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.

[Xaccers]

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!

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.....

[BBKing]

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).

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by BBKing

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

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?

Originally Posted by BBKing

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).

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

Originally Posted by BBKing

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).

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

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?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Damien

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?

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

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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

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

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Damien

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

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.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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.

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) Not to mention lying about games, the internet, pc culture, and what ever else suits them.

[Cobbydaler]

Originally Posted by Damien

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

And he said there was increasingly commentary on the news, which could prove "incredibly frustrating".

"There will often be as much interpretation of what a politician is saying, as there is coverage of them actually saying it," he said.

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...

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Damien

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) Not to mention lying about games, the internet, pc culture, and what ever else suits them.

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.

[BBKing]

Where's your gf from, Xac?

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

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'.