What changes would you like to see?

 

Firstly, I would prefer to see it absolutely factual, without any political agenda - put the facts out there and let people interpret it as they may.

Um that's what I said and you argued with me over it before...

What changes would you like to see?

 

Firstly, I would prefer to see it absolutely factual, without any political agenda - put the facts out there and let people interpret it as they may.

Might I suggest that buying a paper like the i (reasonably intelligent, relatively unbiased) would be a good idea? The more successful a relatively unbiased paper is, the more it might force other publications to change their ways.

Fines. Large fines for any misleading headlines/articles and large unmissable apologies for any misleading headlines that do appear. Make it unprofitable to print lies.

 

Any report that isn't marked as an opinion column or similar should use neutral language. If that means more opinion columns in newspapers, fine, but at least they're marked as such.

You could start by crowdfunding my idea for a newspaper I first floated on these forums a few months ago -

 

The paper will be called "The Centre".

 

The paper will have have news, and only news (although a crossword and cartoon page will be permissible). There will be no opinion journalists or columnists of any stripe - no Owen Jonses, no Richard Littlejohnses, no Polly Toynbees, no Katy Hopkinses - no-one.

 

Any stories that feature two sides will obtain statements from two sources of an equitable stature on both sides of the argument for balance.

 

To ensure impartiality at all times, the paper will not take any political positions, and journalists must not be registered members of political parties, or have been one in the past 3 years, nor or any organisation that could result in "undue influence" over any stories featured.

 

And my most important feature -

The Corrections Page - page 3 of the paper will be solely handed over for any corrections, errors & clarifications that have appeared in prior issues of the paper, so if there are none, page 3 will be completely blank. This will ensure whenever we get anything wrong, we can put our hands up and admit it, which will help to regain trust in an industry where people are becoming increasingly sceptical of whether the news they are receiving is honest or not.

 

Of course, I doubt that something like this could get off the ground, as everyone to some extent has some biases that will make their way into the pages, even if your paper's outlook is to remove it entirely.

So we agree that such a publication should be free of bigotry?

I really don't see this changing anytime soon. It would be great if so but there are too many personal and political agendas at play.

Ban foreign or foreign-living millionaires from owning UK newspapers. They do not have the welfare of the citizens of the country at heart or they would live here and have a REAL stake in the well-being of the United Kingdom....

 

Journalists who knowingly print false information, no matter how minor, to apologise ASAP if it's a mistake of sources, or get banned for 6 months if it's a deliberate propaganda distortion. That way they will stand up to their editors. That also applies to re-writers of copy, not the original piece if it was error-free.

 

Speculation to be labelled as speculation. Bullshit about bendy bananas to be treated as seriously as fake items about people and organisations.

 

Journalists should be free to belong to unions to try and remove non-professional cheap labour from writing unprofessional articles that get edited by nobody much - thinking on-line here - and on-line should be subject to the same regulations.

Ban foreign or foreign-living millionaires from owning UK newspapers. They do not have the welfare of the citizens of the country at heart or they would live here and have a REAL stake in the well-being of the United Kingdom....

 

Journalists who knowingly print false information, no matter how minor, to apologise ASAP if it's a mistake of sources, or get banned for 6 months if it's a deliberate propaganda distortion. That way they will stand up to their editors. That also applies to re-writers of copy, not the original piece if it was error-free.

 

Speculation to be labelled as speculation. Bullshit about bendy bananas to be treated as seriously as fake items about people and organisations.

 

Journalists should be free to belong to unions to try and remove non-professional cheap labour from writing unprofessional articles that get edited by nobody much - thinking on-line here - and on-line should be subject to the same regulations.

 

The main problem with measures like the above, is that it may well drive people away from increasingly bland mainstream newspapers, towards unregulated blogs, or foreign papers not covered by British laws regulating content.

Might I suggest that buying a paper like the i (reasonably intelligent, relatively unbiased) would be a good idea? The more successful a relatively unbiased paper is, the more it might force other publications to change their ways.

 

On that basis, The Independent should already be the most popular, so there's a flaw in your theory.

 

IMO it is that people *prefer* sensationalism to accuracy.

 

So we agree that such a publication should be free of bigotry?

If we ALL agree, why do you read the daily mail?

On that basis, The Independent should already be the most popular, so there's a flaw in your theory.

 

IMO it is that people *prefer* sensationalism to accuracy.

When did you last read the Independent?

People love sensationalism because people love to get angry and complain.

When did you last read the Independent?

 

I tend not to, as it argues with my adblocker.

People love sensationalism because people love to get angry and complain.

 

Precisely - and that's what sells more newspapers.

I tend not to, as it argues with my adblocker.

 

And that's why we can't have nice things.

If we ALL agree, why do you read the daily mail?

 

Because it's necessary to read more than one newspaper to get the full details of news stories.

 

Surely if we're to get *absolutely factual* news, as even Queef agrees we should, then we should get the *full* story, warts & all, even if some of the facts aren't deemed PC?

 

 

As even I agree??

 

It was me who broached the idea and you who argued with it!! It's there to see in the other threads!!!!

As even I agree??

 

It was me who broached the idea and you who argued with it!! It's there to see in the other threads!!!!

 

Well, I was referring to this thread specifically, but as you say...

Because it's necessary to read more than one newspaper to get the full details of news stories.

 

Surely if we're to get *absolutely factual* news, as even Queef agrees we should, then we should get the *full* story, warts & all, even if some of the facts aren't deemed PC?

 

I think you will find that there are a large number of journalistic publications that report full stories with much better accuracy and less distracting bigotry than the Mail.

 

You want two sides, read the Guardian and the Telegraph, or the Times and the I, or any number of more niche publications like Reuters, New Statesman, Economist until you are satisfied you have the absolute facts. There is no need to support tabloids with no journalistic integrity.