This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Is Bert the Head right about media and politics?
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 matt_himself  Matataland 28 Nov 15 6.48pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 28 Nov 2015 6.23pm
Quote matt_himself at 28 Nov 2015 2.20pm
Quote nickgusset at 28 Nov 2015 11.49am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 28 Nov 2015 11.15am
Quote legaleagle at 28 Nov 2015 10.54am
Apologies in advance for rambling... Good to see the usual suspects engaging in the usual irrelevant "left" bashing. Bert has a point and makes some sense if readers can see beyond their own knee jerk prejudices,as does Hoof.
You've made a good case for the unfair nature of Corbyn's reporting, but you have not mentioned the totally unfair nature of the bombardment that Nigel Farage has taken from the media! Not only that, he has had to put up with being shouted down whilst campaigning by left wing activists and even had a quiet family Sunday lunch in a pub invaded by scumbags that cannot campaign peaceably or in a socially acceptable fashion. I don't remember you or anyone else making an impassioned plea on Nigel Farage's behalf? Just accept, that any message imparted into the arena will have some sort of spin on it, and if you want to get nearer to the truth, read a few different sources and make your own mind up as to who is most likely to be the most honest. What percentage of the population read / watch / listen to a wide range of information sources for balance? I doubt it's very high. Look at the important debate on immigration. The way it's reported by sections of the media is done so in an inflammatory way to raise heckles thus fuelling unnecessary repercussions. A massive increase in islamophobic attacks on ordinary law abiding people is one example. The issue about bombing Syria is a very important one. So why is the focus on division in political parties rather than the pros and cons of launching airstrikes? An how many inflammatory stories on Jihadist websites are contributing to kids going to Syria or strapping explosive vests to themselves? I don't see you condemning those yet Murdoch, in your view, is the root of all ills in the World. I'll respond to you this once... s***e argument to mention a non condemnation of jihadist 'recruiting' websites, talk about curveball! Of course I am against them. A trite response would be, 'I haven't seen you condemn the christian fella who shot and killed 3 people in cold blood simply because they were in an abortion clinic.' What does this imply about your style of arguing?? 'less bile'. Hmm. I haven't seen any of this 'bile' as you put in he mainstream media after Paris. What I have seen is criticism of the open door immigration of Syrian refugees as it appears that, shock horror, this open door approach, supported and promoted by your sort, has resulted in some Jihadists getti into Europe and committing atrocities. If you think that is 'Islamphobic' then you are wrong. I also cannot believe that you are blaming this immiginary 'bile' for radicalising young Muslims. That really is stretching things, even by your standards, and to says just how much you fail to understand about the reality of radicalisation, your myopic World view and your continued efforts to politicise everything for your 'cause'.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 28 Nov 15 6.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote matt_himself at 28 Nov 2015 6.48pm
Quote nickgusset at 28 Nov 2015 6.23pm
Quote matt_himself at 28 Nov 2015 2.20pm
Quote nickgusset at 28 Nov 2015 11.49am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 28 Nov 2015 11.15am
Quote legaleagle at 28 Nov 2015 10.54am
Apologies in advance for rambling... Good to see the usual suspects engaging in the usual irrelevant "left" bashing. Bert has a point and makes some sense if readers can see beyond their own knee jerk prejudices,as does Hoof.
You've made a good case for the unfair nature of Corbyn's reporting, but you have not mentioned the totally unfair nature of the bombardment that Nigel Farage has taken from the media! Not only that, he has had to put up with being shouted down whilst campaigning by left wing activists and even had a quiet family Sunday lunch in a pub invaded by scumbags that cannot campaign peaceably or in a socially acceptable fashion. I don't remember you or anyone else making an impassioned plea on Nigel Farage's behalf? Just accept, that any message imparted into the arena will have some sort of spin on it, and if you want to get nearer to the truth, read a few different sources and make your own mind up as to who is most likely to be the most honest. What percentage of the population read / watch / listen to a wide range of information sources for balance? I doubt it's very high. Look at the important debate on immigration. The way it's reported by sections of the media is done so in an inflammatory way to raise heckles thus fuelling unnecessary repercussions. A massive increase in islamophobic attacks on ordinary law abiding people is one example. The issue about bombing Syria is a very important one. So why is the focus on division in political parties rather than the pros and cons of launching airstrikes? An how many inflammatory stories on Jihadist websites are contributing to kids going to Syria or strapping explosive vests to themselves? I don't see you condemning those yet Murdoch, in your view, is the root of all ills in the World. I'll respond to you this once... s***e argument to mention a non condemnation of jihadist 'recruiting' websites, talk about curveball! Of course I am against them. A trite response would be, 'I haven't seen you condemn the christian fella who shot and killed 3 people in cold blood simply because they were in an abortion clinic.' What does this imply about your style of arguing?? 'less bile'. Hmm. I haven't seen any of this 'bile' as you put in he mainstream media after Paris. What I have seen is criticism of the open door immigration of Syrian refugees as it appears that, shock horror, this open door approach, supported and promoted by your sort, has resulted in some Jihadists getti into Europe and committing atrocities. If you think that is 'Islamphobic' then you are wrong. I also cannot believe that you are blaming this immiginary 'bile' for radicalising young Muslims. That really is stretching things, even by your standards, and to says just how much you fail to understand about the reality of radicalisation, your myopic World view and your continued efforts to politicise everything for your 'cause'. Your final ad hominem rant is why I ceased to debate with you. Goodnight.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| matt_himself Matataland 28 Nov 15 7.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 28 Nov 2015 6.58pm
Quote matt_himself at 28 Nov 2015 6.48pm
Quote nickgusset at 28 Nov 2015 6.23pm
Quote matt_himself at 28 Nov 2015 2.20pm
Quote nickgusset at 28 Nov 2015 11.49am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 28 Nov 2015 11.15am
Quote legaleagle at 28 Nov 2015 10.54am
Apologies in advance for rambling... Good to see the usual suspects engaging in the usual irrelevant "left" bashing. Bert has a point and makes some sense if readers can see beyond their own knee jerk prejudices,as does Hoof.
You've made a good case for the unfair nature of Corbyn's reporting, but you have not mentioned the totally unfair nature of the bombardment that Nigel Farage has taken from the media! Not only that, he has had to put up with being shouted down whilst campaigning by left wing activists and even had a quiet family Sunday lunch in a pub invaded by scumbags that cannot campaign peaceably or in a socially acceptable fashion. I don't remember you or anyone else making an impassioned plea on Nigel Farage's behalf? Just accept, that any message imparted into the arena will have some sort of spin on it, and if you want to get nearer to the truth, read a few different sources and make your own mind up as to who is most likely to be the most honest. What percentage of the population read / watch / listen to a wide range of information sources for balance? I doubt it's very high. Look at the important debate on immigration. The way it's reported by sections of the media is done so in an inflammatory way to raise heckles thus fuelling unnecessary repercussions. A massive increase in islamophobic attacks on ordinary law abiding people is one example. The issue about bombing Syria is a very important one. So why is the focus on division in political parties rather than the pros and cons of launching airstrikes? An how many inflammatory stories on Jihadist websites are contributing to kids going to Syria or strapping explosive vests to themselves? I don't see you condemning those yet Murdoch, in your view, is the root of all ills in the World. I'll respond to you this once... s***e argument to mention a non condemnation of jihadist 'recruiting' websites, talk about curveball! Of course I am against them. A trite response would be, 'I haven't seen you condemn the christian fella who shot and killed 3 people in cold blood simply because they were in an abortion clinic.' What does this imply about your style of arguing?? 'less bile'. Hmm. I haven't seen any of this 'bile' as you put in he mainstream media after Paris. What I have seen is criticism of the open door immigration of Syrian refugees as it appears that, shock horror, this open door approach, supported and promoted by your sort, has resulted in some Jihadists getti into Europe and committing atrocities. If you think that is 'Islamphobic' then you are wrong. I also cannot believe that you are blaming this immiginary 'bile' for radicalising young Muslims. That really is stretching things, even by your standards, and to says just how much you fail to understand about the reality of radicalisation, your myopic World view and your continued efforts to politicise everything for your 'cause'. Your final ad hominem rant is why I ceased to debate with you. Goodnight. You cannot answer my questions or respond to my points. This 'ad hominem' is just the latest device of many you use to try and take the moral high ground and avoid answering questions. It's quite ironic that you used the word 's***e' to describe my post, when I have responded calmly and respectfully & have done you own bit of 'ad hominem' by having a go at my 'style'. And as ever, you ignore your inner hypocrite.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 28 Nov 15 8.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Hoof Hearted at 28 Nov 2015 10.23am
Quote Bert the Head at 27 Nov 2015 11.23pm
In a democracy the press is meant to be an information system. I would say 70% of the political comments on here are based on information provided by the press rather than any deeper academic writing. We don't need spin doctors. We need a free press. A decent honest information system.
I doubt that very few people on here read Newspapers anymore Bert. I gather my information from TV, Radio and online sources... I suspect most others do too. I accept that some of it might be biased, but by getting it from different sources I can judge it's validity. To a certain degree this forum is a good filter for what the truth might be with contributors from all political and religious spectrums. Your continued assertion that we are all sheep being fed information by the right wing "press" is outdated and wrong. You are living in Epsom Bert, not Pyongyang. What linguistics and discursive analysis of media tends to show isn't so much a necessity of political bias, but that it functions as a means of manufacturing consent in the public, rather than discussion and critical analysis of the public psyche. Left and right wing media will often target different priorities, and parties but ultimately will fall behind promotion of one perspective, rather than present a critical analysis Different sources won't make a difference, because its essentially two different views, that conflict, what media requires is critical analysis and discursive enagement with politics and the public opinion, rather than attempting to influence one, and sell to the other.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 28 Nov 15 8.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 28 Nov 2015 12.09pm
Quote nickgusset at 28 Nov 2015 11.49am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 28 Nov 2015 11.15am
Quote legaleagle at 28 Nov 2015 10.54am
Apologies in advance for rambling... Good to see the usual suspects engaging in the usual irrelevant "left" bashing. Bert has a point and makes some sense if readers can see beyond their own knee jerk prejudices,as does Hoof.
You've made a good case for the unfair nature of Corbyn's reporting, but you have not mentioned the totally unfair nature of the bombardment that Nigel Farage has taken from the media! Not only that, he has had to put up with being shouted down whilst campaigning by left wing activists and even had a quiet family Sunday lunch in a pub invaded by scumbags that cannot campaign peaceably or in a socially acceptable fashion. I don't remember you or anyone else making an impassioned plea on Nigel Farage's behalf? Just accept, that any message imparted into the arena will have some sort of spin on it, and if you want to get nearer to the truth, read a few different sources and make your own mind up as to who is most likely to be the most honest. What percentage of the population read / watch / listen to a wide range of information sources for balance? I doubt it's very high. Look at the important debate on immigration. The way it's reported by sections of the media is done so in an inflammatory way to raise heckles thus fuelling unnecessary repercussions. A massive increase in islamophobic attacks on ordinary law abiding people is one example. The issue about bombing Syria is a very important one. So why is the focus on division in political parties rather than the pros and cons of launching airstrikes? The thing is Nick you are taking the approach that you and your beliefs are right. We all do, so anyone who disagrees is naïve, stupid, illinformed etc When was the last time anyone actually changed their mind after reading anything in General Talk? Their views may softened slightly if you're lucky. As for Corbyn, he is an unmitigated disaster but I think most people have quickly seen through the not so hidden agenda of much of the press. His problem is he seems unable to anticipate the s*** storm that follows after stunts like Mao's book Ironically of course it was the Conservative government that was doing business with Mao's legacy, one of the most oppressive anti-democratic countries in the world. That was the point of the stunt, to draw attention to the fact that the party that bangs on about Western Values and Freedoms, will doing something like 20bn worth of business with the Chinese state for UK power.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hoof Hearted 29 Nov 15 8.56am | |
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 28 Nov 2015 1.49pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 28 Nov 2015 1.33pm
Quote legaleagle at 28 Nov 2015 12.07pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 28 Nov 2015 11.15am
Quote legaleagle at 28 Nov 2015 10.54am
Apologies in advance for rambling... Good to see the usual suspects engaging in the usual irrelevant "left" bashing. Bert has a point and makes some sense if readers can see beyond their own knee jerk prejudices,as does Hoof.
You've made a good case for the unfair nature of Corbyn's reporting, but you have not mentioned the totally unfair nature of the bombardment that Nigel Farage has taken from the media! Not only that, he has had to put up with being shouted down whilst campaigning by left wing activists and even had a quiet family Sunday lunch in a pub invaded by scumbags that cannot campaign peaceably or in a socially acceptable fashion. I don't remember you or anyone else making an impassioned plea on Nigel Farage's behalf? Just accept, that any message imparted into the arena will have some sort of spin on it, and if you want to get nearer to the truth, read a few different sources and make your own mind up as to who is most likely to be the most honest. If you feel Farage has been unfairly "targeted" by the press,that would seem to me to be a reason for supporting the general thrust of my argument... It is,however, worth bearing in mind when you write of Farage's unfair( in your view) treatment,that that is in a context of constant spin in full support of his prime chose policy stance in the last 12 months,immigration...where you might be hard pressed to argue the press has (in general) done other than accord with the general spin Farage puts on immigration-related issues... Contrast with Corbyn,where personality and policies arguably both are generally now subject to a constant "negative spin"...
You either accept there is negative spin or you don't. You can't say it isn't allowable for certain individuals that in your opinion don't deserve it. If I'm reading the meaning wrong, please correct me, but that's how it appears.
At the moment he can enjoy family life - Farage can't... he has to have body guards to ensure the "class war" types don't overdo the specialist attention they're giving him (and his supporters). Many of these are the paid up membership of Labour and Corbyn himself. So, I think it is the Corbynistas that are missing the point. I'd happily see an end to this practice of negative spin and gutter politics but you are mistaken if you think it is only the right doing it. I also find it laughable that the left seem unable to accept a democratically decided election result and continually protest against austerity and/or other government initiatives (and not in a peaceable way). The right did, and had to endure Blair but never went on strike because him and his government were sh1t awful did they? Finally, I think Corbyn brings a lot on himself and makes himself an easy target. Doesn't make it right, but if he represents a political party where it's core membership use underhand tactics then people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| snytaxx London 29 Nov 15 12.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Nov 2015 8.58pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 28 Nov 2015 12.09pm
Quote nickgusset at 28 Nov 2015 11.49am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 28 Nov 2015 11.15am
Quote legaleagle at 28 Nov 2015 10.54am
Apologies in advance for rambling... Good to see the usual suspects engaging in the usual irrelevant "left" bashing. Bert has a point and makes some sense if readers can see beyond their own knee jerk prejudices,as does Hoof.
You've made a good case for the unfair nature of Corbyn's reporting, but you have not mentioned the totally unfair nature of the bombardment that Nigel Farage has taken from the media! Not only that, he has had to put up with being shouted down whilst campaigning by left wing activists and even had a quiet family Sunday lunch in a pub invaded by scumbags that cannot campaign peaceably or in a socially acceptable fashion. I don't remember you or anyone else making an impassioned plea on Nigel Farage's behalf? Just accept, that any message imparted into the arena will have some sort of spin on it, and if you want to get nearer to the truth, read a few different sources and make your own mind up as to who is most likely to be the most honest. What percentage of the population read / watch / listen to a wide range of information sources for balance? I doubt it's very high. Look at the important debate on immigration. The way it's reported by sections of the media is done so in an inflammatory way to raise heckles thus fuelling unnecessary repercussions. A massive increase in islamophobic attacks on ordinary law abiding people is one example. The issue about bombing Syria is a very important one. So why is the focus on division in political parties rather than the pros and cons of launching airstrikes? The thing is Nick you are taking the approach that you and your beliefs are right. We all do, so anyone who disagrees is naïve, stupid, illinformed etc When was the last time anyone actually changed their mind after reading anything in General Talk? Their views may softened slightly if you're lucky. As for Corbyn, he is an unmitigated disaster but I think most people have quickly seen through the not so hidden agenda of much of the press. His problem is he seems unable to anticipate the s*** storm that follows after stunts like Mao's book Ironically of course it was the Conservative government that was doing business with Mao's legacy, one of the most oppressive anti-democratic countries in the world. That was the point of the stunt, to draw attention to the fact that the party that bangs on about Western Values and Freedoms, will doing something like 20bn worth of business with the Chinese state for UK power. Don't take this as targeted attack but I think your statement above is incorrect for the following reasons. The China of today economically has very little in common with how Mao left China or the China he would of wanted. I would argue it is Deng Xiao Ping's legacy which the Tories are currently buying into. It was Deng and certainly not Mao who set up the current economic and political system which China currently uses. The Conservative Party has always been a secret admirer of the "邓小平理论 - Dèng Xiǎo píng lǐ lùn, or to give it its full English name, The Deng Xiaoping theory of the foundation of PRC economic development after the cultural revolution, building the capitalist economy within Chinese communist party control. Whew! Ironically of course, Deng Xiao Ping actually tried to suppress the 'little red book' as it was Mao's Cultural Revolution and the Gang of Four's "Criticize Deng and Oppose the Rehabilitation of Right-leaning Elements campaign" that led to his political purging and his son being thrown out of a third story window. Still, lets not let any of that get in the way of a nice political attention seeking stunt in the form of throwing a little red book across the dispatch box. Unsurprisingly that clip is yet to feature on the subway TV bulletins. After comment - apologies about the random numbers... it appears the HOL HTML scripting is unable to display Chinese Characters, what linguistic bigotry eh? Edited by snytaxx (29 Nov 2015 12.18pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 27 Dec 15 5.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
George Monbiot makes Bert right!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 27 Dec 15 5.40pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Quote snytaxx at 29 Nov 2015 12.15pm
Edited by snytaxx (29 Nov 2015 12.18pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 27 Dec 15 5.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
When we are talking political beliefs there are few 'rights and wrongs'. Things Bert and you believe in will annoy and upset a section of people and vice versa. There are different world views for how people wish the world to work. It's about what fits with your perspective......'Right and Wrong' feels a little zealotry for me.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 27 Dec 15 5.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
The Chinese are regional bullies and Tibet and Tiananmen square are scars to all those who actually care about proper human rights.....Not the indulgent namby pandy nonsense that the thought police spend their energy engaging in and enriching lawyers over here....like taking people to court if they don't want to make pro gay marriage messages on a silly cake. Meanwhile real human rights abuses go on all the time.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 28 Dec 15 11.28am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote snytaxx at 29 Nov 2015 12.15pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Nov 2015 8.58pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 28 Nov 2015 12.09pm
Quote nickgusset at 28 Nov 2015 11.49am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 28 Nov 2015 11.15am
Quote legaleagle at 28 Nov 2015 10.54am
Apologies in advance for rambling... Good to see the usual suspects engaging in the usual irrelevant "left" bashing. Bert has a point and makes some sense if readers can see beyond their own knee jerk prejudices,as does Hoof.
You've made a good case for the unfair nature of Corbyn's reporting, but you have not mentioned the totally unfair nature of the bombardment that Nigel Farage has taken from the media! Not only that, he has had to put up with being shouted down whilst campaigning by left wing activists and even had a quiet family Sunday lunch in a pub invaded by scumbags that cannot campaign peaceably or in a socially acceptable fashion. I don't remember you or anyone else making an impassioned plea on Nigel Farage's behalf? Just accept, that any message imparted into the arena will have some sort of spin on it, and if you want to get nearer to the truth, read a few different sources and make your own mind up as to who is most likely to be the most honest. What percentage of the population read / watch / listen to a wide range of information sources for balance? I doubt it's very high. Look at the important debate on immigration. The way it's reported by sections of the media is done so in an inflammatory way to raise heckles thus fuelling unnecessary repercussions. A massive increase in islamophobic attacks on ordinary law abiding people is one example. The issue about bombing Syria is a very important one. So why is the focus on division in political parties rather than the pros and cons of launching airstrikes? The thing is Nick you are taking the approach that you and your beliefs are right. We all do, so anyone who disagrees is naïve, stupid, illinformed etc When was the last time anyone actually changed their mind after reading anything in General Talk? Their views may softened slightly if you're lucky. As for Corbyn, he is an unmitigated disaster but I think most people have quickly seen through the not so hidden agenda of much of the press. His problem is he seems unable to anticipate the s*** storm that follows after stunts like Mao's book Ironically of course it was the Conservative government that was doing business with Mao's legacy, one of the most oppressive anti-democratic countries in the world. That was the point of the stunt, to draw attention to the fact that the party that bangs on about Western Values and Freedoms, will doing something like 20bn worth of business with the Chinese state for UK power. Don't take this as targeted attack but I think your statement above is incorrect for the following reasons. The China of today economically has very little in common with how Mao left China or the China he would of wanted. I would argue it is Deng Xiao Ping's legacy which the Tories are currently buying into. It was Deng and certainly not Mao who set up the current economic and political system which China currently uses. The Conservative Party has always been a secret admirer of the "邓小平理论 - Dèng Xiǎo píng lǐ lùn, or to give it its full English name, The Deng Xiaoping theory of the foundation of PRC economic development after the cultural revolution, building the capitalist economy within Chinese communist party control. Whew! Ironically of course, Deng Xiao Ping actually tried to suppress the 'little red book' as it was Mao's Cultural Revolution and the Gang of Four's "Criticize Deng and Oppose the Rehabilitation of Right-leaning Elements campaign" that led to his political purging and his son being thrown out of a third story window. Still, lets not let any of that get in the way of a nice political attention seeking stunt in the form of throwing a little red book across the dispatch box. Unsurprisingly that clip is yet to feature on the subway TV bulletins. After comment - apologies about the random numbers... it appears the HOL HTML scripting is unable to display Chinese Characters, what linguistic bigotry eh? Edited by snytaxx (29 Nov 2015 12.18pm) Great post - I agree with it entirely. However I still find the idea of doing business with the PRC, a brutal oppressive regime and regular human rights abuser, abhorrent.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.