United Kingdom
Related: About this forumAdvice for the LBN hosts about the reliability of UK papers
You may have noticed that RT (ex-'Russia Today') is getting locked in LBN as 'not a reliable source', and this has spread to the Daily/Sunday Express ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014582610 ) and what they thought was the Mail on Sunday ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014582529 - it was the Scottish Sunday Mail; I've told them they're different, and perhaps they'll re-open that thread ). One LBN host has also proposed that anything from The Sun should be locked too.
I wonder if they could do with British input to their discussion on this (more than just mine). My opinion is that if they lock all Express, Mail and Sun stories in LBN, they should be locking all Fox News stories too. I suspect the word 'tabloid' is making them think too much "National Enquirer", which isn't the same as the British tabloids, even if they're not as reliable as a 'mainstream' US paper. There would also be the question of whether the Mirror should be in the same category.
So if anyone has any thoughts, I'll direct the LBN hosts to this thread.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)which is a newspaper size. In those terms the Independent is tabloid too.
If news sources which spin news are to be excluded then pretty much the entire media should be excluded.
Aside from that it would seem that only subjects which are not approved of are locked whilst others are left to stand - there is no real consistency. Antagonism toward RT has come about principally since Russia's introduction of anti propaganda laws there. The fact that RT is state owned is incidental : the great majority of news carries is standard news. See today for example : http://rt.com/news/ and yesterday's newsline : http://rt.com/news/line/2013-09-01/#50609
muriel_volestrangler
(101,360 posts)only a few years ago, and it does seem to still have its direction given by the Russian government. It is perhaps on a level with Fox News, therefore.
The Mail and Express do what they can to sell papers/generate web page views to their market (plus a Diana obsession that seems to go beyond all commercial reason in the case of the Express). That can mean sensationalism, at times ("Daily Mail Reporter" as the byline can be an indication someone has hurriedly rewritten something they found somewhere else, and they haven't checked the facts or their interpretation). It may be that it would be good for LBN to not accept stories from them, but if that's what they want to do, I think they need to know what the quality restrictions they're putting on really represent, and how that maps to the American media.
As far as "only subjects which are not approved of are locked" goes, don't be so sure - the Record/Mail story was locked because they mistook the Sunday Mail for the Mail on Sunday. They have started to think purely in terms of what the source is, not the content of the story.
non sociopath skin
(4,972 posts)By all means, let there be a "Government Health Warning" on the RW press, but a block would worry me.
The Skin
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Frequently RT pick up news before others and it shows in their news line which I've now figured how to update to today.
http://rt.com/news/line/2013-09-02/
Yesterday they were the first to report : Turkish police block Gezi Park to prevent massive pro-Syria demos http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023576240 Due to host blocking in LBN I stuck that GD. That was subsequently picked up elsewhere and posted in LBN using a different source.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)and associated issues with the Olympics. RT is state owned and so in the minds of some RT = Russia. Russia is bad and so RT is bad.
Perversely , given that censorship is censorship , in censuring RT I can only assume that some agree with Russia's censorship using their anti propaganda laws.
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)The UK tabloids are as reliable as the US so called MSM. Especially with Murdoch and now Koch in ownership positions. It is better to aware of what is being said in other venues than to unaware. Going back to the broken watch comparison, even the worst publication can be correct sometimes.
There is a level of censorship when the poster chooses what to post. That is a cognitive decision. Censoring because of the messenger is automatic and not cognitive.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Let LBN add a caveat: "Consider the Source", if that is necessary to satisfy the concern trolls. Actually, I am not surprised at this effort to censor sources. Attacking the source, in an effort to distract from the content of a report, has become the first, and oftentimes, the only available line of defense/attack by true believers on DU. This has become so laughable and predictable, that it is ineffective, so now "they" are trying to block reports/sources completely.
I rely on international sources to (1) get news which is blocked by the MSM and (2) to understand the perspective of countries/governments/people around the world. Having had the good fortune to have traveled to/spent time in places around the globe from Micronesia to Turkey to Central America to many cities of political & historical significance (Istanbul, Berlin, Belfast, Prague, Dublin, Paris, London, Edinburgh, Dresden) plus many smaller island nations, I understand the importance of knowing what information from the press in those areas is shaping the opinions of their citizens.
DU is supposedly a political website for activists and those who wish to be well-informed. If the source of an OP is objectionable, we are all free to point out, within the thread, what we perceive to be biases therefrom. Let us all, PLEASE, put on our big-boy and/or big girl pants to deal with this. Don't give us this paternalistic crap - oh, we know what is best for you to read. That smacks of some parent blocking a kid's computer.
It is as insulting and demeaning as when some politician compares the citizenry demanding information and proof on matters of grave importance, to whether his wife believes him when he says he did the dishes. What a load of John Wayne character/type bullshit. "Now, don't you worry your pretty little head, missy!"
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)Agree completely.
It is bizarre to see a presumably progressive website start censoring stories based on their "source". Argue the story, not the source.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)In the example you used that would've been blocked too.
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)I cannot relate because the their world service differs from our own UK home service.
MADem
(135,425 posts)BBC is government funded, but not government-controlled.
BBC can publish an opinion piece that says "Cameron is a fuck-up and needs to go," but RT can't write one that says the same sort of thing about Putin.
http://www.cjr.org/feature/what_is_russia_today.php?page=all
Russia Today was conceived as a soft-power tool to improve Russias image abroad, to counter the anti-Russian bias the Kremlin saw in the Western media. Since its founding in 2005, however, the broadcast outlet has become better known as an extension of former President Vladimir Putins confrontational foreign policy. Too often the channel was provocative just for the sake of being provocative. It featured fringe-dwelling experts, like the Russian historian who predicted the imminent dissolution of the United States; broadcast bombastic speeches by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez; aired ads conflating Barack Obama with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; and ran out-of-nowhere reports on the homeless in America. Often, it seemed that Russia Today was just a way to stick it to the U.S. from behind the façade of legitimate newsgathering.
...On April 25, 2005, Russian President Vladimir Putin went on national television and told his nation that the destruction of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the twentieth century. He meant that the unions dissolution had ushered in years of sinusoidal financial crises, but also that he mourned the passing glory of a great empire he had once served as a lieutenant colonel in the KGB. In the speech, Putin also expressed his hope that Russia would become a free and democratic country, but at its own pace. Russia will decide for itself the pace, terms, and conditions of moving towards democracy, he said, laying the foundation for a political creed that would become known as sovereign democracy. It is a phrase that became shorthand for what the West called Russias resurgence, and what Russia called its independence of an externally imposed Western morality....As a child of the post-World War II generation, Putin, like his Western counterparts, was raised on it. As president, he took tapes of the days news broadcasts home to watch and analyze how he was covered. To Putin, television was the only way to get his message across while retaining full control of that message. One of his first moves as president was to force out the oligarchs running the independent television stations and bring their channels under state ownershipand censorship. Soon, the heads of television stations were meeting every Friday with Vladislav Surkov, Putins chief political strategist, to set the agenda for the coming week. The instincts of self-censorship took care of the rest.
...Usually, though, the Kremlin line is enforced the way it is everywhere else in Russian television: by the reporters and editors themselves. There is no censorship per se, says another RT reporter. But there are a lot of young people at the channel, a lot of self-starters who are eager to please the management. You can easily guess what the Kremlin wants the world to know, so you change your coverage.
Another criticism often leveled at RT is that in striving to bring the West an alternate point of view, it is forced to talk to marginal, offensive, and often irrelevant figures who can take positions bordering on the absurd. In March, for instance, RT dedicated a twelve-minute interview to Hank Albarelli, a self-described American historian who claims that the CIA is testing dangerous drugs on unwitting civilians. After an earthquake ravaged Haiti earlier this year, RT turned for commentary to Carl Dix, a representative of the American Revolutionary Communist Party, who appeared on air wearing a Mao cap. On a recent episode of Peter Lavelles CrossTalk, the guests themselves berated Lavelle for saying that the 9/11 terrorists were not fundamentalists. (The Truther claim that 9/11 was an inside job makes a frequent appearance on the channel, though Putin was the first to phone in his condolences to President Bush in 2001.) I like being counterintuitive, Lavelle told me. Being mainstream has been very dangerous for the West.
...But here is the most fundamental problem with Russias clever attempt to flex its soft power: the Soviet period excepted, Russia has traditionally been a country that has made itself a player on the world stage by insisting on its own importance. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was no ideology to propagate. There is no Islam, no Chinese Communism, no beacon of democracy, no Coca-Cola or MTV to smooth the way for political influence. And in terms of cultural influence, Russia has a mixed bag. Despite its rich and broad cultural contribution (Nabokov, the Bolshoi, Stanislavsky), Russia balks at, and actively fights, other key aspects of its culture: the vodka, the winter, the women. When theres nothing for the propaganda channel to propagate, RTs message becomes a slightly schizophrenic, ad hoc effort to push back against what comes out of the West. And if theres nothing to push back against, other than the ghosts of a bygone era, then what, really, is left to say that others arent already saying, and saying better??
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)possibly claim that CNN is a reliable and neutral source and is not agenda driven. Why on earth shouldn't an obviously biased, one-sided and agenda driven source as CNN also be locked? They are every bit as one sided as RT - just on opposite sides.
LeftishBrit
(41,209 posts)our press is VERY unreliable.
The Daily Mail and Daily Express are big hate-merchants against immigrants and asylum seekers, benefit claimants especially disabled and sick people who claim benefits, single mothers, anyone who doesn't conform to some sort of mythical 1950s morality, etc. The same goes for the Sun, but I think people on DU are generally more aware that that is a horrible rag, and are less likely to take it seriously.
Also such papers can be very unethical in terms of how they get their info and misinfo (cf the hacking and bribery scandals, which are really the tip of the iceberg).
I think that the comparison to Fox News is probably a valid one. Or with the right-wing talkshows. The Daily Mail commentators can come across very much like Rush Limbaugh.
I certainly think that British tabloid reports on medical/scientific issues should be locked: they are very misleading usually, and the Daily Mail was one of the biggest purveyors of the 'vaccines cause autism' scare.
Where things get more complicated is with regard to the Daily Telegraph. Although this was always the 'Torygraph', it used to be reasonably reliable for news, and was not insane. In the last few years, however, perhaps since going online, it has become much loonier, and indeed in many ways Christian-Right, with a clear link to the American Right, and an extreme hostility to President Obama and the Democrats. This is shown most markedly in its commentary pieces; and the news reports are certainly more reliable than those in the Sun or Daily Hate-Mail; but even they have come increasingly to reflect a strongly right-wing bias, and a strangely skewed sense of priorities. I remember that when the Egyptians revolted against Mubarak, this was reported on p. 14 of the Torygraph, while the front page headlines were all about some people in local government earning too much money.
The BBC is a different kettle of fish. It is certainly not perfect, and has its own scandals though these are not directly related to its news reporting; but it is far more reliable as a news source than our tabloid press and probably than much of our non-tabloid press
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)some moderator at DU to decide for us? Plus even if a source is unreliable I want to know what they are saying anyway. It's that "know thy enemy" thing. We don't need to insulate ourselves into a bubble. Of course I realize that I am free to read those sources by other means even if they are locked out at DU.
LeftishBrit
(41,209 posts)another.
It took quite a long time for me to become aware of what Fox News was like, let alone the right-wing talkshows, which we don't really have in the UK.
Similarly, many Americans may not realize that the Daily Mail is a right-wing hate-source. The Sun, in my opinion, is less of a worry because its nature is much more obvious on the surface to anyone with common-sense even if they haven't come across it before. The Daily Mail and Daily Express masquerade much more as genuine, respectable news sources.
I agree about knowing one's enemy, but I think that it's important to know that it is one's enemy; and not to assume for example that immigrants are destroying the UK, or that most people on disability benefits are fraudulent and undeserving, just because our hate-media are implying it.
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)people on this site and I suspect that those right wing sources will not fool the average DU'er for one minute.
MADem
(135,425 posts)RT IS propaganda. It's not news. Everything they put out has the Stamp of Approval from the Kremlin. Put it in GD and say "consider the source" and you might not get locked.
I'm glad the hosts think that veracity in a source is important.
I think RT is a trash outlet. I look at their stuff from the perspective "What is Putin lying about this time?"
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)problematic.
How long are you going to keep digging a hole, cheerleading Putin's bullhorn?
Everyone--save you, it would seem--knows what RT is all about. What is your point in being deliberately obtuse about it?
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)I don't need someone telling me.
MADem
(135,425 posts)it is.
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)so I can't watch their TV network. Anyway out of curiosity I just went there and the top headline was that German intelligence has concluded saran gas was used on Assad's orders. That seems pretty straightforward to me especially since the Russian government is one of Assad's main allies. Of course they might try to mix in straight news stories along with propaganda in an attempt to sow confusion. Obviously I would have to read them more in order to draw my own conclusions.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)I find that RT frequently get news first which I guess is almost inevitable given the size of their operation.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)than the supposedly LW stalwarts like the Guardian.
It's also interesting to read the readers' comments to get an idea of British public opinion.
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)Telegraph subscriber myself. With The Economist I have a work-around (just go via google... I've told them...). The Guardian doesn't need to charge.
Scotland? Hmmm. Oh, yeah. Ah, and don't forget... http://www.irishtimes.com/
[center][/center]