The day started early and lingered on a long time. I became immersed in the papers. One of the great leaps forward provided by the internet has been the free availability of the half truths and downright lies offered by the UK media. On top of the slanted items on view comes the readership, both those who succumb to the propaganda and those who oppose. To give an impression that a great many of those who add their comment at the foot of these stories, and stories must be the word, are small minded, blind, self seeking cretins might be a wee bit wide of the mark, or maybe might not! Which is worse I wonder, the distorted news item or the distorted reader, it's a difficult one.
The brazen manner in which the media offers tales based simply on what the reader wishes to read, yes 'Daily Mail,' I mean you, is simply staggering. The desire of folks to read and accept what is published staggers also adding more than a hint of worry about just who is sitting next to you on the bus! A direct opposite news priority wise is of course the 'Guardian.' While the 'Daily Mail,' appeals to those of the lower middle class and those working class Tory voters aspiring to be 'middle class,' the Guardian's appeal is to the liberal middle class. That is those educated, or indoctrinated might be a better word, by their class fellows and proudly boast of their ability to think, yet manage to come out with the same opinions! These opinions are on the whole totally opposed to those underlying the 'Daily Mail.'
Each paper on offer aims only at its readership an attitude leading to a desperate lowering of standards such as they were in the hope of keeping the paper afloat. UK papers have lost half their sales in the past ten years and some now ask for money from those of us reading their online versions. 'The Times,' one of Murdoch's papers, now offers his opinions at a cost, his already dumbed down 'Sun,' now also asks for a contribution. Neither get any shekels from me.
The advantage of online versions is the ability to increase advertising that reaches the soul of the reader, so far none has reached this soul as far as I can see. The disadvantage is employees are required to moderate the online comments offered by those seeking fame, attention, a soapbox and being able to anonymously project these to the world via a keyboard.
What are you looking at me for?
Cost cutting has hit 'journalism' hard. Proper journalists as well as tabloid ones have lost their jobs and we find their meaningless drivel now presented by 'Workies.' That is those offered a full time 'interns' job with no pay. These are willingly accepted by young trainees desperate to break into the business, a year later heard offering the famous cry, "Do you want fries with that?" One job workies do is moderating comments. No doubt some are good at this, no doubt someone with appropriate training is able to weed out the libelous stuff before it goes out to the world. One thing is clear, any comment that criticises the paper itself is almost always removed! Don't ask how I know, just believe me. The Guardian allows all sorts of perversions to be aired yet will not allow a degree of sarcasm or disagreement, either removing the offending post, moderating the offenders next posts, or banning them altogether for a while. Don't ask how I know this either. Many of
Those who comment fit certain boxes. In the 'Daily Telegraph,' now dumbed down into an upper middle class 'daily Mail, these chaps, and it is mostly 'chaps,' are concerned only with the Conservative Party's main concern, money! Almost everything comes down to the economy. So unlike the 'Daily Mail' where almost everything come down to, er the pound in your pocket. Both have many commentators happy to follow the agreed line, even if it is absurd, thus revealing a great deal about the attitudes of the average Englishman, and they are mostly English. The anti-Europe UKIP Party will gain many votes from this crowd, especially in the 'Daily Mail,' while the 'Guardian' sees that party as racist and against all immigrants, gays and blacks. Neither see what is actually written by the other, neither wish to, the papers and the comments are merely to support personal opinion not offer facts to enlighten.
On several occasions I have quietly posted obvious facts on papers, the abuse received is worse than that offered by women I have worked with! I am talking about clear obvious facts, not the 'wind ups' I sometimes accidentally offer for consideration. On occasion I am amazed at the closed mind seen on the comments sections, I am so pleased my mind is always open to others ideas, as long as they are not ones I disagree with.......
I expect all comments to be open minded, thoughtful and generous, other wise they get banned!
.
8 comments:
I'll be very open about this, if you don't mind...I prefer reading blogs these days to reading newspapers...less advertising; and more fun, interesting stories.
And mind you, they keep me open-minded.
Bravo ... Long live real freedom of the press by those who truly know it's value
My grandmother's neighbour...a lady with a salty tongue....used to say of people with whom she disagreed
He doesn't agree with me...he's mad.
She must have been reincarnated as a 'workie'.
I am barred from posting comments on http://boingboing.net/, an interesting webzine, it seems they're a bit like the Grauniad, so long as your comments add up to "Oh you are so wonderful", they're published. If however, you point out any flaws absurdities or dissent, you're barred.
Now this is a website which publishes numerous articles, like the Grauniad does, on how evil censorship is, and how free speech should be the norm. When I appealed, I was told "It's our website, we have the right to control what is posted here."
Well, I totally agree.
However, I think it's hypocritically two-faced.
I still read it, but just shrug at the things I might have debated. It's like Putin's Russia, everybody appears happy with the government because protests are forbidden.
In your case, I note you permit comments that poke fun at Scottish Football.
I will vote for you as Member for Essex in the Scottish parliament.
Lee, Blogs are indeed better in many ways. The individuals slant/position is clear and there is nothing to gain but support, opponents usually leave.
Much better opinions also.
Unless they disagree with me.
Ted, Indeed, except they don;t allow freedom themselves!
Fly, I must say I sympathise with her position.....
Soub, Rarely have I blocked anyone but spam.
Those who post anonymous are not posted as there must be an address to reply to or you don't show up here. I canny mind banning anyone, even you!
I have never understood why we don't take journalism seriously here. When I used to write for American publications I had to justify every darn thing I said with references, and it was just expected that the stuff would be accurate. Now they're training journalists to live in the modern age there. Here, it's just a shambles. Bah!
There is that sort of behavior in the U.K.? Shocking!
Jenny, Money!
Jerry, UK? You mean Englandshire....
Post a Comment