What now for the EU ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
He just gets paid for journalism though?
No he doesn't, he get paid to rabble raise. That why he was anti EU until the Guardian decided that it was the nasty Conservatives fault that brexit happened. He tells the angry mob what they want to hear.

In your opinion.
No not in my opinion, although I do find it amusing that all these years you have thought these bellends were actually journalists, it shows how they manage to fool the gullible.

Look at any of their bios, none of them say journalist, they themselves never say that they are journalists, they say things like "writes for the Guardian" or "columnist".
 
Like most journalists

I think he's a **** but that's neither here nor there. This is becoming the go to trope for anything any Brexiteer doesn't like - "He's a troll" or "You're trolling."

Once again Jones isn't a journalist
Also Jones wanted out of the EU until it became apparent that wasn't the direction the Guardian was going in.
 

Brotherton Lad

LE
Kit Reviewer
Once again Jones isn't a journalist
Also Jones wanted out of the EU until it became apparent that wasn't the direction the Guardian was going in.

The Guardian is a journal, Jones is a columnist published by that journal. This may help you have a basic understanding.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
The Guardian is a journal, Jones is a columnist published by that journal. This may help you have a basic understanding.
Not necessarily, the definition of journalist reads

"A journalist is an individual trained to collect/gather information in form of text, audio or pictures, processes them to a news-worthy form and disseminates it to the public. The act or process mainly done by the journalist is called journalism."

Note the phrase "processes them to a news-worthy form". Not sure if the Guardian can fit that definition.
 
Not necessarily, the definition of journalist reads

"A journalist is an individual trained to collect/gather information in form of text, audio or pictures, processes them to a news-worthy form and disseminates it to the public. The act or process mainly done by the journalist is called journalism."

Note the phrase "processes them to a news-worthy form". Not sure if the Guardian can fit that definition.
To be fair that could apply to any MSM
 

Brotherton Lad

LE
Kit Reviewer
Not necessarily, the definition of journalist reads

"A journalist is an individual trained to collect/gather information in form of text, audio or pictures, processes them to a news-worthy form and disseminates it to the public. The act or process mainly done by the journalist is called journalism."

Note the phrase "processes them to a news-worthy form". Not sure if the Guardian can fit that definition.

That's just your opinion. Loving the mental gymnastics on display.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
My understanding is they are both racist - although I think the extreme left are against jewish people, whilst the extreme right are generally against any racial group outside of their own. However my understanding is also that they are both defined on more than their views on other groups, but it also encompasses economic views, freedoms of individuals. how the collective should behave/think etc.

There's a great deal of confusion about left and right which wasn't helped by the respective branding attempts of the socialist factions in the 20s and 30s.

Bolshevism, Fascism and Nazism are all forms of socialism. The great falling out between Lenin and Mussolini was over the basis on which the necessary solidarity for a socialist settlement could be achieved. For Lenin it was based on class loyalty and was international. Mussolini claimed it could only be achieved on the basis of national identity and Hitler morphed Mussolini's position into something race-based. What they all shared was the vision of a top down society that was highly technocratic with little or nothing by way of democracy and organised to produce the optimum outcome for the in-group whilst treating outgroups severely. They were united in their hatred of reactionaries (a.k.a. 'right wingers') and it was the 'reactionaries' who they most consistently referenced as an outgroup.

Marxists absolutely hate this analysis but that leaves them with the problem of explaining why lifelong socialists like GB Shaw and HG Wells are on record as praising Mussolini, Goebbels is on record as saying that Lenin is the greatest man after Hitler and Oswald Mosely travels from the Tory Party to the BUF via the Labour Party and membership of a Labour Cabinet. In Weimar Germany, the Nazis and Bolsheviks were competing for the same political space.

What caused the confusion and underpinned the branding exercise was Italian support for Franco and the Phalangists which allowed the Soviets to lump them all in together. The Phalangists were genuinely 'right wing' in their support for strong state institutions like the army, the church and the family but without any reference whatsoever for the complete reorganisation of society, particularly the economy or the redistribution of wealth and greater social equality.

Fascism and Phalangism looked very similar in terms of the emphasis on nationalism and there can be considerable crossover of left and right in that space and a high degree of fellow-travelling, but they envisaged very different endstates and that's the defining factor. It's part of the reason why Hitler never trusted the Wehrmacht and much of the Junker class welcomed German resurgence but despised the Nazis. You can see a similar dynamic in Marine Le Pen's FN today:

“There are two Front Nationals: one in the north of France which is anti-religious, very socialist, quite leftist; and one in the south, which accepts the euro, which is – economically speaking – liberal, and Catholic. The only thing which helps them to stick together is the prospect of winning one day.” Alain Minc - economist

Mussolini was probably right in claiming that national identity was a greater binding factor than international class identity and it's noticeable that the emphasis on international class solidarity generally decays into nationalism as per Russia and China.

The EU is an interesting development because it draws on many of the themes and mainstream ideas of European politics since the French Revolution and could be interpreted as trying to impose a watered down version of what became Fascism (in its original form when it was a respectable mainstream political idea based around optimal social organisation sustained by a technocracy and not a by-word for world war) based on a pan-European identity.
 
The Guardian is a journal, Jones is a columnist published by that journal. This may help you have a basic understanding.

Jones isn't a journalist I hope that helps you with a basic understanding.
It's a bit like saying you hang around Sandhurst, which might make people think you are serving, when really you aren't in the military.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
That's just your opinion. Loving the mental gymnastics on display.
Indeed and I believe I said "I'm not sure" which indicates that is my opinion, sorry it needs expansion for you. Do you have an opinion re the Guardian you would care to share with us?
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
Jones isn't a journalist I hope that helps you with a basic understanding.
It's a bit like saying you hang around Sandhurst, which might make people think you are serving, when really you aren't in the military.
Well, that is your opinion, which I share btw, but he is a member of the NUJ and does produce words for journalistic periodicals and dailies.

If it looks like a duck, walks likes duck......
 
Well, that is your opinion, which I share btw, but he is a member of the NUJ and does produce words for journalistic periodicals and dailies.

If it looks like a duck, walks likes duck......

Maybe he's an associate member.

A journalist does news, he doesn't, he does opinions (which change depending on the Guardians view).
 

Brotherton Lad

LE
Kit Reviewer
Jones isn't a journalist I hope that helps you with a basic understanding.
It's a bit like saying you hang around Sandhurst, which might make people think you are serving, when really you aren't in the military.

I'm retired from the army (over 2 decades ago) but still do Army stuff in a number of roles, so 46 years in total, plus 30 years for my wife.

I also have a reasonable working knowledge of etymology in all major Western, Central and Eastern European languages, so I'd suggest you're wasting your time on this one.
 
That is so wrong . . . Impartial journalists have long gone from the MSM.

It is not just a coincidence that the Guardian, and the Telegraph, are characterised by appealing to different sectors of the political divide. If/when I watch Ch4 News, I already know what bleeding-heart, hand-wringing, slant will overlay every story.

Independent, free-thinking journalists, may be earning a living with fringe media/sites, but those journalists within MSM write with such a committment, enthusiasm, that can only be explained by them expressing their own deeply held views, opinions, beliefs.

Try watching GBNEWS they normally show most sides of affairs, its a refreshing change from the other channels!
 
You're getting the hang of nuance. Well done you.

Jones is a journalist.

Why don't you find something where Jones himself says he's a journalist or where the guardian say he's a journalist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top