Sex God
But Ken are you happy to have an unelected foreigner deciding government policy ??
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Role Of Media In Modern Society
last reply
102 replies
3.7k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Quote by Staggerlee_BB
But Ken are you happy to have an unelected foreigner deciding government policy ??
What a bit like what the unions used to do ya mean?
In fact from what I can remember a Tory Government was brought down by the unions....remember Heath and the miners?
So you do not agree with a " foreigner " deciding Government policies, but there are plenty of people who would say that unions should hold the ultimate big stick.
Brown if my memory served me right was very silent to start with over the BA strikes. The current PM at that time being silent because of his and his parties paymasters....the Unite union.
You ok with that then?
I cannot remember Murdoch bringing down a Government, or holding the country to ransom for years.
Sex God
Quote by Staggerlee_BB
But Ken are you happy to have an unelected foreigner deciding government policy ??
Influence is surely the most his organisation could achieve, some thing many groups can do, from the WI to, as Kenty states, the unions
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
But Ken are you happy to have an unelected foreigner deciding government policy ??
What a bit like what the unions used to do ya mean?
In fact from what I can remember a Tory Government was brought down by the unions....remember Heath and the miners?
So you do not agree with a " foreigner " deciding Government policies, but there are plenty of people who would say that unions should hold the ultimate big stick.
Brown if my memory served me right was very silent to start with over the BA strikes. The current PM at that time being silent because of his and his parties paymasters....the Unite union.
You ok with that then?
I cannot remember Murdoch bringing down a Government, or holding the country to ransom for years.
I think you'll find union leaders are elected
I think you'll find you haven't answered my question
I think you'll find the key word was unelected
It would seem that not only do they decide policy they pick the government.....and as we are so often told...they never tell lies
And am I happy that a mass movement representing the people of the country can influence government.....hell yes
Sex God
Watch The Wire, Season 5 for a great lesson in how the media is manipulated by a whole host of influences.
Of course you could just watch it for the sheer gob-smackingly amazingness of it... but I'd recommend you watch seasons 1-4 first!
Of course you could just watch it for the sheer gob-smackingly amazingness of it... but I'd recommend you watch seasons 1-4 first!
Sex God
Quote by Staggerlee_BB
But Ken are you happy to have an unelected foreigner deciding government policy ??
What a bit like what the unions used to do ya mean?
In fact from what I can remember a Tory Government was brought down by the unions....remember Heath and the miners?
So you do not agree with a " foreigner " deciding Government policies, but there are plenty of people who would say that unions should hold the ultimate big stick.
Brown if my memory served me right was very silent to start with over the BA strikes. The current PM at that time being silent because of his and his parties paymasters....the Unite union.
You ok with that then?
I cannot remember Murdoch bringing down a Government, or holding the country to ransom for years.
I think you'll find union leaders are elected
I think you'll find you haven't answered my question
I think you'll find the key word was unelected
It would seem that not only do they decide policy they pick the government.....and as we are so often told...they never tell lies
The sun is fooling their selves
They can, lie, cheat, and manipulate, but can they fool us..... only a small percentage of us I would guess
Quote by Staggerlee_BB
I think you'll find union leaders are elected
I think you'll find you haven't answered my question
I think you'll find the key word was unelected
Yes by their fellow Brothers in arms...
I think I answered your question rather nicely actually.
How does Murdoch decide Government policies? You been reading too many newspapers. Who on this Earth believes and listens to newspapers? They are all liars and crooks and surely the British public would not fall for such rubbish...could they?
Or is it because the unions powers are now so curtailed, that you would like powerful people to be curtailed in the same way?
I refere you to the wording that says..." Union heavyweight Bob Crow has been re-elected unopposed ".....kind of sums it up really. Only re-elected because nobody opposed him, hardly a democratic system eh?
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
I think you'll find union leaders are elected
I think you'll find you haven't answered my question
I think you'll find the key word was unelected
Yes by their fellow Brothers in arms...
I think I answered your question rather nicely actually.
Where?? did you edit it out accidentally ??
How does Murdoch decide Government policies? You been reading too many newspapers. Who on this Earth believes and listens to newspapers? They are all liars and crooks and surely the British public would not fall for such rubbish...could they?
Or is it because the unions powers are now so curtailed, that you would like powerful people to be curtailed in the same way?
Of course powerful peoples behaviour should follow the same ethical guidelines as anyone elses wealth does not buy the right to behave badly....or do you actually really believe that Murdoch and his ilk have every right to behave as they please?are you really such a slave to money and priviledge that you think democracy,morality,legality and common human fucking decency are not to be observed by the rich and powerful....really Ken for your own sake stand up remove the dildo and fucking run...they'll eat you up and spit you out and think nothing of it
I refere you to the wording that says..." Union heavyweight Bob Crow has been re-elected unopposed ".....kind of sums it up really. Only re-elected because nobody opposed him, hardly a democratic system eh?
I would prefer that any election was realistically fought...I do not (unlike some) feel it my right to dictate how any democracy should operate
P.S. any democracy of which I am not a member of course
Sex God
Quote by Bluefish2009
stuff
The sun is fooling their selves
They can, lie, cheat, and manipulate, but can they fool us..... only a small percentage of us I would guess
It would appear according to the story that the tories either agreed or where so frightened of incurring Ruperts wrath that they pretended to....same thing really
Sex God
And the papers in support of labour in 1992 would have been doing what at the time?
similar things I suggest
similar things I suggest
Sex God
Quote by Bluefish2009
And the papers in support of labour in 1992 would have been doing what at the time?
similar things I suggest
Yes I'm sure they both would have.....and perhaps there would have been a similar reaction from the Labour party....but then politicians court the media,why would we be surprised that the result is that they end up in bed with each other...it's only nature after all.
The main difference remains that we elect politicians
And sometimes do not elect union leaders either.
A bit like Old Bottler Brown.
Every Labour politician who thought about standing against the brute, lost their bottle so he got in unopposed.
There's democracy for ya as I have said already.
Flexing ones heavyweight muscles to bully your way to a leadership battle, is no different in my book.
So to clarify for the hard of thinking
, the Labour party did not have a single candidate stand against Brown for the leader of the party, and more importantly with this oh so mighty election system, ended up becoming the new PM, without a voter from the general public having a single word to say on the matter.
Unelected Aussies who " dictate Government policies ", to the Labour party who put no opposition down for a new leader and PM of this country who was unelected by the people...........what a fair and just system we have.
No law against it of course, and no law against an Aussie dictating to Government...apparently.
" a blow to democracy ".........indeed it was.
A bit like Old Bottler Brown.
Every Labour politician who thought about standing against the brute, lost their bottle so he got in unopposed.
There's democracy for ya as I have said already.
Flexing ones heavyweight muscles to bully your way to a leadership battle, is no different in my book.
So to clarify for the hard of thinking
, the Labour party did not have a single candidate stand against Brown for the leader of the party, and more importantly with this oh so mighty election system, ended up becoming the new PM, without a voter from the general public having a single word to say on the matter.Unelected Aussies who " dictate Government policies ", to the Labour party who put no opposition down for a new leader and PM of this country who was unelected by the people...........what a fair and just system we have.
No law against it of course, and no law against an Aussie dictating to Government...apparently.
" a blow to democracy ".........indeed it was.
Sex God
The role of the media in modern society.....???
Thing is Ken you talk about the Labour party and the less palatable side of the trades union movement as though I approve....Ken you can't even fully understand statements addressed directly to you FFS!!...I have repeatedly stated that I do not support the labour party and you still don't seem to understand this...I have in this thread tacitly agreed that the unopposed election of anyone is a bad idea....and you still don't have my pity and my sympathy .....the machinations of the media must be an absolute maze to you.
If and when you find some answers to my questions,I will be more than happy to read the links
Thing is Ken you talk about the Labour party and the less palatable side of the trades union movement as though I approve....Ken you can't even fully understand statements addressed directly to you FFS!!...I have repeatedly stated that I do not support the labour party and you still don't seem to understand this...I have in this thread tacitly agreed that the unopposed election of anyone is a bad idea....and you still don't have my pity and my sympathy .....the machinations of the media must be an absolute maze to you.
If and when you find some answers to my questions,I will be more than happy to read the links
Quote by kentswingers777
No point trying to discuss anything with you, as your judgments are clouded and your mind made up....another Murdoch hater for exactly the same reason as I have already given to another member.
A hater of anyone with any privilege, it is not good to hold such grudges ya know.
Ken, it's OK to admit you were wrong. You tried to bullshit and walked straight into a sucker punch. Man up, admit it, and there's a possibility of a grown up debate. Otherwise, it'll be obvious you don't give a toss for the truth.
Quote by awayman
No point trying to discuss anything with you, as your judgments are clouded and your mind made up....another Murdoch hater for exactly the same reason as I have already given to another member.
A hater of anyone with any privilege, it is not good to hold such grudges ya know.
Ken, it's OK to admit you were wrong. You tried to bullshit and walked straight into a sucker punch. Man up, admit it, and there's a possibility of a grown up debate. Otherwise, it'll be obvious you don't give a toss for the truth.
The truth??
What is the truth in your world?
Lets take it to pm then big boy.:giggle:
Only on MSN though.......as could well end up over stepping the AUP mark if done on here,which is obviously what you are trying to do.
Anywhere else we can say exactly what we want.....how exciting will that be!
Sex God
Kent, as far as I can see you are being asked to debate - there is no need to be defensive or aggressive.
People have asked you to respond to the points they have made or answer questions they have asked - that is how a debate happens - there are two sides discussed and acknowledged.
If you persist in spouting your own opinion and forcing your own agenda on people whatever the topic, that is not debate. If however you do what people are asking you to do, and engage with the subject in a meaningful and mature way then I am pretty sure a decent debate would follow.
So don't be childish and debate the issues properly and in a mature way. The fact that you don't want to and have to "take things to PM" suggests to me that you cannot answer their questions or argue your case adequately.
I keep using the debate word though - for reference:
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument.
1. To deliberate on; consider.
2. To dispute or argue about.
3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.
1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
It involves seeing two sides of an issue and discussing them - if you only see your side or persist in derailing a debate and taking it off topic you'll never win. Ah the joys of having been in the school debating team - I learned very quickly that those who shouted loudest, lost and those who thought they knew it all without considering the other team's point of view or conceding a point now and again also lost.
I wish some folk on here (and not just you, Kent) had also learned that lesson. This forum would genuinely be a much better source of debate then.
People have asked you to respond to the points they have made or answer questions they have asked - that is how a debate happens - there are two sides discussed and acknowledged.
If you persist in spouting your own opinion and forcing your own agenda on people whatever the topic, that is not debate. If however you do what people are asking you to do, and engage with the subject in a meaningful and mature way then I am pretty sure a decent debate would follow.
So don't be childish and debate the issues properly and in a mature way. The fact that you don't want to and have to "take things to PM" suggests to me that you cannot answer their questions or argue your case adequately.
I keep using the debate word though - for reference:
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument.
1. To deliberate on; consider.
2. To dispute or argue about.
3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.
1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
It involves seeing two sides of an issue and discussing them - if you only see your side or persist in derailing a debate and taking it off topic you'll never win. Ah the joys of having been in the school debating team - I learned very quickly that those who shouted loudest, lost and those who thought they knew it all without considering the other team's point of view or conceding a point now and again also lost.
I wish some folk on here (and not just you, Kent) had also learned that lesson. This forum would genuinely be a much better source of debate then.
Sex God
Quote by noladreams
Kent, as far as I can see you are being asked to debate - there is no need to be defensive or aggressive.
People have asked you to respond to the points they have made or answer questions they have asked - that is how a debate happens - there are two sides discussed and acknowledged.
If you persist in spouting your own opinion and forcing your own agenda on people whatever the topic, that is not debate. If however you do what people are asking you to do, and engage with the subject in a meaningful and mature way then I am pretty sure a decent debate would follow.
So don't be childish and debate the issues properly and in a mature way. The fact that you don't want to and have to "take things to PM" suggests to me that you cannot answer their questions or argue your case adequately.
I keep using the debate word though - for reference:
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument.
1. To deliberate on; consider.
2. To dispute or argue about.
3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.
1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
It involves seeing two sides of an issue and discussing them - if you only see your side or persist in derailing a debate and taking it off topic you'll never win. Ah the joys of having been in the school debating team - I learned very quickly that those who shouted loudest, lost and those who thought they knew it all without considering the other team's point of view or conceding a point now and again also lost.
I wish some folk on here (and not just you, Kent) had also learned that lesson. This forum would genuinely be a much better source of debate then.
this explains a lot of your previous post about mass-debate :rascal::rascal:
Sex God
Quote by Kaznkev
And the papers in support of labour in 1992 would have been doing what at the time?
similar things I suggest
In 1992 the papers supporting the labour party were The Mirror and The of which are owned by single individuals attempting to dictate policy.
If u think Murdoch is not just trying to ensure he makes maximum profits look at James Murdochs speech against the bbc,which was basically an attempt to ensure skys profits were not curtailed in any way.
This is the same man who threatened violence to an editor who dared critise the Murdoch media in the election.
This is of course just capitalism,but it is the job of reponsible government to ensure that no one special interest is pandered too.
Thank you Kaz, your links are always helpful
If there are a variety of paper's supporting a variety of political views then I don't really see where the problem lies?
I also have no problem with a business man trying to maximise his profits, surely that is part of his remit as the boss of a company?
I of coarse can not condone any form of violence, but if he is threatening anyone they have a legal redress through our police and courts systeme.
Sex God
Quote by Staggerlee_BB
And the papers in support of labour in 1992 would have been doing what at the time?
similar things I suggest
Yes I'm sure they both would have.....and perhaps there would have been a similar reaction from the Labour party....but then politicians court the media,why would we be surprised that the result is that they end up in bed with each other...it's only nature after all.
The main difference remains that we elect politicians
I fully see your point, the papers are not elected, mine is that, If there are a variety of paper's supporting a variety of political views, surely things even out
Quote by noladreams
The fact that you don't want to and have to "take things to PM" suggests to me that you cannot answer their questions or argue your case adequately.
Thanks Nola but I have lost count of the ammount of times I have heard the phrase " take it to pm " on here.
I have answered the questions and have argued my case more than adequately..
It is obvious that my answers are not good enough, so to stop the bickering I was doing what I have been told to do before, and that is to take it to pm....now that is not acceptable either
It seems I answer one members questions and then get bombarded with questions from the others.
The history thread is a classic example.
Pm is the better way rather than to carry on the pointless go round in circles game.
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
I have answered the questions and have argued my case more than adequately..
It is obvious that my answers are not good enough, so to stop the bickering I was doing what I have been told to do before, and that is to take it to pm....now that is not acceptable either
It seems I answer one members questions and then get bombarded with questions from the others.
But obviously people feel you haven't argued your points adequately. And in a debate then more questions are always bound to come up as more people get involved and the debate develops.
That's not a bad thing; it's debate.
Anyway, I've been pondering a response to this thread as it's actually something I feel quite strongly about. I shall have to think some more and then share... but Kent, don't be offended if I question some of your points, just as I might some other people's too!
Nola I think you know exactly what I am saying here.
Sometimes on forums there can be a pack mentality, where a group deliberately set out to goad, on any subject.
I seem to have to be defending myself on every snippet I write, that goes beyond debate as well you know.
I am tough enough believe me to take the criticism, but it just ends up going round in circles, and I see it on other sites where the vultures circle.
No vultures on this site I do believe, but when I have given my answer it just makes for interesting reading when I get bombed with other questions that have no relevance at all.
Now out on me bike as it is a lovely evening here.:grin:
Sometimes on forums there can be a pack mentality, where a group deliberately set out to goad, on any subject.
I seem to have to be defending myself on every snippet I write, that goes beyond debate as well you know.
I am tough enough believe me to take the criticism, but it just ends up going round in circles, and I see it on other sites where the vultures circle.
No vultures on this site I do believe, but when I have given my answer it just makes for interesting reading when I get bombed with other questions that have no relevance at all.
Now out on me bike as it is a lovely evening here.:grin:
Sex God
Quote by Bluefish2009
And the papers in support of labour in 1992 would have been doing what at the time?
similar things I suggest
Yes I'm sure they both would have.....and perhaps there would have been a similar reaction from the Labour party....but then politicians court the media,why would we be surprised that the result is that they end up in bed with each other...it's only nature after all.
The main difference remains that we elect politicians
I fully see your point, the papers are not elected, mine is that, If there are a variety of paper's supporting a variety of political views, surely things even out
And my point would be that we don't have a variety of different political views expressed in the popular press....we have two papers who are just about to the left of centre the rest are a good way to the right.
Sex God
OK, let us presume that Stags and Kaz are correct and things really are swayed by this man to the right, and I feel it only correct to point out at this point that things are rarely as bad as you think
Surely you do not feel that the UK population are going to swallow things hook line and sinker, surely most read between the lines and take from it what they want
Surely you do not feel that the UK population are going to swallow things hook line and sinker, surely most read between the lines and take from it what they want
Sex God
This makes for illuminating reading:
But then it's not just the British press:
I worry about media bias because no, people don't read between the lines.
But then it's not just the British press:
I worry about media bias because no, people don't read between the lines.
Sex God
Quote by noladreams
This makes for illuminating reading:
But then it's not just the British press:
I worry about media bias because no, people don't read between the lines.
Thanks for interesting links
Why do you feel people do not read between the lines, I read between the lines, clearly so does Kaz, Stags, and you. Why do you think others may not be capable of that?
(the above is not meant to be rude, I just cant seam to find a way to right it any better
) Sex God
i would think that any of the national papers, or any other paper for that matter will have its own agenda
from the daily mail to your local council free rag
your never going to print anything that everyone is happy to read
a trip round the forum is proof of that indeed
from the daily mail to your local council free rag
your never going to print anything that everyone is happy to read
a trip round the forum is proof of that indeed
Sex God
I don't know.
But it's not just the written word. Consider a story about an increase in criminal activity. It's accompanied by a photo. If it suits the ruling elite and/or the media owner then it may well be that they choose to make the photo one of a black guy looking through bars. Thus it reinforces the stereotype that criminals are more likely to be black. Ditto for single mothers: teenagers in a tracksuit with a mixed race baby in a pushchair.
We are surrounded by media messages. It's not just in print and it's not just the written word. And I spend a lot of my life working with young people to debunk those myths. It's hard bloody work.
But it's not just the written word. Consider a story about an increase in criminal activity. It's accompanied by a photo. If it suits the ruling elite and/or the media owner then it may well be that they choose to make the photo one of a black guy looking through bars. Thus it reinforces the stereotype that criminals are more likely to be black. Ditto for single mothers: teenagers in a tracksuit with a mixed race baby in a pushchair.
We are surrounded by media messages. It's not just in print and it's not just the written word. And I spend a lot of my life working with young people to debunk those myths. It's hard bloody work.
Sex God
Quote by noladreams
I don't know.
But it's not just the written word. Consider a story about an increase in criminal activity. It's accompanied by a photo. If it suits the ruling elite and/or the media owner then it may well be that they choose to make the photo one of a black guy looking through bars. Thus it reinforces the stereotype that criminals are more likely to be black. Ditto for single mothers: teenagers in a tracksuit with a mixed race baby in a pushchair.
We are surrounded by media messages. It's not just in print and it's not just the written word. And I spend a lot of my life working with young people to debunk those myths. It's hard bloody work.
I feel you underestimate people, according to the figures I see crime is falling, anything reported along those lines should raise suspicion of the entire article. If people are falling for it then it can only be a small minority.
We hear similar things regarding violent games/films, but again it is a very very small group of people who are likely to be effected by such things, most see the difference between the two and even if tempted are perfectly capable of policing them selves.
Why are the parents of these young people not debunking these myths for them, why is it left to a third party?
