Onion
Pirate Radge
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2002
...but we can make life difficult for you and your loved ones if you do...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23750289
:sad
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23750289
:sad
We can't stop you reporting it...
- Thread starter Onion
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2002
What a shower of cocksockets. Real Monty Python stuff and basically making them look like dafties in the eyes of the public internationally. I'll watch Fox News the night, who will have 'du,du,du,....Gay lover of treacherous bastard who reported......etc,etc,etc. Fill in the blanks. Hey ,ho he should be lucky that he isnae the second Brazilian to be shot eight times at close range through the napper by 'agents' Tawdry.
BIG G
BIG G
Zitellis Heid
Legendary Radge
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
Aye. Snowden will be a rapist next. Wait and see.
Does give an insight to the fact they are terrified of any leaks. Why?
Does give an insight to the fact they are terrified of any leaks. Why?
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2002
Aye. Snowden will be a rapist next. Wait and see.
Does give an insight to the fact they are terrified of any leaks. Why?
Rhetorical I presume amigo.
BIG G
Zitellis Heid
Legendary Radge
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
Verily, Compadre.
egb_hibs
Private Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2002
Odd tack to take, referencing another part of the media in an example of the Obama regimes effort to criminalise the press. I think some googling will reveal that fox have actually been the biggest victima so far, it being so extreme that even the liberal media rushed to their defence.
The culprit here is the authoritarian big statism we experienced under new labour - blaming the victims is falling into their hands
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2002
A politically motivated detention. 200,000,000 folk passed through this airport last year with only 40 detained for several hours including this guy. UK government have stated that they had nowt to do with this as have the US government who have said that they had a 'heads up' it was gonnae happen. Couldnae make it up. By the way I for my sins actually watch Fox news regularly, do you M? Didnae think so.
BIG G
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
Oh yes we fkn can
Ive been meaning to post this for a while but never got round to it. Anyhoo as we all know the financial crash of 2008ish was brought about by the septics. However it was first brought to prominence by the collapse of the Banks in Iceland.
With me so far. Good I,ll continue. One of the fellys I work with is a German chappy. As such he commutes all over Europe cos apart from anything else hes rather a gifted piana player and is in high demand for highbrow festivals, operas an that kind of gig (Rubbish with 1d and Chas n Dave but i prevaricate) We were talking about this n that one night when the subject of Iceland banks and bankers being wankers in general came up. He then informed me that in Iceland the CEOs of the banks that went bust went to jail for being rubbish at their job and this is the really good bit, the ordinary punters who had mortgages and I presume loans got them wiped out cos it wasn,t their fault.
Well good on the whale hunters thought I this requires further investigation. Nada. Nowt on Google or any thing else. Now my Teutonic chum does not do porkies or exaggeration but had to be challenged.
Simple explanation given. This land of free speech is one of the most heavily censored countries in the world.Not quite up there with North Korea but is immensely selective with what can be released. I kind of knew this having been threatened with a D notice a few years back and having received a friendly visit from some government chaps who were actually very charming in their threats to send me to Peterhead (before it was the bouncy castle for sex offenders)
Now this is a very simple example of how reporting on what I thinks is an act of benevolence is not reported accurately because of the threat it would be to our financial institutions.
BTW in this instance Google is not your friend
Ive been meaning to post this for a while but never got round to it. Anyhoo as we all know the financial crash of 2008ish was brought about by the septics. However it was first brought to prominence by the collapse of the Banks in Iceland.
With me so far. Good I,ll continue. One of the fellys I work with is a German chappy. As such he commutes all over Europe cos apart from anything else hes rather a gifted piana player and is in high demand for highbrow festivals, operas an that kind of gig (Rubbish with 1d and Chas n Dave but i prevaricate) We were talking about this n that one night when the subject of Iceland banks and bankers being wankers in general came up. He then informed me that in Iceland the CEOs of the banks that went bust went to jail for being rubbish at their job and this is the really good bit, the ordinary punters who had mortgages and I presume loans got them wiped out cos it wasn,t their fault.
Well good on the whale hunters thought I this requires further investigation. Nada. Nowt on Google or any thing else. Now my Teutonic chum does not do porkies or exaggeration but had to be challenged.
Simple explanation given. This land of free speech is one of the most heavily censored countries in the world.Not quite up there with North Korea but is immensely selective with what can be released. I kind of knew this having been threatened with a D notice a few years back and having received a friendly visit from some government chaps who were actually very charming in their threats to send me to Peterhead (before it was the bouncy castle for sex offenders)
Now this is a very simple example of how reporting on what I thinks is an act of benevolence is not reported accurately because of the threat it would be to our financial institutions.
BTW in this instance Google is not your friend
egb_hibs
Private Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2002
dont have access to it. Still don't understand why you're blaming them rather than authoritarian government. Have you read about what they've been on the end of in the US - shocking stuff, Obama basically trying to make investigative journalism illegal. As I said even the media that have so far worshipped him turned on him. Many parallels with new labour as I say; both parties have the opinion forming establishment in media, eductation, arts and showbiz, kissing their erchies - and thus their authortarian impulses get a relatively free pass. If bush did half of what Obama did we'd have critiques of amerikkka coming out our ears.
Psi wa reading something recently on media analysis which says that according to the facts Fox is the least biased news channel. it has the greatest plurality of opinions featured, and puts liberal points of view one on one with conservative ones - in contrast to 'bbc balance' where some hapless sap like Peter hitchens is stuck in to get duffed up by a panel of otherwise right-on establishment sorts. In fact much of fox's rep for outrageous bias is perversely because it gives voice to viewpoints otherwise rigorously excluded by the establishment - I'll not digress further but the book burnings, intimidation to the point of being failed for incorrect opinions, one sided funding of student politics etc that HP on in American universities is frightening.
Does this mirror your experience viewing it?
- - - Updated - - -
Don't quite follow this, but this book tells the story of Iceland in readable style, with some black humour thrown in - so also Greece etc
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Boomerang-B...=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376981816&sr=1-3
Gareth
Private Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2002
Part of that is absolutely right in my opinion. Its amazing how suppine criticisms of Obama have been, frighteningly so. However I think Obama is about continuity from Bush rather than change. A lot of what has been highlighted recently started under Bush and was ramped up under Obama (espionage act stuff apart).
This might depend what you mean by facts. The bits of Fox I've seen don't have a plurality of opinions in any way, they have a right wing anchor, a soft liberal who usually is denied the chance to make the point by constant harranging (sp) and the anchor then has a few minutes to completely rubbish the point the soft liberal wasn't allowed to make.
Re Hitchens. If its question time your talkign about I couldn't disagree more. Hitchens, Phillips, the guy from the Institite for economic affairs, fraser nelson, ruth lea, any number of big business person are on it all of the time where they join a right of centre political panel. There is the occasional Bob Crow, Owen Jones but thats rare.
The QT treatment of the Scottish debate, much like the rest of the media has been pretty disgraceful too.
egb_hibs
Private Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2002
One on one is better than you get anywhere else and moreover it sounds like you are referring to their opinion shows which I gather are more, erm, opinionated than the news - I will defer to your viewing experience though as I am going by media analysis.
I'm far from just referring to QT - though Hitchens is certainly usually a line voice of social conservatism in that programme - a rather boggle eyed one to boot which is handy. Nick Cohen as a lefty who dissents on key shibboleths has written on this subject. It's such an undeniable truth that only is sheer pervasiveness hides it
I'm far from just referring to QT - though Hitchens is certainly usually a line voice of social conservatism in that programme - a rather boggle eyed one to boot which is handy. Nick Cohen as a lefty who dissents on key shibboleths has written on this subject. It's such an undeniable truth that only is sheer pervasiveness hides it
Gareth
Private Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2002
Hmm. I'd be interested to see this media analysis. In the meantime, here is Fox's London chief
"Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly. And those who hate us can take solace in the fact that they aren't subsidizing Bill's bombast; we payers of the BBC license fee don't enjoy that peace of mind".
He goes on to imply this as a counter to the BBC, slightly strange given Fox is American
"Fox News is, after all, a private channel and our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories. That's our appeal. People watch us because they know what they are getting. The Beeb's institutionalized leftism would be easier to tolerate if the corporation was a little more honest about it".
I don't think anything Nick Cohen writes should ever be treated as the 'undeniable truth'. He's a clown who is still writing his 'was i wrong on iraq, of course not' articles.
I've said to you before, I think there is a slight bias towards liberalism on social issues in Britain. I also think the majority of the population are quite socially liberal but haven't seen any evidence re cause and effect. There is an even greater bias on economic matters to the free marketeers though, which is all pervasive. (did you ever read Lukes 'Power; A radical view'. sure i suggested it some time ago). While I'm forced to admit the majority of the popualtion at present don't question the economic assumptions in the daily media output and therefore are midly supportive of that stance, but there is some evidence re cause and effect in this case.
Jack
Private Member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2007
I'm surprised anyone thinks politicians and the media haven't been bedfellows since, well, forever.
D Notices, in my experience, were relatively rare.
Again I think we have social media [leaks] filling the gaps and politicians and the media are a bit edgy about it all. Some, countries, don't have a clue how to deal with it, others make whatever it is up as they go along.
Its all a bit topsy turvy just now.
D Notices, in my experience, were relatively rare.
Again I think we have social media [leaks] filling the gaps and politicians and the media are a bit edgy about it all. Some, countries, don't have a clue how to deal with it, others make whatever it is up as they go along.
Its all a bit topsy turvy just now.
egb_hibs
Private Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2002
You tend to write people off because of their political view which is part of the culture
That surrounds all this.
Let me suggest an illustrative example of pervasive media bias using the recent hot potato of gay marriage.
I read two pieces of pew research recently - one showed that almost everyone who has changed their mind on gay marriage has changed from against to for. Another piece focussed on analysis that showed an overwhelming bias across all broadcast media - including fox, this was US based - in favour of the for argument. And this really was saturation stuff many networks carried no against arguments whatsoever and damn few neutral. Put the two together and what do you have - public opinion changing in line with a pervasive media bias that is not the same as but in effect is equivalent to a propaganda campaign given its one sidedness.
Now lets use your qt example in this context - I don't think you would argue that it is conceivable that a qt panel would ever be out together which was majority against and happily dismissed objectors as crazies and bigots.
This is the kind of thing that is so pervasive people don't even notice. It is the same over any number of liberal shibboleths and far more in the social than economic realms.
Now you may argue that left wing economics is not as prominent as you'd like. Maybe this is an issue but I would contend there is one important difference.
In the example I give a minority position was the only one given airtime with such force and pervasiveness it went on to become the majority position. The representation of, say, Marxist economies is the other way around - it may not get equal air time but it gets disproportionate airtime compared to the small minority who adhere to it.
I don't think it can credibly be argued that social liberalism is anything other than in possession of a broadcast media stranglehold.
That surrounds all this.
Let me suggest an illustrative example of pervasive media bias using the recent hot potato of gay marriage.
I read two pieces of pew research recently - one showed that almost everyone who has changed their mind on gay marriage has changed from against to for. Another piece focussed on analysis that showed an overwhelming bias across all broadcast media - including fox, this was US based - in favour of the for argument. And this really was saturation stuff many networks carried no against arguments whatsoever and damn few neutral. Put the two together and what do you have - public opinion changing in line with a pervasive media bias that is not the same as but in effect is equivalent to a propaganda campaign given its one sidedness.
Now lets use your qt example in this context - I don't think you would argue that it is conceivable that a qt panel would ever be out together which was majority against and happily dismissed objectors as crazies and bigots.
This is the kind of thing that is so pervasive people don't even notice. It is the same over any number of liberal shibboleths and far more in the social than economic realms.
Now you may argue that left wing economics is not as prominent as you'd like. Maybe this is an issue but I would contend there is one important difference.
In the example I give a minority position was the only one given airtime with such force and pervasiveness it went on to become the majority position. The representation of, say, Marxist economies is the other way around - it may not get equal air time but it gets disproportionate airtime compared to the small minority who adhere to it.
I don't think it can credibly be argued that social liberalism is anything other than in possession of a broadcast media stranglehold.
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2005
egb_hibs
Private Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2002
Ps fox analysis was iirc also pew though referenced in a book which juxtaposed with kind of rhetoric you quote - which is little different to liberal rhetoric but in the latter case liberal networks coverage bias is more in line with their prejudice. Ill try and find reference for you when I get a chance
Gareth
Private Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2002
No, I dismiss Cohen because he's a shoddy journalist who seldom uses evidence and spends his life self justifying his own march to the right. Who else have I 'written off'?
That is far from cause and effect I'm afraid, its a correlation rather than a causal link. Equally it might be argued that people have simply become more liberal socially, seen in the higher prevelance of mixed race marriages for example, and the media have reflected this. The prevailing culture has undoubtedly changed re race and sexuality but its anything but clear that this was led by the media.
A QT panel that had a majority against gay marriage (a pretty minor issue for most people incidentally) would be a pretty unrepresentative panel. Nevertheless there are often two pretty rabid right wingers AND a Tory, Lib Dem and Lab politician on it so the panel IS bias to the right, just not on the pretty minor issues you deem important.
I didn't even mention Marxist economics. Watch the BBC for example and there is not a word of questioning of the economic direction even from a more Keynesian standpoint.
Incidentally, minority positions often go on to become majority ones without media help. If, and I accept its a big if, there is a yes vote next year, this will be despite an almost universal media opposition.
I've conceded a slight bias towards social liberalism in the media, that doesn't lead automatically to any change in the beliefs of the population.
egb_hibs
Private Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2002
Correlation vs causality is obviously an important distinction but its also become a bit of a canard for hiding from conclusions; correlation is frequently all we have to go with in the real world where you cannot test as in lab conditions. The media bias I discussed would be concerning enough without any changes in society. To argue that society has changed alongside this sort of things without giving credence to the strong likelihood of influence only begs the question as to how social views do change if not by transmission, of which a vast media effort is a hugey significant element.
Your qt response misses the point - such a panel would be unthinkable even where opposition was the majority position as it was recently as still may be, given people are notoriously reluctant to tell pollsters non pc views and opposite results in polls vs private ballots in some us instances.
If you prefer though - take mass immigration; public majority against, unthinkable to have a qt panel reflect that.
Come on , this is more than a slight bias. And I agree with you the yes vote has to contend with similar dynamics.
I gave Marxist economics as an example I accept you did not.
You possibly watch more economics programmes than me but I would dispute your view on Keynesianism. Recent biopics of Keynes and Marx by that women who does the economics on the been were hagiographic on the former and gave remarkable credence to the latter.
Your point that there is an insufficiently more keynsian view given as critique belies the fact thg a form of keynsian view is the only show in town. Wherefore the exploration of the role social democracy played in the bust and due coverage of a small state alternative.
Wouldn't happen - whether these positions are minority or majority is barely relevant - it's correspondence to the liberal establishment view which counts.
Your qt response misses the point - such a panel would be unthinkable even where opposition was the majority position as it was recently as still may be, given people are notoriously reluctant to tell pollsters non pc views and opposite results in polls vs private ballots in some us instances.
If you prefer though - take mass immigration; public majority against, unthinkable to have a qt panel reflect that.
Come on , this is more than a slight bias. And I agree with you the yes vote has to contend with similar dynamics.
I gave Marxist economics as an example I accept you did not.
You possibly watch more economics programmes than me but I would dispute your view on Keynesianism. Recent biopics of Keynes and Marx by that women who does the economics on the been were hagiographic on the former and gave remarkable credence to the latter.
Your point that there is an insufficiently more keynsian view given as critique belies the fact thg a form of keynsian view is the only show in town. Wherefore the exploration of the role social democracy played in the bust and due coverage of a small state alternative.
Wouldn't happen - whether these positions are minority or majority is barely relevant - it's correspondence to the liberal establishment view which counts.
Gareth
Private Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2002
I agree that causality is difficult to show and that this shouldnt mean we cant imply relationships between variables, but you then have to be open and honest that youre making a number of assumptions about those relationships. There is a huge academic literature on how views change and there are many ways that do not involve being directed by the media.
But the vast majority of QT programmes dont discuss gay marriage as its a pretty minor issue for most people, so how do you know there arent majority against on some programmes and that the issue just isnt discussed.
Is it? Most of the media characters on QT are from the right and often rail against mass immigration. Add to that two of the panel are always part of the existing Government who have introduced policies against mass immigration and thats three of your five right away, and that ignores the disproportionate time people like Farage and Douglas Murray get and they are both anti immigrant despite their free marketer ideas.
Is it?
I watched all three of those programmes and thought all three were awful, not hagiographic but awful in their shallowness. Re Marx, there was nothing on the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, a pretty important part of his critique of capitalist economics and pretty widely accepted and the programme also went on to the old canard about the USSR.
Is it really? The cuts agenda as an example is accepted without question. Business practices and threats of offshoring accepted as the reason we cant improve working conditions and pay without any questioning. Big business practices beyond small skirmishes around tax rates unquestioned. Where Milton Friedman is referenced it never refers to both the ramifications of these experiments or to the fact that methodologically he was a charlatan.
Oh Christ do we have to get into your ridiculously narrow conception of establishment again? Really?
egb_hibs
Private Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2002
Gareth, that people may be to the right of you doesn't put them on the right. I have given you two examples using QT as the context - and it's a mild one, at least QT has it's tokens - and you avoid the point or simply deny the reality - there has never and will never be a QT panel where the large majority critique mass immigration, and forthrightly and with respect to all dimensions of the issue. That some token addresses one facet - economics say - with painstaking care not to draw any wider conclusion, is not the same thing. Should the impossible happen, then this view would need pummelled home through all output drama as well as documentary, to reflect the reverse position today, and this time in line with public views.
The examples go on, but you'll just swerve each in turn. Even the BBC eventually admit their biases if in each case looking backwards and insisting it not their now.
The BBC is not a pedestal for reactionary left wing economics, but it is a bully pulpit for the liberal establishment no matter how you wriggle. Your dispute re the nature of the establishment is based on yesterday's battles - even then the achingly metro Tories of today kind of negate some of your point.
Levels of bias are utterly pervasive - as they are also in the US. We badly need a counter cultural voice in the mainstream media, and many countercultural voices in academia. Sadly then hegemony looks unassailable for the time being.
The examples go on, but you'll just swerve each in turn. Even the BBC eventually admit their biases if in each case looking backwards and insisting it not their now.
The BBC is not a pedestal for reactionary left wing economics, but it is a bully pulpit for the liberal establishment no matter how you wriggle. Your dispute re the nature of the establishment is based on yesterday's battles - even then the achingly metro Tories of today kind of negate some of your point.
Levels of bias are utterly pervasive - as they are also in the US. We badly need a counter cultural voice in the mainstream media, and many countercultural voices in academia. Sadly then hegemony looks unassailable for the time being.
Gareth
Private Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2002
This is indeed true, but has little or no relevance to what were discussing. Self-defined rightists and centrists dominate political discourse in Britain regardless of my politics.
Your examples were rubbish though and showed nothing. There are regular discussions on QT that almost all start by acknowledging the contribution migrants have made before railing against more migration. If you havent seen that then youre not looking closely enough. And with regard to all dimensions of the issue, QT never, I mean never discusses all dimensions of any issue. Its a pretty shallow discussion programme whereby participants espouse any crap they want with only very occasional challenges, and they tend to be around the margins.
First, you think balance is created by drama being overtly anti-immigration? What are you balancing against? The media and politicians talk up immigration numbers and the problems it creates and people then drastically overestimate both those numbers and accompanying problems. And it is impossible to argue with any seriousness that the media output re migration has been anything but implacably hostile. There is a mass of evidence re this if youd like directed towards it? There is also evidence that most people's responses concern what they thing the impact of migration is on other people, that they themselves have not been negatively effected by migration, and this is at least in part conditioned by the media and political debate.
Ive not swerved anything. Youve given two examples which I think are wrong and have told you why. I think Ive done that in a pretty straightforward way rather than swerving.
Oh for christ sake, reactionary left wing economics? and you accuse me of swerving. Anything to the left of the current austerity/austerity light, neo-liberalism/neo-liberalism with a human face is reactionary left wing economics?
No, my dispute is that you go through all sorts of contortions to try to define the establishment only as everything you disagree with. So the right wing media, right wing politicians, the powerful economic elites etc conveniently fall outside of your definition which is purely based on this notion of the liberal metropolitan elite. Its ridiculously shallow and reductionist.
All of these things are contested in both the media and academia, but in order to counter something you have to be clearer what it is and at the moment its far too disparate and incoherent for social conservatives to properly mobilise either for or against.
bigmanandy
Aulder Than The Internet This Radge
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2006
Agreed, I personally don't watch UK news on the telly think a lot of its propaganda between the government and media.
On the guys detention think it was politically motivated, the Americans probably wanted to speak to him but Westminster is that far up their arses they had it arranged here.