The internet age.......

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by HH_2, Jan 16, 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. I seem to notice more and more that both newspapers and flagship news broadcasts; such as 6 o'clock news on the BBC and the ITV news at ten seem to consider internet forums as a valid source of public opinion and indeed often as a source of news itself. I have only really noticed this happening regularly over the last 6 months to a year.

    Do you think that it is right that what people have written on an internet forum (often ill-considered, not something you might say normaly but given the relative anonymity of the internet have said because you aren't worried that anyone will know who said it) ought to be used in news stories?

    To an extent it allows people to more than ever before to have their voices heard, but on the other hand it means that some utter bollocks has been used in various news programs.......


    PS. I realise that much of what the journo's use as 'evidence' is bollocks anyway, but that's beside the point :D.
     
  2. Posted this because I have been thinking about it for a while but was reminded when reading the thread about ARRSER's being quoted in a New Scotsman article.
     
  3. Can you supply links to web based stories on the regular media.
    Mostly they try and ignore it seeing it as a threat.

    either way your question is odd. Opinion is just that its not evidence.
    Every-one's entitled to their own opinion but they are not entitled to their own facts.
    Applies on the web as it does everywhere else.
     
  4. quoting from a website is like quoting from a drunk...

    you always have a bit of balls about you when you are safe in the knowledge that its usually anonymous, and behind the keyboard people usually are a bit gobbier, (exactly the same as when you have had a few)

    :)
     
  5. Tony, I cant see how you make the connection between "peoples opinions" and "serious evidence", the two aren't even as unrelated as "apples & oranges".

    Can you trust the internet to reflect public opinion? Yes.
    Can you use peoples opinions on an internet forum as serious evidence? (of what?) No. :confused:
     
  6. Why don't you just have a look at some of the threads on this site with various Arrsers becoming veritable celebs due to being quoted by the media?



    HH. It's called lazy journalism.

    One thing that perturbs me of late is the online media (BBC, ITN, Sky etc) having the following at the bottom of most of their stories (as in Jackanory)

    "Were you in the area? Did you witness what happened? You can send images to yourpics@xxx.co.uk."

    All this encourages is rubber necking and amateur paparazzi knobbers. It doesn't actually increase the quality of the news report.

    Journo's. Continue to 'quote from a military source' all you like but you will one day find you have a bit of egg on your face (ask Piers) if you rely on it for your scoop. Especially when you find the person you are quoting is a retarded mong from South Wales called Chubb. :winkrazz:
     
  7. Its not just the media in this country who uses this website for quotes I just came across this article from New Zealand

    http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/488120/961519

    On the subject at hand I think forums can be used to get an idea of peoples views but should be taken with a pinch of salt, as posters may post something they later regret
     
  8. sorry double post
     
  9. Some interesting points there - in the papers I read if a journo said 'quote from a military source' he the journo would know the name and rank of the person and most certainly wont have trawled an arrse thread for a random quote.

    However it is certainly a subject that is devolping and will probably need an on going discussion.
    For instance, in a New Zealand report about RFUK's angry vignette they quoted paveway_3 mentioning that he had seen mass graves in Iraq and that he seemed to imply made the war worth it. (I'm beginning to think he is really Ann Clywdd)

    So the point is print journos would pick from ARRSE what they want in the same way that they might from any other sources in order to justify the story that they intended writing anyway.
     
  10. Rubbish. A whole article in the Sun a little while back was published after I made a throw away line about tomato sauce and a certain location in Yorkshire on a certain website, anonymously. It was 'quote from a military source (or sauce)........'.

    Don't even get me started on pizza deliveries........
     
  11. I'll tell you what is lazy journalism and it's not quoting the views on Arrse!

    If you note all the stories about RFUK's post about that cnut Bliar, you will note that they all say the SAME thing.

    They ALL got their information, not from researching ARRSE, but from Reuters. One lazy journo has a squiz on ARRSE, he bangs it through to Reuters (who are lazy journos) and every other lazy fcuking journo in the land then copies the article VERBATIM as hot news off the press. The lazy cnuts don't even retype it! They simply copy and paste, and that is their money earned.

    Now, what I want to know is, if all the papers and alll the newsdesks in the land are simply quoting what is on Reuters (I read all the papers from time to time and watch various news channels), then this strikes me as similar to a one-party state, but for news and information.

    Who decides what goes into, and more importantly, what is published on Reuters.

    Is there a Murdoch hanging around behind the curtains of this company?
     
  12. Remember the true story (true according to Michael Buerke) of the Brit reporter who arrived with press pack at the scene of a major clusterfcuk and went around saying "Anyone been raped and who speaks English" Thts is the way many of them operate.
     
  13. Nehustan

    Nehustan On ROPs

    I was saying to a colleague in work today that the only real news is as it happens. Take 911 for instance, I recall watching as the second plane hit stood in my local cornershop/videoshop (hence why it had a TV). Now that was news, people were so shocked there wasn't an opinion in sight, just reporting of the events as they happened. An hour after the towers came down, the journos probably had their 'comment' heads back on. Happened with the Tsunami the same way, the relay of the events preceded comment on which bit of kit they needed where.

    I recall when I was working at the BBC, and I was discussing degrees with a colleague. I remember saying if it was residential with it treated like a job and regimented most people would get degrees. 'That’s a terrible idea' she retorted 'What would the point be to degrees then???' I swallowed as I thought 'education perhaps?' I double swallowed when she added 'Any way if you want life regimented in such a way, you should join the army'.

    Journalists think they're smart, and I think the reason that ARRSE has become a point of interest is the high level of intelligence (and I don't just mean the corps :jocolor: ) that is displayed by serving and ex soldiers herein, admittedly punctuated with dark humour.

    Mediums may change but I think ARRSE is a good change. When it comes to Journalists and Soldiers an axiom springs to mind...

    [align=center]"opinions are like arrseholes, everybody has one, some smell worse than others..."[/align]
     
  14. Whats that SLRboy, Fortean Times?
     

  15. The Fortean times & the Sun I'll leave to you.