I can acknowledge that, but what would it achieve?

 

I presume you are not suggesting that papers should be banned from opposing the EU, so what are you trying to gain by pressing this point? :unsure:

 

I suggest personally that foreign billionaires should be banned from sticking their noses into British politics because they have nothing to lose if the UK gets effed up and everything to gain if it does what makes them richer and more powerful. Live in the UK with UK citizenship should be the basis of newspaper and TV news ownership.

 

(NOTE: Why do you think Rupert Murdoch is now American? For laughs? No, so he can own a media empire and distribute propaganda there....)

I can acknowledge that, but what would it achieve?

 

I presume you are not suggesting that papers should be banned from opposing the EU, so what are you trying to gain by pressing this point? :unsure:

You seem to be under the impression that we have a fair and balanced press. It should be clear to anyone who can rad that we don't. I have no objection to papers opposing EU membership. However, I do object to papers covering an important issue in such a blatantly distorted way. Are you able to spot the difference yet?

These newspapers blare out distorted headlines - the latest was theExpress wanting to 'impose our military' ON THE FRONT PAGE.

 

(Although how one island's military, matched equally by France's alone, would have gone about that, I do not know, but that's beside the point.)

 

There needs to be a press commissioner, or someone to keep them to account, and that any false headlines have to be corrected with the same visibility and space as before. Most people just consume headlines, after all, and the BBC spouts off these right wing paper headlines and stories without ever mentioning there is a media bias against the left.

1. Yes. That doesn't change that they are ignorant though.

 

2. It's not the same old argument. All you have to say is "I agree that some things the EU have benefitted UK citizens, even though I disagree with them in general" or else "They have done nothing that I agree with" in which case you obviously hope that the Tories will raise roaming charges on mobile phones, and the like.

 

fairly simple concept....

 

1. Yes, so?

 

2. OK : "I agree that some things the EU have benefitted UK citizens, even though I disagree with them in general" - but that doesn't mean that I think that overall our membership is a good idea.

 

I suggest personally that foreign billionaires should be banned from sticking their noses into British politics because they have nothing to lose if the UK gets effed up and everything to gain if it does what makes them richer and more powerful. Live in the UK with UK citizenship should be the basis of newspaper and TV news ownership.

 

ISTM that's a bit of a red herring, because if a British newspaper owner acted in the same way as Murdock, I suspect you would be just as unhappy. :unsure:

 

You seem to be under the impression that we have a fair and balanced press. It should be clear to anyone who can rad that we don't. I have no objection to papers opposing EU membership. However, I do object to papers covering an important issue in such a blatantly distorted way. Are you able to spot the difference yet?

 

I've always been able to spot the difference, it just doesn't disturb me as much as it does you.

Edited January 24, 20187 yr by vidcapper

1. Yes, so?

 

2. OK : "I agree that some things the EU have benefitted UK citizens, even though I disagree with them in general" - but that doesn't mean that I think that overall our membership is a good idea.

ISTM that's a bit of a red herring, because if a British newspaper owner acted in the same way as Murdock, I suspect you would be just as unhappy. :unsure:

I've always been able to spot the difference, it just doesn't disturb me as much as it does you.

It bothers me that a few extremely rich men (most of them not even British) have so much influence over our lives. It really ought to bother most people in what is supposed to be a democracy.

I suggest personally that foreign billionaires should be banned from sticking their noses into British politics because they have nothing to lose if the UK gets effed up and everything to gain if it does what makes them richer and more powerful. Live in the UK with UK citizenship should be the basis of newspaper and TV news ownership.

 

(NOTE: Why do you think Rupert Murdoch is now American? For laughs? No, so he can own a media empire and distribute propaganda there....)

In other words, Murdoch is one of those nasty economic migrants the Sun keeps demonising.

It bothers me that a few extremely rich men (most of them not even British) have so much influence over our lives. It really ought to bother most people in what is supposed to be a democracy.

 

Technically, it is a Constitutional Monarchy, and as such, we've always had rich men and women (often foreign) having a lot of influence over our lives... :heehee:

Technically, it is a Constitutional Monarchy, and as such, we've always had rich men and women (often foreign) having a lot of influence over our lives... :heehee:

The (German) queen doesn't use her position to expose us to her views on every subject under the sun. The UK is also a representative democracy, but most MPs seem to have forgotten that.

1. Yes, so?

 

2. OK : "I agree that some things the EU have benefitted UK citizens, even though I disagree with them in general" - but that doesn't mean that I think that overall our membership is a good idea.

ISTM that's a bit of a red herring, because if a British newspaper owner acted in the same way as Murdock, I suspect you would be just as unhappy. :unsure:

I've always been able to spot the difference, it just doesn't disturb me as much as it does you.

 

1. Yes, so it proves people are easily susceptible to propaganda (because the proof is all over history). It's a constant theme you choose to believe doesn't exist when it's suits you....

 

2. Hooray! That's all I wanted to hear - that you can see some good in the EU.

 

3. No I wouldn't be - because at least a UK citizen has an interest in the country doing well, foreigners don't. Which is ironic given the amount of foreigner-bashing they hide behind.

 

4. Can't spot the difference when you admit to not reading the non-Daily-Mail press....it is a theoretical exercise only :P

Broadcast news must be impartial and the same should apply to print journalism.

 

Printing knowingly false stories should be grounds for a material fine and retractions should be given the same prominence the original story was given. So if it was a hysterical front page then the apology is your headline and lead story over 9 pages.

1. Yes, so it proves people are easily susceptible to propaganda (because the proof is all over history). It's a constant theme you choose to believe doesn't exist when it's suits you....

 

2. Hooray! That's all I wanted to hear - that you can see some good in the EU.

 

3. No I wouldn't be - because at least a UK citizen has an interest in the country doing well, foreigners don't. Which is ironic given the amount of foreigner-bashing they hide behind.

 

4. Can't spot the difference when you admit to not reading the non-Daily-Mail press....it is a theoretical exercise only :P

 

1. How can you prove you haven't been propagandized into believing the EU is wonderful, then? :teresa:

 

2. I never claimed it was 100% bad.

 

4. I read the Express & Telegraph, too... ;)

 

 

Broadcast news must be impartial and the same should apply to print journalism.

 

Printing knowingly false stories should be grounds for a material fine and retractions should be given the same prominence the original story was given. So if it was a hysterical front page then the apology is your headline and lead story over 9 pages.

 

But then you would need an panel to monitor news for impartiality - and guess who would be responsible for appointing people to that body... :rolleyes:

 

In any case, the whole of the media would resist any attempt to influence what they published.

 

As for retractions, how often are they actually read? No-one is going to plough through a 9 page retraction - they'll simply skip it, and look for new news.

What do you make of this...? :thinking:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42806207

 

David Cameron: Brexit's turned out 'less badly than first thought'

But then you would need an panel to monitor news for impartiality - and guess who would be responsible for appointing people to that body... :rolleyes:

 

In any case, the whole of the media would resist any attempt to influence what they published.

It's already done for TV. That's the point.

 

What do you make of this...? :thinking:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42806207

 

David Cameron: Brexit's turned out 'less badly than first thought'

It's been a while since I've trusted Cameron's judgement on anything related to the EU.

It's already done for TV. That's the point.

 

Yeah, and that works *so* well. :rolleyes:

 

The BBC might as well be renamed the Brititsh Broadcasting Corbyn-ation... :w00t:

 

It's been a while since I've trusted Cameron's judgement on anything related to the EU.

 

Would that be before or since the referendum?

 

It's already done for TV. That's the point.

It's been a while since I've trusted Cameron's judgement on anything related to the EU.

The words after "anything" are superfluous.

Yeah, and that works *so* well. :rolleyes:

 

The BBC might as well be renamed the Brititsh Broadcasting Corbyn-ation... :w00t:

Would that be before or since the referendum?

 

Do they have a different BBC where you live? Where I live ministers are allowed to spout as much rubbish as they like without being challenged. The same applies to Farage on his countless appearances. Opposition politicians are constantly interrupted - unless they wholeheartedly support the government's EU policy (whatever that is on that particular day). The Today programme has become so much like the Daily Mail on radio that I rarely bother to listen to it these days.

Yeah, and that works *so* well. :rolleyes:

 

The BBC might as well be renamed the Brititsh Broadcasting Corbyn-ation... :w00t:

Only someone who considers the Mail fair and balanced could possibly perceive the BBC as being pro-Corbyn...

 

(not that it's inherently anti, before you know who starts spouting off about the "BBTory". It's timid and led by newspaper headlines and a bit royalist, but it's by far the best we've got)

A bit royalist? That will take some beating as the understatement of the year.

1. How can you prove you haven't been propagandized into believing the EU is wonderful, then? :teresa:

 

2. I never claimed it was 100% bad.

 

4. I read the Express & Telegraph, too... ;)

 

In any case, the whole of the media would resist any attempt to influence what they published.

 

As for retractions, how often are they actually read? No-one is going to plough through a 9 page retraction - they'll simply skip it, and look for new news.

 

1. because I'm not an idiot and I don't trust anything a politician says without back-up

 

2. That's not the impression you give though, so it's good to hear confirmation.

 

4. So the same "news" and propaganda slightly rewritten...

 

Self-monitoring doesn't work, and neither do toothless organisations (see Banking Crisis and many disasters)

Do they have a different BBC where you live? Where I live ministers are allowed to spout as much rubbish as they like without being challenged. The same applies to Farage on his countless appearances. Opposition politicians are constantly interrupted - unless they wholeheartedly support the government's EU policy (whatever that is on that particular day). The Today programme has become so much like the Daily Mail on radio that I rarely bother to listen to it these days.

 

totally. I frequently want to throw objects at the useless timidity of the BBC - SKY presenters (not the most left-wing of organisations) actually do a better job of quizzing much of the time. At least as long as Rupes doesn't get his bruised 100% hands on them...

 

Apparently (and it may be fake news) Rupert fell down some stairs on his boat and landed head first in the toilet. Can you imagine if it had killed him, and the jokes....?

 

Doesn't bear thinking about. Poor ol Jerry's heart must have skipped a beat at the thought of the reading of the Will....