Bolitics The New Condem Government

[colhint]

Interesting the (typical) deflection by the right wing supporters here. The issue still pretty much remains of what was a pretty disgusting approach by the tory supporting daily mail, along with the bigger issue of how this continues but despite an independent report prompting for more controls, this gvmt does nothing about. Typically though the right wing seem more interested in trying to character assasinate anyone who questions the approach and condemn the message rather than debate the serious issues.

 

How can that be. I think to a man we have all said that what the mail did was very wrong. It was pointed out a week ago the mail's response to medhi's rant on qt. It was only brought up again by Peter who hadn't seen it, fair enough. Peter was defending, Medhi. Not attacking the government at all. No one is defending the mail just highlighting the hypocrisy of what he  said

[drat01]

Well I'm not right wing, I'm certainly not a Tory voter but I agree entirely with Mr Risso.

 

Missed the point completely though.

 

Do you not agree that the more important issue is the initial article, the tone of what is going on in the press and the things like the lack of implementation of elements of Leveson etc? You and others are more interested in the messenger than the message can we assume?

 

Interesting the (typical) deflection by the right wing supporters here. The issue still pretty much remains of what was a pretty disgusting approach by the tory supporting daily mail, along with the bigger issue of how this continues but despite an independent report prompting for more controls, this gvmt does nothing about. Typically though the right wing seem more interested in trying to character assasinate anyone who questions the approach and condemn the message rather than debate the serious issues.

 

How can that be. I think to a man we have all said that what the mail did was very wrong. It was pointed out a week ago the mail's response to medhi's rant on qt. It was only brought up again by Peter who hadn't seen it, fair enough. Peter was defending, Medhi. Not attacking the government at all. No one is defending the mail just highlighting the hypocrisy of what he  said

 

See above - you and others concentrating on the messenger is nothing more than deflection from the more concerning issues though.

Edited October 11, 2013 by drat01

[blandy]

....it is entirely appropriate to consider him to be a hypocrite based on a) that letter to the Mail in which he praises the Mail's 'boldness and values', and his performance on QT in which he takes quite the opposite view....

totally. No one's mentioned his niaivity in applying for a job there while having a "foreign sounding" name, either.

[colhint]

we are not concentrating on the messenger. We are responding to a specific point raised by Peter last night

[drat01]

we are not concentrating on the messenger. We are responding to a specific point raised by Peter last night

Nice try but nahhh, the thread is littered with deflection from the real issues and a lot of it is trying to discredit the message by concentrating on who is supposedly saying it.

 

But anyway I am sure the the Gvmt will be addressing the press behaviour soon .................. or maybe not?

 

Different subject - I wonder how the Gvmt (and it's supporters) react to the following

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24482948

 

It seems that the BS spouted so often in official and off-the-cuff remarks from them re Council Taxes is certainly having an impact. The problem is that the impact is a negative one

[colhint]

I think deflection would have been not to answer Peter's points and talk about something else

[drat01]

I think deflection would have been not to answer Peter's points and talk about something else

Funny how so many of how shall we say "right wing" or "gvmt supporters" use the attack on the messenger rather than discuss issues tactic though would you not agree?  Interesting how that appraoch mirrors in a way the type and style of the approach taken by the Mail etc. I suppose it must be a trait in some way.

 

But that is obviously not important so lets look at another failing of this Gvmt

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/11/osborne-plan-cut-energy-company-obligation

 

I appreciate the story comes from the Grud who the Gvmt and their supporters seem to dislike at most times, but certainly the story does not bode well for Gideon et al.  It would be interesting to hear what the VT supporters of the Tory party (and right wingers) feel re the comments (which I think are pretty fair) in the story

[tonyh29]

The real issue was that a few posters held him up to be some form of champion and were waxing lyrical about him in this thread thus when he was "all conquering" he was a valid issue , suddenly when he's been rumbled the cry of deflection goes up and we are supposed to move on I've yet to see one poster agree with the Mail on Milliband so this story arguably could have died 100 pages ago and to a degree it did and we'd moved on to attacking evil supermarkets , (except Waitrose ) Anyway Must dash , I'm off to rummage through David Cameron's rubbish bins

Edited October 11, 2013 by tonyh29

[Awol]

But anyway I am sure the the Gvmt will be addressing the press behaviour soon .................. or maybe not?

 

Is that necessary? Hasn't the very public kicking the Mail has received for printing the article demonstrated that government regulation of the press isn't required?

 

What about the Guardian printing all of the Snowden leaks (described by a former GCHQ head as the worst ever loss to British Intelligence) would you have the Government muzzle them too?  It is after all a far more serious issue than some journo doing a hatchet job on Ed's poor old dad.

 

For the record I don't think they should prosecute the Guardian (although I hope Snowden meets a sticky end ASAP), press freedom is vital to a democracy. Aiming to curb that is very dangerous and extremely short sighted.

[drat01]

 

But anyway I am sure the the Gvmt will be addressing the press behaviour soon .................. or maybe not?

 

Is that necessary? Hasn't the very public kicking the Mail has received for printing the article demonstrated that government regulation of the press isn't required?

 

What about the Guardian printing all of the Snowden leaks (described by a former GCHQ head as the worst ever loss to British Intelligence) would you have the Government muzzle them too?  It is after all a far more serious issue than some journo doing a hatchet job on Ed's poor old dad.

 

For the record I don't think they should prosecute the Guardian (although I hope Snowden meets a sticky end ASAP), press freedom is vital to a democracy. Aiming to curb that is very dangerous and extremely short sighted.

 

Firstly AWOL - thanks for at least debating the issue rather than the stupidity of some of the posts that are nothing more than post-on-poster type (Edit: not aimed at you!)

 

I disagree with your views on the press, and fail to see how you using the Grud's actions in some way justifies the actions (and lack of action by the Tory Gvmt) of the Mail and similar styles. Am I right in thinking that you do not agree with Leveson for example?

 

The words of "press freedom" are ones that I have seen, predominantly from the right wing media and the right wing political spectrum. But it's a more general point of social conscience, accountability, reporting facts etc and a whole load of others that get trodden over by what is a general glib phrase, IMO. This is nothing whatsoever to do with press freedom IMO, the actions (and support from some within the Tory gvmt as we saw from Hunt and Gove and lack of condemnation from Cameron etc) are more to do with "looking after your mates".

Edited October 11, 2013 by drat01

[tonyh29]

The Press is far from perfect and is often its own worst enemy. But free speech is too valuable to be messed with.

Taken from that right wing paper the Daily Mirror Edited October 11, 2013 by tonyh29

[drat01]

 

The Press is far from perfect and is often its own worst enemy. But free speech is too valuable to be messed with.

Taken from that right wing paper the Daily Mirror

 

Makes no sense whatsoever to the discussion and the points being talked about, IMO. Might as well say that Express have an article on Tropical Fish today

[tonyh29]

The Press is far from perfect and is often its own worst enemy. But free speech is too valuable to be messed with.

Taken from that right wing paper the Daily Mirror

Makes no sense whatsoever to the discussion and the points being talked about, IMO. Might as well say that Express have an article on Tropical Fish today

Was it a tropical fish that looked like Diana ?

[drat01]

It seems that the old chestnut of Europe wont get swept under the carpet for Cameron

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24484463

 

You can imagine that Farrage will be having yet another beer to "celebrate" that news

[bickster]

Whether the bloke is a hypocrite or not is obviously a contentious point that people seem to be hung up on but that is a sideshow. It doesn't really matter either whether he meant what he said (lets be honest he was on a platform with politicians.) The real point is what he said was spot on, for sure he was grandstanding but at the end of the day what he said had a very strong resonance with the audience. That he believed it or not shouldn't be the issue.

[bickster]

But anyway I am sure the the Gvmt will be addressing the press behaviour soon .................. or maybe not?

 

Is that necessary? Hasn't the very public kicking the Mail has received for printing the article demonstrated that government regulation of the press isn't required?

 

What about the Guardian printing all of the Snowden leaks (described by a former GCHQ head as the worst ever loss to British Intelligence) would you have the Government muzzle them too?  It is after all a far more serious issue than some journo doing a hatchet job on Ed's poor old dad.

 

For the record I don't think they should prosecute the Guardian (although I hope Snowden meets a sticky end ASAP), press freedom is vital to a democracy. Aiming to curb that is very dangerous and extremely short sighted.

No one has suggested curbing press freedom as far as I'm aware. Publish and be damned is still the mantra but at least when you are damned you should have to make amends proportionately, that isn't happening now so the control mechanism doesn't work.

[peterms]

It really is an extremely simple concept that it seems you're struggling to grasp.  The same person praised the Daily Mail's values on once occasion, then attacked those same perceived values on another.  Even though I'm quite aware of his views which are on the whole what you'd expect from somebody who is fairly religiously conservative, it is entirely appropriate to consider him to be a hypocrite based on a) that letter to the Mail in which he praises the Mail's 'boldness and values', and his performance on QT in which he takes quite the opposite view.  It's quite possible to consider one or two important items from a person's work in isolation, and to draw judgements from those items.

 

Colhint's post above correctly stated that he praised their news values.  You say he praised their values.  I imagine you know there's a pretty big difference between the two things.

 

So when you place in quotes that he has praised the Mail's 'boldness and values', but the piece in the Mail illustrated actually says '...boldness and, of course, news values...', you are changing what he said while putting it in quotes to make it look like it's what he said.  This gives the impression of defending your view by twisting what he has said so that it fits what you wanted him to say.

 

If he had praised their political views while applying for a job, then later attacked them, that would certainly be hypocrisy.  Similarly if he were now to attack their news values, having praised them.  What the Mail has quoted from him seems to be words carefully chosen to identify limited areas where he thinks he can claim agreement with some of what they do, while remaining silent about other things.

 

I have no problem with people saying it's strange that he should want to work for such a paper, given his other views, or that he should have openly addressed the issue of the difference of his views on political issues instead of highlighting the limited areas of social issues where there is much less divergence between his views and those of the Mail.  I do have a problem with people twisting and misrepresenting his words to try to discredit him.

[peterms]

Well doesn't he admire their news Values. whatever that means. I took it that he understood what sort of stuff the mail wrote and admired it.

and doesn't he admire their outspoken defense of our faith and Christian culture, yet he then calls them immigrant bashing.

Doesn't he admire their values on the family abortion and teenage pregnancies and yet call them women hating. . 

 

To me it does seem he either believed what he wrote on his application or what he said on question time. At one of those instances he was a liar.

 

When he talks about news values, I take him to mean news reporting rather than editorial line or political comment.

 

Defence of religious values doesn't (in fact you can say shouldn't) involve immigrant bashing.  And a conservative approach to abortion doesn't have to be from a position of hating women.

 

I disagree with his views on these issues, but I don't see the blatant contradiction that you say is there.

[MakemineVanilla]

From what I can see Hasan was simply displaying the art of journalism.

 

The use of the term hack is pejorative because it suggests what we all know to be true; that journalists just write opinions which accord to their employer's views.

 

And when you compare the two statements they just seem to be the two different sides of the exact same coin - I am sure that the Daily Mail would describe its "gay-bashing" as upholding family values.

 

The idea of a tabloid journalist possessing any values he might actually be found guilty of betraying just seems ridiculous.

 

Journalists are just whores who do tricks.

[blandy]

 

It really is an extremely simple concept that it seems you're struggling to grasp.  The same person praised the Daily Mail's values on once occasion, then attacked those same perceived values on another.  Even though I'm quite aware of his views which are on the whole what you'd expect from somebody who is fairly religiously conservative, it is entirely appropriate to consider him to be a hypocrite based on a) that letter to the Mail in which he praises the Mail's 'boldness and values', and his performance on QT in which he takes quite the opposite view.  It's quite possible to consider one or two important items from a person's work in isolation, and to draw judgements from those items.

 

Colhint's post above correctly stated that he praised their news values.  You say he praised their values.  I imagine you know there's a pretty big difference between the two things.

 

So when you place in quotes that he has praised the Mail's 'boldness and values', but the piece in the Mail illustrated actually says '...boldness and, of course, news values...', you are changing what he said while putting it in quotes to make it look like it's what he said.  This gives the impression of defending your view by twisting what he has said so that it fits what you wanted him to say.

 

If he had praised their political views while applying for a job, then later attacked them, that would certainly be hypocrisy.  Similarly if he were now to attack their news values, having praised them.  What the Mail has quoted from him seems to be words carefully chosen to identify limited areas where he thinks he can claim agreement with some of what they do, while remaining silent about other things.

 

I have no problem with people saying it's strange that he should want to work for such a paper, given his other views, or that he should have openly addressed the issue of the difference of his views on political issues instead of highlighting the limited areas of social issues where there is much less divergence between his views and those of the Mail.  I do have a problem with people twisting and misrepresenting his words to try to discredit him.

There's no need to twist anything - on the one hand he (rightly) lambasted the Mail for Demonising Muslims, single mothers, women, gay people, immigrants and so on [on the telly], on the other hand, he applied for a job there, writing a letter praising them for the recognition of the need for "integrity and morality in public life", for their "news values" and the rest of it.

There is clearly massive hypocrisy and contradiction between those two stances. The Mail itself does not demonstrate integrity and morality (where are those traits when they step over the line, when they are drawn into the public life? - do they apologise and improve, or do they continue to behave appallingly?).

I don't think the "news values" and "political stance" are two seperate things at the Mail. They are utterly intertwined. What they report upon, and how they report it is determined by their political stance. Their political stance drives their news values.

For example in reporting on a dead singer, on global warming, on anything a Labour politician says and so on, their news values lead them to write and report in a particular (objectionable) way.

As Bicks pointed out, what he said on the telly was valid, whether he's a hypocrit or not. But those pointing out the hypocrisy are right.