Treading a fine line
I had a conversation with a friend of mine today that was sparked by them pointing out a van parked outside its owners house that carried a very large advert for the strip/pole dancing club that the owner works for on it. My friend pointed out that the neighbours must be a but pissed off as it's not exactly going to do the value of their house any favours. I agreed but pointed out that strip clubs are legal and are perfectly within their rights to advertise how distasteful either of us may find them. The conversation turned to censorship more generally and it gave me a few thoughts, and a few questions (not all of which I claim to have the answer to) which I thought I'd throw open for anyone that happens across this.
Firstly I take a pretty liberal view on this. I am extremely hesitant to censor anything. There is plenty of offensive stuff out there, be it speeches, writing, films, adverts. Or maybe I should say, they are things that I personally find offensive. Yet who am I to tell you that you can't see them or publish them? One of the earliest signs of a totalitarian regime is the banning of films or books etc and I would far rather be personally offended by something than have a situation where either you or I were silenced.
However.... certain actions are not acceptable. It is not acceptable to incite hatred or violence against others. yet where does the line lie in what is and isn't acceptable? I think anyone should be able to criticise anything, but at what point does that become inciting hatred? And, as a separate question, what should be done about it? Should it be accept the consequences of behaving in that way? Or should we be more pro active? Again I would prefer to be on the liberal side of that line but I simply don't know where that line lies.
Next up, what to make of the film classification system we have. In my opinion it is pretty harsh. How can you have a system where you can have sex and join the army at 16 yet you can't watch certain films because there is too much sex or violence in it? Just how fucked up is that? Next, where is the parental responsibility in all this? Who is more likely to know what is suitable for their child at a given stage of development? Mum and Dad or the BBFC? I'd wager on Mum and Dad personally. Certainly I'm not arguing for young children to be exposed to porn or extreme violence. That would be absurd. Yet having a regime where older children are legally banned from seeing certain things seems a bit illiberal for my liking. And why do we have such a system for film and not theatre? The whole classification system seems to me ridiculous at the moment.
Where does the right of reply lie? I am all for investigative journalism. I also think those reported on should have a right of reply, particularly where the media outlet involved gets it wrong. As things stand I think the consequences for newspapers etc where they publish incorrect or misleading stories are no where near good enough. I don't mean in terms of fines etc, but in terms of having to print corrections. Yet we have to face the fact that sensation front pages sell papers. Front page corrections do not. I would not want to see papers cease doing proper journalism for fear of the consequences. So once again, where does the line lie?
Questions, questions, questions.
Showing posts with label decent journalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label decent journalism. Show all posts
Saturday, May 09, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
You Go Girl!!!!!!!!!!
FAO of all newspaper editors, forget the fact that this kid is a cub, can we please have more stories about the millions of kids out there who do get out there and do something? And not just scare stories about ferrel kids running riot? Then you might actually start reflecting the reality of kids today. They don't have to be scouts of any sort, just stories about how they do get off their arses and achieve things.
Meanwhile Rebecca well done you! This story is getting emailed to all my cubs to show that they can do it as well.
The youth of today. Bloody brilliant!
FAO of all newspaper editors, forget the fact that this kid is a cub, can we please have more stories about the millions of kids out there who do get out there and do something? And not just scare stories about ferrel kids running riot? Then you might actually start reflecting the reality of kids today. They don't have to be scouts of any sort, just stories about how they do get off their arses and achieve things.
Meanwhile Rebecca well done you! This story is getting emailed to all my cubs to show that they can do it as well.
The youth of today. Bloody brilliant!
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Quick! Lets all kick Beardy!
Lying awake last night suffering from yet another bout of insomnia I listed to Radio 4 quietly murmur away in the back ground and that was when I first heard of this story. The Archbishop of Canterbury making a speech about the actions of humans on the environment and the fact that God will not intervene to prevent our trashing of it. Now regardless of whether you are a believer or not I don't think you can really deny that the central premise that it's about time we collectively took some responsibility for the state of the environment is a very sensible one.
And I have to confess that, and call me a boring old obsessive if you so desire, my first thought was "I wonder what the Mail and its readers will make of all that".
Well to be fair, the coverage by the Mail itself is quite reasonable, it just seems to be a straight forward reproting of the key parts of the speech. No slant, no agenda, in fact well done Daily Mail! (Fuck, did I actually just write that?)
When it comes to the comments though its a different story. And it highlights something that I love about Mail readers, they seem to think that the Church is about promoting conservative values and not Christian values. Now some of you may think they are one and the same thing, I happen to disagree, why should Christian values go either way, should they not be an interpretation of the teaching of Jesus? But I digress, lets take a look at exactly what the punters have to say.
Of course, remember the ten commandments: "Remember that thou need to find ways of promoting environmental responsibility through Government policies." I warn Roman Catholic priests to be prepared: they will be receiving more and more converts from the Cof E if we have more speeches like this one.
Click to rate Rating 8
- George, Bolton UK, 26/3/2009 9:50
Do you see what clever old George did there? Do you? Caring about the environment and taking responsibility is all about politics. It would seem. Of course it is George, of course it is.
Of course he wont, neither will he protect us from the Archbishop.
Click to rate Rating 38
- Chris, Yorkshire, 26/3/2009 10:03
What you mean the Archbishop that actually gives a toss about the world his kids and grand kids will inherit. Is that the one you mean Chris?
Just as God hasn't protected us from weak liberal Archbishops of Canterbury, he means?
Click to rate Rating 27
- Simon, London, 26/3/2009 10:06
Why would he Simon? Explain? Or do you just want the right to do what the fuck you want to the world and ignore the consequences?
Once the God-botherers get involved, you know there's nothing in it.
Click to rate Rating 7
- Steve, Cambridge, UK, 26/3/2009 10:29
Go on Steve, you tell them. none of its true, none of it. It's all a lie! Twat.
The C of E is infested with liberals. Give the C of E back to the English!
Click to rate Rating 89
- john, bristol england, 26/3/2009 11:17
Because liberals are all er... foreign?
Of course there are those backing Beardy up but they all get lots of red arrows, people like this
Congratulations to the Arch Bishop for exposing how our selfish greed allows us to do what we want because it suits us. Those who believe that God does not allow us to face the consequences of our own actions have not read their Bibles. Those who think God had better pray they are right!
Click to rate Rating 31
- Simon Lissak, London, 26/3/2009 10:29
Not sure the last sentence makes any sense but Simon does generally and has lots of red arrows for his trouble.
At last ! He has said something sensible and relevant! Whether you believe in God or not The human race must take responsibility for all of its actions in relation to the use of the world resources. At the moment the human race and its predatory approach to everything is the worst thing to happen ever to this planet. Surely we must change our ways reap the rewards of non concern greed avarice etc?
Click to rate Rating 16
- jasbo montrose, montrose angus, 26/3/2009 10:17
More red arrows. I fucking despair, I really do. I would have thought Jasbo's comment would be the one everyone could subscribe to but clearly not.
Once again I find it terrifying just how many people read the Mail and what their attitudes are. The Great British Public. And to think I'm one of them.
Lying awake last night suffering from yet another bout of insomnia I listed to Radio 4 quietly murmur away in the back ground and that was when I first heard of this story. The Archbishop of Canterbury making a speech about the actions of humans on the environment and the fact that God will not intervene to prevent our trashing of it. Now regardless of whether you are a believer or not I don't think you can really deny that the central premise that it's about time we collectively took some responsibility for the state of the environment is a very sensible one.
And I have to confess that, and call me a boring old obsessive if you so desire, my first thought was "I wonder what the Mail and its readers will make of all that".
Well to be fair, the coverage by the Mail itself is quite reasonable, it just seems to be a straight forward reproting of the key parts of the speech. No slant, no agenda, in fact well done Daily Mail! (Fuck, did I actually just write that?)
When it comes to the comments though its a different story. And it highlights something that I love about Mail readers, they seem to think that the Church is about promoting conservative values and not Christian values. Now some of you may think they are one and the same thing, I happen to disagree, why should Christian values go either way, should they not be an interpretation of the teaching of Jesus? But I digress, lets take a look at exactly what the punters have to say.
Of course, remember the ten commandments: "Remember that thou need to find ways of promoting environmental responsibility through Government policies." I warn Roman Catholic priests to be prepared: they will be receiving more and more converts from the Cof E if we have more speeches like this one.
Click to rate Rating 8
- George, Bolton UK, 26/3/2009 9:50
Do you see what clever old George did there? Do you? Caring about the environment and taking responsibility is all about politics. It would seem. Of course it is George, of course it is.
Of course he wont, neither will he protect us from the Archbishop.
Click to rate Rating 38
- Chris, Yorkshire, 26/3/2009 10:03
What you mean the Archbishop that actually gives a toss about the world his kids and grand kids will inherit. Is that the one you mean Chris?
Just as God hasn't protected us from weak liberal Archbishops of Canterbury, he means?
Click to rate Rating 27
- Simon, London, 26/3/2009 10:06
Why would he Simon? Explain? Or do you just want the right to do what the fuck you want to the world and ignore the consequences?
Once the God-botherers get involved, you know there's nothing in it.
Click to rate Rating 7
- Steve, Cambridge, UK, 26/3/2009 10:29
Go on Steve, you tell them. none of its true, none of it. It's all a lie! Twat.
The C of E is infested with liberals. Give the C of E back to the English!
Click to rate Rating 89
- john, bristol england, 26/3/2009 11:17
Because liberals are all er... foreign?
Of course there are those backing Beardy up but they all get lots of red arrows, people like this
Congratulations to the Arch Bishop for exposing how our selfish greed allows us to do what we want because it suits us. Those who believe that God does not allow us to face the consequences of our own actions have not read their Bibles. Those who think God had better pray they are right!
Click to rate Rating 31
- Simon Lissak, London, 26/3/2009 10:29
Not sure the last sentence makes any sense but Simon does generally and has lots of red arrows for his trouble.
At last ! He has said something sensible and relevant! Whether you believe in God or not The human race must take responsibility for all of its actions in relation to the use of the world resources. At the moment the human race and its predatory approach to everything is the worst thing to happen ever to this planet. Surely we must change our ways reap the rewards of non concern greed avarice etc?
Click to rate Rating 16
- jasbo montrose, montrose angus, 26/3/2009 10:17
More red arrows. I fucking despair, I really do. I would have thought Jasbo's comment would be the one everyone could subscribe to but clearly not.
Once again I find it terrifying just how many people read the Mail and what their attitudes are. The Great British Public. And to think I'm one of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)