this is why the press needs regulating

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Chris

That's a question of such utter naivety as to be unanswerable as presented. Perhaps first of all we should establish what you would consider to satisfy a requirement to 'report facts'.

If I ran a story, for example, that simply reported that more than 700 people survived after their ocean liner struck an iceberg and sank in the north Atlantic, would that statement of pure fact qualify?

In that case if the authority reported those figures I think it wouldnt qualify as fact unless backed up, also the article would have to state as reported by the authorities and the figure may be subject to change should later evidence surface. If its a web article it could eg. be updated if the 700 turned out later to be wrong.

Fact is quite simple unless you dont want it to be, it has to be something based on something that is known to be true. Since you seem to be looking for holes in this it suggests you happy with stories been made up, and manipulated. The news media job is supposed to be the let their readers know of events that they otherwise wouldnt know about, but now its more then that the news media aim to change how people think. In effect whoever controls the news controls the country.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

In that case if the authority reported those figures I think it wouldnt qualify as fact unless backed up, also the article would have to state as reported by the authorities and the figure may be subject to change should later evidence surface. If its a web article it could eg. be updated if the 700 turned out later to be wrong.

Fact is quite simple unless you dont want it to be, it has to be something based on something that is known to be true. Since you seem to be looking for holes in this it suggests you happy with stories been made up, and manipulated. The news media job is supposed to be the let their readers know of events that they otherwise wouldnt know about, but now its more then that the news media aim to change how people think. In effect whoever controls the news controls the country.

Well, 10 out of 10 for missing the point, but I'm afraid you get a big fat grade F for seriously suggesting that news reporting should be confined to what information is shared by "the authorities". I knew you were an unreconstructed leftie but calling for our media to carry on like Tass and Pravda is going some, even for you.

As for that ocean liner ... Perhaps I should spell it out a little clearer. If I reported that 700 people survived the sinking of RMS Titanic, which is a bald statement of fact, would that satisfy your requirements for newspapers to report only facts?

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Chris

Well, 10 out of 10 for missing the point, but I'm afraid you get a big fat grade F for seriously suggesting that news reporting should be confined to what information is shared by "the authorities". I knew you were an unreconstructed leftie but calling for our media to carry on like Tass and Pravda is going some, even for you.

As for that ocean liner ... Perhaps I should spell it out a little clearer. If I reported that 700 people survived the sinking of RMS Titanic, which is a bald statement of fact, would that satisfy your requirements for newspapers to report only facts?

please explain the point as your post confused me anyway.

I dont know if the 700 is fact or not so I cant answer it directly. The article would have to publish the evidence. It couldnt be alone based on a comment.

Ok, I'll spell it out.

You demand that newspapers should print only facts, as if this were somehow a solution to the "problem" of political bias in our print media.

It is a fact that about 700 people survived the sinking of RMS Titanic. To run a news story stating that the ship sank and 700 people survived would be to run a story that contained only facts. It would, however, create an entirely misleading picture due to not reporting the fact that more than twice as many people - about 1,500 - perished.

So, when you call simply for the reporting of facts, you do nothing to prevent people selecting facts to create whatever impression they choose.

Would you like to make an alternative suggestion for righting the wrong you believe is being perpetrated by our news media?

[Chrysalis]

so why didnt you just say would I have a problem with papers choosing to omit fact's, I dont understand the point of trying to make posts hard to understand. you assumed I knew how many were on the titanic, you assumed wrong.

clearly this would still be a problem, but also clearly its not as bad as outright publishing lies. you never heard of one step at a time?

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

In that case if the authority reported those figures I think it wouldnt qualify as fact unless backed up, also the article would have to state as reported by the authorities and the figure may be subject to change should later evidence surface. If its a web article it could eg. be updated if the 700 turned out later to be wrong.

Fact is quite simple unless you dont want it to be, it has to be something based on something that is known to be true. Since you seem to be looking for holes in this it suggests you happy with stories been made up, and manipulated. The news media job is supposed to be the let their readers know of events that they otherwise wouldnt know about, but now its more then that the news media aim to change how people think. In effect whoever controls the news controls the country.

You would appear to be stating if someone has a differing opinion to you, and by highlighting what they see as potential flaws in your proposition, they must happy to be fed lies and manipulated.

Unusual viewpoint.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Hugh

You would appear to be stating if someone has a differing opinion to you, and by highlighting what they see as potential flaws in your proposition, they must happy to be fed lies and manipulated.

Unusual viewpoint.

Sounds very New Labour to me...

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

so why didnt you just say would I have a problem with papers choosing to omit fact's, I dont understand the point of trying to make posts hard to understand. you assumed I knew how many were on the titanic, you assumed wrong.

clearly this would still be a problem, but also clearly its not as bad as outright publishing lies. you never heard of one step at a time?

How would it be in any way better than publishing "outright lies" (an allegation you have not, incidentally, proven with respect to your OP) ?

If anything, the use of selected truths to mislead people is worse than the use of outright falsehood because the use of truth lends credibility to the whole story.

Quite apart from the chilling implications of the kind of State control you seem to want to see implemented over our print media, you really haven't thought this through at all, have you?

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Chris

How would it be in any way better than publishing "outright lies" (an allegation you have not, incidentally, proven with respect to your OP) ?

If anything, the use of selected truths to mislead people is worse than the use of outright falsehood because the use of truth lends credibility to the whole story.

Quite apart from the chilling implications of the kind of State control you seem to want to see implemented over our print media, you really haven't thought this through at all, have you?

People are gullible enough they believe outright lies anyway.

Do you really believe by the way there can be a shred of truth someone can have holidays abroad buy designer clothing, and live a comfortable life on under £80 a week? Clearly there would be other cash involved in such a situation. I knew the story was tripe before even doing any research on it.

Why dont you just say it, you think the current mechanism of lieing is fine. As you clearly dont want any change. Otherwise you would be saying I agree but your proposed solution is wrong how about this instead.

If only the extremely gullible are taken in by such things, where is the need for heavy-handed State regulation in the first place?

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Chris

If only the extremely gullible are taken in by such things, where is the need for heavy-handed State regulation in the first place?

most people are gullible, thats why.

Well, that's where you and I are poles apart. You can keep your left wing, authoritarian, nanny-knows-best approach, thanks very much. I don't need the State to do my thinking for me.

Edit

Nor, for that matter, do I need the EU telling me what to think, what values are acceptable and which journalists are approved to write the news I choose to read:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...urnalists.html

A European Union report has urged tight press regulation and demanded that Brussels officials are given control of national media supervisors with new powers to enforce fines or the sacking of journalists.

Originally Posted by Chris

Well, that's where you and I are poles apart. You can keep your left wing, authoritarian, nanny-knows-best approach, thanks very much. I don't need the State to do my thinking for me.

Edit

Nor, for that matter, do I need the EU telling me what to think, what values are acceptable and which journalists are approved to write the news I choose to read:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...urnalists.html

I also don't want the press and media in general to speculate for me.I can do that all by myself.Just give me the facts not the inference.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Chris

Well, that's where you and I are poles apart. You can keep your left wing, authoritarian, nanny-knows-best approach, thanks very much. I don't need the State to do my thinking for me.
Edit

Nor, for that matter, do I need the EU telling me what to think, what values are acceptable and which journalists are approved to write the news I choose to read:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...urnalists.html

Sure you do or you'll just come to the 'wrong' conclusions...

Originally Posted by Osem

Sure you do or you'll just come to the 'wrong' conclusions...

Stop being so gullible