Attacks in Paris

[Elerond]

Interesting. I didnt know the EU has a defence pact.

 

It was added in Treaty of Lisbon this is fist time it's triggered. 

[Gorgon]

Interesting. I didnt know the EU has a defence pact.

It's interesting that he would invoke the EU rather than NATO. Probably has something to do with what the US would do. There is no political will for ground troops in the US, but there is a growing sense that that's what it's going to take in Europe so if he invoked the NATO clause, as think Bush did after 9/11, he would force the matter and maybe damage relations.

[Meshugger]

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Fairness and ethical journalistic standards are second to market forces, as you well know.

 

 

And this is the problem with "the media should be just another commodity on the free market!". People like to feel validated. "Fair and impartial", in the long run, is probably not going to sell over "reinforces the worldview and biases of the consumer".

[Ineth]

As opposed to corporate-sponsored "education" by the economic elite?

 

Oh please.

Spare me that conspiracy theory notion of capitalism as some kind of mythical cabal acting as a single entity.

 

We have access to hundreds (thousands?) of competing news outlets. The idea that collectively, they give us less full and fair access to information about world events, than a centralized state-sponsored media would, is absolutely ludicrous.

[Gorth]

Fairness and ethical journalistic standards are second to market forces, as you well know.

Commercial news are fair and balanced the same way burger is considered fair and balanced diet by a burger chain.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Spare me that conspiracy theory notion of capitalism as some kind of mythical cabal acting as a single entity.

 

 

 

That's somewhat ironic to hear right after the post where you treat academia as some kind of a mythical cabal acting as a single entity. Just sayin'.

 

 

 

We have access to hundreds (thousands?) of competing news outlets. The idea that collectively, they give us less full and fair access to information about world events, than a centralized state-sponsored media would, is absolutely ludicrous.

 

 

 

So is the idea that any single person has the time and/or energy to comb through all of those news outlets.

 

No, scratch that. The idea of the two models being even comparable is what's ridiculous. They're completely different and consequentially come with different strengths and drawbacks.

Edited November 18, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Ineth]

 

 

Fairness and ethical journalistic standards are second to market forces, as you well know.

 

 

And this is the problem with "the media should be just another commodity on the free market!". People like to feel validated. "Fair and impartial", in the long run, is probably not going to sell over "reinforces the worldview and biases of the consumer".

 

It's going to sell to some people. As long as there are audiences which value the product of ethical journalism, some media outlets will attempt to supply it.

 

But again, your concern is less about having access to the information and news coverage you want for yourself, and more about your (and your fellow authoritarians', left and right) misgivings about what other people choose to consume, and your desire to control it. For the greater good, of course!

Edited November 18, 2015 by Ineth

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

Fairness and ethical journalistic standards are second to market forces, as you well know.

 

 

And this is the problem with "the media should be just another commodity on the free market!". People like to feel validated. "Fair and impartial", in the long run, is probably not going to sell over "reinforces the worldview and biases of the consumer".

 

It's going to sell to some people. As long as there are audiences which value the product of ethical journalism, some media outlets will attempt to supply it.

 

 

As we can see with the great amount of new gaming news outlets staffed with competent and impartial reviewers popping up in the wake of the gamergate scandal, to supply outraged consumers with the information they so clearly yearn for.

 

Oh wait, that's a thing that hasn't happened. Oops.

 

 

Moreover, you seem to have missed the point entirely. As for the snidely passive-agressive personal attack, I'll just let it slide without comment because at this point, really, why bother.

Edited November 18, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

In America we have 6 media giants that control 90% of media. Clearly they will be entirely truthful and never shy away from reporting information harmful to their interests, just look at all this TPP coverage we've had!

[213374U]

What did the anti-jihadi pact do ?

Interesting. I didnt know the EU has a defence pact.

 

 

My bad, I wasn't clear. The "pact" I was referring to is domestic rather than at the EU level and galvanized support behind the government's "gag law" (which I've already discussed) and other reforms such as bringing back life in prison sentences for ill-defined "terrorism" crimes, prison terms for "receiving military training with the intent to commit terrorist acts including doing so through content hosted on the internet", automatic deportation of illegal aliens, etc. These were conceived as the government's way to quell domestic unrest resulting from the economic crisis, but the attacks in France were the perfect excuse to bring more "democrats" behind it. Because, why the **** not.

 

 

 

 

As opposed to corporate-sponsored "education" by the economic elite?

 

Oh please.

Spare me that conspiracy theory notion of capitalism as some kind of mythical cabal acting as a single entity.

 

We have access to hundreds (thousands?) of competing news outlets. The idea that collectively, they give us less full and fair access to information about world events, than a centralized state-sponsored media would, is absolutely ludicrous.

 

Is labelling anything that doesn't agree with your world view a conspiracy theory something you do deliberately to help cope with uncertainty or is it a subconscious reaction?

 

Your ideal media landscape is as unrealistic as your ideal conception of "free" markets, and is to the real world what ideal gases are to real gases. In reality, it's a matter of exposure. More resources and a bigger market share means more exposure and the ability to influence more people. I'm sure I don't have to explain how Alex Jones will never be able to compete with FOX.

 

Your reasoning is also internally inconsistent: in a perfect world where free markets ensure that different viewpoints are all afforded the same exposure (ha!), a state-sponsored perspective would be just another voice, and could pose no threat to the ability of citizens to form opinions critically. Nobody has argued for nationalization of all media, and suggesting that it is the ultimate goal of those warning about the pitfalls of a media landscape dominated by a few private individuals is an outlandish theory... you are not suggesting a conspiracy, are you?

Edited November 18, 2015 by 213374U

[Qistina]

 

As opposed to corporate-sponsored "education" by the economic elite?

 

Oh please.

Spare me that conspiracy theory notion of capitalism as some kind of mythical cabal acting as a single entity.

 

We have access to hundreds (thousands?) of competing news outlets. The idea that collectively, they give us less full and fair access to information about world events, than a centralized state-sponsored media would, is absolutely ludicrous.

 

 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Your ideal media landscape is as unrealistic as your ideal conception of "free" markets, and is to the real world what ideal gases are to real gases. 

 

 

For all his supposed rationality and unbiased outlook, he seems to be really fond of the "just wave a wand with 'FREE MARKET' printed on it, and it'll somehow make everything better" kind of weird magical thinking that's so characteristic of many libertarians.

Edited November 18, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Hurlshort]

 

 

As opposed to corporate-sponsored "education" by the economic elite?

 

Oh please.

Spare me that conspiracy theory notion of capitalism as some kind of mythical cabal acting as a single entity.

 

We have access to hundreds (thousands?) of competing news outlets. The idea that collectively, they give us less full and fair access to information about world events, than a centralized state-sponsored media would, is absolutely ludicrous.

 

 

 

 

That does look a lot better than one big circle labelled "GOV"

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

That does look a lot better than one big circle labelled "GOV"

 

 

A fair observation, but also orthogonal to the point.

[Qistina]

That does look a lot better than one big circle labelled "GOV"

 

 

They can't exist without the government...and government is governing, to govern them...

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

As opposed to corporate-sponsored "education" by the economic elite?

 

 

Oh please.

Spare me that conspiracy theory notion of capitalism as some kind of mythical cabal acting as a single entity.

 

We have access to hundreds (thousands?) of competing news outlets. The idea that collectively, they give us less full and fair access to information about world events, than a centralized state-sponsored media would, is absolutely ludicrous.

 

 

That does look a lot better than one big circle labelled "GOV"

[Meshugger]

This thread is now about ethics in terrorist coverage.

[Qistina]

The news are sponsored, by means they only tell anything that according to the one who give them money..."here a million dollar, make a story about.....", that's news we see...

[Ineth]

Your reasoning is also internally inconsistent: in a perfect world where free markets ensure that different viewpoints are all afforded the same exposure (ha!), a state-sponsored perspective would be just another voice, and could pose no threat to the ability of citizens to form opinions critically. Nobody has argued for nationalization of all media, and suggesting that it is the ultimate goal of those warning about the pitfalls of a media landscape dominated by a few private individuals is an outlandish theory... you are not suggesting a conspiracy, are you?

 

Unfortunately, it wouldn't take a conspiracy to go from well-intended "state-sponsored perspective [as] just another voice", to restrictions on competing media and deterioration of free speech in general.

 

Because that's the natural course that things take under the tutelage of the government. There's no one who secretly engineers this process behind the scenes, it's just a result of human nature (and made worse by the two-party system).

 

This is why the "constitutional" part of "constitutional democracy" is so important.

[Gfted1]

After the pointing and laughing Im once again reminded of the timeless wisdom of Trading Places, in that everyone is just a product of their environment. For some the burning of books and oppression of opinions is fine while others blanch at the thought. The difference? Where you were raised. Changing a persons opinion is like trying to describe a rainbow to a blind person, they just cant visualize it. 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Your reasoning is also internally inconsistent: in a perfect world where free markets ensure that different viewpoints are all afforded the same exposure (ha!), a state-sponsored perspective would be just another voice, and could pose no threat to the ability of citizens to form opinions critically. Nobody has argued for nationalization of all media, and suggesting that it is the ultimate goal of those warning about the pitfalls of a media landscape dominated by a few private individuals is an outlandish theory... you are not suggesting a conspiracy, are you?

 

Unfortunately, it wouldn't take a conspiracy to go from well-intended "state-sponsored perspective [as] just another voice", to restrictions on competing media and deterioration of free speech in general.

 

 

I weep for the terrible deterioration of free speech in Britain.

 

Nevermind that it hasn't really happened in the 93 years since BBC was founded, it's just inevitable! That's the nature of things under the tutelage of the government!

[Malcador]

My bad, I wasn't clear. The "pact" I was referring to is domestic rather than at the EU level and galvanized support behind the government's "gag law" (which I've already discussed) and other reforms such as bringing back life in prison sentences for ill-defined "terrorism" crimes, prison terms for "receiving military training with the intent to commit terrorist acts including doing so through content hosted on the internet", automatic deportation of illegal aliens, etc. These were conceived as the government's way to quell domestic unrest resulting from the economic crisis, but the attacks in France were the perfect excuse to bring more "democrats" behind it. Because, why the **** not.

 

Ah, I see. Well France's shutting down mosques that preach 'hate', so maybe they are merrily on their way.  Seems pretty typical for overreaching laws, I understand that facing the aftermath of a terrorist attack can be shaky but is sad how that gets used.

 

[Malcador]

I weep for the terrible deterioration of free speech in Britain.

Maybe should a little - http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/newsevents/newsevents-pressreleases/newsevents-pressreleases-item.htm?id=324265

 

The whole ASBO thing is weird to me as well, but Canada is thankfully not the UK.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I weep for the terrible deterioration of free speech in Britain.

Maybe should a little - http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/newsevents/newsevents-pressreleases/newsevents-pressreleases-item.htm?id=324265

 

 

So basically she was arrested for spreading hate speech ("She was arrested under section 19 of the Public Order Act which relates to the display of written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting with the intention of stirring up racial hatred, and for producing malicious communications.").

 

Isn't that something most civilized countries tend to frown upon?

Edited November 18, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid