Webbo Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 3 minutes ago, Emilio Lestavez said: You think the intention of the campaign is to stop the kids having free toys? Perhaps you should apply to write headlines for the Mail Webbo. It might not be the intention but it is the consequence.
GaelicFox Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 Just now, Webbo said: It might not be the intention but it is the consequence. Top trolling webbo
Guest Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 Just now, Webbo said: It might not be the intention but it is the consequence. Right . Now what's the consequence of the incessant negative coverage of immigrants in the Daily Mail?
sphericalfox Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 11 minutes ago, Webbo said: How petty, to stop kids having a free toy. What kind of hate filled willy puller would do that?Meanwhile Trump wins the presidency, we're leaving the EU and Labour continue to slide down the polls, Still, little victories eh, they must be so proud. grasping...
Webbo Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 9 minutes ago, Emilio Lestavez said: Right . Now what's the consequence of the incessant negative coverage of immigrants in the Daily Mail? a) I don't accept it's incessantly negative. b) It's a different view that we can all consider. c) Do you think if the DM didn't exist we'd all be holding hands and celebrating diversity?
Benguin Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 8 minutes ago, Emilio Lestavez said: Right . Now what's the consequence of the incessant negative coverage of immigrants in the Daily Mail? The question should be what's the consequence of not allowing it? As we've seen the answer to that is Brexit and Trump getting in. How many defeats does the left have to take before it realises that liberals not standing up to liberal values and labelling anyone who disagrees with them doesn't cut it anymore?
Guest Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 5 minutes ago, Benguin said: The question should be what's the consequence of not allowing it? As we've seen the answer to that is Brexit and Trump getting in. How many defeats does the left have to take before it realises that liberals not standing up to liberal values and labelling anyone who disagrees with them doesn't cut it anymore? Not allowing what? Nobody is saying don't cover immigration and it's effect on things. Just do it in a less hysterical manner! Don't shout that people are coming to take your jobs then retract it in a small paragraph 2 days later when the damage is done. Research it first and if there's something there that's worth a headline go for it. Don't just make shit up to sell papers and comfort those who believe in that particular view. EDIT ultimately just realise the responsibility that comes with the circulation of the size of the papers being discussed here .
Benguin Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 Just now, Emilio Lestavez said: Not allowing what? Nobody is saying don't cover immigration and it's effect on things. Just do it in a less hysterical manner! Don't shout that people are coming to take your jobs then retract it in a small paragraph 2 days later when the damage is done. Research it first and if there's something there that's worth a headline go for it. Don't just make shit up to sell papers and comfort those who believe in that particular view. WHAT DO WE WANT? FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!! WHO SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO EXCERCISE IT? ONLY THOSE WITH VALUES CONSISTENT TO OUR OWN!!! WHAT DO WE WANT?
Jimothy Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 1 minute ago, Benguin said: WHAT DO WE WANT? FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!! WHO SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO EXCERCISE IT? ONLY THOSE WITH VALUES CONSISTENT TO OUR OWN!!! WHAT DO WE WANT? Wow, did you even read his post? Or are you purposely missing the point?
Nick Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 2 minutes ago, Facecloth said: Wow, did you even read his post? Or are you purposely missing the point? Leave him alone - he's making Britain great again.
Benguin Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 Just now, Facecloth said: Wow, did you even read his post? Or are you purposely missing the point? WHAT DO WE WANT? FREEDOM OF SPEECH!! WHAT DOES THAT INCLUDE? EVERYTHING!! NO HYPERBOLE, NO SHOUTING, MAKE SURE EVERYTHING'S ARTICULATED SO AS TO APPEASE EVERYONE AND NOT JUST YOUR MOTIVE.
Benguin Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 Just now, Swan Lesta said: Leave him alone - he's making Britain great again. I don't support Trump, brexit or right wing media i'm just not blind to the fact this sort of campaign strengthens it rather than dismantles it.
Jimothy Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 2 minutes ago, Benguin said: WHAT DO WE WANT? FREEDOM OF SPEECH!! WHAT DOES THAT INCLUDE? EVERYTHING!! NO HYPERBOLE, NO SHOUTING, MAKE SURE EVERYTHING'S ARTICULATED SO AS TO APPEASE EVERYONE AND NOT JUST YOUR MOTIVE. He said 10 minutes ago, Emilio Lestavez said: Not allowing what? Nobody is saying don't cover immigration and it's effect on things. Just do it in a less hysterical manner! He's not asking to stop free speech, he's asking it's calmed down a bit and presented factually, not hysterically with half truths and down right lies to stoke fear and hatred, and then retracting it later in a small box on page 57. They can talk about immigration and refugees without the over the top sensationalist bullshit.
Benguin Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 Just now, Facecloth said: He said He's not asking to stop free speech, he's asking it's calmed down a bit and presented factually, not hysterically with half truths and down right lies to stoke fear and hatred, and then retracting it later in a small box on page 57. They can talk about immigration and refugees without the over the top sensationalist bullshit. Exactly my point. How does altering what can and can't be said, even if only by the tone of a voice result in freedom of speech.
Finnaldo Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 12 minutes ago, Benguin said: WHAT DO WE WANT? FREEDOM OF SPEECH!! WHAT DOES THAT INCLUDE? EVERYTHING!! NO HYPERBOLE, NO SHOUTING, MAKE SURE EVERYTHING'S ARTICULATED SO AS TO APPEASE EVERYONE AND NOT JUST YOUR MOTIVE. Daily Mail are free to post completely one sided articles, the 'small pressure group' (as Webbo said himself) are free to lobby companies on their advertising. No one's under censorship. People want a decent level of journalism, how is that unreasonable?
sphericalfox Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 http://www.sub-scribe.co.uk/2016/09/the-press-and-immigration-reporting.html
Jimothy Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 Just now, Benguin said: Exactly my point. How does altering what can and can't be said, even if only by the tone of a voice result in freedom of speech. Well when it's dangerous and untruthful I'm not sure they should be free to print it. It's not opinion, it's not news, it's lying to push an agenda across. There's press regulations against that, that's why they have to retract things, so they're not totally free. But a tiny box two thirds through the paper won't reverse the damage of a lying sensationalist front page. Maybe we should push the press standards agency instead to punish this kind of reporting more?
Nick Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 1 minute ago, Benguin said: I don't support Trump, brexit or right wing media i'm just not blind to the fact this sort of campaign strengthens it rather than dismantles it. I don't think it does. I think corporations are being impacted by political decisions which are influenced by the media and as a result are taking some responsibility to protect their brand and future economic and ethical interests. I hope more follow suit and further publications in the end have to answer to some kind of consequence for the stuff they write. I've cancelled my subscription to Nazi Monthly and stopped advertising my Jewelery business in it as I felt they were not representative of my views or my business I'm not censoring what they write I'm just not going to bloody well sponsor it!
Benguin Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 1 minute ago, Finnaldo said: Daily Mail are free to post completely one sided articles, the 'small pressure group' (as Webbo said himself) are free to lobby companies on their advertising. No one's under censorship. People want a decent level of journalism, how is that unreasonable? It's not unreasonable, I've already said this if you read my posts. My whole moot point in this thread is that it's campaigns like this that are at the route cause of brexit, trump etc.
Benguin Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 1 minute ago, Facecloth said: Well when it's dangerous and untruthful I'm not sure they should be free to print it. It's not opinion, it's not news, it's lying to push an agenda across. There's press regulations against that, that's why they have to retract things, so they're not totally free. But a tiny box two thirds through the paper won't reverse the damage of a lying sensationalist front page. Maybe we should push the press standards agency instead to punish this kind of reporting more? Yes and the laws and regulations deal with it accordingly! We don't need stupid campaigns like this.
bovril Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 3 minutes ago, Benguin said: It's not unreasonable, I've already said this if you read my posts. My whole moot point in this thread is that it's campaigns like this that are at the route cause of brexit, trump etc. Trump got less votes than any election winner since 2000, and I doubt many republican voters have ever come across this campaign or any similar. So I dont really follow your reasoning.
Jimothy Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 16 minutes ago, Benguin said: It's not unreasonable, I've already said this if you read my posts. My whole moot point in this thread is that it's campaigns like this that are at the route cause of brexit, trump etc. I don't think they are, this isn't unreasonable to expect newspapers to report responsibly. What's fueled Brexit etc is stupid things like the other day, when Farage called Obama a "loathsome creature" and Twitter (including Lineker) and some news reports went nuts calling it racist. The use of creature apparently has racist undertones. The term loathsome creature is commonly used when talking about people you don't like. How can anyone know if Farage was thinking racially when he said it? In fact they are the ones noticing he's black and assuming because of that he was being called a creature. That said, I hate when people do that, but it doesn't mean I'm going to start voting for racist bigots on the back of it just because a few people over reacted.
Finnaldo Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 Just now, Benguin said: It's not unreasonable, I've already said this if you read my posts. My whole moot point in this thread is that it's campaigns like this that are at the route cause of brexit, trump etc. I can understand some of the more extreme third wave feminism stuff and the 'white people are privileged and racist', I say it myself, but this is a fairly legitimate campaign and anyone with a problem is being as delicate a snowflake as the hard-left they usually take the piss out of
Jimothy Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 5 minutes ago, Benguin said: Yes and the laws and regulations deal with it accordingly! We don't need stupid campaigns like this. Do they? Ever seen a front page apology from a paper, bar the Sun's Hillsborough one that was 25 years too late?
Benguin Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 2 minutes ago, bovril said: Trump got less votes than any election winner since 2000, and I doubt many republican voters have ever come across this campaign or any similar. So I dont really follow your reasoning. Are you serious? Have you ever been to America or read about the progressive left in America. These kinds of campaigns are everywhere.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.