anonymous_abc
Member
CHEEZMO;50567952 said:
looks like a really cool and hip boyband
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
looks like a really cool and hip boyband
CyclopsRock
Member
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21835363
What is he going to do? Send his legions to rape the island into submission?
I think that a lot of people don't think it's OK that broadcaster's are regulated, especially given that by far the largest one in terms of viewership and reach is also state owned. I've seen the argument put forward - though it's not one I personally put much stock in - that because TV and Radio station's run using the infrastructure of the state (though whether the government can really lay legitimate claim over the nebulous concept of "the airwaves" is doubtful in my opinion, 4G auctions or not) that it has a responsibility to govern what is on it, where as newspapers require no input or infrastructure from the state at all. But, on a purely practical level, because the costs of maintaining and running a TV or Radio station are so huge, they tend to be much less polarising than newspapers, as you can't get by on a tiny minority viewership/listenership, like newspapers can. People like to talk about Sky News as if it's the UK equivalent to Fox just because it's part owned by Murdoch but the reality is that it's coverage is at least as impartial as the BBC's and the quality often far superior. And I don't think this has anything to do with Ofcom, I think it's because they couldn't run it like Glen Beck even if they wanted to. Just looking at the realms of newspapers, and you see far more disparate views, not to mention extreme ones.
What is he going to do? Send his legions to rape the island into submission?
SFA_AOK said:
I think that a lot of people don't think it's OK that broadcaster's are regulated, especially given that by far the largest one in terms of viewership and reach is also state owned. I've seen the argument put forward - though it's not one I personally put much stock in - that because TV and Radio station's run using the infrastructure of the state (though whether the government can really lay legitimate claim over the nebulous concept of "the airwaves" is doubtful in my opinion, 4G auctions or not) that it has a responsibility to govern what is on it, where as newspapers require no input or infrastructure from the state at all. But, on a purely practical level, because the costs of maintaining and running a TV or Radio station are so huge, they tend to be much less polarising than newspapers, as you can't get by on a tiny minority viewership/listenership, like newspapers can. People like to talk about Sky News as if it's the UK equivalent to Fox just because it's part owned by Murdoch but the reality is that it's coverage is at least as impartial as the BBC's and the quality often far superior. And I don't think this has anything to do with Ofcom, I think it's because they couldn't run it like Glen Beck even if they wanted to. Just looking at the realms of newspapers, and you see far more disparate views, not to mention extreme ones.
PJV3
Member
The US had similar TV news rules, once they were scrapped they got Fox as it is, the Murdochs wanted Ofcom scrapped so they could do the same here.
We have a good balance, people shouldn't be allowed to live in an alternative universe without being exposed to different opinions. I would prefer the newspapers not having political bias, but at least the tv news gives a sort of impartial outlook.
We have a good balance, people shouldn't be allowed to live in an alternative universe without being exposed to different opinions. I would prefer the newspapers not having political bias, but at least the tv news gives a sort of impartial outlook.
Obvious outcome. If Ofcom had been rid of, we'd have a similar situation here. Basically what the tabloids do, but on TV instead. The very thought is dreadful.
CyclopsRock
Member
I think that's pretty difficult to justify, because there's absolutely nothing on Fox that would break Ofcom's guidelines right now, unless there's a "annoying and prickish white hair shit" sub-clause I'm unaware of. The UK just doesn't have the size of market required for that.
PJV3
Member
TV news isn't allowed to pick a side and bullshit. maybe I'm wrong.
JonathanEx
Member
RE: Ofcom, yes - there's loads of stuff about impartiality and accuracy, section five of the broadcasting code.
.1 News, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality.
5.2 Significant mistakes in news should normally be acknowledged and corrected on air quickly. Corrections should be appropriately scheduled.
5.3 No politician may be used as a newsreader, interviewer or reporter in any news programmes unless, exceptionally, it is editorially justified. In that case, the political allegiance of that person must be made clear to the audience.
Also - section seven on fairness, aaand there's a bit on right to reply which I forget exactly where.
.1 News, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality.
5.2 Significant mistakes in news should normally be acknowledged and corrected on air quickly. Corrections should be appropriately scheduled.
5.3 No politician may be used as a newsreader, interviewer or reporter in any news programmes unless, exceptionally, it is editorially justified. In that case, the political allegiance of that person must be made clear to the audience.
Also - section seven on fairness, aaand there's a bit on right to reply which I forget exactly where.
CyclopsRock
Member
Pick a side in what respect? I know you said you might have it wrong, I don't know either, but did you mean in purely party political terms? That might be the case, but the problems with Fox doesn't come from them saying "the GOP are great!" It's them saying "All these things are great" and they happen to be things the GOP support. Or whatever. And that's definitely not against Ofcom's guidelines, since the BBC have de jure positions on certain issues. I'm sure others do too, but I know of at least one where the BBC has explicitly said "we think this is the only logical conclusion," though there certainly are many that disagree with them. They might be right, but it means that they don't bother to present the other side any more - and this is from an entity whose very raison d'etre is impartiality.
Edit: Regardless, we are somewhat getting away from the point a bit. "Impartiality" is not an objective notion, and I'm very wary of handing the definition of that over to a politically appointed entity with legislative underpinning - "but it's not a political entity, honest guv!"
zomgbbqftw
Banned
TV and Radio news must remain impartial at all times. The BBC has a charter in which impartiality of their news output is basically listed as the main priority. These days it feels like Andrew Neil and Paxo are the only ones who take the charter seriously.
JonathanEx
Member
Actually - on Fox News - when it was available on Sky, it got slammed by Ofcom (around 2004?) for failing to show "respect for the truth". Alright it's historical, but there we go.
And that's probably what the biggest problem with the tabloid press is - not political sides, but just lying, misleading, twisting.
But that's not to say I think we should have newspaper regulation. Christ, the current proposal is a mess - No 10 claiming it won't include blogs like Guido Fawkes because it's mainly gossip, yet, gossip is one of the things specifically cited in the proposal.
And that's probably what the biggest problem with the tabloid press is - not political sides, but just lying, misleading, twisting.
But that's not to say I think we should have newspaper regulation. Christ, the current proposal is a mess - No 10 claiming it won't include blogs like Guido Fawkes because it's mainly gossip, yet, gossip is one of the things specifically cited in the proposal.
CyclopsRock
Member
It wouldn't matter if they did include it, though. It's like them legislating the sky to be green. Go ahead, guys. It won't work...
JonathanEx
Member
Mmm exactly. What those proposals are in practice show regulating the internet, not the press. And that's just a waste of time.
Sort out libel laws, harrassment, the practice of the police. Those are where we should start on this, not this new crap.
Sqrt_minus_one
Member
Lets face facts anything left of centre is pretty much of the table, market reforms blah blah blah is what gets the votes out so everyone is to the right.
Anarchism is not going to fly either so authoritarian right it is.
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
I was wondering why I couldnt find that post. lols
Sqrt_minus_one
Member
CHEEZMO;50625141 said:
Holy crap didnt relise i clicked on the front page in my thread drive by, haha. Was wondering why there was so much love for Nick Clegg on that page.
CyclopsRock
Member
That's sort of what worries me, though. Who decides that it's wrong? Ofcom (or a newspaper equivalent) aren't the police. What happens to Newspapers that talk about Tour De France winners doing drugs? Or Edwina Currie having an affair? Or Calling Chris Huhne a liar? Not only would the Sunday Times have had Armstrong suing them, the editor'd have had the CPS battering down the office door and switching off their printing press.
Incidentally, breaking the law is against the old rules, too - that's why it's breaking the law. And if you get caught hacking into a mobile phone, you'll get prosecuted now. If you don't, you won't, but you wouldn't under even a legislative regulatory system because you won't have been caught. All this would do is give those with money and power yet another tool to use to silence those with stories against them. Like Huhne admitting he was guilty the day before his sentencing after years of attesting the opposite, these scumbags will always try and plead their innocence until the last, and shutting down stories will, like our libel laws and super-injunctions, make it even easier for them to do it. Trust them with your press at your peril!
PJV3
Member
Well we will just have to see how it goes, I think it will be mostly fine, and at least now people without oodles of cash can challenge the papers and get redress for some of the awful shit the papers do.
If it turns out to be a bad move, I will be happy to see the charter scrapped and replaced with something else.
No it's not, Fox News wouldn't stand a chance against Ofcom. Partial propaganda that is knee deep in lies, false stories, exaggerations, agenda filled broadcasting and worse.
CyclopsRock
Member
Yeah, let's see how harshly the BBC gets lambasted for the Mcalpine thing shall we? My bet is "not very much".
Didn't BBC's chairman resign over it? And isn't an enquiry and case taking place over it? Can't get much more than that. It's certainly more than we'd get from Murdoch. And that's one thing compared to Fox's infinite sea of shite.
You let your bias get the better of you far too often Cyclops. Now it's as bad as trying to compare the BBC to Fox News. Deary fucking me.
JonathanEx
Member
Let's see how much - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20348978
Oh yes, that much. With a libel case settled there's no point in further action being taken.
CyclopsRock
Member
But we were talking about the degree to which Fox News, in your words nib, "wouldn't stand a chance" against Ofcom on the grounds of " lies, false stories, exaggerations" etc. My point was that this is exactly what the McAlpine story was and yet OfCom haven't done anything. Sure, the DG resigned and the BBC have paid McAlpine some money, but that's got nothing to do with OfCom. I wasn't comparing the BBC to Fox as institutions, I was using an example of the BBC doing exactly what you suggested Fox would routinely do (and I'm not saying you're wrong to say that) and pointing out the fact that OfCom have left the BBC alone. There is an on-going investigation (into them and ITV thanks to Schof) which is why I said "Let's see", but it's gone awfully quiet about that for the last 4 months.
LOL. They lie, brazenly on fox and do not issue corrections. No channel can do that here. They wouldn't qualify as a news channel and if that was the case couldn't brand themselves as a news channel.
Pre-budget leak: Government announces further tightening in public spending with 1% cut for each of next two years in most departments.
I would say that these ideologically driven, economically illiterate, incompetents really had no idea. But it's clear at this point that the exercise is to shrink the state, not fix our finances.
Austerity is a failed experiment that the bastards refuse to stop running on the British public. Hope you all like bread and water, fuck it, you'll be lucky to even get that.
The papers believe themselves to be above the law, they are like spoilt children used to getting their own way suddenly being told they have to play by the same rules as everyone else. All media should be subject to strict regulation on matters of fact, nobody argues 'free speech!' over false advertising, and what's different about false reporting?
The regulation that is eventually coming out of Leveson is amazingly light-touch compared to despotic hell-holes like Denmark and Ireland, both of which have much tougher press regulation.
This has been refuted several times, but it's so wrong that's not going to stop me from joining in:
OFCOM requires balance and impartiality in news reporting. Fox would break just about every rule OFCOM has regarding news reporting and would quickly have its broadcast license withdrawn (and quite right too).
I would say that these ideologically driven, economically illiterate, incompetents really had no idea. But it's clear at this point that the exercise is to shrink the state, not fix our finances.
Austerity is a failed experiment that the bastards refuse to stop running on the British public. Hope you all like bread and water, fuck it, you'll be lucky to even get that.
The papers believe themselves to be above the law, they are like spoilt children used to getting their own way suddenly being told they have to play by the same rules as everyone else. All media should be subject to strict regulation on matters of fact, nobody argues 'free speech!' over false advertising, and what's different about false reporting?
The regulation that is eventually coming out of Leveson is amazingly light-touch compared to despotic hell-holes like Denmark and Ireland, both of which have much tougher press regulation.
This has been refuted several times, but it's so wrong that's not going to stop me from joining in:
OFCOM requires balance and impartiality in news reporting. Fox would break just about every rule OFCOM has regarding news reporting and would quickly have its broadcast license withdrawn (and quite right too).
zomgbbqftw
Banned
They could do it as an entertainment channel, because that's what Fox News is. Entertaining
ly bad
No fan of current policy's either but hyperbole just makes it harder for people to take you seriously.
The story doesnt give much information but it does hopefully signal that the government recognise that they dropped the ball on infrastructure spending. Im not holding out much hope though.
The infrastructure spending should be on top of the current proposal without further fiscal cuts. If the £2.5billion increase in departmental cuts is met 1-for-1 by a £2.5billion increase in capital spending then that at least isnt as bad as an outright cut but as zomg mentioned before there are plenty of creative ways that the government can increase capital spending without explicitly adding to the deficit. Why not get the best of both worlds?
zomgbbqftw
Banned
It's all talk. The "increase" in capital spending is just bollocks. The government are shit.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
They had to do it in 2011/12, get the projects online and building by 2013/14 finished and staffed by 2014/15. That would give some kind of recovery going by the next election and the benefits of capital expenditure in the run up also.
However, the government is completely incompetent.
travisbickle
Member
I'd just like to point out that OFCOM is an independent body, so it isn't like the "state regulating tv broadcasting" as Cyclops implys in his post above.
Do you even know what a depression is?
fizzelopeguss
Banned
A long term recession?
CyclopsRock
Member
Genuine question - would you have been happier/think we'd be in a better place now if Labour had spent less during its boom years? If growth returns to a robust but fairly small amount, would you be happy to see cuts to ensure we have a surplus?
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Corpses commuting to work. I see them on the tube every week on Monday morning...
CyclopsRock
Member
I did? I don't object that it's independent. My point is that it's easy to be independent when being partisan doesn't do anything. With newspapers, it's a different ball game.
Do you?
Invaded a few less countries, saved a little more, demolished the City of London... yes. I mean I don't think overspending by Labour was our biggest problem; exclude the bank bailouts and debt levels are pretty low compared to long-term averages. I think under-spending during the recession is our biggest economic problem.
To be fair, we may not have even had a double dip if ONS revisions are right (I think?).
We are in a sort of stagnant, low growth rut but not a depression by the Great Depression standards, when that word is used it conjures up Grapes of Wrath and 25% unemployment (not just youth) etc...
I imagine we will splutter along until the next election, when the Torys can't preach "cuts" because people won't listen, they can't fear-monger about losing AAA any more because we already did and no one died.
We are in a sort of stagnant, low growth rut but not a depression by the Great Depression standards, when that word is used it conjures up Grapes of Wrath and 25% unemployment (not just youth) etc...
I imagine we will splutter along until the next election, when the Torys can't preach "cuts" because people won't listen, they can't fear-monger about losing AAA any more because we already did and no one died.
I don't think it's too outlandish to regard the last six years or so as part of a western-hemisphere depression. In England at least I can see what you mean about there not being mass unemployment; but we've traded that for some fairly huge real-term reductions in wages.
Well I am not sure of the definition of depression, I know recession is 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth but what qualifies a depression? People being depressed doesn't cut it I don't think
If it's a long (years) recession then we haven't had one, dipping into negative the odd quarter isn't a recession, despite the media's attempts to make it so. ONS data is also unreliable.
Well I am not sure of the definition of depression, I know recession is 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth but what qualifies a depression? People being depressed doesn't cut it I don't think
If it's a long (years) recession then we haven't had one, dipping into negative the odd quarter isn't a recession, despite the media's attempts to make it so. ONS data is also unreliable.
There isn't a universally accepted definition; it's not yet a technical term, which is why arguing over it is a bit silly.
Who is arguing? I thought we were discussing.
Heh, if that came out harsh then apologies.