UK riots

[magma]

The fact that this thread is 50+ pages long proves that...

It's extremely interesting and people want to talk about it. Not a lot more.

I'm not sure I care too much about the difference between journalists and pundits. As long as people are relatively transparent about whether they have an agenda or not, it's fine. I can quite easily choose to read The Guardian or Independent over the Daily Mail or Express because they reflect my personality a bit closer. The Beeb should do nothing but report facts... if they report opinion, it should be clearly tied to the person who's opinion it is, and they shouldn't be from the Beeb. That's all in their charter, though.. the argument is rather more pertinent in America where they don't have the benefit of the Beeb and are far more at the mercy of the journalistic jackals.

[mIrReN]

news = should be real facts only

[wub]

With all due respect, you are wrong in your understanding of what a 'journalist' means.

Newspapers and broadcasters are including a lot more 'opinion' and 'commentary' these days and the definition has been stretched but I don't see anyone going around telling doctors or lawyers about the role of their profession in society.

The fact that this thread is 50+ pages long proves that arriving/presenting the facts is not something anyone can do. News is structured in a way as to make it seem straightforward but their is a science behind it. Go study it for one/two/three years and come back to me if you disagree.

Peace.

This is in danger of descending into a semantic argument about correct vs. incorrect terminology, so if I have used anything that is considered 'wrong' I'll hold my hands up right now. Not sure what you were getting at with the doctors/lawyers comment, I'm afraid.

Obviously I'm not going to go away and study something for a year or more just to continue a discussion on a forum, that was kind of an odd statement.

My original comments re; journalists not having balls at times/being too objective are directly influenced from an interview I read way back with HST when he complained something similar with the argument of "How can you be objective about Nixon?".

[test_recordings]

Don't know if this is a repost but this a sociological perspective from Stefan Molyneux about the causes:



The funny thing is these riots are pretty typical of people's attitudes to crime: if it's visible it's 'bad' and has to be dealt with promptly but if it's unseen, ala 'white collar' crime like fraud and manipulative banking, then it deson't get dealt with properly and goes unnoticed. Humans haven't evolved to respond to removed, abstract values in the same way as physical violence that poses an immediate threat, triggering off the bit of the brain that says 'survive'. The distortion in abstract judgements is called the 'scope-severity paradox' and often the the amount of punishment is not proportional to the crime or we'd see more than 16,000 police going to arrest the bankers who caused the recession.

It's still 'bad' what these people are doing but they see it as a good chance to get what they want over the people who normally lord it over them...

I challenge anybody to stay impartial in situations like this.

Challenge accepted, a NEWS REPORTERS JOB = to stay impartial, if you KNOW you can't be impartial you shouldn't be reporting the subject imho

Utter bollocks IMO. Objective journalism is one of the reasons world politics/economics are so fucked up right now. "I just covered the story, I gave a balanced view" is the argument of a pussy. Most journalists need to grow a fucking pair and actually put an opinion across as opposed to just regurgitating identikit press releases and facts. Anyone c.unt can report the facts. I want someone give me their own opinion on it. If I don't like it, I'll look elsewhere for an opinion that I do like. But I want the choice.

Thats called punditry not news.... and that's given birth to abortions like MSNBC and Fox News.

I'm of the opinion I'd like to be given facts that I cannot obtain first hand and I'll make up my own mind.

Punditry is one aspect of journalism; that's not to say that every journalist is a pundit, nor every pundit a journalist.

Agreed re; MSNBC & Fox, but they are worse case examples. The same protocol has also given space to people like Jake Adelstein & Jon Ronson. Both are journalists, both could easily be considered pundits, but neither of them ever provides true objectivity in their writings.

Transparency is the new objectivity, according to The Economist. I'd far rather have objective news like the BBC is (supposed) to broadcast... Objectivity is for pussies though? More like people who can think for themselves

[wub]

Objectivity is for pussies though? More like people who can think for themselves

I'm not saying that I'm not forming my own opinion. I just don't subscribe to the view of pure objectivity. It is possible to still report the story (and by this I mean the facts) whilst at the same time putting across your own opinion on it.

[seckle]

im so intruiged by this whole thing, so many people over here don't understand the root causes though, we have it way too good in Australia.

You guys have one of the best economies in the world right now. You do have it good.

[borrowed]

INTERNET FIGHT

[pkay]

the problem is, and pretty obvious with a state run media outlet, that for the vast majority who can't think for themselves the station becomes a political fixture. Fox News is front and center in who gets elected to office in our country.

You do not want that in the UK.

I have an idiot in my office who still believes Obama was born in the middle east and said he's for sure a muslim

I informed him of my herritage and asked him if I'm a muslim... and his answer is "I'm just going off the evidence they've reported"

Stupid people give justification to stupid ideas if it's on TV or in print which in journalism is a moral battle each journalist has to face. Do I report the news or do I sculpt the news?

[shambandito]

Objectivity is for pussies though? More like people who can think for themselves

I'm not saying that I'm not forming my own opinion. I just don't subscribe to the view of pure objectivity. It is possible to still report the story (and by this I mean the facts) whilst at the same time putting across your own opinion on it.

I get your point about listening to different opinions and from this forming your own etc, but I can't really grasp how one can decline or not like objectivity.
There's nothing more rational, neutral and undiscriminating than 'pure objectivity', is there?

[magma]

the problem is, and pretty obvious with a state run media outlet, that for the vast majority who can't think for themselves the station becomes a political fixture.

The BBC isn't a state run media outlet. It's held in public charter. This is a very different thing. The government doesn't get a say in what the BBC broadcast. It's not just politically inadvisable, it's illegal for the BBC to broadcast opinion masquerading as fact.

[wub]

Objectivity is for pussies though? More like people who can think for themselves

I'm not saying that I'm not forming my own opinion. I just don't subscribe to the view of pure objectivity. It is possible to still report the story (and by this I mean the facts) whilst at the same time putting across your own opinion on it.

I get your point about listening to different opinions and from this forming your own etc, but I can't really grasp how one can decline or not like objectivity.
There's nothing more rational and neutral than 'pure objectivity', is there?

I've got no problem with objectivity, and you're quite right regarding neutrality. It's just personal taste that I look for news/fact/reporting outlets that aren't purely straight down the middle. I have an opinion about how I want to get the news etc, and as such I look for something that gives an opinion back.

It might not be an opinion that I like or necessarily subscribe to, but it's just what I prefer.

[pkay]

the problem is, and pretty obvious with a state run media outlet, that for the vast majority who can't think for themselves the station becomes a political fixture.

The BBC isn't a state run media outlet. It's held in public charter. This is a very different thing. The government doesn't get a say in what the BBC broadcast. It's not just politically inadvisable, it's illegal for the BBC to broadcast opinion masquerading as fact.

Corrected then... same point made though.

I understand completely why they aren't allowed to give out their opinion. They don't want the BBC to become a political fixture. It's not an independent organization like Fox, NBC, etc


as painful as it may be, i'd encourage anyone who hasnt done so to watch 15 mins of MSNBC and 15 mins of Fox News to see what punditry has done to journalism in the US. Nevermind our newspapers which are just as bad

[wub]

the problem is, and pretty obvious with a state run media outlet, that for the vast majority who can't think for themselves the station becomes a political fixture.

The BBC isn't a state run media outlet. It's held in public charter. This is a very different thing. The government doesn't get a say in what the BBC broadcast. It's not just politically inadvisable, it's illegal for the BBC to broadcast opinion masquerading as fact.

Corrected then... same point made though.

I understand completely why they aren't allowed to give out their opinion. They don't want the BBC to become a political fixture. It's not an independent organization like Fox, NBC, etc

The BBC has it's place. Most nights on the drive home, I'll want just the facts, so will listen to Radio4 news which is about as dry and down the middle as news broadcasting can get - just plain facts, recieved pronounciation, no jingles or beds in between segments. Just facts.

On the other hand, last night driving home I'd spent most of the day on the BBC website checking one thing or another about the riots, so knew pretty much all the 'facts' the Radio4 news was going give me. As such, I switched to LBC. Can't fucking stand LBC, think most of their hosts (particularly during drive time) and phone in listeners are borderline facist nutjobs. But after a day of 'facts' from the Beeb, some fiery rhetoric was a perfect antithesis.

[cityzen]

... Radio4 news which is about as dry and down the middle as news broadcasting can get - just plain facts, recieved pronounciation, no jingles or beds in between segments. Just facts.

[magma]

the problem is, and pretty obvious with a state run media outlet, that for the vast majority who can't think for themselves the station becomes a political fixture.

The BBC isn't a state run media outlet. It's held in public charter. This is a very different thing. The government doesn't get a say in what the BBC broadcast. It's not just politically inadvisable, it's illegal for the BBC to broadcast opinion masquerading as fact.

Corrected then... same point made though.

I understand completely why they aren't allowed to give out their opinion. They don't want the BBC to become a political fixture. It's not an independent organization like Fox, NBC, etc


as painful as it may be, i'd encourage anyone who hasnt done so to watch 15 mins of MSNBC and 15 mins of Fox News to see what punditry has done to journalism in the US. Nevermind our newspapers which are just as bad

We've been pretty comfortable with all that as a country since the 40s, really. The BBC is one of the main cornerstones of our society... an independent news body that is legally bound to deal in facts. If they mention an entrant in an election they *have* to mention all the others. Impartiality is in their very DNA.

The pundit led channels would be fine if there was a proper news organisation that had to deal in facts... people would be aware of the difference as they are with BBC Vs Sky, BBC Vs Newspapers or BBC Vs Independent Radio in this country.

We've got a surprisingly large viewership for things like the Daily Show over here... there's definitely a demand for a bit more opinion with our TV news, but allowing that sort of thing into the marketplace has to be done incredibly carefully and responsibly.

I love Auntie, me.

[pkay]

Sad thing is take the obvious skewing of Daily Show and Colbert Report.... MSNBC and Fox News aren't that far off... the difference is Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are comedians.

[dreamizm]

Yes but the only 'facts' that were actually reported in 3+ days of news post-Tottenham shooting have been the date, number and location of riots. Everything else is pretty much conjecture.

The BBC 'interview' with Darcus Howe was hardly an objective piece of journalism to glean facts - it was (his) opinion heard through the prism of interviewer with a clearly leading agenda.

As many of you have pointed out, not everyone is intelligent enough to separate facts from opinion. That's why objectivity is important is the media.

[brasco]

the MP's will just paper over the cracks, and focus back on oil and big business

yes the riots were terrible, yes people need to be held to account, but are politicians actually going to ask why this happened, or just focus on the 'fightback' as they call it

[Riddles]

Birmingham people, apparently this is goin round by text and BBM:

‘everyman keep off the road tonight, Birmingham is going to be madness, people from london, leicester, derby, manchester to f**k up birmingham of them 3 asian guys that got killed in winson green there coming to riot hard and i don’t want no one to lose their life because of it, stay in your yards and pass this on’

so yeh, stay inside.

[kay]

The second wave that starts up is gonna be far worse than this one. Those will be properly organised people with a serious grudge against politics/society/whoever.

I wonder if there'll really be one... I'm desperately hoping the whole thing's running out of steam...

Edit: Though I did say that on Monday, too...

The looting thing is probably running out of steam in areas it has already affected, and a bit passe now in areas it hasn't. Unfortunately, I'd guess this whole "pointless people rioting and looting" thing will have all the more politically-minded all riled up now and it'll be their turn to have a go. If the looting goes on, angry people are just going to start beating up the idiots en masse. If the looting doesn't go on, protests will start taking place about how useless the government is/has been. It's just all a powderkeg waiting to blow us into the zombie apocalypse that is 2012.