Who Holds The Power In This Country?

[Tiercel 6,986]

Forget the prime minister, forget the queen, It's the media that really holds the power. The media has the power to make or break anything. Clever editing can make even Jack the ripper sound like a philanthropist. In my opinion it has gone too far, they need curbing.

 

No political party will do it though as they need them on side. If the media came out in favour of hunting, the ban would be repealed pretty quickly. The people of this country are on the whole sheep, they like being told what to do, and how to think. Saves them working things out for themselves!

 

Thoughts?

 

TC

[Slippery_Weasel 460]

Couldn't agree more, I had hoped that the levison enquiry would have made a difference but I've not heard anything about it or even if it is still going on

[AndyH 52]

It's not the media, it's the corporations who own the vast majority of the media, who then use it to project their own agendas. I've worked in the mainstream media, and know full well that editorial decisions can and are be forced down from the boardroom; the editors might not agree, but nobody wants to lose their job, do they?

 

Look at The Scum; Murdoch forces them to print whatever will suit his business agenda and eventually provide profits to shareholders. Considering that the Scum's readership isn't the most discerning, it's quite easy for public opinion to be swayed.

Ever see the Daily Mail go after the tax-avoiding corporations & billionaires that leech away from the normal population? Of course not, as the owner is one of those leeches himself.

 

 

With regard to curbing the media though, a free media is a cornerstone of a democratic society. If the government or others in power can control what is printed about them with impunity, that's not a healthy situation to be in as far as freedom is concerned.

Edited July 6, 2014 by AndyH

[Tiercel 6,986]

 

 

It's not the media, it's the corporations who own the vast majority of the media,

? Bit of an oxymoron there.

 

The media means everyone who has an input to what we get to read or shoved down our throats every day.

 

There is no disputing the fact that the media has a great influence on the way the people of this country think. And yes, I agree with you that it is controlled by decisions that are for betterment of some to the cost to others.

 

The media as a whole is not impartial, and is agenda driven. If we just take the hunting ban as an example. The only people who have a moral right to be against the killing of animals are vegetarians and vegans. Any person who eats meat, cannot morally be against the killing of animals. The number of vegetarians and vegans in this country is between 7% and 11% of the population of approximately 64 million people. Yet the media put a spin on the facts and influenced the politicians to make it seem that the country as a whole was pro a ban on hunting. When in fact 60% of the population did not give a rats backside.

 

TC

[Slippery_Weasel 460]

It's not the media, it's the corporations who own the vast majority of the media, who then use it to project their own agendas. I've worked in the mainstream media, and know full well that editorial decisions can and are be forced down from the boardroom; the editors might not agree, but nobody wants to lose their job, do they?

 

Look at The Scum; Murdoch forces them to print whatever will suit his business agenda and eventually provide profits to shareholders. Considering that the Scum's readership isn't the most discerning, it's quite easy for public opinion to be swayed.

Ever see the Daily Mail go after the tax-avoiding corporations & billionaires that leech away from the normal population? Of course not, as the owner is one of those leeches himself.

 

 

With regard to curbing the media though, a free media is a cornerstone of a democratic society. If the government or others in power can control what is printed about them with impunity, that's not a healthy situation to be in as far as freedom is concerned.

 

I wouldnt want the media to be controlled by the government in any way, that would make it just as bad as the way in currently is, just with Dave Cameron pulling the strings instead of rupert murdoch. I would just like to see legislation to control stuff like; how they present information, to make sure that they dont deliberately print stuff they know to be untrue, the methods they use to obtain information (phone hacking, bribery etc) , unbiased reporting etc etc.

 

In terms of free speech anyone who currently speaks out about anything the press dont agree with is hounded by them and vilified, IMO the British press is one of the biggest threats to peoples freedom of speech in this country. Ironic really

[danw 1,748]

 

It's not the media, it's the corporations who own the vast majority of the media,

? Bit of an oxymoron there.

 

The media means everyone who has an input to what we get to read or shoved down our throats every day.

 

There is no disputing the fact that the media has a great influence on the way the people of this country think. And yes, I agree with you that it is controlled by decisions that are for betterment of some to the cost to others.

 

The media as a whole is not impartial, and is agenda driven. If we just take the hunting ban as an example. The only people who have a moral right to be against the killing of animals are vegetarians and vegans. Any person who eats meat, cannot morally be against the killing of animals. The number of vegetarians and vegans in this country is between 7% and 11% of the population of approximately 64 million people. Yet the media put a spin on the facts and influenced the politicians to make it seem that the country as a whole was pro a ban on hunting. When in fact 60% of the population did not give a rats backside.

 

TC

 

Not strictly true with regard to the hunting ban most of the general public immediately think of fox hunting since fox are not generally eaten why would it be wrong for the average person to disagree?

The fact is the media played us not because they particularly wanted hunting gone but more that it was a big enough story that it would be able to hide the fact that Blair was taking us into an illegal war it was a diversionary tactic to hide the bigger story by causing uproar in the home counties it took away the spotlight from Blair and the middle east

[twobob 1,497]

 

It's not the media, it's the corporations who own the vast majority of the media, who then use it to project their own agendas. I've worked in the mainstream media, and know full well that editorial decisions can and are be forced down from the boardroom; the editors might not agree, but nobody wants to lose their job, do they?

 

Look at The Scum; Murdoch forces them to print whatever will suit his business agenda and eventually provide profits to shareholders. Considering that the Scum's readership isn't the most discerning, it's quite easy for public opinion to be swayed.

Ever see the Daily Mail go after the tax-avoiding corporations & billionaires that leech away from the normal population? Of course not, as the owner is one of those leeches himself.

 

 

With regard to curbing the media though, a free media is a cornerstone of a democratic society. If the government or others in power can control what is printed about them with impunity, that's not a healthy situation to be in as far as freedom is concerned.

 

I wouldnt want the media to be controlled by the government in any way, that would make it just as bad as the way in currently is, just with Dave Cameron pulling the strings instead of rupert murdoch. I would just like to see legislation to control stuff like; how they present information, to make sure that they dont deliberately print stuff they know to be untrue, the methods they use to obtain information (phone hacking, bribery etc) , unbiased reporting etc etc.

 

In terms of free speech anyone who currently speaks out about anything the press dont agree with is hounded by them and vilified, IMO the British press is one of the biggest threats to peoples freedom of speech in this country. Ironic really

 

like maggie did with the bbc during the miners strike

[AndyH 52]

 

I wouldnt want the media to be controlled by the government in any way, that would make it just as bad as the way in currently is, just with Dave Cameron pulling the strings instead of rupert murdoch. I would just like to see legislation to control stuff like; how they present information, to make sure that they dont deliberately print stuff they know to be untrue, the methods they use to obtain information (phone hacking, bribery etc) , unbiased reporting etc etc.

 

Whilst in theory, such legislation would be useful, who creates & enacts it? The government. I don't trust the f*ckers to do it fairly or evenly, or in a way that won't give them the upper hand when they need it.

 

There's legislation already in place to stop phone hacking & bribery, and it's just a case of the law being enforced (as it has in the case of Coulson being sent down). That it happened in the first place isn't because of insufficient legislation, but because the perpetrators ignored the law completely.

 

I was working as a junior producer at the BBC World Service when Derek Bird went on his rampage, and I was straight on the phone to the Countryside Alliance. I got one of their campaign directors booked in for a series of programmes that day, to try & offer some balance. Those who worked there & had grown up in cities were amazingly ignorant as to the legitimate reasons for firearms ownership and the procedures around it. I don't think that the media opposition to hunting & fieldsports is entirely due to prejudice, but a lot of the time, down to ignorance of a way of life that the majority-urban-raised employees have never experienced (I've since fled back from London, it's a dump & they are welcome to it!)

[Slippery_Weasel 460]

 

 

I wouldnt want the media to be controlled by the government in any way, that would make it just as bad as the way in currently is, just with Dave Cameron pulling the strings instead of rupert murdoch. I would just like to see legislation to control stuff like; how they present information, to make sure that they dont deliberately print stuff they know to be untrue, the methods they use to obtain information (phone hacking, bribery etc) , unbiased reporting etc etc.

 

Whilst in theory, such legislation would be useful, who creates & enacts it? The government. I don't trust the f*ckers to do it fairly or evenly, or in a way that won't give them the upper hand when they need it.

 

There's legislation already in place to stop phone hacking & bribery, and it's just a case of the law being enforced (as it has in the case of Coulson being sent down). That it happened in the first place isn't because of insufficient legislation, but because the perpetrators ignored the law completely.

 

I was working as a junior producer at the BBC World Service when Derek Bird went on his rampage, and I was straight on the phone to the Countryside Alliance. I got one of their campaign directors booked in for a series of programmes that day, to try & offer some balance. Those who worked there & had grown up in cities were amazingly ignorant as to the legitimate reasons for firearms ownership and the procedures around it. I don't think that the media opposition to hunting & fieldsports is entirely due to prejudice, but a lot of the time, down to ignorance of a way of life that the majority-urban-raised employees have never experienced (I've since fled back from London, it's a dump & they are welcome to it!)

 

Something like the FSA/FCA do for the financial services, although that probably wouldnt be fully independent to the government.

 

Good example re the Derek Bird story, suppose its the nature of the beast really you're always going to get a high % of city dwellers working in city based organisations

[neems 2,406]

I'd say the people who own the media and the banks,and who profit directly and indirectly through endless wars in the middle east.

[block end 242]

Forget the prime minister, forget the queen, It's the media that really holds the power. The media has the power to make or break anything. Clever editing can make even Jack the ripper sound like a philanthropist. In my opinion it has gone too far, they need curbing.

 

No political party will do it though as they need them on side. If the media came out in favour of hunting, the ban would be repealed pretty quickly. The people of this country are on the whole sheep, they like being told what to do, and how to think. Saves them working things out for themselves!

 

Thoughts?

 

TC

and there's me thinking it was the Muslim's with there human rights silly me "

[frazdog 252]

Find out who owns worlds media tiercel eg reuters an then you,l find your answer

[gaz 284]

Follow the money

[frazdog 252]

aye all leads to same people youve never heard of an they see you as vermin.doh

[charlie caller 3,654]

I'd say the people who own the media and the banks,and who profit directly and indirectly through endless wars in the middle east.

In other words the Jews.