Time to censor the media?

Mr Benevolent

I'm f*cking sick of the same crap the media churns out minute after hour after day. Half of the stuff is irrelevant and the other half is just incorrect. What scares me is that we all believe this crap to one degree or another.

The media is in business to make a profit. Well and good. The problem starts when you consider the influence the media has on our everyday lives. It's beyond description, and I'm not talking about advertising. Constant bombardment with irrelevant crap. So the media can influence us to think whatever they want in principle. You doubt me? Ok, here's an example. Back in the twenties the owners of two major newspapers made a bet that they could make the population of the UK buy and eat a disgusting grey loaf of bread, deliberately designed to be inedible.

It took three months to become the most popular bread on the table of every household.

It's glaringly obvious that we desperately need some form of censorship. None of the stories are relevant to us. None of them. Yes, no doubt someone's going to say 'well don't watch the news/read the paper then'. But that's impossible. News is forced in through every pore until we're sodden in a useless, soul-sapping vat of utter, spinechillingly moronic opinions of people who are paid to tell you what to think. They're caused economic crashes, they've sparked race riots, mass murder and nothing, not one thing they've done has enriched society. They've encouraged mass grief for utterly retarded nonsense.

A final example. In 1987 a Nigerian newspaper reported that the EU was selling milk to Nigeria that was known to be extremely radioactive from the Chernobyl disaster. Not one word of the story was true. The journalist's excuse? 'I thought it'd make a good story.'

Now all we need is a way of censoring the media without actually blacking out entire stories. (Besides yelling 'well don't read it then'.)

Oh, by the way, before anyone gets it in... yore ma. This is AH after all, so go nuts.

ChocolateSauce

Censorship? I'll leave that to the communists, the fascists and the theocrats. I like my freedom thank you very much.

wudangclan

throw out your telly.
don't buy a newspaper.
ignorance is bliss.
(or better to know what really happened i suppose.)

aidan_walsh

None of the stories are relevant to me.

Fixed your post.

Kernel

If we could censor Britain's Got Talent, You're a Star, Big Brother and all that other ****e then I'm all for it.

My name is URL

The media is censored, and the censors are currently witnessing its success

Mr Benevolent

I like my freedom thank you very much.

Hah, yeah the old free speech = freedom argument. That's a fallacy and it always has been. The democracy/free speech argument is just as much crap.

Oh you want an example? Boards.ie is censored... for a good reason. It's not a democracy, it's a company and by censoring it protects it's interests. We barely notice it, but without censorship Boards would have gone the way of most other forums. A light touch, that's all that's needed. I don't see anyone complaining either. But if this form of censorship was introduced into the media as a whole you'd go nuts. Why? It's not logical to go nuts if it works on such a large scale here.

Freedom. Free speech. Democracy. The most overused and overrated words in the English language.

WeeBushy

Confab wrote: »

Hah, yeah the old free speech = freedom argument. That's a fallacy and it always has been. The democracy/free speech argument is just as much crap.

Oh you want an example? Boards.ie is censored... for a good reason. It's not a democracy, it's a company and by censoring it protects it's interests. We barely notice it, but without censorship Boards would have gone the way of most other forums. A light touch, that's all that's needed. I don't see anyone complaining either. But if this form of censorship was introduced into the media as a whole you'd go nuts. Why? It's not logical to go nuts if it works on such a large scale here.

Freedom. Free speech. Democracy. The most overused and overrated words in the English language.

That's simply ludicrous. Boards is a website where people chat and debate, and if it was not moderated people would be talking off topic willy nilly and it would degenerate into a free for all slagging match. You can't possibly compare the media to boards, that's just absurd.

Censoring the right to report on news is exceptionally dangerous. I presume you were out on the front line with all the muslims outraged at the cartoon depictions of Muhammad so?

The Davestator

I agree with the OP to a certain extent. I think certain newspapaers have gone from reporting news to trying to form opinions with their slant on the news. This has been going on for years but has gotten much worse in recent times. All this 'the star says' or hearlds view - funk off, we'll make up our own minds if we are given all the facts.

Example - headline news on today fm on 20th July - 25% of all employers are considering more redundancies....

not - 75% of all employers are NOT considering more redundancies...

Mr Benevolent

it would degenerate into a free for all slagging match.

You mean like the media does? People love to cling onto a lie. Hell, civilisation loves clinging onto lies.

WeeBushy

Confab wrote: »

You mean like the media does? People love to cling onto a lie. Hell, civilisation loves clinging onto lies.

You obviously don't pay much attention to the media so. Respectable media outlets (the star and metro are not credible media) don't lower themselves to calling people any name under the sun and actually debate topics. I suggest try reading the Irish Times, or the New York Times if you are willing to subscribe, and you will see what is so wonderful about freedom of speech.

As an aside, saying that the media should be censored because you think people slag each other is a pretty poor argument imo.

As Ms. Evelyn Beatrice Hall said: I disapprove of what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

CCCP^

The Media already censor themselves and have been doing so for atleast the past 100 years.

Mr Benevolent

As an aside, saying that the media should be censored because you think people slag each other is a pretty poor argument imo.

That wasn't an argument.

WeeBushy

Confab wrote: »

That wasn't an argument.

Claiming that the media degenerates into a slagging match and then going onto say that civilisation is clinging onto the lie that freedom of speech is sacrosanct suggested to me that you were using that as an argument.

However if is misunderstood what you were saying, then I apologise.

cherryghost

News just in!

Boards.ie causes Cancer!

More at 6!

weldoninhio

The Davestator wrote: »

I agree with the OP to a certain extent. I think certain newspapaers have gone from reporting news to trying to form opinions with their slant on the news. This has been going on for years but has gotten much worse in recent times. All this 'the star says' or hearlds view - funk off, we'll make up our own minds if we are given all the facts.

Example - headline news on today fm on 20th July - 25% of all employers are considering more redundancies....

not - 75% of all employers are NOT considering more redundancies...

News - noun - A report of a recent event

Your alternative headline is NOT news.

barakus

any more recent examples than the twenties and 1987?

Dudess

Confab wrote: »

What scares me is that we all believe this crap to one degree or another.

What scares me is you believe censorship is a potentially good idea.

By the way, the news shouldn't stop being made just because you don't like it.

cherryghost

if the media was censored, all hell well break loose!

Rebelheart

Haven't bought newspapers regularly in years, but read (online) select parts of The Irish Times frequently (particularly every Friday's Business section). Might buy The Guardian a few times a year and The Wall Street Journal or Financial Times once a year. Would buy The Economist and The New Statesmen about 5 times a year each. I (very) rarely watch TV and when I do it's TG4, National Geographic, Discovery or the History Channel. "Reality" programmes consistently defy belief in my world.

I've never bought any newspaper owned by Tony O'Reilly, and I've no intention of ever doing so. Trash, from cover to cover - particularly The Sunday Independent. The idea that the then Taoiseach Bertie Ahern and his Tánaiste paid O'Reilly a visit in Fitzwilliam Square before the 2007 General Election seeking his newspapers' support for Fianna Fáil symbolises so much of what is wrong with such media dominance in a democracy.

The best thing you can do, OP, is not purchase them and, if necessary, be very selective in what parts of them you read. That's a gift of freedom and intelligence to yourself.

Mr Benevolent

25% of all employers are considering more redundancies....

weldoninhio wrote: »

News - noun - A report of a recent event

Your alternative headline is NOT news.

In that case the original headline is not news either, because it's not an event.

any more recent examples than the twenties and 1987?

How about the front page headline 'Is it time to PANIC?' from the Metro a few months ago?

By the way, far more people read crap newspapers than good ones.

Rebelheart

cherryghost wrote: »

if the media was censored, all hell well break loose!

The media is censored, very much so. Usually this censorship is called editing. What the OP is suggesting seems to be a change in who does the censoring.

The Davestator

weldoninhio wrote: »

News - noun - A report of a recent event

Your alternative headline is NOT news.

My 'headline' is news - its good news but the irish media seem intent to report bad news.

If a survey is done, surely you report the main finding of that survey, 75% of employers are not considering redundancies is the headline.

Mr Benevolent

Dudess wrote: »

By the way, the news shouldn't stop being made just because you don't like it.

It's not just me who doesn't like it. I may be the only one prepared to do something about it though.

What scares me is you believe censorship is a potentially good idea.

Wait till you see my replacement for the elected oligarchy government currently running the country

WeeBushy

Confab wrote: »

Metro

Hmm... I seem to have found a flaw in what you are saying.

Mr Benevolent

WeeBushy wrote: »

Hmm... I seem to have found a flaw in what you are saying.

I'll say it again so:

Far more people read crap newspapers than good ones.

WeeBushy

Confab wrote: »

I'll say it again so:

Far more people read crap newspapers than good ones.

Well then I despair for mankind.

How about we promote good journalism instead of censoring people because they are bad at their job. Would be far less draconian than your proposal.

MikeC101

Confab wrote: »

It's not just me who doesn't like it. I may be the only one prepared to do something about it though.

Such as...?

I'm curious to know, who ideally will be deciding what gets censored?

Blazer

Confab wrote: »

I'm f*cking sick of the same crap the media churns out minute after hour after day. Half of the stuff is irrelevant and the other half is just incorrect. What scares me is that we all believe this crap to one degree or another.

The media is in business to make a profit. Well and good. The problem starts when you consider the influence the media has on our everyday lives. It's beyond description, and I'm not talking about advertising. Constant bombardment with irrelevant crap. So the media can influence us to think whatever they want in principle. You doubt me? Ok, here's an example. Back in the twenties the owners of two major newspapers made a bet that they could make the population of the UK buy and eat a disgusting grey loaf of bread, deliberately designed to be inedible.

It took three months to become the most popular bread on the table of every household.

It's glaringly obvious that we desperately need some form of censorship. None of the stories are relevant to us. None of them. Yes, no doubt someone's going to say 'well don't watch the news/read the paper then'. But that's impossible. News is forced in through every pore until we're sodden in a useless, soul-sapping vat of utter, spinechillingly moronic opinions of people who are paid to tell you what to think. They're caused economic crashes, they've sparked race riots, mass murder and nothing, not one thing they've done has enriched society. They've encouraged mass grief for utterly retarded nonsense.

A final example. In 1987 a Nigerian newspaper reported that the EU was selling milk to Nigeria that was known to be extremely radioactive from the Chernobyl disaster. Not one word of the story was true. The journalist's excuse? 'I thought it'd make a good story.'

Now all we need is a way of censoring the media without actually blacking out entire stories. (Besides yelling 'well don't read it then'.)

Oh, by the way, before anyone gets it in... yore ma. This is AH after all, so go nuts.

Fcuk off Brian/Bertie/Harney/Coughlan or whichever c0cksucking politician you are :P

cooperguy

barakus wrote: »

any more recent examples than the twenties and 1987?

Or at least a link or two to back up what ur saying!

Mr Benevolent

MikeC101 wrote: »

Such as...?

I'm curious to know, who ideally will be deciding what gets censored?

The censors

Seriously though, it'd have to be based on law and done by an independant group funded by contributions from the media companies and/or the government. Having civil servants doing it would be a bit too much