Journalists and their stories a necessary evil????

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by jimbojetset, Jun 10, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. yes

  2. no

  3. neither

  1. A quick question
    There seems to be a bit of a difference in approach to journalists on this website.
    Anything they write in a derogatory way about anything that we might hold true and any posts considered to be "journo" are dealt with in a quite hostile manner but......
    Anything that the Daily Mail writes which might be against a politician or council or muslim or whatever seems to be treated as if it were the gospel itself?! Any particular reasons
    Answers on postcard!
  2. Is it, seen plenty of lively debate, with pros and cons, maybe your just reading WHAT you want too. :)
  3. Perhaps, I do find the Daily Mail makes me angry just by its existance!
  4. I suspect that the results (limited as they are) probably do reflect the views of the people here.
    I find it interesting that on some discussions, especially obvious ones about the Royals etc where the question smacks of "Journo" people give that person a good kicking (verbally)
    Some threads on the other hand have shown that we have people on here who know "journos" and will use them to promote the cause. Gurkha VC being a case in point.
  5. Why do you hate the Mail so much? Is it because it offends your sensibilities and point of view? I personally can't stand most of the rags littering the news agents shelves (I'll occasionally bring myself up to speed with an in depth analysis of Viz or a quick perusal of Razzle if I am in a jovial mood). Journos although complete w@nkers most of the time are an evil that we must remain uneasy bedfellows with. What feckin annoys me is when they push their own ideologies and viewpoints onto the public at large. The BBC are undoubtedly the worst offender. Next time the BBC run a story about a school watch how many non white children are in the article. Also got very annoyed when that tosspot Bliar got all the plaudits for the NI peace process and the reinstatement of NI Assembly.
  6. I'd agree with much of the above. Just a small comment about journalists in general. It's as well to recognise the difference between reporters, journalists and columnists. There are good and bad in all three categories, but some of the opinions which they venture or reports which they write are pretty impressive. Bill Deedes is/was a fine journalist and is still an interesting columnist, similarly Simon Jenkins has published some excellent and hard-hitting opinion and so on. I'm sure that we all have our favourites and we all have journalists etc that we really can't abide. But it's not wise to condemn them all (just most of them, perhaps).
  7. Ithink it's because journalisum has chaged. It used to be about intelegent poeple, digging through date, and asking tricky questions to find the truth that was often buryed under the lies.

    Now it is about grabbing headlines and pics. The story is secondary, and even checking sources for factual error seems to have gone out of the window. Siteing open forum websites as a source and so on is lazy in the extream.
  8. There are a few good journalists who tell it like it is, there are many journalists who get the message across somehow but there are too many journalists who use their stories to further their organisations (or their personal) agenda.

    Going on what I have seen and read in various outlets from the Beeb to the Independent, the Mails editors use the organ to further Conservative aspirations at all times. It is my personal view that they do not stop at factual reporting to do so.

    Unlike most people here I watch hours (probably 5 or 6) of current affairs programmes every day, from the BBCs News24 to Al Jazeera and fill in with scanning some onlline newspapers. Various papers put left or right leaning views but the BBC and through extension its reporters, I believe, is one of the few that - except for a very few exceptions - which reports political news without bias
  9. qman
    Hate the Mail for a whole host of reasons
    1) I find it zenophobic
    2) It has its point of view and then the story is changed to fit that pov
    3) Its written with a 5 second attention span in mind
    4) Its the reading material of choice of my mother in law

    Now, the first three points could be aimed at all tabloids and the third at all papers but its really the 4th that annoys me the most!

    Having said all that, my Father has been saying for years that the biggest problem with the media is 24 hour news broadcasting. That is, because Sky News, CNN, Fox etc need to fill 24 hours of broadcasting, they can take any thing and spin it out of control. When the newspapers try to get some market share this is their competition and therefore they need to "compete" by sensationalising things and potentially blowing them out of proportion. Often they will build someone or something up because they know that they will get equal coverage by knocking it down.

    bobath talked about the standards and I would have to agree, there is not much "journalism" more instant gratification reporting.
  10. Sven I can't say that I am surprised you watch Al Jazeera but you honestly think the BBC is unbiased?

    As for the Daily Mail being zenophobic I don't feel this is anymore the case than the other comics which appeal to the masses. The Independant, Guardian etc are all just toadies to the labour spin machine and the Times is too busy trying to be intelectual yet appealing to the masses who would much rather talkl about who called who a N***er in the big B house. The BBC gave air time to the Taliban FFS - wholly Un-British if you ask me and yet another example of pansying to a PC world gone mad at the behest of the LABLIAR govt and Tony Bliar (may god grant him a thousand cancers of the A-hole).
  11. Actually I would say the Independant are anything but toadies of Labour. They have been against the War in Iraq since the start, they question labour policy almost everyday and do it on the front page. I agree with the rest though apart from the cancer bit as I have that and well he's not my worst enemy.
  12. Years ago in Aldershot there was a double murder followed by a suicide, a journo came in the Peggy trying to make out there was more to it by stating that two of the people were involved in a lesbian tryst. He just got knocked out. I find thats the most effective way to deal with them.
  13. I don't think journalists have changed that much over the years, there have always been those who report the truth selectively, certainly as long as I can remeber and if one looks back at comment about some of the press barons of the past little has changed. The big change I do see is the fight for circulation that now even impacts on papers that never used to care like the Times and the Torygraph. This has led to the desire for gory headlines and dubious reporting to justify them. The Wail and Scum are particularly bad at this and often by selective reporting make black seem white. The same of course now applies to the broadcast media as well where ratings set budgets and expense accounts the drive to make flash headlines out of nothing drives them all. Even the BBC is judged more on ratings than on quality whether this be entertainm,ent or news, and look at the results, quality drops.

    There are still good investigative journalists out there and good old news hounds who have the integrity to be given the early start on good stories. There are equally headline hounds who seek out salicious headline stories to support their editors sales wars for whoom the truth falls way behind their pay check in the list of important things, but they have always been there.