 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Oct 2015 19:46:39 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 05/10/2015 07:28 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Oct 2015 19:22:08 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>> You would think so going by all the reports we get.
>>
>> Well, the news is always unbiased. It's not like they're trying to
>> sell anything, or that sensationalism doesn't get people to watch. ;)
>
> Curiously, a lot of people seem to think that news has to be factually
> accurate - by law or something. And that we have these "journalistic
> freedom" laws to protect the public by allowing news media to bring
> important matters to public attention.
>
> But... er... last time I checked, the media can print absolutely
> anything that will sell copies. In other words, MAKE MONEY. So... um...
> am I being dense or something?
No, you're actually not being dense or something.
You're missing the sarcasm in my comments.
As I might have mentioned before your trip, millions of people live in
the US and don't get murdered every day. "Surviving" here is not like
entering a war zone.
And I say that as someone who thinks that the gun fetish in this country
is out of hand.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Oct 2015 20:24:15 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 10/5/2015 7:28 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Oct 2015 19:22:08 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>
>
>>>>
>>> You would think so going by all the reports we get.
>>
>> Well, the news is always unbiased. It's not like they're trying to
>> sell anything, or that sensationalism doesn't get people to watch. ;)
>>
>>
> So cynical for one so young. :-)
> You're beginning to sound like me.
Not so young these days, either. :)
>>> Have you seen Rich Hall's "You can go to Hell. I'm going to Texas."?
>>
>> That sounds like him, but no, I haven't. :)
>>
> I found it interesting, scary but interesting.
I'll have to check it out.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Curiously, a lot of people seem to think that news has to be factually
>> accurate - by law or something. And that we have these "journalistic
>> freedom" laws to protect the public by allowing news media to bring
>> important matters to public attention.
>>
>> But... er... last time I checked, the media can print absolutely
>> anything that will sell copies. In other words, MAKE MONEY. So... um...
>> am I being dense or something?
Last time I checked they weren't allowed to print defamatory content.
> As I might have mentioned before your trip, millions of people live in
> the US and don't get murdered every day. "Surviving" here is not like
> entering a war zone.
>
> And I say that as someone who thinks that the gun fetish in this country
> is out of hand.
We get fed articles like this over here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34424385
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> But... er... last time I checked, the media can print absolutely
>>> anything that will sell copies. In other words, MAKE MONEY. So... um...
>>> am I being dense or something?
>
> Last time I checked they weren't allowed to print defamatory content.
So it's not that they can't print stuff that's false. In fact, they
can't print stuff that's *true* if it upsets somebody?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> But... er... last time I checked, the media can print absolutely
>>>> anything that will sell copies. In other words, MAKE MONEY. So... um...
>>>> am I being dense or something?
>>
>> Last time I checked they weren't allowed to print defamatory content.
>
> So it's not that they can't print stuff that's false. In fact, they
> can't print stuff that's *true* if it upsets somebody?
If it's true, no problem:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/contents/enacted
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5-10-2015 20:46, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 05/10/2015 07:28 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Oct 2015 19:22:08 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>> You would think so going by all the reports we get.
>>
>> Well, the news is always unbiased. It's not like they're trying to sell
>> anything, or that sensationalism doesn't get people to watch. ;)
>
> Curiously, a lot of people seem to think that news has to be factually
> accurate - by law or something. And that we have these "journalistic
> freedom" laws to protect the public by allowing news media to bring
> important matters to public attention.
It is very simple. With the exception of tabloids (which I use to wipe
myself clean with) any serious, self-respecting newspaper makes sure to
bring the news as factually accurate as possible. This has nothing to do
with law at all but with professional integrity, which the public is
sure to critically control on a daily basis. Journalistic freedom works
the other way round as it offers the possibility for journalist to
investigate things that some would prefer to stay hidden.
>
> But... er... last time I checked, the media can print absolutely
> anything that will sell copies. In other words, MAKE MONEY. So... um...
> am I being dense or something?
It is difficult to survive in this society. Some media stretch the
notion of integrity to a thin line indeed.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 07.10.2015 um 14:27 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> Curiously, a lot of people seem to think that news has to be factually
>> accurate - by law or something. And that we have these "journalistic
>> freedom" laws to protect the public by allowing news media to bring
>> important matters to public attention.
>
> It is very simple. With the exception of tabloids (which I use to wipe
> myself clean with)
I wouldn't do that; just because a paper sucks it doesn't necessarily
mean that the /paper/ /sucks/...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 07:57:41 +0100, scott wrote:
>>> Curiously, a lot of people seem to think that news has to be factually
>>> accurate - by law or something. And that we have these "journalistic
>>> freedom" laws to protect the public by allowing news media to bring
>>> important matters to public attention.
>>>
>>> But... er... last time I checked, the media can print absolutely
>>> anything that will sell copies. In other words, MAKE MONEY. So...
>>> um...
>>> am I being dense or something?
>
> Last time I checked they weren't allowed to print defamatory content.
True, but the general way to "get around" that is to frame it as an
opinion rather than as fact.
There is a difference between:
"In my opinion, Joe Schmoe is a dope"
and
"Joe Schmoe is a dope"
>> As I might have mentioned before your trip, millions of people live in
>> the US and don't get murdered every day. "Surviving" here is not like
>> entering a war zone.
>>
>> And I say that as someone who thinks that the gun fetish in this
>> country is out of hand.
>
> We get fed articles like this over here:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34424385
Yep.
There's a lot of truth in what's said there - and it is frustrating to
live in a country where the majority congressional party is uninterested
in a meaningful discussion about gun control or mental health, but is
willing to waste hundreds of millions of dollars and years investigating
the death of 4 Americans in an embassy because it's a chance to score
political points.
But remember that this is a country of > 300,000,000 people. In 2015,
there have been maybe 40,000 gun-related "incidents" - not all of them
(about 1/4, actually) resulting in a death.
That's a relatively low incidence of incidents per capita. It's still
too high, and it's still too easy to get guns in this country - but it's
not an active war zone, either - and shouldn't be treated like it is.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 10:23:58 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>>> But... er... last time I checked, the media can print absolutely
>>>> anything that will sell copies. In other words, MAKE MONEY. So...
>>>> um...
>>>> am I being dense or something?
>>
>> Last time I checked they weren't allowed to print defamatory content.
>
> So it's not that they can't print stuff that's false. In fact, they
> can't print stuff that's *true* if it upsets somebody?
No.
If you print something and write it as if it's a fact, and it's
defamatory, then you'd just better be able to prove that it's a fact if
you get sued.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7-10-2015 15:37, clipka wrote:
> Am 07.10.2015 um 14:27 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>
>>> Curiously, a lot of people seem to think that news has to be factually
>>> accurate - by law or something. And that we have these "journalistic
>>> freedom" laws to protect the public by allowing news media to bring
>>> important matters to public attention.
>>
>> It is very simple. With the exception of tabloids (which I use to wipe
>> myself clean with)
>
> I wouldn't do that; just because a paper sucks it doesn't necessarily
> mean that the /paper/ /sucks/...
>
True indeed. I learned that on fieldwork ;-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
