Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP

Brophs said:
I think both can co-exist. I don't think publications like the Mail are that bothered about public criticism, they just have to be seen to act. If people genuinely stop buying it then I think that might change, but I don't necessarily see that happening. Or at least not in the numbers required for them to change their editorial direction.
Click to expand...
They shouldn't be forced to change their editorial direction in my opinion. I don't like what they print, but so what?
 
I agree with Brophs, there aught to be a way for individuals to fight back against these organizations. It shouldn't go as far as "you can't print x or y", but people who don't want to be harassed should have a defense mechanism.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
They shouldn't be forced to change their editorial direction in my opinion. I don't like what they print, but so what?
Click to expand...

It depends. In general, they can print whatever they want. I don't read it. But if their editorial direction is that they're printing stories with a malicious intent, so to speak, I think there should be some sort of facility whereby they could be held to account, albeit the bar should obviously be set quite high. In fairness, I'm not really sure how I would implement in practice, so it might not prove possible (or even advisable).
 
Silva said:
I agree with Brophs, there aught to be a way for individuals to fight back against these organizations. It shouldn't go as far as "you can't print x or y", but people who don't want to be harassed should have a defense mechanism.
Click to expand...

Well I'm not so much saying that they would be told "You can't print x or y" rather "if you do print x or y....". But as I said above, I'm not sure what form that would take, or where that sort of censure does start to impede on freedom of the press.
 
And that's only considering the original article as well, that they then went on to surround Miliband's response with the abridged original article and the "Evil Legacy" piece truly boggles the mind.
 
Brophs said:
It depends. In general, they can print whatever they want. I don't read it. But if their editorial direction is that they're printing stories with a malicious intent, so to speak, I think there should be some sort of facility whereby they could be held to account, albeit the bar should obviously be set quite high. In fairness, I'm not really sure how I would implement in practice, so it might not prove possible (or even advisable).
Click to expand...
Depends what you mean by 'malicious intent'. This story about Ralph Miliband, reprehensible though it was, was intended to undermine a political figure and his suitability to run the county. That kind of intent has to be fair enough, it's part of democracy.
 
Well, as an example, if the mail wanted to run a dirty foreigner campaign against me at the very least I should be be able to call a regular of sorts which ensures they don't harass me through countless phonecalls/emails and stops them from sending paparazzi to my house on a daily basis. And if they print lies about me, I would like to be given an equivalent amount of space on their paper to write whatever I want.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
Depends what you mean by 'malicious intent'. This story about Ralph Miliband, reprehensible though it was, was intended to undermine a political figure and his suitability to run the county. That kind of intent has to be fair enough, it's part of democracy.
Click to expand...

Well, to me that's the thing, I don't see that it is a legitimate attempt to undermine him. What it was, in my opinion, was an attempt to smear by association. I genuinely don't think they came close to a question to be answered, or an issue debated. It seems to me that they used their medium to veer into an area where they had no genuine journalistic intent, other than to sling shit and hope some of it stuck to his son. I didn't see any real attempt to link the story to any concerns they had about Ed Miliband.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
Depends what you mean by 'malicious intent'. This story about Ralph Miliband, reprehensible though it was, was intended to undermine a political figure and his suitability to run the county. That kind of intent has to be fair enough, it's part of democracy.
Click to expand...


The only democracy I know of that accepts this nonsense as part of the process is the US.

And that is a steaming pile of monkey shit we do not want to follow, as current headlines will testify.
 
Silva said:
Well, as an example, if the mail wanted to run a dirty foreigner campaign against me at the very least I should be be able to call a regular of sorts which ensures they don't harass me through countless phonecalls/emails and stops them from sending paparazzi to my house on a daily basis. And if they print lies about me, I would like to be given an equivalent amount of space on their paper to write whatever I want.
Click to expand...

Harassment is a crime and as such should be reported to the police. If they libel you, then you have recompense through the courts.
 
Brophs said:
Well, to me that's the thing, I don't see that it is a legitimate attempt to undermine him. What it was, in my opinion, was an attempt to smear by association. I genuinely don't think they came close to a question to be answered, or an issue debated. It seems to me that they used their medium to veer into an area where they had no genuine journalistic intent, other than to sling shit and hope some of it stuck to his son. I didn't see any real attempt to link the story to any concerns they had about Ed Miliband.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a legitimate attempt to undermine him - that's why they're getting all the criticism. But there was nothing in that article which made me think any regulator should have prevented its publication.

I would be appalled if a press regulator was getting involved in political discourse in this way.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
It wasn't a legitimate attempt to undermine him - that's why they're getting all the criticism. But there was nothing in that article which made me think any regulator should have prevented its publication.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. I think freedom of the press trumps all. What I'm thinking is more in the realm of, for example, a right of reply.

EDIT: And with that I'm going to feck off and pull a load of tiles off my kitchen wall.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
Harassment is a crime and as such should be reported to the police. If they libel you, then you have recompense through the courts.
Click to expand...

This requires the police to actually do something against harassment from news organisations, and I don't think they do. Suing them won't change anything, the only way to stop news outlets from lying is if there was a punishment as severe as giving space on newspapers or minutes of airtime.
 
There should be some method of punishment if journalistic standards are ignored so willingly. It seems they may have gotten the diary quote from the second result on google (as was), then promptly ignored all the context around it.
 
Watching yesterday's Question Time. Quentin Lett's literally sounds like someone off Fox News who believes there's such things as the "Lamestream Media" who are avidly left wing.
 
I've never understood why we can't make the papers print every apology and retraction with the same column space as the original offence. It seems so childishly simple a measure that it must be ridiculous for some reason. If you splash a false allegation on a front page headline, you have to apologise for it with a front page headline.

I agree with Mike about the sanctity of press freedoms, but I disagree that there's nothing more we can do to stop the Murdochs and Dacres of this world abusing them. Because they've been abusing them for so long you end up feeling like Jesse in Breaking Bad screaming "They can't keep getting away with it!" whilst holding a tankard of kerosene in the Mail Group's front lobby.

alastair said:
The Mehdi Hasan bombshell today has been epically hilarious.
Click to expand...


Once again, alastair is right on the pulse of public opinion. How does he do it?
 
Mockney said:
I've never understood why we can't make the papers print every apology and retraction with the same column space as the original offence. It seems so childishly simple a measure that it must be ridiculous for some reason. If you splash a false allegation on a front page headline, you have to apologise for it with a front page headline.
Click to expand...


Wasn't the equal apology thing in the proposed royal charter? Or did that get dropped by the wayside?
 
I don't know. There must be some incredibly obvious reason why it's bollocks, otherwise we'd have done it ages ago.
 
What makes me laugh about all this is the very people who will defend the Mail will also turn around and ask where are all the true leaders and why are all politicians the same? Why would anyone want to enter politics if this is the treatment your family get? Their lives to be ruined or their memory castigated and crude guilt by association used to undermine you.

The Mail can print shit if it wants but no one should defend this style of politics or just shrug it off as part of the game. Some things are beyond the pale and this attack on Milliband father is one them. Watching people like Gove trying to pretend it was a mistake for him to take issue with it was sickening. Everyone should take issue with it because it ruins any chance of a real debate.

The Mail is a Tory attack dog and this attack was a pre-judged cold blooded attempt to swift boat part of Milliband's potential appeal.

 
The Mail, in fairness, is often critical of the Tories, as highlighted by giving Hitchens a column each week. The Mail is traditionally conservative, not new-age conservative and is therefore out of touch with the modern party.
 
Posted it wrongly in the other thread:

That was a car crash of a letter from Hasan but it doesn't really change any of the points he made yesterday.

Also quite uncomfortable with the idea of a company releasing job application cover letters. I know I've said the odd bollocks on a cover letter to a company.
 
Was a decent pitch for a job.
 
Mockney said:
I've never understood why we can't make the papers print every apology and retraction with the same column space as the original offence. It seems so childishly simple a measure that it must be ridiculous for some reason. If you splash a false allegation on a front page headline, you have to apologise for it with a front page headline.
Click to expand...
Because it's almost never as simple as 'that article was false'. If you look at the corrections section in a newspaper, almost all of them are minor or trivial things, often irrelevant to the broad thrust of an article or most of the claims within it.

You could have a big frontage story with a couple of minor errors in, then what? That's the more common situation.
 
alastair said:
I read it all. It was brilliant. What a brilliant leakage.
Click to expand...


It was a pathetic low blow from the Daily Mail. Hasan savages them on QT so they decide to release a private letter he sent to them in the hope of employment...how typical of the vindictive political journalism they have be come known for. Obviously it shows Hasan to be somewhat of a hypocrite, or more accurately an arse licker, but this was a private letter and it should have stayed private.
 
rednev said:
It was a pathetic low blow from the Daily Mail. Hasan savages them on QT so they decide to release a private letter he sent to them in the hope of employment...how typical of the vindictive political journalism they have be come known for. Obviously it shows Hasan to be somewhat of a hypocrite, or more accurately an arse licker, but this was a private letter and it should have stayed private.
Click to expand...


The Mail were right to highlight his hypocrisy. It's hardly vindictive. So what you're saying is that Hasan can have a go at them without being called out on his ridiculous letter asking for work, and claiming he sympathises with their views?
 
Everyone who pays attention knows Hasan is more on the conservative side of the spectrum on some social issues, and from what I remember of his attack, none of the things he criticised the Mail for are also things he complimented them on in his sycophantic cover letter. Quentin Letts was toeing the Mail's line in attacking the BBC during the show, but that doesn't stop him (nor should it) regularly contributing to stuff like This Week. It's just something that journos tend to do.
 
Ubik said:
Everyone who pays attention knows Hasan is more on the conservative side of the spectrum on some social issues, and from what I remember of his attack, none of the things he criticised the Mail for are also things he complimented them on in his sycophantic cover letter. Quentin Letts was toeing the Mail's line in attacking the BBC during the show, but that doesn't stop him (nor should it) regularly contributing to stuff like This Week. It's just something that journos tend to do.
Click to expand...


Your issue is that you assume individuals and large corporations are the same thing.

This Week is an individual programme. Letts contributes to it as he wishes because he's not against that particular strand of the BBC. Letts criticises the pay-offs some members of staff there have had. It's a different thing. I doubt Letts has an opinion about 90% of what the BBC do. Nor does anyone. He's not guilty of hypocrisy.

I can't believe the defence Hasan is getting here.
 
And Hasan agrees with everything the Mail does? Despite, in his letter, saying he doesn't?

Hasan's getting defended because the Mail responded to his criticism in the only way they know how - ad hominem. That so many on the right have so gleefully lapped it up is the more suprising thing (well, surprise is likely the wrong word). Clearly not working with the wider public though, looking at the latest polling figures on the issue.
 
Ubik said:
And Hasan agrees with everything the Mail does? Despite, in his letter, saying he doesn't?

Hasan's getting defended because the Mail responded to his criticism in the only way they know how - ad hominem. That so many on the right have so gleefully lapped it up is the more suprising thing (well, surprise is likely the wrong word). Clearly not working with the wider public though, looking at the latest polling figures on the issue.
Click to expand...


No-one is gleefully lapping it up. It was just quite amusing.

It's just typical left wing behaviour. As soon as there's an opportunity to sell out, they take it.
 
The letter made Hasan look like hypocrite, (or perhaps in reality yet another person trying to make some money - Capitalism huh) but it also made the Mail even more dickish and reiterate exactly what he already said on QT.

The content of what he said on Thursday still stands for me.
 
Reshuffles abound. Read a (thoroughly unsourced, I might add) report that the tories might try to lure Jeremy Browne over to their side after he got the axe. He's always struck me as a tory dressed as a Lib Dem so I wouldn't be surprised.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.