Britain - The Official Thread

[BobK]

And I gave you something that isn't bloggers or what ever else you think they are because you are to lazy to read.

I attempted to view those documents. I did not get a link to the documents themselves, what I got was a link to an opportunity to purchase the right to view the documents. So perhaps there's another reason why Johnnypenso didn't read the documents other than laziness?

 

[MUSC4EVER]

A plane just had to be diverted to Stansted airport after 'an incident' on board, two Typhoon jets were scrambled and two men have been arrested on suspicion of endangering an aircraft...the plane was an Pakistani Airlines travelling from Lahore to Manchester..there were 300 people on board and no one was injured

 

[Johnnypenso]

I attempted to view those documents. I did not get a link to the documents themselves, what I got was a link to an opportunity to purchase the right to view the documents. So perhaps there's another reason why Johnnypenso didn't read the documents other than laziness?

That's one reason Bob...here's another.

Abstract
/ This article investigates the shifting discourse on Islam and Muslims in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. It seeks to investigate and compare the visual and verbal frames used to describe Islam within and outside America, which aspects of the religion were emphasized or omitted and how closely the frames of Islam concurred with the ideology of officials. Through this case study of American network news coverage post-9/11, the article argues that objective coverage of Islam is a myth, not just in America, but across the world. The author supports the problematic but necessary remedial action of urging reporters to acknowledge their subjectivity and find ways to increase their transparency regarding the choices they make in constructing their frames.

It is not the News media's purpose or responsibility to provide a balanced view of Islam or anything else. News media report the issues of the day as they happen and add background and factual information later. When a boy is bitten by a dog, that's news. It isn't the News media's job to also provide you with a litany of facts of how many dogs there are in your city/country, how many of them have been involved in dog bite incidents, what percentage of dogs are likely to bite, which species are more likely to bite etc. etc. etc.

If you watch Detroit news like I do sometimes (just a stone's throw across the river) you'll see that most crime in Detroit is committed by blacks. Nearly every time there is a murder or robbery and there is a photo or video available the guy is black. Is that bias? Is this painting an unfair picture of blacks? Are the media out to get blacks? Or are 90% of the people in Detroit black and therefore just by the numbers probably commit 90% of the crime?? Bingo!!!!

But I could easily do a study and find that the News media mostly report on black crime and violence and don't have enough good stories about black business, black charity work, black support groups, the black Mayor, etc. etc. etc. Starting with a premise that assumes the News media should provide a balanced view of blacks in Detroit is a false premise. Their job in the News media is to report the news. Where is the fire, who got shot, where was the hold up, are the streets safe, should I take my children to the park where drugs are dealth every day, what's happening in Detroit, who won the basketball game etc.

I disagree with the premise of this so-called study to begin with as it's a false premise IMO. If you don't agree with the premise, the conclusions, factual or not, biased or not, are irrelevant.

 

[MatskiMonk]

A plane just had to be diverted to Stansted airport after 'an incident' on board, two Typhoon jets were scrambled and two men have been arrested on suspicion of endangering an aircraft...the plane was an Pakistani Airlines travelling from Lahore to Manchester..there were 300 people on board and no one was injured

Seems they were preparing for a hostage situation?

 

[MUSC4EVER]

They are saying now that it wasnt terror related, so it could be two men causing trouble, it was a 31-year-old and a 41-year-old..

 

[MatskiMonk]

They are saying now that it wasnt terror related, so it could be two men causing trouble, it was a 31-year-old and a 41-year-old..

If they divert to Stansted it means they are preparing to have to 'take' the plane.

Glad it didn't turn out to be anything serious though.

 

[MUSC4EVER]

A plane also had to make an emergency landing at Heathrow this morning but that was due to engine failure, Sky News just showed some footage taken on a mobile of the plane flying overhead with smoke pouring out of one of the engines...

 

[F1GTR]

It is not the News media's purpose or responsibility to provide a balanced view of Islam or anything else. News media report the issues of the day as they happen and add background and factual information later. When a boy is bitten by a dog, that's news. It isn't the News media's job to also provide you with a litany of facts of how many dogs there are in your city/country, how many of them have been involved in dog bite incidents, what percentage of dogs are likely to bite, which species are more likely to bite etc. etc. etc.

http://www.nuj.org.uk/files/NUJ_Code_of_Conduct.pdf

Second point:

2) Strives to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair.

From the IFJ's code of ethics:

7. The journalist shall be aware of the danger of discrimination being furthered by the media, and shall do the utmost to avoid facilitating such discrimination based on, among other things, race, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinions, and national or social origins.

The media does have a responsibility to report things in a manner that avoids sensationalism. The Boston bombings were a good example - all the rumours going around about suspects/motives/an arrest on Twitter led to many false reports, with some being used to harass innocent people due to the zealousness of internet vigilantes. Ian Katz, the deputy editor of The Guardian told a room full of my fellow student journalists (I was present too) that many outlets were pretty much gambling whether an arrest happened or not simply off of social media reports, The Guardian decided to err on the side of caution, while other outlets (CNN if I remember correctly) said an arrest did happen. What did this all cause? General confusion and people jumping to conclusions off of conclusions. Yes, it is part and parcel of the 24-hour rolling news cycle, exacerbated by the prevalence of social networks, but when events are unfolding as they are reported it is always best practice to report events as objectively as possible and avoid using loaded terminology, the repercussions of which are shown below.

Here is a blog post from Nick Robinson, the BBC's Political editor who used the term 'Muslim appearance' — naively quoting from a police source — which was then leapt upon by several sources. The most salient points emphasised:

With minutes to go before the BBC News at Six I was told by a senior Whitehall source that the incident was being treated as a suspected terrorist incident and being taken very seriously indeed. This information changed the news from a crime story to something of more significance. The police had, I was told, described the attackers as being "of Muslim appearance" and shouting "Allahu Akbar". On air I directly quoted a senior Whitehall source saying that the police had used that description.

That phrase "of Muslim appearance" clearly offended some who demanded to know what it could possibly mean. Others were concerned that it was a racist generalisation.

My report and the quotation were picked up by many other news organisations as evidence that this was a terror attack. The reports of eye witnesses and the video of the attacker demonstrated that the attack had been carried out by those claiming to be retaliating because "Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers".

Now while he was quoting a source, it is interesting how other outlets picked up on that one description and leapt to the conclusion that it was a terror attack based on the fact that the suspects were of 'Muslim appearance' (whatever that means). While they were in the end correct about this, the damage was already done on the perception of the general public toward the Muslim community, and the Muslim community toward the media. Take LMS' point that Islam is presented as the source of evil as hyperbole if you will, but you can not deny that the media is linking Islam with terrorism, and that the media has a powerful role in shaping our own perceptions. It's all well and good if you can see through it all, but realise that many people are more impressionable than you are. The codes of ethics I quoted aren't really concerned about you or I, who can be bothered to read between the lines, but those who take news outlets as the first and only point of view. Then there are people who don't watch the news and get info through others who do; imagine how removed and distorted the story they get will be?

 

[DK]

All this does is further entice hatred between racist or ignorant people and innocent Muslims, which in turn will further aggravate Extremist Muslims.

It seems the likes of the EDL are preaching that all Muslims are scum, leading some of their members to carry out attacks.

Today, when I was trying to watch a movie, my auntie went on a massive anti-Muslim rant. She capped it all off by saying every Muslim should be "rounded up and burnt", and then refusing to allow any further discussion on the subject.

She always spouts this bollocks whenever she hears something about foreigners, and she isn't too keen when others (i.e. myself) challenge her view that the Catholic Church should keep its tentacles wrapped around Ireland.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Today, when I was trying to watch a movie, my auntie went on a massive anti-Muslim rant. She capped it all off by saying every Muslim should be "rounded up and burnt", and then refusing to allow any further discussion on the subject.

She always spouts this bollocks whenever she hears something about foreigners, and she isn't too keen when others (i.e. myself) challenge her view that the Catholic Church should keep its tentacles wrapped around Ireland.

You should tell her Jesus is doing a massive facepalm right now.

 

[Johnnypenso]

http://www.nuj.org.uk/files/NUJ_Code_of_Conduct.pdf

Second point:


From the IFJ's code of ethics:

I could write multiple paragraphs but I'm short on time so I'll limit it to this. I haven't personally seen any reporting by any news network in North America, conservative or liberal, that have violated either of the two codes you mentioned above, in any incident involving Muslim extremist terrorists. Again, I differentiate between opinion based journalism and news reporting, as I've stressed many times. I don't expect Bill O'Reilly or Chris Matthews to be impartial, they are not news reporters. When I turn on CBC or CNN or Fox or Sun News and they are reading the day's headlines, I expect as much truth as they can fit into the minute or two most stories get.

Twitter is not a news agency.

Reporters are allowed to make mistakes. Getting a quote directly from a police source and reporting it is standard procedure. Your issue should be with the police officer who made the quote, not the news outlet reporting it. Aren't they, by virtue of using the quote, potentially exposing racism within the police force? Isn't that their job? Or would you rather they said nothing and we didn't know about it?

I don't deny that the media is linking terrorism with Islam, because terrorism is linked with Islam. If Jews or Buddhists were running around the world killing people in the name of their religion I don't think the papers would say, "Hey some guys with long beards and big black hats were seen slaughtering some Arabs". If a skinhead killed a black guy I don't think the story would read, "A nice fella with no hair, big black boots and a symbol from the 30's tattooed on his forehead killed a black man today". Unfortunately for Muslims, a handful of crazies are running around killing people in the name of Islam. If people are professing to kill in the name of Islam I think it's fair to point that out. It's also true.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I attempted to view those documents. I did not get a link to the documents themselves, what I got was a link to an opportunity to purchase the right to view the documents. So perhaps there's another reason why Johnnypenso didn't read the documents other than laziness?

That isn't why, there are free view on the PDF so...

I did clearly state "news" and have also clearly stated that people like Bill O'Reilly are not impartial journalists and make no pretense about being one. But since you mentioned O'Reilly and the third interview I'll make some specific comments on that video, even though it it irrelevant.

- he is interviewing two Muslims who advocate that "some" Muslims hate the U.S.A and they attempt to explain their position. ...he didn't write their books and many Muslims do hate America...at no point does he say all Muslims or the majority of Muslims.
- one of the authors is a Muslim woman wearing no head scarf. In many Muslim countries she'd be forced to have her face covered and in some others she would not be allowed to go to school. Hundreds upon hundreds of Muslim women have been killed or maimed for not wearing the hijab and many girls simply for attending school.
- O'Reilly's asks them questions, allows them to make their point, and disagrees with them on their "logic" as to why "some" Muslims hate America
- the female Muslim author who has written other books says, "there is a problem with the way many of us practice Islam"
- O'Reilly says nothing untruthful in the interview and at no points advocates anything like, "Muslims are the cause of all evil in the world" which was the original contention you were supposed to answer. He asks questions and there is a free exchange of ideas.

Sorry, but that doesn't make the grade. I'll assume the video with the View is a joke and slipped in there by accident....lol.

Why would it be a joke, the original reason for this debate was due to media skewing facts. None of us ever said, "the media claims that Muslims are the every evil of this world" nor did we say all media do it. However, Fox is a media source, MSNBC is a media source, ABC is a channel know for their media. To say "well they are impartial already so it doesn't count" does a few things here. One it shows that you agree their is impartial media, but not to the point where they are prejudicial, yet at the same time you claim even if they were it's alright cause that's their "right". Two, it's a cop out, instead of making a valid argument you dismiss everything and then try to set rules to what you deem factual. You have to be one of the few people that think education peer review is "liberal biased media with an axe to grind".

So please show us these standards and practices that "meet the criteria", also to suggest that the media must say "muslim causes all the evil" as if it is the only way to incite hate toward them, is by far your greatest ignorance. Also once again O'Reilley thinks some equals millions, thus to him from that interview he implies that millions are radical.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Your memory seems rather shaky so I'll help you out. I have quoted this already...

None of us ever said, "the media claims that Muslims are the every evil of this world".

It is one thing reporting the news and another putting across the idea that Islam is the cause of all the wrong in the world which the media has a habit of doing.
So every time a murder happens do the media draw attention to things like whether said person went to church or relevent religious building and there are many murderers who went to church or didn't whchever portion you wish to look at? Or whether they were a member of any particular society? Nope. Muslims however always get named as such.

However, Fox is a media source, MSNBC is a media source, ABC is a channel know for their media. To say "well they are impartial already so it doesn't count" does a few things here. One it shows that you agree their is impartial media, but not to the point where they are prejudicial, yet at the same time you claim even if they were it's alright cause that's their "right". Two, it's a cop out, instead of making a valid argument you dismiss everything and then try to set rules to what you deem factual. You have to be one of the few people that think education peer review is "liberal biased media with an axe to grind".

So please show us these standards and practices that "meet the criteria", also to suggest that the media must say "muslim causes all the evil" as if it is the only way to incite hate toward them, is by far your greatest ignorance. Also once again O'Reilley thinks some equals millions, thus to him from that interview he implies that millions are radical.

I have already gone over this more than once. There is impartial news reporting of facts and there are opinion based television shows that advocate either conservative or liberal political viewpoints. Perhaps you can't differentiate between the two. If there is something untruthful in the O'Reilly interview feel free to point it out.

I also clearly explained in detail my objections to your peer reviewed so called study. If there is a part of it you don't understand, feel free to ask me for clarification.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Your memory seems rather shaky so I'll help you out. I have quoted this already..


I have already gone over this more than once. There is impartial news reporting of facts and there are opinion based television shows that advocate either conservative or liberal political viewpoints. Perhaps you can't differentiate between the two. If there is something untruthful in the O'Reilly interview feel free to point it out.

I also clearly explained in detail my objections to your peer reviewed so called study. If there is a part of it you don't understand, feel free to ask me for clarification.

I don't think haitch40 was being serious and just stating that they fear monger in such a way that people come to that conclusion on their own. However, I may be wrong and if that is the case ask him for a video that explicitly has that being said. I showed you what I said I would, which was biased journalism at the expense of an ideology, that could cause people that really don't research history to hate an entire group.

Also yet again, I know the difference but go ahead and try to take swipes as I don't have the intelligence to formulate that. Actually I'll do you one better go look at my post from the American thread, presidential election 2012 thread, guns thread and you'll see that I see them as opinion based juggernauts and not real news. Also spewing things like "liberals with an axe to grind" or other crazy notions isn't detail, just conjecture.

 

[PeterJB]

I think it's conspiracy theory time!

 

[F1GTR]

I could write multiple paragraphs but I'm short on time so I'll limit it to this. I haven't personally seen any reporting by any news network in North America, conservative or liberal, that have violated either of the two codes you mentioned above, in any incident involving Muslim extremist terrorists. Again, I differentiate between opinion based journalism and news reporting, as I've stressed many times. I don't expect Bill O'Reilly or Chris Matthews to be impartial, they are not news reporters. When I turn on CBC or CNN or Fox or Sun News and they are reading the day's headlines, I expect as much truth as they can fit into the minute or two most stories get.

You have quite a naive view on the impartiality of media outlets, have you spoken to people being affected by the portrayal of their religion? Or those who are making the news reports? I'm fully aware of the difference between editorial and news by the way.

Twitter is not a news agency.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious, but I was using it as an example of the sourcing and dissemination of news items.

Reporters are allowed to make mistakes. Getting a quote directly from a police source and reporting it is standard procedure. Your issue should be with the police officer who made the quote, not the news outlet reporting it. Aren't they, by virtue of using the quote, potentially exposing racism within the police force? Isn't that their job? Or would you rather they said nothing and we didn't know about it?

Of course they are. Though you fail to recognise that using vague and general terms like 'of Muslim appearance' hinders more than it helps in conveying the gist of a story. And yes, yes, and no, of course not. Although what if it isn't racism but a subconscious point of view cultivated by the discourse of the media which has resulted in Muslim being equated to terror?

I don't deny that the media is linking terrorism with Islam, because terrorism is linked with Islam. If Jews or Buddhists were running around the world killing people in the name of their religion I don't think the papers would say, "Hey some guys with long beards and big black hats were seen slaughtering some Arabs". If a skinhead killed a black guy I don't think the story would read, "A nice fella with no hair, big black boots and a symbol from the 30's tattooed on his forehead killed a black man today". Unfortunately for Muslims, a handful of crazies are running around killing people in the name of Islam. If people are professing to kill in the name of Islam I think it's fair to point that out. It's also true.

That's true. But I honestly think that you're downplaying the role the media has in shaping people's perceptions - the damage has already been done and Islam as terrorism is a metanarrative of our time that has been internalised by many. Moving forward from this, Muslim communities should start addressing the miseducation of people like the two attackers rather than simply condemning their acts; being seen to take action would help immensely in erasing this perception of them.

Anyway, let's just agree to disagree since neither of us will change our minds.

 

[Johnnypenso]

You have quite a naive view on the impartiality of media outlets, have you spoken to people being affected by the portrayal of their religion? Or those who are making the news reports? I'm fully aware of the difference between editorial and news by the way.

How people feel about Muslim extremist terrorists being reported in the media isn't proof that media is biased or not impartial. If people from my town were going to other towns and blowing people up or chopping their heads off in the street I wouldn't be happy about it being on the news, but I wouldn't whine and cry that it's unfair or biased because it would be true.

You say the "portrayal of their religion" so easily but I don't see mainstream news media doing expose's on Islam as an evil religion. I see the reporting of the individual acts of terror committed by some Muslims and the odd editorial asking why so many Muslims hate the West. If you or others think those fact should not be mentioned because it might hurt someone's feelings, well that's not really how freedom of the press works.

That's true. But I honestly think that you're downplaying the role the media has in shaping people's perceptions - the damage has already been done and Islam as terrorism is a metanarrative of our time that has been internalised by many. Moving forward from this, Muslim communities should start addressing the miseducation of people like the two attackers rather than simply condemning their acts; being seen to take action would help immensely in erasing this perception of them.

I don't downplay the media's role at all in shaping people's perceptions. Of course that's true. And the sky is blue, and grass is green. So what? I don't see the mainstream media anywhere that I'm aware of advocating hatred of all Muslims or many Muslims, just the ones who want to kill us. What people infer from the news is their business and their problem. Some people see a tornado on tv and think it's global warming and vote in their local elections for the guy who is going to stop global warming by putting up some solar panels and buying a Prius. Some people see a child kidnapped 3000 miles away and then don't let their kids out to play anymore. You can't control what people do with the information they get, you can only report the facts and let people decide for themselves how they feel about things.

 

[BobK]

That isn't why, there are free view on the PDF so...

The link you provided was to the abstract of the document. The abstract is not the document itself. The abstract page does have a link to what I presume is the full document because that's what it's labelled as, but when I click on it I don't get the document. I get a page which basically says I have to pay to see the document, along with several options on how I can arrange to do so.

So if it's indeed free, please provide the document itself, or a link to the full document. Otherwise, withdraw the claim.

 

[DG_Silva]

http://www.racingpost.com/news/hors...london/1278874/#newsArchiveTabs=last7DaysNews

Well, isn't Britain such a safe place to be at the moment? What the hell is going on?

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

http://www.racingpost.com/news/hors...london/1278874/#newsArchiveTabs=last7DaysNews

Well, isn't Britain such a safe place to be at the moment? What the hell is going on?

A stabbing!? In London!? Unheard of!

It happens all the time, don't panic.

 

[Liquid]

This is why I don't like any kinds of murders, obviously, but seldom publicly express sadness about one of them. I couldn't possibly personally eulogise for every single victim of crime in this country.

Think about the murders, stabbings, beatings, kidnappings and such which aren't reported in the media. They're equally sickening, but don't tug the heartstrings of the nation as much as one that's plastered all over the news.

The best quote on this sort of thing I've ever heard was from a friend of mine on a different forum during the Madeline McCann case.

Hundreds of ****ing people are missing. Just because this one is cute, young and female the whole nation goes tits. Rubbish. I feel bad, but no different to the hundreds of other families who have loved ones missing.

 

[dhandeh]

In other news...

 

[DG_Silva]

A stabbing!? In London!? Unheard of!

It happens all the time, don't panic.

While I agree with you, the point is this was could have been avoided if Ladbrookes didn't put profit before safety.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Three more arrests in the recent stabbing incident:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/25/world/europe/uk-terror-arrest/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

[DK]

In other news...

I bet he felt like a right T(i)T.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The link you provided was to the abstract of the document. The abstract is not the document itself. The abstract page does have a link to what I presume is the full document because that's what it's labelled as, but when I click on it I don't get the document. I get a page which basically says I have to pay to see the document, along with several options on how I can arrange to do so.

So if it's indeed free, please provide the document itself, or a link to the full document. Otherwise, withdraw the claim.

Which claim should I withdraw? The general summation still stands about the media. You seem to be grasping at straws just so you don't have to make a realistic argument, based on PDF that I seem to be able to read and that you can't. Do you think it's possible that perhaps your system isn't showing it due to varying settings?

 

[BobK]

Which claim should I withdraw?

The specific claim that johnnypenso was too lazy to look it up. More specifically:

And I gave you something that isn't bloggers or what ever else you think they are because you are to lazy to read.

The general summation still stands about the media. You seem to be grasping at straws just so you don't have to make a realistic argument, based on PDF that I seem to be able to read and that you can't. Do you think it's possible that perhaps your system isn't showing it due to varying settings?

No I don't think it's a settings problem at all, and I think you're the one grasping at straws here. I think it's far more likely that your academic institution has provided you with access. Try visiting that link from a friend's computer, someone who's not in school.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The specific claim that johnnypenso was too lazy to look it up. More specifically:





No I don't think it's a settings problem at all, and I think you're the one grasping at straws here. I think it's far more likely that your academic institution has provided you with access. Try visiting that link from a friend's computer, someone who's not in school.

Once again, this isn't some conspiracy, I'd have to be hooked into the system to do such things. I am not, thus once again I find it tough to believe. Since this is going off topic I will extend to you the same I did to Penso. If you want to continue this we can do so in private or you can move on. One only needs to look at his style of debating and his dismissive attitude instead of actually hashing out each point as to why it doesn't work. Setting up some vague smell test that only he knows the rules to isn't arguing. You defending it and perpetuating it on a small bit of info that you can't see does not provide anything.

Anyways let's get back to Britain unless you want to rebuttal and add something that doesn't take us further off the beaten path.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The specific claim that johnnypenso was too lazy to look it up. More specifically:

Thanks Bob, but you might as well ask a cat to bark or an ostrich to fly. Appreciate the support though. 👍👍

 

[F1GTR]

EDL members start protest in front of a mosque in York; they end up having tea, biscuits, and a game of football with Muslims.