Bolitics The New Condem Government

[TrentVilla]

 

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?

 

Actually no Drat I didn't, I simply didn't agree with you and agreed with Risso.

 

I didn't comment on any of the above so don't presume to know my view because you would probably be very wrong.

[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.

 

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.

You've missed the point though It's not about trying to justify what the Mail published it is the broader issue.  Your comment above implied that the Government needed to take action to restrict what the media can and cannot write, or at least to impose sanctions after the fact if some subjective "line" had been crossed (I think decency was the word you used earlier in the thread).

 

Fair enough that's your opinion, my question was whether you would apply the same attitude to a publication you favour such as the Guardian, giving the example of their ongoing crusade against British national security? I understand that you want the Government to take "action" over the Mail article, I'm asking whether you think they should also take action against the Guardian and if not, why not? 

Edited October 11, 2013 by Awol

[blandy]

 

You've missed the point though It's not about trying to justify what the Mail published it is the broader issue.  Your comment above implied that the Government needed to take action to restrict what the media can and cannot write, or at least to impose sanctions after the fact if some subjective "line" had been crossed (I think decency was the word you used earlier in the thread).

 

Fair enough that's your opinion, my question was whether you would apply the same attitude to a publication you favour such as the Guardian, giving the example of their ongoing crusade against British national security? I understand that you want the Government to take "action" over the Mail article, I'm asking whether you think they should also take action against the Guardian and if not, why not?

The two opposing proposals for replacing the PCC are the cross party one (based around Levenson's conclusions and recs) and the press' own one.

The main difference between them is that the press one proposes that the press pick all the people on the body, the press run it and so on.

The politicians proposal says that it should have authority to impose sanctions in the event that something cannot be resolved. That a verdict must be complied with. That the body shouldn't be just press people appointed by the press.

Neither seeks to restrict what the press can and can't write. That's very important.

The Mail should apologise, the Guardian should be commended.

[Awol]

So instead of the press governing themselves, you have politicians governing the only industry actually capable of holding them to account by exposing their deceit, corruption and hypocrisy.  No thanks.

[peterms]

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 Mail demonstrates integrity, though it does demonstrate morality - a peculiar and twisted version of morality, in my view. It clearly does call for integrity and morality in public life, all the time - again its own twisted version of integrity and morality. I'm surprised that Hasan thought there was not too great a gap between his own views on this and the Mail's to make working there uncomfortable and unpleasant. But journos do work at papers where they disagree with many aspects of the paper's stance, perhaps because they think it important to reach an audience that would otherwise never hear them, or for career reasons.

 

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.

I agree with the widely held view that the Mail seems unable to separate fact and fiction, and it also appears to send reporters to cover a story from a particular angle. The Lawrence case is a good example, where the reporter was told to do a number on the support group, before Dacre realised he knew Lawrence and changed tack. I don't know why Hasan seems not to see this as a corruption of news values, and I suspect if I heard his view it's something else I would disagree with him on.

But the things he criticised on tv were not the same things he praised in what the Mail have printed.

I've just looked at his Twitter feed to see what he said a few days back, in response to accusations of hypocrisy.  As well as admitting he's pretty embarrassed by it, some comments give a bit of insight into his view.

 

 

regrettable sycophancy in pursuit of extra work. Not hypocritical to praise some values & 3 years later to condemn others

Only hypocrisy if I said I'd never write for Mail. Which I never did. I'd write for them tomorrow if they asked me, tbh.

I work for Al Jaz on the side. Doesn't mean I endorse everything Qatari government does, FFS.

I was on the payroll at Sky while being repulsed by Rupert Murdoch.

 

I'm not surprised that the Mail have responded to his attack not by discussing the issues, but by trying to smear him as a hypocrite.  If people agree with that assessment, that's up to them.  My view is that his letter makes him look a bit of an arse, but doesn't contradict the criticisms he made.  I disagree with his claim that it's only hypocrisy if he said he'd never work for them - it would be hypocrisy if he'd privately praised their line on eg immigration or women's rights or whatever while publicly attacking it. 

 

 

[tonyh29]

Quote  regrettable sycophancy in pursuit of extra work. Not hypocritical to praise some values & 3 years later to condemn others

Only hypocrisy if I said I'd never write for Mail. Which I never did. I'd write for them tomorrow if they asked me, tbh.

I work for Al Jaz on the side. Doesn't mean I endorse everything Qatari government does, FFS.

I was on the payroll at Sky while being repulsed by Rupert Murdoch.

 

 

Quote

hyp·o·crite

 

noun

1.

a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

2.

a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

 

 

    

so by his own words he's a hypocrite in every sense  , thanks for clearing that up for us Peter

Edited October 11, 2013 by tonyh29

[peterms]

 

Quote  regrettable sycophancy in pursuit of extra work. Not hypocritical to praise some values & 3 years later to condemn others

Only hypocrisy if I said I'd never write for Mail. Which I never did. I'd write for them tomorrow if they asked me, tbh.

I work for Al Jaz on the side. Doesn't mean I endorse everything Qatari government does, FFS.

I was on the payroll at Sky while being repulsed by Rupert Murdoch.

 

 

Quote

hyp·o·crite

 

noun

1.

a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

2.

a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

 

 

    

so by his own words he's a hypocrite in every sense  , thanks for clearing that up for us Peter

 

 

For clarity, Tony, quoting the definition of a word immediately after some other words does not constitute demonstrating that the definition applies to those words.

 

Here are some other words.  Perhaps you could find the definition of something else to place after them.  Like, oh I don't know, "longitude" or "carpet"?

 

 

Btw re Mail: I plead guilty to overambition & sycophancy. But not hypocrisy ("disagree with the Mail’s editorial line on a range of issues")

 

I take the bit in quotes to mean he said that in his letter, which addresses my earlier point that it would be better if he'd been upfront about his disagreements with them.

[tonyh29]

and I thought Mrs H liked having the last word 

 

 

I was sorta bored with this hypocrite a week ago   , I'm even more bored of him now , can't we find something else to argue about  ...

[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?

 

Actually no Drat I didn't, I simply didn't agree with you and agreed with Risso.

 

I didn't comment on any of the above so don't presume to know my view because you would probably be very wrong.

as with many things then i disagree with you, but i care not to argue with you so c'est la vie

[Kingfisher]

Well, I think we can all agree the daily mail is a shit right wing, homophobic, xenophobic, lying, Tory rag with past links to Nazism. And it is generally read and loved my mindless, scared, sad and pathetic little selfish morons who think Christmas has been banned and political correctness has gone mad.

What is there to debate?

[AshVilla]

So what are you guys thoughts on the Energy companies raising prices by a huge amount again

 

Is it because Red Ed has scared them into raising their prices now in case they get into power and freeze prices?

 

Can the government actually do anything about it?

[blandy]

So instead of the press governing themselves, you have politicians governing the only industry actually capable of holding them to account by exposing their deceit, corruption and hypocrisy.  No thanks.

That's not what was proposed by Levenson, or is being enacted

 

An independent regulatory body for the press should be established.

It should take an active role in promoting high standards, including having the power to investigate serious breaches and sanction newspapers.

The new body should be backed by legislation designed to assess whether it is doing its job properly.

The legislation would enshrine, for the first time, a legal duty on the government to protect the freedom of the press.

An arbitration system should be created through which people who say they have been victims of the press can seek redress without having to go through the courts.

Newspapers that refuse to join the new body could face direct regulation by media watchdog Ofcom.

The body should be independent of current journalists, the government and commercial concerns, and not include any serving editors, government members or MPs.

The body should consider encouraging the press to be as transparent as possible in relation to sources for its stories, if the information is in the public domain.

A whistle-blowing hotline should be established for journalists who feel under pressure to do unethical things.

 

etc.

[Awol]

Yep, sounds lovely, but who do you think is making the appointments to the all singing and dancing "independent" body?  Who will be assessing whether it's "doing it's job properly"?

 

If there is one thing the UK establishment remains peerless at it's an old fashioned stitch up.  This is the thin end of the wedge, imo.

[drat01]

So what are you guys thoughts on the Energy companies raising prices by a huge amount again

 

Is it because Red Ed has scared them into raising their prices now in case they get into power and freeze prices?

 

Can the government actually do anything about it?

this has nothing to do with milliband, shows a certain desperation if anyone blames that (plus the stupidity of the red ed thing is now somewhat tiresome). The energy companies have a track record of above inflation rises each year mostly. What they are doing is exactly what the debate should be and why they are allowed to do it especially for what are necessary services and have major impacts on such a lot of society

[tonyh29]

Kingfisher, on 11 Oct 2013 - 4:35 PM, said:

Well, I think we can all agree the daily mail is a shit right wing, homophobic, xenophobic, lying, Tory rag with past links to Nazism. And it is generally read and loved my mindless, scared, sad and pathetic little selfish morons who think Christmas has been banned and political correctness has gone mad.

What is there to debate?

 

 

and often quoted by people on this thread I might add

drat01, on 11 Oct 2013 - 5:41 PM, said:

 

AshVilla, on 11 Oct 2013 - 4:46 PM, said:

So what are you guys thoughts on the Energy companies raising prices by a huge amount again

 

Is it because Red Ed has scared them into raising their prices now in case they get into power and freeze prices?

 

Can the government actually do anything about it?

this has nothing to do with milliband, shows a certain desperation if anyone blames that (plus the stupidity of the red ed thing is now somewhat tiresome). The energy companies have a track record of above inflation rises each year mostly. What they are doing is exactly what the debate should be and why they are allowed to do it especially for what are necessary services and have major impacts on such a lot of society

 

 

Gideon says Hi

[drat01]

Yep, sounds lovely, but who do you think is making the appointments to the all singing and dancing "independent" body?  Who will be assessing whether it's "doing it's job properly"?

 

If there is one thing the UK establishment remains peerless at it's an old fashioned stitch up.  This is the thin end of the wedge, imo.

as with nearly everything there is an ultimate responsibility to the gvmt. The proposals were a very fair and independent set of reccomendations. Interestingly the biggest objectors are the press themselves and those who they typically support, not the majority of joe public

Kingfisher, on 11 Oct 2013 - 4:35 PM, said:

Well, I think we can all agree the daily mail is a shit right wing, homophobic, xenophobic, lying, Tory rag with past links to Nazism. And it is generally read and loved my mindless, scared, sad and pathetic little selfish morons who think Christmas has been banned and political correctness has gone mad.

What is there to debate?

 

 

and often quoted by people on this thread I might add

drat01, on 11 Oct 2013 - 5:41 PM, said:

 

AshVilla, on 11 Oct 2013 - 4:46 PM, said:

So what are you guys thoughts on the Energy companies raising prices by a huge amount again

 

Is it because Red Ed has scared them into raising their prices now in case they get into power and freeze prices?

 

Can the government actually do anything about it?

this has nothing to do with milliband, shows a certain desperation if anyone blames that (plus the stupidity of the red ed thing is now somewhat tiresome). The energy companies have a track record of above inflation rises each year mostly. What they are doing is exactly what the debate should be and why they are allowed to do it especially for what are necessary services and have major impacts on such a lot of society

 

Gideon says Hi

tony sighhh gideon is his name that he was born with

[rendelc]

Well, I think we can all agree the daily mail is a shit right wing, homophobic, xenophobic, lying, Tory rag with past links to Nazism. And it is generally read and loved my mindless, scared, sad and pathetic little selfish morons who think Christmas has been banned and political correctness has gone mad.

What is there to debate?

  Yawn .

[Kingfisher]

Well, I think we can all agree the daily mail is a shit right wing, homophobic, xenophobic, lying, Tory rag with past links to Nazism. And it is generally read and loved my mindless, scared, sad and pathetic little selfish morons who think Christmas has been banned and political correctness has gone mad.

What is there to debate?

Yawn .

Obviously nothing then. And open and shut case.

[tonyh29]

drat01, on 11 Oct 2013 - 5:44 PM, said:drat01, on 11 Oct 2013 - 5:44 PM, said:

tonyh29, on 11 Oct 2013 - 5:43 PM, said:

tonyh29, on 11 Oct 2013 - 5:43 PM, said:Gideon says Hi

tony sighhh gideon is his name that he was born with

 

and a name which he chose to not go by since he was 13

 

James Brown is referred to you as Gordon is he not  ?

Jack Straw is never referred to as John is he ?

heck I bet even Brad Pitt doesn't get called William by you either 

etc etc

Edited October 11, 2013 by tonyh29

[Awol]

 

Yep, sounds lovely, but who do you think is making the appointments to the all singing and dancing "independent" body?  Who will be assessing whether it's "doing it's job properly"?

 

If there is one thing the UK establishment remains peerless at it's an old fashioned stitch up.  This is the thin end of the wedge, imo.

as with nearly everything there is an ultimate responsibility to the gvmt. The proposals were a very fair and independent set of reccomendations. Interestingly the biggest objectors are the press themselves and those who they typically support, not the majority of joe public

To be honest if Joe Public lacks the imagination as to why, for the first time ever, Government wishes to insert itself at the top of the tree governing the media then they deserve what they get.