ot jeremy corbyn

[ragingpup]

I think the Guardian to the Mail covers a spectrum of views. There is also the internet so that people can plug themselves directly into Labour propaganda if they wish. They can also go out and buy a copy of The Socialist Worker if they want to.

I’d remind you that the best you can do is to propose an element of state (for which read political) control of the media, apparently to rid ourselves of the scourge of the Mail capitalising words in the headlines of factual articles about Labour policy announcements.

I know which I prefer, a media that offers a range of views or one that reports what politicians will allow it to.

Are you sure that you aren’t just sore that people prefer The Sun to The Mirror?

As I said, IBS is the expert on Chomsky. As far as I’m concerned, the notion of an anarcho-syndicalist supporting any politician over another is like the chair of a Vegan Society saying they prefer Burger King to McDonalds.

I think I can see your problem. You simply can't imagine any other alternative to the here and now can you? It's either free market neo liberalism or state controlled hell! In this you are frighteningly similar to Great Fire.

Who said anything about politicians controlling the press? They are the last people that should be involved, for the reasons that you have stated. But that doesn't mean that there aren't other socially driven cross cultural, cross society discussed and agreed alternatives.

I can see that you are happy with the status quo of a handful of individuals effectively being able to reach and influence the views and votes of over 10 million people, and the illusion of 'democracy' that this represents. Well done, you must be very happy. But I think I'll keep pushing for long term alternatives for a mass press that fairly represents it's society.

[KerrAvon]

I think I can see your problem. You simply can't imagine any other alternative to the here and now can you? It's either free market neo liberalism or state controlled hell! In this you are frighteningly similar to Great Fire.

Who said anything about politicians controlling the press? They are the last people that should be involved, for the reasons that you have stated. But that doesn't mean that there aren't other socially driven cross cultural, cross society discussed and agreed alternatives.

I can see that you are happy with the status quo of a handful of individuals effectively being able to reach and influence the views and votes of over 10 million people, and the illusion of 'democracy' that this represents. Well done, you must be very happy. But I think I'll keep pushing for long term alternatives for a mass press that fairly represents it's society.

Well what exactly is it that you do want by way of press control? Back in the mists of time in post 138 you said that you would be all for a cross party joint venture and organisation that reflected the interests of all political parties evenly and completely restructure the way that mass media (with readerships of over x amount) can engage with expressing their own political opinions, on behalf of their owners) to the readers. This can be done in many ways, on many levels, is hugely fraught with difficulty and complex issues but is ultimately achievable in a way that achieves an ultimate cross party balance. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the expression ‘cross party’ clearly implies political involvement unless we are using different versions of the English language.

I see that you have now dropped the word political and it is now ‘socially driven cross cultural, cross society discussed and agreed alternatives’ that you are after. What on earth is that supposed to mean? Who is going to appoint the people who operate your ‘socially driven cross cultural, cross society discussed and agreed alternative’, if it isn’t going to be politicians? And I’ve got the strangest feeling that when you set up your ‘socially driven cross cultural, cross society discussed and agreed alternative’ it will be quickly infiltrated by politically active individuals who will seek to ensure that their version of the truth is what is printed.

I’m also curious about how the ‘socially driven cross cultural, cross society discussed and agreed alternatives’ would operate. Would newspapers have to run their proposed articles past a committee before they publish? That would make ‘breaking news’ something that happens several days after the event.

I wonder if the Telegraph would have been allowed to run its MP expenses scandal expose or the Guardian it’s Panama Papers articles if they had to be run by a ‘socially driven cross cultural, cross society discussed and agreed alternative’.

I prefer the current system where people can choose their source of news, with animal picking up his Guardian and gf picking up his Daily Mail. If more people choose the Mail than The Guardian then that’s the way it is and in that way the media reflects the choice that society makes. So, yes, I prefer the status quo, because there isn’t a better alternative. If you want to explain how your ‘socially driven cross cultural, cross society discussed and agreed alternatives’ would operate (I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt and am assuming you don’t mean that people would be made to read The Guardian), I’d be fascinated.

[ragingpup]

Well what exactly is it that you do want by way of press control? Back in the mists of time in post 138 you said that you would be all for a cross party joint venture and organisation that reflected the interests of all political parties evenly and completely restructure the way that mass media (with readerships of over x amount) can engage with expressing their own political opinions, on behalf of their owners) to the readers. This can be done in many ways, on many levels, is hugely fraught with difficulty and complex issues but is ultimately achievable in a way that achieves an ultimate cross party balance. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the expression ‘cross party’ clearly implies political involvement unless we are using different versions of the English language.

I see that you have now dropped the word political and it is now ‘socially driven cross cultural, cross society discussed and agreed alternatives’ that you are after. What on earth is that supposed to mean? Who is going to appoint the people who operate your ‘socially driven cross cultural, cross society discussed and agreed alternative’, if it isn’t going to be politicians? And I’ve got the strangest feeling that when you set up your ‘socially driven cross cultural, cross society discussed and agreed alternative’ it will be quickly infiltrated by politically active individuals who will seek to ensure that their version of the truth is what is printed.

I’m also curious about how the ‘socially driven cross cultural, cross society discussed and agreed alternatives’ would operate. Would newspapers have to run their proposed articles past a committee before they publish? That would make ‘breaking news’ something that happens several days after the event.

I wonder if the Telegraph would have been allowed to run its MP expenses scandal expose or the Guardian it’s Panama Papers articles if they had to be run by a ‘socially driven cross cultural, cross society discussed and agreed alternative’.

I prefer the current system where people can choose their source of news, with animal picking up his Guardian and gf picking up his Daily Mail. If more people choose the Mail than The Guardian then that’s the way it is and in that way the media reflects the choice that society makes. So, yes, I prefer the status quo, because there isn’t a better alternative. If you want to explain how your ‘socially driven cross cultural, cross society discussed and agreed alternatives’ would operate (I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt and am assuming you don’t mean that people would be made to read The Guardian), I’d be fascinated.

I think I wrote that post at 7am in the morning before I’d had even half of my cup of coffee, rushing to get the points over before daughter tumbles down the stairs demanding her porridge!

As I’ve said before I am FAR from being an academic and am not great with the written word, just do my best. And in saying phrases like “reflected the interests of all political parties”, “ultimate cross party balance” and “socially driven cross cultural, cross society discussed and agreed alternatives” what I am clumsily saying is that whatever the solution would be that we move towards it has to reflect all voices in society.

Couple of questions for you:

1. Do you think it would be better if we had a free press serve to benefit and enhance the public good (a good whose production has positive effects on society beyond the effects on the specific people who directly consume the good) of the society it exists in? To help reinforce democracy through a range of views being freely and equally available to the consumers?

2. Are you ultimately happy that a handful of people own the media and use their property as a vehicle to influence both government and the voting public?

Obviously, my answers are 1) Yes and 2) No. So obviously I’d look for alternative ways of doing things. Wouldn’t anyone if they came to the same conclusions.

The question is of course what can we do about it? As you have quoted me above, I have pointed out that to explore this path is “hugely fraught with difficulties and complex issues” and your questions highlight these.

But does that mean that solutions are impossible? That we shouldn’t try when these questions are so important and our illusion of democracy is so flawed.

I am personally not bright nor eloquent enough to solve these huge problems in my lunch breaks but I think I can identify some directions of travel.

Maybe we can look at the elements of our own BBC? The idea here is that all of us pay into a national mass media service that is responsible for providing a balanced and fair news coverage and a range of political opinion and is accountable to public scrutiny in terms of it’s balance. It’s not ideal, gets accused of political bias from both sides but ultimately takes it’s responsibility for a fair balanced news and opinion service seriously and does a good job of it. Maybe the way we should travel is in this direction, with all public paying in towards a range of national news publications, of different styles and media types that the paying public can select from but each with a responsibility to report within an agreed framework and an over riding body that ensures that x views expressed over there (say right wing source) are counter balanced by x views expressed over here by a left wing source.

In the meantime, these news outlets report as normal, in real time just as the BBC does now. Did the BBC investigate on MPs expenses scandal? Does the BBC do undercover reporting and exposes of scurrilous individuals? Of course.

This linked report has some interesting ideas, some along these lines I mention but with other ideas (yet worth noting that even they recognise the inherent difficulty in going into the further detail of working out such initiatives! It’s a logistical nightmare but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t explore it and move in that direction does it when our current mass media is not fit for purpose (of serving the greater good of society)):

https://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Con...n%20August.pdf

In the meantime, “back in the real world”, of course we’re ages, decades, millennia away from such a possibility. The here and now is more concerned with:

1. Protecting the BBC from predominantly right wing press attacks (for these owners know the potential dangers in a mass news organisation that actually represents it’s people and presents two or more arguments instead of the one that they want to dominate)

2. Keep arguing the fact that the current illusion of a democratic free press is not fit for purpose and does not present a true range of perspectives so that people recognise the necessity for an alternative.

Huge uphill battle, but for me, if the essential structure of something so important is corrupt and broken, it’s just lazy thinking that just dismisses it as the ‘best we can do’.

***(You’re right, only just me and you reading this so not much chance of influencing public debate here! So much for the great leveller of social media!)***