My wife got up at some ridiculous time before 8 this morning to pop up to the newsagents in our little French village to buy her copy. Guess what, she was 14th into the shop and they had sold out! If the Muslims don't like the images then they do not have to buy the magazine. If they do not like that fact that the free Christian country that they live in depicts their god in a humorous way, then there are plenty of Muslim countries (none of them with any freedom) that they are welcome to move too.
It is in the interests of the ruling elites who concentrate the oil wealth in their hands and keep their people ignorant and uneducated. A bit like the people of North Korea believing their leaderships line that they are starving because of the actions of the west. Increasingly I am coming to the conclusion "follow the money (and or power)".
Thinly veiled insults and passive aggression are a cheap and cowardly way of getting out of making a reasoned response ... unless you were being sarcastic and admitting that my arguments had currency. If you disagree, answer my points make some of your own and be courteous enough to allow me to respond please. It's called debate and it's another thing journalists are good at.
Both sides were guilty of horrendous duplicity IMO. But just saying you that you've witnesses something without dealing with the substantive issue and giving examples won't win you the moral high ground, as you well know.
You seem to want a fight, for some reason. It wasn't a thinly veiled insult. I have no more to add to your discussion, because you have been contradicting yourself or have not been expressing yourself clearly. I can't be arsed. But you carry on if you feel the need
I'm quite happy to take brick bats and criticism from people who wish to have a reasoned debate and can make a good case, but I'm really tiring of the passive-aggressive brigade that infests this forum.
You haven't answered a single one of the genuine answers I tried to give to your question. Can't be arsed is the easy way out. I'm sorry if I contradicted myself. I need subbing if I did.
i did mention it on another thread. and we both know two wrongs don't make right (just received 5 alerts, probably to do with my new avatar,which i will scrub in a mo.) a mate and several customers where interviewed on the street in oban by some channel during the run up, all good resend speakers, the only one i seen on t.v was one of the drinkers i see regularly propping up the drain pipe of the lochavullen bar. but as i said at the time at least he was sober. dont think it would off made much of a difference to the out come. but just one small example of press manipulation.
If you are leaving the debating chamber with a "can't-be-arsed" comment I shall have to assume that in this instance my answers have defused your righteous ire.
What genuine answers? All you have given is your opinion. Not fact. That's fine. I have no problem with that. But opinions are like arseholes.....we all have them
OK. Journalists are fantastically well-informed on any subject they decide to research. They use portions of this wealth of information in pursuance of their principle function - which is to provide their readership with the confirmation bias material needed in order to move production units (in this case, so-called newspapers). Done?
Ok. But that was the only one you saw. There were hundreds of others so unless you're going to do an in-depth study of the coverage (which will probably be done for someone's PhD thesis one day) it doesn't really give you an accurate view of the overall coverage. My Scottish friends down here were complaining that the BBC's coverage was too pro-yes!
all about perspective i guess. i aint bitter by the way, you only have to check the levison report, or the snippets the news would release to end this argument.i don't believe the dodgy dealings ended with hacking.
That's fair. And consumers can choose to buy whichever product they wish. It's called a free press - and I have dealt in detail with the reason we have the press we have elsewhere, but it centres on what people will pay money for. A free press is the best solution we have for keeping the population informed as anyone is able to publish and put their views across. This site benefits from that idea. I read a wide variety of newspapers from the UK and abroad as it helps me to see what is happening in the world from different perspectives and would suggest others did the same. All I am saying is the facts are always presented honestly by the reporter, there are lots of checks and balances in the production process and journalists are well Informed and do not - generally - lie, as the police are not, generally, criminals. That's not to say that there are never any criminals in either occupation.
We're drifting off topic again here - quite seriously. Why not start a thread about journalists, papers, press accuracy etc? Sure it's linked to the topic under discussion but it's got nothing to do with terrorism, multiculturalism, immigration, Islam etc - all of which I find a lot more interesting.
They definitely didn't. And lord Levison refused to look into the lies and deception of big business - which was using phone hacking to a far greater extent than journalists - and politicians uncovered by, you guessed it, journalists because it was not within his remit. The inquiry was set up only to punish newspapers, you see, and was not strictly necessary because all of the offences committed were covered by existing laws. The political classes' agenda to silence the press was never clearer. Who was it that blew open the MPs' expenses scandal? Oh yes, journalists on the Telegraph. Who was if that blew open the grooming scandals and the paucity of the police and local authority response to it? Oh yes, journalists on The Times. Coincidence, I think not!
