frbl vs the complete history of journalism. He’s said an absolute mouthful! Papsweb gold imo.
I’m glad Furball is back because I think Pap needs a friend he can send long emails too. And read equally long ones back. Goatboy was his bezzie before, but always lacked in that dept.
Until recently, Goatboy was top person-I’d-actually-met-off-a-forum-I-didn’t-know-before. He drinks like a fish and we have a similar walk back home. I can swim in those waters.
That was before he betrayed us all by announcing he was going to be swimming in different waters for our inaugural Premier League Drinkiepoos (his terminology, not mine), and would be wasting his time on an idyllic fucking island somewhere.
So yeah, tentatively, he’s still there. Clinging to top spot, However, after all the Butlerin’, I reckon Bletch could catapult himself to the top of the hugely important person-I’d-actually-met-off-a-forum-I-didn’t-know-before league.
Last time he hid in a bush, watching us all from afar, then posting some shite about being late. Seize the day, bletch. Depart the bush.
It’s gonna be tense when Pap and Bletch finally meet. The love affair has been brewing on here, but you never really know until you meet face to face. It might be you don’t like the cut of his jib! You just can’t tell!
I’ll be there to witness it, that’s for sure.
I used to work for a US based Tech Co.
One of the Product Marketing team really understood that the ME was not the same as Kansas and actually tried harder than others to help us.
Eventually we had a partner event where we brought clients from every country in the region into town for training so invited the guy over from the States.
He wasn’t a kid & had travelled extensively. BUT after 3 days of reading local papers his head was totally fried. Obviously he saw reporting on the Arab Israeli conflict from an angle that he had never seen in the US (even though he watched BBC World News) but simply that he read “normal news” without any political slant.
For me that is the key. (Not attackimng the UK media here) but our local press publish stories (about EUROPE or US or UK) with NO political agenda. It is really shocking.
I was luky that my employer at the time spent a lot of money in Media training and how to manage your message (kind of a precursor to the world of “Key Word Searches” that the innerweb uses today.
The moment I came here I learnt. 1) Political Opinion shapes what “News Sources” tell us and HOW they tell us (Sky vs BBC) and 2) They tell us what THEY think we should know oh and 3) They thrive on creating FEAR
Then add in your UK mainstream obsession with Celebrity and Reality TV and I am shocked you even needed a thread to discuss Pravda/Beeb/Sky/Torygraph/Sun et al.
Proof Media lies
Proof media spoofs surely, Phil. Didn’t you read the story? (Carried, by the way, in a ‘mainstream’ paper about the supposedly good guys out there in alt media world.)
And I don’t know how far you can push the idea that reporting in the Middle East is somehow liberated from commercial/poltiical interests, and has, in your words, ‘no political agenda’. I made a number of films on modern forms of slavery for Al Jazeera not so long ago. I asked my executive producer why we weren’t doing anything on bonded labour in the ME, Dubai in particular. He said he’d tried to raise it, and was firmly told it was a ‘no-go area’.
Talking about the UK media and “Left Wing v RIght Wing slants”
As for any other comment I’d start with "why is the world not aware that every word you ever type is being read and checked by people who aren’t your intentded audience and leave it there.
Then to throw it back with an overseas view to your original valid point. Here there are basic rules and actually heavy fines. Yet the UK still allows cockle pickers to drown, pikeys to emply slave labour and has one of the largest “illegal or cash in hand” economies in Europe.
For every reporter trying to do the “ME is bad for labour because of the Visa issue” story I would ask why they have never travelled to the Sub Continent and reported on the “Agents who ship them here and then screw them over”. Certainly with respect to abuse in Qatar the Sub Continentals are being given a VERY easy ride
Everyone has bad sides. The Beeb report on Sonapur Labour Camp about 7 years ago was superb. BUT they missed one key part from their story (maybe for Politics or maybe because it destroyed the story). Many of the Labourers in that hell hole were actually building safe accomodations blocks for the workers to actually live in EVENTUALLY).
Noone in ever right. Actually that is my favourite view of the Press & Media. Nobody is ever right. The Editor always leaves a piece on the floor of the cutting room to get THEIR story across instead of THE story. e.g. We have a maid. she does an hour a day and we pay her 100 euros a month and give her free accomodation. She then works for 4 other familes so earns nearly 1,000 Euros a month. She then works with her pals to collect “Stuff” that expats throw when they leave. Every 3 months her & her pals collect everthing and ship it home to Sri Lanka.
From what she earns she has built a FIVE bedroom house for her extended family. Weddings Christening & the like are all shared with us on Skype. In her village she & her friends are now buidling a School. She has lived with us for over 12 years and is as much a part of the family as the stray cats we look after. There are MANY stories like that. As there are many (including ME who have been screwed over by the system)
Strangely, the Western Media never want to follow those through either in the villages in Sri Lanka or my and so many other Western Ex Pats story but hey like I give a sh1t
The blind faith that some have in the media and their utter belief in anything written down or ‘on the telly’ , frankly , scares the crap out of me. Sad to say I have relatives who act like moronic sheep and basically vomit back media presented facts as their own . it doesn’t even occur to them to question what has been presented, to seek out another perspective.
Yet we mock state television in North Korea or Russia
Not a very witty reply but there you go
Big timely bump.
Are the recent election results a consequence of erosion in public trust of mainstream media? Labour had the fucking lot thrown at them last week and it largely didn’t stick.
Twitter is going mental over the BBC’s coverage of the election, particularly the rather lightweight Laura Kuenssberg.
I think the first shots have already been fired in a war between traditional media and social media. Who else provided the counter-argument this week?
I don’t think the BBC is going to be my go to place for news after the past week. I’ve been giving it the benefit of the doubt for too long really.
I am also bored of any media outlet that just regurgitates/cuts n pastes bits of twitter or facebook especially in obituaries.
So where can I find some decent news.
I’m all over the place for my news.
For international opinion, I like Counterpunch.
For domestic stuff, I’ve been reading a lot of The Canary and Evolve Politics.
The battle between old media and new media rumbles on.
Laura Kuennsberg, the BBC’s rather partial political editor, was the subject of a 38 degrees petition, which spawned into existence after the woeful election coverage.
A few days later, it is taken down, and Blairite MPs like Jess Phillips state that it is driven by sexism.
38 degrees reckon there was evidence of sexism and mysogany. Craig Murray conducted his own investigation and decided to question them on it. He found two offensive messages from 35K signatories. He wanted to know if there were more.
This is actually worse than the bankrupt tactic of using comments below a news article to invalidate the article. Tens of thousands of legitimate opinions invalidated because of two sexist neanderthal fucks.
Are you not worried about a shift in the balance toward social media though?
It can be a force for good, no doubt. But it also has immense power to do an awful lot of harm.
Obviously I’m not saying ‘mainstream’ is great for this, but social media has zero fact checking. Misinformation can spread in an instant, or worse people can have their lives turned upside down by malicious people.
Even sites like The Canary, which I have enjoyed and shared articles from myself, are not immune to pressures which distort their content. Writers receive no fee or salary, they are paid in relation to the traffic their articles generate. This is a dangerous model, as it inherently lends itself to authors deliberately sensationalising stories in the hope of the article going viral, and generating an income for themselves. Can’t really blame them for that, they’ve got to make a living - and being a writer in a world where content is expected for free isn’t an easy gig.
I guess there just needs to be a recalibration in how we interact with, and consume our media.
Dons helmet, no way will pap let 3 go today
Why would I be worried? The growing legitimacy of the alternative media is to be celebrated.
I saw Abi Wilkinson, a new Guardian writer, banging on about The Canary’s business model yesterday, as if the Guardian’s is any better. They sensationalise their content, betray their readership then end up asking the same estranged bastards for cash.
I’ve also been following Kerry Anne Mendoza (aka Scriptonite & The Canary editor) for some time. I’ve read a load of her blogs. Her heart is in the right place.
Nature abhors a vacuum, KRG. So it is with politics, I reckon. The only reason these sites exist is because they have an audience, and the only reason that audience exists is because the traditional media wasn’t delivering. If the Guardian had done the job it was supposed to do, these new sites wouldn’t exist.
I would generally agree that The Canary does have its heart in the right place, but I still find the payment model a dangerous one.
For every Canary, you have a Breitbart. That is a site that I’d describe as dangerous. It lies, twists and distorts in a way that’d make even the most unscrupulous of your traditional media wince. ‘Writers’ like Milo Yiannopolous use their platform in that site to harass and bully nobodies who happen to agree with them.
Yes, perhaps these sites exist because theirs an audience. But there’s always been awful, ignorant and bigoted folk - but now they have media that panders to that and actively stokes it. Feeding the outrage machine with utter nonsense.
I don’t know how the payment model at Breitbart works, but there’s certainly the desire to stoke up outrage at all given times.
I don’t doubt new media is improving, and there’s certainly sites that I do go to for stuff, but it is still in its infancy and it’s basically the wild west out there. There’s a lot of potential for good, but my god is the opposite true and then some.
I worry about people going to unregulated, unchecked, unaccountable and unscrupulous sites to hear exactly what they want to hear. Social media creates echo chambers, by design. I fear that new media, in its current format or extension there of is only going to further separate and divide - with unqualified, unchecked people driving those divisions for page views and ad traffic.
It can already be seen the amount of stuff that gets unquestioningly accepted and regurgitated, I’m not saying your mainstream media isn’t guilty of a lot of this stuff (of course it is), but I still think the alternative is fucking scary.
If you think current media is biased, what’s coming is x100 times worse.
Thanks for the prognostication, KRG, although I have to say I don’t agree with your analysis of the situation one bit.
First, you seem to be operating from the premise that familiarity should breed less contempt. You speak of sites being in their infancy, as if the writers had emerged fresh from some left-winger cloning facility. You also mention the propensity of this new media to sensationalise and go for maximum public outrage.
I have to ask. Have you watched the fucking news recently? The last two, say, three weeks should cover it, but anytime in the last 15 years is fine.
We’re talking about a media which says that the Labour fucking Party has a racism problem because a few people have made remarks about Israel. We’re talking about a media which has cast an entire faith into the role of extremists, to the point where brown people with laptops are scaring whitey enough to get planes turned around. Finally, we’re talking about a media which concluded that 2 sexist comments should invalidate 35K legitimate protestors that signed up to protest against Laura K bias.
Given all that, I do wonder what it is about new media that scares you so much. I think Breitbart is in the main, a load of dangerous old shite, but they’re upfront about admitting what they are, an unapologetic cheerleader for the Israeli political agenda. As distasteful as I find their opinions, they’ve a fuckload more candour about why they exist than these traditional “impartial” old media outfits.
Michael Lyons, erstwhile of the now defunct BBC Trust.
…the Charter Renewal process had “certainly led to very real suspicions that ministers want to get much closer to the BBC”.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s World at One programme he said: “I don’t think I’m alone in feeling that the BBC has sought to hedge its bets of late. There have been some quite extraordinary attacks on the elected leader of the Labour Party. I mean quite extraordinary. I can understand why people are worried about whether some of the most senior editorial voices at the BBC have lost their impartiality in this.”
This is a fascinating little tell-all on the recent US Iranian deal. Conventional wisdom has it that the deal began when moderates were elected to power in Iran. Talks actually began much earlier.
It’s a great insight into the mechanics of how news is manipulated, but perhaps one of the most telling revelations, if true, is this.
Rhodes, 38, said in the article that it was easy to shape a favorable impression of the proposed agreement because of the inexperience of many of those covering the issue.
“All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” he said. “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”
That’s rather frightening, isn’t it? The reporters responsible for holding governments to account have to go to governments for an account.
This is the second time I’ve bumped this thread.
We now live in an age where both sides of an argument simply decry each other as fake.
The only reason that’s even possible is because there is little trust in mainstream media, as Trump illustrated.