Another stabbing in London

[BBKing]

Mind you that information does come from a tabloid source so it's bound to be a pack of lies isn't i

Osem, turning the murder of a 15 year old into a veiled attack on me is so far from classy that you can't see it with a high-powered telescope. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.

Anyway, you haven't been paying attention - you can trust murder figures from tabloids for the same reason you can trust them from the police*. The difference is that the police will point out when they reduce, which they have.

One thing - this isn't just another murder in London, it's another murder in Lambeth, which has way higher rates than anywhere else in the capital, 8.64 per 100,000 population in 2007. Next worst was Newham with 5.33, round my way it's 1.41.

* they're impossible to lie about, which is a common argument of mine against the 'you can't trust government crime figures so I'll believe the Daily Mail' line. It's only at the lower end of the seriousness of crime that you can plausibly say that figures can be distorted by under-reporting or official indifference, but murder has a near-100% reporting rate and the police always investigate, so that line of argument is ridiculous and verges on conspiracy theory.

Originally Posted by Osem

Sadly we have to make that judgment in all sorts of things don't we? ... including when it comes to what our Government tells us and where our partners claim they've been all night. In an ideal world everyone would tell the truth, including newspapers but we don't live in one. I'm not here to defend tabloids BTW, just pointing out that those who automatically rely for their arguments on pathetic claims that the tabloids tell nothing but lies are either stupid or disingenuous. I've made my own decision on the subject, however, which is why I don't buy and tend not to read tabloids. It's easy you see.

You appear to changing a particular into a general

I (and others) have pointed out misinformation and lies in some tabloids - I don't remember (but could be wrong) anyone stating "that the tabloids tell nothing but lies" - but I suppose making that shift in emphasis from particulars to all-inclusive allows you to make the statement that people who disagree with you on this are "either stupid or disingenuous".

btw, I don't buy tabloids - but what I do, when a poster cites them as a reference, is look up the reference/link online, and then attempt to validate what has been stated (so, not attacking the tabloid in general, just pointing out, if appropriate, misinformation/lies - if that makes me stupid or disingenous, so be it )

And contrary to what you stated in earlier posts, it would appear that some posters on this forum do take what the tabloids print as gospel truth, even when it is wrong - should we allow misinformation and lies to be promulgated unchallenged?

Originally Posted by Osem

Sadly we have to make that judgment in all sorts of things don't we? ... including when it comes to what our Government tells us and where our partners claim they've been all night. In an ideal world everyone would tell the truth, including newspapers but we don't live in one. I'm not here to defend tabloids BTW, just pointing out that those who automatically rely for their arguments on pathetic claims that the tabloids tell nothing but lies are either stupid or disingenuous. I've made my own decision on the subject, however, which is why I don't buy and tend not to read tabloids. It's easy you see.

You still fail to see that only telling partial truths is as bad as telling nothing but lies because not everyone has the critical faculties to work out which is truth and which is lie.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by BBKing

Osem, turning the murder of a 15 year old into a veiled attack on me is so far from classy that you can't see it with a high-powered telescope. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.

Anyway, you haven't been paying attention - you can trust murder figures from tabloids for the same reason you can trust them from the police*. The difference is that the police will point out when they reduce, which they have.

One thing - this isn't just another murder in London, it's another murder in Lambeth, which has way higher rates than anywhere else in the capital, 8.64 per 100,000 population in 2007. Next worst was Newham with 5.33, round my way it's 1.41.

* they're impossible to lie about, which is a common argument of mine against the 'you can't trust government crime figures so I'll believe the Daily Mail' line. It's only at the lower end of the seriousness of crime that you can plausibly say that figures can be distorted by under-reporting or official indifference, but murder has a near-100% reporting rate and the police always investigate, so that line of argument is ridiculous and verges on conspiracy theory.

I don't need to veil my 'attacks' on your sad obesession with the tabloids you evidently spend so much time reading and worrying about. You're not the only one but if the cap fits by all means wear it eh! The day you modify your pathetic generalised tone when it comes to 'tabloids' will be the day I won't need to comment on it. Whilst you repeatedly interject threads with exaggerated claims about an entire section of the media I'll feel free to comment!

---------- Post added at 14:57 ---------- Previous post was at 14:53 ----------

Originally Posted by Incognitas

You still fail to see that only telling partial truths is as bad as telling nothing but lies because not everyone has the critical faculties to work out which is truth and which is lie.

I'm sorry but I don't fail to see that at all - I just think we cannot expect the tabloids to be better than everyone else. Would you prevent those with impaired critical facilities from voting because they may have fallen for the political spin in one-sided election broadcasts for example? If so, then who'd decide whose facilities are sufficiently impaired to be deprived of their right? If not then we have to accept that the world and the media aren't perfect and if some folk are taken in by garbage in the media then that's their problem. Expecting the tabloids to operate to higher standards than everyone else is ridiculous.

---------- Post added at 15:03 ---------- Previous post was at 14:57 ----------

Originally Posted by foreverwar

You appear to changing a particular into a general

I (and others) have pointed out misinformation and lies in some tabloids - I don't remember (but could be wrong) anyone stating "that the tabloids tell nothing but lies" - but I suppose making that shift in emphasis from particulars to all-inclusive allows you to make the statement that people who disagree with you on this are "either stupid or disingenuous".

btw, I don't buy tabloids - but what I do, when a poster cites them as a reference, is look up the reference/link online, and then attempt to validate what has been stated (so, not attacking the tabloid in general, just pointing out, if appropriate, misinformation/lies - if that makes me stupid or disingenous, so be it )

And contrary to what you stated in earlier posts, it would appear that some posters on this forum do take what the tabloids print as gospel truth, even when it is wrong - should we allow misinformation and lies to be promulgated unchallenged?

It's not disgareeing with me which makes anyone anything in particlaur it's disagreeing with the fact that NOT all the content of the tabloid media is lies. In fact a tiny proportion of it is and as I've already explained, that's not much different to what we find amongst politicians, police, office workers, TV presenters or anyone else.

There'll always be some who fall for garbage - what do you suggest can be done about that?

It's not disgareeing with me which makes anyone anything in particlaur it's disagreeing with the fact that NOT all the content of the tabloid media is lies. In fact a tiny proportion of it is and as I've already explained, that's not much different to what we find amongst politicians, police, office workers, TV presenters or anyone else.

There'll always be some who fall for garbage - what do you suggest can be done about that?

I would say it's a lot bigger than a 'tiny proportion' that is a 'lie'. While I would say that only a few are complete fabrications (Muslims Banning Christmas in Luton) the vast majority are stories that are technically true but have been manipulated in terms of facts and language to meet the tabloid's own agenda and their readers prejudice.

For example; The Daily Express reported on the building of a Mega-Mosque inferring it would be funded by the taxpayer and was planned by the government. This led to the largest e-partition on the Downing Street website, was used by the BNP in their Mayoral election campaign and was picked by the Mail and some other tabloids. Problem is, some key facts were wrong. The government did NOT plan it, it would NOT have been funded by the taxpayer. This was an independent Muslim group who simply discussed the idea. The Express knew this but it made a far better story to portray it as PC gone mad.

Other examples include the moving of hospital beds to face Mecca (was not a new policy, was only if requested and most Muslims don’t, and was only if the nurse had time. None of this was mentioned in the tabloid press), A school banning Christmas cards (was because parents were request a list of students in their children’s classes, tabloids said it was not to offend Muslims), The government issued a report from a independent body saying migration had a negative effect on London (the report actually said the opposite, the mail just carefully selected lines from the report to meet their view), and many others.

You say that people can differentiate between truth and lies, how can you do that without reading multiple news sources and researching each issue? Look at the content of these forums and you will find many topics started based on a non-story like one of the ones above. It’s not about the intelligence of the reader, it’s about the manipulation of the reader, something than can be done on anyone.

This is important, and we should hold them to a higher standard because the media is our filter to the rest of the world. Politics, Crime, International Affairs, the media shows the entire world outside our limited scope to us and if the media itself is corrupt then our entire world view can be based on lies and fabrications. The danger of this is obvious, a populous which is angry about an issue can bring about changes in society’s/government’s approach to that issue, an issue which may be non-existent and changes which are detrimental to a group in society (It was Jews 60 years ago). If a politician lies, the media will call him on it. If the media lies, no opposition will be heard because the media controls who gets though to the mass population.

What can be done about it? Tougher Press commission, tougher penalties. If a story is proven or is highly suspected of being fabricated or mostly fabricated to change the meaning of the story then the paper is punished severely and has to include an apology and retraction on the front page. This would only be done if the commission finds the story was fabricated/misleading to meet an agenda and not if it was simply a journalistic error, which is an understandable occurrence. Most of our TV and Broadsheet press meet those standards, why not the tabloids as well?

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

I would say it's a lot bigger than a 'tiny proportion' that is a 'lie'. While I would say that only a few are complete fabrications (Muslims Banning Christmas in Luton) the vast majority are stories that are technically true but have been manipulated in terms of facts and language to meet the tabloid's own agenda and their readers prejudice.

For example; The Daily Express reported on the building of a Mega-Mosque inferring it would be funded by the taxpayer and was planned by the government. This led to the largest e-partition on the Downing Street website, was used by the BNP in their Mayoral election campaign and was picked by the Mail and some other tabloids. Problem is, some key facts were wrong. The government did NOT plan it, it would NOT have been funded by the taxpayer. This was an independent Muslim group who simply discussed the idea. The Express knew this but it made a far better story to portray it as PC gone mad.

Other examples include the moving of hospital beds to face Mecca (was not a new policy, was only if requested and most Muslims don’t, and was only if the nurse had time. None of this was mentioned in the tabloid press), A school banning Christmas cards (was because parents were request a list of students in their children’s classes, tabloids said it was not to offend Muslims), The government issued a report from a independent body saying migration had a negative effect on London (the report actually said the opposite, the mail just carefully selected lines from the report to meet their view), and many others.

You say that people can differentiate between truth and lies, how can you do that without reading multiple news sources and researching each issue? Look at the content of these forums and you will find many topics started based on a non-story like one of the ones above. It’s not about the intelligence of the reader, it’s about the manipulation of the reader, something than can be done on anyone.

This is important, and we should hold them to a higher standard because the media is our filter to the rest of the world. Politics, Crime, International Affairs, the media shows the entire world outside our limited scope to us and if the media itself is corrupt then our entire world view can be based on lies and fabrications. The danger of this is obvious, a populous which is angry about an issue can bring about changes in society’s/government’s approach to that issue, an issue which may be non-existent and changes which are detrimental to a group in society (It was Jews 60 years ago). If a politician lies, the media will call him on it. If the media lies, no opposition will be heard because the media controls who gets though to the mass population.

What can be done about it? Tougher Press commission, tougher penalties. If a story is proven or is highly suspected of being fabricated or mostly fabricated to change the meaning of the story then the paper is punished severely and has to include an apology and retraction on the front page. This would only be done if the commission finds the story was fabricated/misleading to meet an agenda and not if it was simply a journalistic error, which is an understandable occurrence. Most of our TV and Broadsheet press meet those standards, why not the tabloids as well?

Some or all of that may be true but it doesn't alter the fact that people at all levels and in all positions spin and tell lies for their own ends. Look at Bliar, Bush and Clinton if you want some of the worst examples. Who's had more global power and influence, them or the Daily Star, NOTW and their ilk? You cite the Express mosque story's lies yet how many people died as a direct result of them as compared with the number who've died and are still dying as a result of Bliar's tales of WMD?

Implying, as some here do, that the tabloids are the worst offenders when it comes to porky pies is utter nonsense and that is my point. I have no problem with the tabloid media being controlled as tightly as any other form of media. In fact, I wouldn't lose a moment's sleep if they all disappeared up BBKing's posterior tomorrow, but I don't see why they should be expected to work to higher standards and/or be subject to greater controls than our glorious leaders or anyone else for that matter.

My personal observation over the years that a lot of tabloid readers seem more interested in topless girls, sports coverage and saucy agony columns than they are concerned with politics and the state of human kind adds to my belief that even when these rags tell lies the results are usually comparitively[/B] minor, if still tragic for those affected by them.

That having been said there should be stringent penalities when lies are knowingly told and if Bliar and his cohorts had been subject to some of that medicine maybe New/Old/NearlyNew/SameOld Labour would've disappeared long ago and we wouldn't still be bogged down in two wars.

Originally Posted by Osem

Some or all of that may be true but it doesn't alter the fact that people at all levels and in all positions spin and tell lies for their own ends. Look at Bliar, Bush and Clinton if you want some of the worst examples. Who's had more global power and influence, them or the Daily Star, NOTW and their ilk? You cite the Express mosque story's lies yet how many people died as a direct result of them as compared with the number who've died and are still dying as a result of Bliar's tales of WMD?

True, but the fact that one side lies does not absolve the press from lying. We could take it further and dismiss complaints against Blair, Bush etc because there are far worse leaders in the world.

As I said in my previous post, Politicians can be held to account if they lie (or even if they tell the truth for that matter). The press does not. There is no one to call the press to account when they lie, there is with those in power. You can vote them out. And the media will make dam sure you know that they are properly lying (even if they are not).

The media also controls politics in some extent. The Sun boasted of winning last Tory victory in a general election, they are opinion makers and the way they present a party gives or takes power away from that party. One of the first phone calls Major made after the events of Black Wednesday was to phone the Sun to see how they will cover it. They hold a lot of power.

Originally Posted by Osem

Implying, as some here do, that the tabloids are the worst offenders when it comes to porky pies is utter nonsense and that is my point. I have no problem with the tabloid media being controlled as tightly as any other form of media. In fact, I wouldn't lose a moment's sleep if they all disappeared up BBKing's posterior tomorrow, but I don't see why they should be expected to work to higher standards and/or be subject to greater controls than our glorious leaders or anyone else for that matter.

They have fewer controls to ensure honesty, and worse they incur much more trust. People are conditioned not to believe politicians; they are not with the media. Which is scary, Since it means most of the time if the press invents a story, most people will believe it.

A more responsible media would also lead for more responsible leaders. While they have always lied New Labours culture of spin was based on a way of dealing with the media. A media which is obsessed with catchy headlines, sound bites, and easy to digest policies. They are not big fans of complexity, which almost every bill has in spades, so they tend to bil things down to a matter of good vs evil so they can sum a whole issue up without getting into details. Everything is black and white. So the politicians respond in kind. Also obsessed with getting good press because they want to win elections.

The tabloid press are just as guilty as all the things they accuse governments off. Governments may be worse, but the root of improving politicians requires a better media. Otherwise we are stuck in this cycle.

Pity I can't rep you for your last two posts Damien, one will have to do.Bum I can't even do that...

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

True, but the fact that one side lies does not absolve the press from lying. We could take it further and dismiss complaints against Blair, Bush etc because there are far worse leaders in the world.

As I said in my previous post, Politicians can be held to account if they lie (or even if they tell the truth for that matter). The press does not. There is no one to call the press to account when they lie, there is with those in power. You can vote them out. And the media will make dam sure you know that they are properly lying (even if they are not).

The media also controls politics in some extent. The Sun boasted of winning last Tory victory in a general election, they are opinion makers and the way they present a party gives or takes power away from that party. One of the first phone calls Major made after the events of Black Wednesday was to phone the Sun to see how they will cover it. They hold a lot of power.



They have fewer controls to ensure honesty, and worse they incur much more trust. People are conditioned not to believe politicians; they are not with the media. Which is scary, Since it means most of the time if the press invents a story, most people will believe it.

A more responsible media would also lead for more responsible leaders. While they have always lied New Labours culture of spin was based on a way of dealing with the media. A media which is obsessed with catchy headlines, sound bites, and easy to digest policies. They are not big fans of complexity, which almost every bill has in spades, so they tend to bil things down to a matter of good vs evil so they can sum a whole issue up without getting into details. Everything is black and white. So the politicians respond in kind. Also obsessed with getting good press because they want to win elections.

The tabloid press are just as guilty as all the things they accuse governments off. Governments may be worse, but the root of improving politicians requires a better media. Otherwise we are stuck in this cycle.

As I think I've already made clear I'm not against a more responsible media - in fact a degree more responsibility all round (starting with our government and public bodies) would be a very good thing!! It's down to the government of the day to set and maintain the standard of honesty, integrity and professionalism NOT the tabloids or any other part of the media.

I am against people attaching disproportionate blame to a certain small section of the media and using simplistic phrases like "you can't believe what you read in the tabloids" and "well, what do you expect of tabloid readers" and "have you been reading the tabloids again" to stereotype, patronise, disrespect and/or disregard the views of anyone who has the temerity to disagree with them.

---------- Post added at 12:29 ---------- Previous post was at 12:04 ----------

Originally Posted by BBKing

Osem, turning the murder of a 15 year old into a veiled attack on me is so far from classy that you can't see it with a high-powered telescope. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.
Anyway, you haven't been paying attention - you can trust murder figures from tabloids for the same reason you can trust them from the police*. The difference is that the police will point out when they reduce, which they have.

One thing - this isn't just another murder in London, it's another murder in Lambeth, which has way higher rates than anywhere else in the capital, 8.64 per 100,000 population in 2007. Next worst was Newham with 5.33, round my way it's 1.41.

* they're impossible to lie about, which is a common argument of mine against the 'you can't trust government crime figures so I'll believe the Daily Mail' line. It's only at the lower end of the seriousness of crime that you can plausibly say that figures can be distorted by under-reporting or official indifference, but murder has a near-100% reporting rate and the police always investigate, so that line of argument is ridiculous and verges on conspiracy theory.

What utter tosh! Is that unveiled enough for you?

I'm not ashamed of anything and unlike you I don't rely on being patronising to try and make a point. If you paid more attention to the issues than you do to your fixation with the tabloids you'd notice I've posted more more than my fair share of threads and posts relating to the tragedy of the society we live in. Oddly enough it's normally you who appears and starts chucking pathetic insults about the tabloid media around.

Oh and since you're obviously not been paying enough attention in class, my initial point was not related to number of murders which obviously isn't in doubt since there are very sadly the mutilated bodies to count. It was directed at the way patronising people like you jump on the tabloid driven hysteria and sensationalism bandwagon every time it happens.

Originally Posted by Osem

As I think I've already made clear I'm not against a more responsible media - in fact a degree more responsibility all round (starting with our government and public bodies) would be a very good thing!! It's down to the government of the day to set and maintain the standard of honesty, integrity and professionalism NOT the tabloids or any other part of the media.

I am against people attaching disproportionate blame to a certain small section of the media and using simplistic phrases like "you can't believe what you read in the tabloids" and "well, what do you expect of tabloid readers" and "have you been reading the tabloids again" to stereotype, patronise, disrespect and/or disregard the views of anyone who has the temerity to disagree with them.

It's a pity then that those who have such reliance on the tabloids can't stop prefacing every post with something about do gooding liberal lefties or something similar.

Neither position is helpful but I think you'll find that BB and others will and do criticise the broadsheets as well.

You have failed to appreciate that some of us aren't against anyone who reads papers as such.It's their willingness not to use their critical faculties when reading them and then whenever anyone pulls them up on poor thinking only to level the charge that we are do gooding lefty liberals or snooty snobby bullies who look down on them.