Quote from: 4Eyes on November 23, 2011, 07:22:15 PM
Whereas, I take the view that most journalists are unscrupulous scum

My family and I have had some pretty bad experiences with unscrupulous journalists - like we found one in the upstairs of our house, uninvited, taking a picture off the wall. My mom, who is very non-confrontational, found her. If it had been someone else in the family, she might have been arrested but my mom let her go (ouch!).

So I don't have any illusions about the universal quality of the journalistic profession. As a profession, they tend to have no understanding of statistics (always mess that up), are terrible at really verifying sources to the degree that a scholar would find adequate, often miss the real story (in fact, more often than not when it's something complex). Yep, lots of bad apples from ambition, incompetence and worse.

Quote@Ergophobe - you didn't REALLY think that the original post was REALLY suggesting

Of course not - as I said or implied in both my posts.

Quotesurely we still have the right to do that

Of course you do, and far worse!

But for the reasons mentioned, it just isn't something that I personally would joke about and wanted to put it out there.

Quotenothing personal

To be honest, there's very little I take personally. You'd have to go a LOT further than that before it would occur to me. So no worries there!

ah good

We'll scrap the horses head, and just settle for hurling dung then 

Yeah... it's all good. Like I say, just a sensitive topic for me.

When we live in a world where the government does this
http://th3core.com/talk/water-coolerextra/wearing-my-tinfoil-hat/

I'll put up with a lot of BS from journalists and still be pretty strident about their right to report whatever they want, be it link buying, Kim Kardashian's wedding or NSA phone siphoning, because I really don't want reporters looking over their shoulder. I want the NSA doing that.

why was the woman journalist in the house in the first place, had she broke in, was it a family friend ?

QuoteI'll put up with a lot of BS from journalists and still be pretty strident about their right to report whatever they want, be it link buying, Kim Kardashian's wedding or NSA phone siphoning, because I really don't want reporters looking over their shoulder. I want the NSA doing that.

That's where we differ slightly - I want them BOTH looking over their shoulder - they are both dangerous and manipulative, they both have power, and they both abuse it. I absolutely do NOT want journalists having free rein to report anything they want IF 'what they want' involves illegal activities or, as recently been reported, is used to blackmail celebrities into endorsing part of a scandal story in exchange for a promise, subsequently broken, to suppress the more salacious aspects of the story. I also don't want them having the unhindered right to hack a murdered girls mobile phone so they can get aspects of the story earlier than the police would like. I want them to know that if they do that, they will go to prison.

We need enforceable standards - not necessarily to restrict what can be reported on, but at least to require a certain level of legal, ethical and professional behaviour when doing so. Yes, sometimes in the national interest the 'legal' bit has to be sacrificed for national interest... but that is where the moral, ethical and professional bit should come to the fore - and it so often doesn't.

Investigative journalism is great in theory, and it would be nice to see it as a useful weapon for 'the people' against abuses of power and privilege..... but as we have  seen recently, in practice the 'who' and 'what' that gets investigated is often sanctioned or squashed by people like Murdoch, and often for political reasons.

The problem comes down to a 'who polices the police' issue. I want them both policed, by each other, by themselves, and by 'us' ... and I also want 'us' being able to fight them back with the same weapons they both use to attack our freedoms..... and that means we should reserve the right to try to ridicule, and, if deserved, threaten and intimidate journalists in exactly the same way as they do to us.

It would be different if the whole profession was 'held to account' and somehow forced to toe an ethical and professional line, but until that day, we need to be prepared to fight them with their own weapons - which we now know included threats and intimidation.

I know we are straying from the main story and journalist here. IMO, he did shoddy research and/or the whole post was financially motivated - the timing and 'outing' via a link, were just too 'convenient'. The whole article needs investigating by a proper honest journalist - but where the hell will we find one of those?

4eyes - Well said. The only part  I disagree with is that the 'legal' part can be sacrificed for the greater good of national security. Otherwise, I wish I had said what you said.

Amidst the journalistic incompetence and lack of ethics we see, we also see this
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/22/nyregion/nypd-stops-reporters-with-badges-and-fists.html?_r=1

So that's why I bridled at suggestions of strongarming.

The reason I, reluctantly, accept the need for 'legal' to sometimes be ignored is because history shows it has to be every now and then.

I used the phrase 'national interest' rather than 'national security', cos it is the stock phrase used in the UK as a 'get out of jail free card' when the law and the press come into conflict. It is a defence I would think fair and ethical for the press to use in court under certain circumstances - not perhaps one that I feel any government body should be able to use with the same freedom.

If there are unjust laws, we all need the moral courage to break them when it is strategically valuable to do so.

Quotewe also see this

We had similar over here - police stopping photos of their incrimination behaviour being taken by abusing the 'ant-terrorism laws'

I think we are on the same page - I see 'threats and intimidation' by the press on 'the authorities', and vice versa as being like two bullies fighting for who is going to get the right to steal my bike They are both wrong, but if I get a chance to kick one of them in the nuts so hard that he never wants to ride my bike, I'll take it and feel 100% justified

People power should be a valid defense against crappy/illegal journalism in the sense that people should simply stop buying the publication if there are repeated examples of poor work.

Unfortunately, the same Joe Public that makes a huge fuss about a particular newspaper hacking phones, will continue to buy said paper because it has become a habit and they want to get more salacious details.

The only real example I can think of where a large group of people have had the will to stop buying a newspaper en masse over ideological grounds is when Liverpudlians stopped buying The Sun after their coverage of the Hillsborough disaster. Even now the circulation figures in the city are very poor and more power to their elbow for that...

Yeah - People Power is great when it works - but, as you say, this is pretty rare.

.... and lets net forget, Hitler (yeah, I know, not him AGAIN) was elected into power by a democratic process.
'People Power' and democracy aren't enough by themselves, it needs checks and balances etc .. just got to work out who sets them..... I guess its why it is so contentious to mess with a nations 'constitution' - written or unwritten.

>>and lets net forget, Hitler

I could not find it, but isn't there a fact or statistic that says once a topic has got to a certain length then Hitler is brought up?

yes - hence my comment

on BBC HYS Its three comments to Hitler I believe. Or is that David Cameron?

My ex's relative was involved in an especially lurid accidental death a few years back. She was an avid reader of all the 'real life story' magazines and could bore for hours on scurrelous gossip. Then she was contacted by one of them for her own real life story and was absolutely horrified. Threatened to sue the magazine, floods of tears for weeks afterwards, I expect she's still traumatised by the phone call.

She absolutely couldn't see why I said she couldn't have it both ways, and actually nor could most of her (generally fairly intelligent) family. People just don't seem to get the cause and effect between them wanting to read something and someone having to find ways to write it.  Of course journalists are ultimately responsible for their actions, but I think everyone needs a share in the responsibility and we do need to vote with our feet/wallets. 

Agree Denise.

It's this thirst for shit, that causes more of it to be sent in our direction. Soap operas, rag mags, etc etc.

Quote from: ukgimp on November 29, 2011, 10:41:26 AM
>>and lets net forget, Hitler

I could not find it, but isn't there a fact or statistic that says once a topic has got to a certain length then Hitler is brought up?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

QuoteGodwin's_law

4eyes  Law:
Sooner or later, any debate will result in one or more participant posting something so mind-numbingly stupid that is becomes apparent that they slept through what few history lessons they actually attended. When faced with the most stunningly obvious lesson from history that proves they are not only wrong, but ignorant as well, such participant will attempt to introduce the topic of "Godwin's law" to draw everyone's attention away from their shame.


... not, I hasten to add, a comment on anything discussed in this thread, but on the many others where Godwin's Law is brought up as part of the rhetoric of the ignorant.