Free. Market. Has. Always. Worked.

 

Good grief, is this missing the point what I sound like when I start going on about mankind having to get along or else and won't hear much to the contrary? If it is, I really need to consider tending it down.

Yes of course it is. You keep saying companies are free to choose where to advertise, which of course they are, but the point is you are pressuring them not to fund the newspapers because you don't like what the newspapers say, your agenda is to stop the newspaper from saying what it's been saying. What else could your agenda be but to prevent the newspaper from exercising its freedom of speech?

[Guest]

Just now, Webbo said:

It's not public opinion though. If the public were against these papers they'd be out of business already. It's a small pressure group trying to enforce it's narrow world view on the rest of us.

A group comprised of members of the public . So it's public opinion. A small group yes but it's their opinion and they're free to voice it.

 

You like freedom of speech right?

[sphericalfox]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

It only seems to be inciting hate in you. I don't hate foreigners.

Err, where did I say you did...? 

 

I don't hate anything. I dislike things. I don't hate.

[Benguin]

1 minute ago, Emilio Lestavez said:

A group comprised of members of the public . So it's public opinion. A small group yes but it's their opinion and they're free to voice it.

 

You like freedom of speech right?

At the rate they're going they wont be free to voice their opinion much longer

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Emilio Lestavez said:

A group comprised of members of the public . So it's public opinion. A small group yes but it's their opinion and they're free to voice it.

 

You like freedom of speech right?

So speak them, tell everyone that the right wing press is rubbish. There are thousands of people doing that already. Don't try and force them out of business because you don't like what they say.