Blair attacks Media
 

Very Very poor person to bring this issue up since, by his own admission, he used spin to try and control the media which backfired in the end. None the less, He did bring up something that needed to be said. The inderpendent has become very very biased but I dont think its a good example to use.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6744261.stm

I think the tabloids of this country are a joke, seriously It seems like they are world known for being obsessed with peoples personal lifes and having a very casual relationship with the truth. Some of them such as the Mail and Express seem to be obsessed with PC storys and angering people. Its bording on inciting racial tensions as we have seen on this very forum.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...322&in_check=N

Just one example of the over the top, idiotic, crap they come up with and what worse is the comments on the daily mail site that show what this kind on one-track, closed mind these papers appeal too.

Ignoring Blair, what do you think of the media in general.

Re: Blair attacks Media
 

It's pants.
Journalistic integrity is a thing of the past.
When you have BBC news presenters suggesting that captured US soldiers would happily give away secrets, or the media ruining a man's life because he's been questioned about an abducted child and the media aren't being feed enough so they make their own news up, integrity is certainly dead.
Don't get me started on the likes of Littlejohn!

Re: Blair attacks Media
 

The tabloids (and the broadsheets) appeal to their market share - we may not like it, but it is freedom of the press and market forces.

You must remember that scribes (I refuse to use the term journalists) like Littlejohn have two main aims - to reinforce the viewpoints of their readership, and to p*ss off those they disagree with. And of course, if you disagree with him/them, you are, in the words of on of the column's posters, "brainwashed with PC attitudes".

I especially liked the readers comment on the Littlejohn column
"My Dad fought all the way through WWII and is ashamed of the way the our country is being taken over. Great article.

- David Saunders, Charlotte NC"

North Carolina, ffs........
Notice David didn't say what side his dad fought on..... :D

Re: Blair attacks Media
 

Presumably if he fought all the way through WWII, he was British, since Britain kicked off on time in 1939...

More on Blair later when I've read the speech, but at a glance it looks like classic psychological projection (putting your subconscious fears about yourself onto someone else).

Re: Blair attacks Media
 

Not necessarily, wasn't there a Steptoe and Son sketch that covered the differences between the British WW1 and WW2 and the US WW1 and WW2?

Re: Blair attacks Media
 

Whatever his motives, I still think he made a valid point.

Re: Blair attacks Media
 

I was thinking more of the "other side".....:D

Re: Blair attacks Media
 

Did anyone else know that the Daily Mail hated Jewish Migrants in the 1930's and supported Hitler up until the early stages of War?

Re: Blair attacks Media
 

Hence their nicknames the Daily Heil, and the Daily Jackboot.

Re: Blair attacks Media
 

You think giving they history they might not want to run articles calling Brown a Nazi. Richard Littlejohn is a slimly little sh....

Re: Blair attacks Media
 

Do you really think their readers care about their history?
As foreverwar rightly pointed out, Littlejohn's purpose is to annoy sensible people and reinforce the viewpoint of the majority of his readers.
Hence his continued use of debunked PC brigade items such as Winterval etc.

Re: Blair attacks Media
 

Yeah, I dont really think their History is a indication of their position now since it must have changed owners and editors a few dozen times since then.

The fact Richard littlejohn get away with using winterval and other lies just angers me a lot, and the fact his readers seem to think he is spot on and a smart man is just...AGHH. Have you ever read the comments on the daily mail website? They are sick! Blaming Labour for everything no matter what the issue (a story about a woman leaving her baby in her car resulting in the childs death, led to comments about Labours policys of work being to blame), they also seemed quite smug when Gordon Browns child turned out to have cystic fibrosis (the comments, not the mail) :mad: Not to mention lying about games, the internet, pc culture, and what ever else suits them.

Re: Blair attacks Media
 

Of course there will be commentary & interpretation, because half the time politicians speak they do so ambiguously, in order that they can squirm their way out of things later...

Re: Blair attacks Media
 

I think Littlejohn, back when he worked for the ****, is the reason why my gf and dad didn't get on.
Dad (thanks to the ****) was under the impression that as an immigrant, she's entitled to loads of free cash, a council house, and any other benefit you can think of.
Took us ages to get him to realise that just isn't true.

Re: Blair attacks Media
 

Where's your gf from, Xac?

I've had a bit more time to look at it, and he was attacking those rabid feral tabloid hacks from, er, the Independent. Nothing to do with employing Robert Fisk and Patrick Cockburn, two cogent and informed opponents of his Middle East policy...

His argument goes:

1) The Independent was nasty to me
2) That's why I'm not trusted
3) Therefore we need more regulation of the press

Not sure there's much in that, really. It was actually quite a considered speech on an important subject, but suffers from the standard Blair faults of confusing objectivity and subjectivity (the press who oppose him are 'bad', those who support him don't get a mention) and belief in the desirability of himself controlling events (the media are important, therefor he 'has' to try and control the media).

Anyway, it's not like he's got a lot to complain about - the media willingly allowed itself to be spun into providing him with good headlines on demand and glossing over the bad, that helped him win three elections and stay in power even after Iraq, which should have sunk him. The fact that he's still there now indicates that the media isn't quite the 'feral beast' he thinks.

He boasts of introducing press conferences - have you ever listened to one? He never answers the question and treats anything seriously asked with open contempt. Far from introducing a spirit of openness and connecting directly with voters, I strongly suspect that most viewers who bother to tune in think 'twit'.

Re: Blair attacks Media
 

Again, I said ignoring Blair because regardless of his movites I think his points are valid. The media have the most to answer for are using the fact it was Blair to dismiss these points.

By the way, I used to read the Independent and it has become very biased. The fact that a lot of people agree with it does not make it less biased, a lot of people agree with the Mail as well, doesnt mean its not a right wing, idiotic, hatred filled rag. Left wing ideals in a paper are still biased. So the Independents line that it was right is pointless. Since in being right they were giving a biased view on the war. A newspaper should not need to be right or wrong*, it should just be true.

*Excluding Editorials of course

Re: Blair attacks Media
 

They're also *rare*. So is decent investigative journalism. The majority of newspapers read in this country are biased to the right and contain little or no journalism of any depth, preferring lightweight celebrity based news* or carefully spun Government propaganda (witness today's 'chemical castration' headlines, designed to conceal the frenzied (and welcome) rowback from 'Sarah's Law').

I'm sorry, I completely fail to understand your point (it's coming across as 'if you have a point of view, it doesn't matter because by possessing a point of view, you're biased', which is a circular argument).

The Independent told the truth and was vindicated, Blair lied and was found out, then singles out the Independent as an example of where the media go wrong, and *that doesn't matter*?

Er, it was.

* Things in the US are rather amusing - apparently Fox News, the great Iraq War station of 2003, is now devoting rather less coverage to the joys of the Surge, and rather more to Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole Smith. There's a direct link between celebrity culture and the concealment of inconvenient truths - what it isn't is 'news'.

Re: Blair attacks Media
 

Yes, I am glad there is one. But that does not mean it is above the other right wing papers when it comes to bias. It is just as guilty as the Mail in many respects when it comes to using emotive language and leading headlines that lean towards its own editorial point of view. This is something they did not do back when they were changing to tabloid and their sales increased.

It doesn’t matter because you applying the motive you presume Blair had to my comments and I am talking about the media and not Blair. When we are talking about bias then it does not matter that the independent was proved right in its concerns about the Iraq war because throughout the process it continually chose to campaign for their own point of view. This is clear, undeniable bias. Their headlines reflected the view and not always the actions on the ground. It has seemed more interested in assigning blame to Blair/Bush then to report any good that has come out of Iraq.

Its bias. They also ran an anti-Bush headline on the day of the American Election. Its left wing and its biased not at all Independent. The Guardian editorials were also against the Iraq war let they did not feel the need to using leading headlines or use emotive photos and language in their news sections. They often reported what happened, if they had a issue they expressed it in their comment pages and not on the front page as ‘news’

Re: Blair attacks Media
 

South Africa - she's a proud Zulu being from Durban :)

That was pretty much what I thought he was saying :D

Though I think Damien has a point, I can't think of any truly objective or independant news outlets, and when I'm forced by law to pay for biased reporting, I tend to object.