How the media works

[raefil]

And as per usual, eventually tucked away somewhere difficult to find, weeks later.

Im sorry but this is in no way accidental and causes real problems with the freedom of the press. Is that freedom a carte blanche to spread wanton lies?

 

[Bardas]

And as per usual, eventually tucked away somewhere difficult to find, weeks later.


Im sorry but this is in no way accidental and causes real problems with the freedom of the press. Is that freedom a carte blanche to spread wanton lies?

To be fair, this old story ( that of the headline and correction) was widely discussed in the press at the time.

They didn`t get away with the error..the system as a whole worked.

Not the best case, Raefil. Quite a bit of media coverage..in fact I remember it, vaguely.

Example of coverage..21st Nov, 2013.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/nov/13/sun-benefits-tourism-gaffe

The Sun has said a story inaccurately claiming there are 600,000 "benefit tourists" in the UK may have been the result of a subbing error.
Stig Abell, the former Press Complaints Commission director who is now the Sun's managing editor, said he thought it had been a "subbing error" caused by a "misreading" of the story, which had now been corrected.
Last month's page 6 lead story was headlined "EU are kidding", with a sub deck "Brussels: UK's 600,000 benefit tourists is no problem".
The 21 October article quoted Tory MP Douglas Carswell and his Labour counterpart Frank Field criticising the European Commission for allegedly covering up the impact of "benefit tourism" in the UK.
In the second paragraph the story accurately stated that the 600,000 figure referred to "non-active" EU migrants, which includes the unemployed, students and OAPs.
Ten days later, on 1 November, the Sun published an item in its clarifications and corrections column at the bottom of page 2 stating that the sub deck was "not accurate". "There is no evidence of 600,000 'benefit tourists' in the UK. Neither has the European Commission said this would be no problem," it said.
Sun editor David Dinsmore, speaking after a London Press Club breakfast last week, said he thought the story was "overcorrected", but admitted he needed to look into the detail of how it was dealt with and referred the matter to Abell, who also attended the event.
Abell said: "I think the sub saw the 600,000 figure and got it wrong, what it actually related to, and we put it right.
"If you go on Twitter and you have lots of people being snarky about it then fair enough, but I actually like to think that we now have a corrections column, we get something wrong, we put it right."
He added: "The [sub deck] referred to 600,000 benefit tourists, whereas the 600,000 figure related to migrants generally, and so we corrected the sub deck. We put it on page 2 in the new corrections column in a correct bid to be open and transparent about where we get things wrong.
"What was interesting that happened on social media was everyone picked it up and said, 'Oh, The Sun have got it wrong. They've buried it on page 2. Aren't they terrible?' Well, I completely fundamentally disagree with that."
Dinsmore said his paper was in favour of immigration that benefited the country. "I think the Sun is pro-immigration. Pro positive immigration. What we want to see is people coming here, contributing to society, getting jobs, building business and that sort of thing," he added.
"The chairman of the company Rupert Murdoch is an immigrant. His father emigrated from Scotland to Australia. He completely gets the immigrant story and is full-scale behind that. What we don't want is people coming here, not working, you know, free housing, free benefits, all that sort of thing."

 

[raefil]

fits in nicely with the recent poll that they distorted in similar circumstances. Sadly its not a rare occurance but one that is happening way too often.

 

[Bardas]

fits in nicely with the recent poll that they distorted in similar circumstances. Sadly its not a rare occurance but one that is happening way too often.

See it, Raef...but don`t get as worked up.



I have some inlaws that read the daily mail. Always have, always will.

Had to say something,once. Despite the obvious risks to familial relations....

To be fair, they both replied they knew exactly what the paper was, what it`s perspective and politics was. They were aware of the bias.

And adjusted their actual opinions accordingly. It was just an edge for them to push off from...a level they knew, in a mad world.A datum,a constant.

After some thought..I decided I had perhaps been a little intellectually patronising...and had learned something myself.

 

[One of our own]

See it, Raef...but don`t get as worked up.



I have some inlaws that read the daily mail. Always have, always will.

Had to say something,once. Despite the obvious risks to familial relations....

To be fair, they both replied they knew exactly what the paper was, what it`s perspective and politics was. They were aware of the bias.

And adjusted their actual opinions accordingly. It was just an edge for them to push off from...a level they knew, in a mad world.A datum,a constant.

After some thought..I decided I had perhaps been a little intellectually patronising...and had learned something myself.

It's weird really as government departments have the 'Daily Mail test' worried about how the paper will spin a new policy etc.

It's things like this they are worried about to why all first class travel was cancelled even if cheaper. Worried about the spin of the media

 

[MJB]

After some thought..I decided I had perhaps been a little intellectually patronising...and had learned something myself.

Nail on head.

No paper is safe according to certain posters on here who don't think individuals can think for themselves.

The funny thing is these very same people seem to be pack-led themselves.

 

[pnematic]

It's weird really as government departments have the 'Daily Mail test' worried about how the paper will spin a new policy etc.

It's things like this they are worried about to why all first class travel was cancelled even if cheaper. Worried about the spin of the media

I m just glad they stopped first class travel the greedy self righteous pompous oafs.

 

[One of our own]

I m just glad they stopped first class travel the greedy self righteous pompous oafs.

Even at times when it's cheaper though?

 

[raefil]

Nail on head.

No paper is safe according to certain posters on here who don't think individuals can think for themselves.

The funny thing is these very same people seem to be pack-led themselves.

Here we go, you are the main accuser of people yet youve just come on to a topic and got personal. You cant help yourself can you?

do you believe the media doesnt, at best, attempt to mislead opinion? Or are you here to start yet another bitchfest?

 

[raefil]

Even at times when it's cheaper though?

Whilst that very occasionally happens its very rare though.

 

[One of our own]

Whilst that very occasionally happens its very rare though.

Always worried about the daily mail spin in the government

 

[One of our own]

Here we go, you are the main accuser of people yet youve just come on to a topic and got personal. You cant help yourself can you?

do you believe the media doesnt, at best, attempt to mislead opinion? Or are you here to start yet another bitchfest?

The media you slate does have spin and often support the Tories you dislike. But the media you often refer to and post has the leftie spin so either both should be ignored really.

 

[raefil]

The media you slate does have spin and often support the Tories you dislike. But the media you often refer to and post has the leftie spin so either both should be ignored really.

Its been interesting watching the Corbyn debate unfold over the months. for me hes someone who says it as it is, Its what it says on tin, type of thing. whats struck me is that people are now so used to half truths, spin, whatever you call it, that so many cant actually handle a politician who doesnt use the system that way.

I wonder if Cameron had actually said, "Yes we will reduce tax credits," Pre-election whether people would have voted for him? He`d have been being honest but would people have accepted that honesty?

 

[Bardas]

Its been interesting watching the Corbyn debate unfold over the months. for me hes someone who says it as it is, Its what it says on tin, type of thing. whats struck me is that people are now so used to half truths, spin, whatever you call it, that so many cant actually handle a politician who doesnt use the system that way.

I wonder if Cameron had actually said, "Yes we will reduce tax credits," Pre-election whether people would have voted for him? He`d have been being honest but would people have accepted that honesty?

Hasn`t Corbyn doing exceptionally well in some recent polls?

Ignore that post...just checked, he`s dropping like a stone.

My bad.

 

[One of our own]

Its been interesting watching the Corbyn debate unfold over the months. for me hes someone who says it as it is, Its what it says on tin, type of thing. whats struck me is that people are now so used to half truths, spin, whatever you call it, that so many cant actually handle a politician who doesnt use the system that way.

I wonder if Cameron had actually said, "Yes we will reduce tax credits," Pre-election whether people would have voted for him? He`d have been being honest but would people have accepted that honesty?

Not too sure. He honest and I have a lot of time for honesty but I don't agree with what he says on most topics. I however think he will win people over initially as he has but without some help and pissing off the wrong people will eventually backfire. Including a lack of media support

 

[raefil]

Hasn`t Corbyn doing exceptionally well in some recent polls?

Ignore that post...just checked, he`s dropping like a stone.

My bad.

Certainly seems to be striking a chord with many over the syria crisis. In fairness, though, I dont think the desire to not get involved is just amongst Labour support.

 

[One of our own]

Certainly seems to be striking a chord with many over the syria crisis. In fairness, though, I dont think the desire to not get involved is just amongst Labour support.

Is he not splitting your party apart?

 

[raefil]

Not too sure. He honest and I have a lot of time for honesty but I don't agree with what he says on most topics. I however think he will win people over initially as he has but without some help and pissing off the wrong people will eventually backfire. Including a lack of media support

The only timeIve ever really seen media support for Labour was under Blair. Look how that turned out. Possibly the master tactician at the art of spin.

 

[One of our own]

The only timeIve ever really seen media support for Labour was under Blair. Look how that turned out. Possibly the master tactician at the art of spin.

But it helps win the nation over

 

[raefil]

Is he not splitting your party apart?

Id say he has increased party membership massively. Perhaps there are those in the party who see that as a threat?