How our media deals with racism and anti-semitism depends on who says it, not what is said

First topic message reminder :

So, Naz Shah MP has been suspended from the Labour party this afternoon, for sharing Facebook memes that can easily be described as anti-semitic / racist. A number of people will be relieved by that move and think "glad to see we are taking anti-semitism and racism seriously - there is no place for that kind of stuff in our politics". It's a convenient thought, but it is also rubbish. In UK politics, how and whether we deal with racism depends on who says it, not what is said. Last week, a guy who wants to run for leader of the Conservative party wrote that Obama hates the UK because of his part-Kenyan heritage. ‘He hates us because he's black!’ But hey, it's Boris, so... "ho ho ho - what a clown" - is the likely response. There was a bit of outrage, but it would have been ludicrous to suggest Boris should be thrown out of the party. A day later, everyone moved on. Take another example.

A month ago, I revealed that Zac Goldsmith recently endorsed his ex-brother-in-law, Imran Khan, after he suggested that Afghani insurgents were fighting for "freedom" against British, American and Afghani government troops. If his rival Sadiq Khan had said this, it would have been a front page story on the Evening Standard and Daily Mail. But... it's Zac Goldsmith! He's one of us! Not one of the dangerous Muslim guys... I’m sure he didn’t mean it.


The media stayed quiet. I suspect the Guardian view is that he’s an affable, anti-imperialist, plucky politician, and they still remember his playboy days. The rest of the press is right-wing, and they always defend their own side close to an election. (I must have imagined a four-page Evening Standard exclusive on Sadiq Khan’s “extremist” ex-brother-in-law from ten years ago).

Today, I revealed more. Imran Khan has said worse about Israel, on public television, than Naz Shah did. He isn’t a British politician of course, but he was recently endorsed by one. The very man who criticised his rival for ‘giving cover to extremists’. So, Zac Goldsmith should be asked about his endorsement at least, and whether he agrees with Imran Khan and still stands by those words. Why isn’t Goldsmith accused of giving cover to extremists?

But it’s unlikely Goldsmith will be asked difficult questions like that. His friends are too powerful and the press don’t want to rock the boat with less than a fortnight to go.

Whether we confront racism and anti-semitism equally still depends on who you are, not what you say.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/sunny-hundal/how-our-media-deals-with-racism-and-anti-semitism-depends-on-who-says-it-not-wha/1021234594613290


Ain't that the truth.

When Boris Johnson became an MP again in 2010, I don't recall him being held to account after calling black people "piccaninnies" in 2002.

Anyway, ON TOPIC:

Is it really an issue with the media? It seems to me that regarding the case of Boris and Naz Shah, it's a party thing. One party chose to act and the other didn't. As antisemitism is a big thing right now, I suppose the Labour party aren't going to take any risks of being accused of harbouring would-be nazis.

sassy wrote:For goodness sake, of course, it's not hard.   And why do you continue to call her 'asp' when it's not even part of her name now?

Because it's the way immature humans behave when they have no other words in their vocabulary to communicate---rather telling why she responds so frequently/ immediately to her playmates posts They post & think alike

I'd report her but it does NO good she's ALLOWED to break the rules !!!

Whoa, way too colourful lol, all those emoticons, just too much for the brain to take in (sarcasm lol)

4EVER2 wrote:

sassy wrote:For goodness sake, of course, it's not hard.   And why do you continue to call her 'asp' when it's not even part of her name now?

Because it's the way immature humans behave when they have no other words in their vocabulary to communicate---rather telling why she responds so frequently/ immediately to her playmates posts  They post & think alike  

I'd report her but it does NO good she's ALLOWED to break the rules !!!

Another bout of fuckwittery from you. Go ahead and report me - make sure you include a massive rant with several smileys just to press home your point (whatever it is). You're the one disrupting a lot of threads with your inability to control your fingers for five minutes. As for responding to "playmates" posts, do you realise what you just did?

4EVER2 wrote:Oh...BOY **edited** for the reading impaired**
About the TOPIC:
If employers are making decisions based on their prospective hiring staff from their social media sources --- shouldn't we voters be doing the same thing?  I mean, nothing shows what really goes on in a politicians head then what he's been saying to his FB/Twitter followers and not that open Mic/media moment when he's on script! IMO

BUMPED*** from my first post on this thread**

Does it NOT behoove us to be better informed about the people that are running for office and what they've stated and have been quoted in the past? It's one thing to have a change of mind about a POLICY issue but quite another to LIE about a racial prejudice when running for election

Wrong thread.

4EVER2 wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:Oh...BOY **edited** for the reading impaired**
About the TOPIC:
If employers are making decisions based on their prospective hiring staff from their social media sources --- shouldn't we voters be doing the same thing?  I mean, nothing shows what really goes on in a politicians head then what he's been saying to his FB/Twitter followers and not that open Mic/media moment when he's on script! IMO

BUMPED*** from my first post on this thread**

Does it NOT behoove us to be better informed about the people that are running for office and what they've stated and have been quoted in the past?  It's one thing to have a change of mind about a POLICY issue but quite another to LIE about a racial prejudice when running for election

Exactly, the post Naz made was long before she became and MP, just as Boris's was long before he became an MP, but because of media bias, one is a big deal and one is ignored.

sassy wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:
BUMPED*** from my first post on this thread**

Does it NOT behoove us to be better informed about the people that are running for office and what they've stated and have been quoted in the past?  It's one thing to have a change of mind about a POLICY issue but quite another to LIE about a racial prejudice when running for election

Exactly, the post Naz made was long before she became and MP, just as Boris's was long before he became an MP, but because of media bias, one is a big deal and one is ignored.

What Boris said wasn't ignored. I've found loads of reports about it. It's a party issue.

The thing is that this BDS movement has become a "left wing" thing, and like it or not, some people are equating it with antisemitism. The Labour party aren't going to risk being labelled as being like the nazis - that's the kind of thing they claim to fight against.

Yes Rags, BUT HE WASN'T HOUNDED FOR IT BY THE PRESS WHEN HE BECAME AN MP WAS HE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

sassy wrote:Yes Rags, BUT HE WASN'T HOUNDED FOR IT BY THE PRESS WHEN HE BECAME AN MP WAS HE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

Which remark are you referring to?

It's the Labour party which have suspended their own MP, and I've just explained why I think they did so. I haven't seen the media hounding Naz Shah really.

sassy wrote:Whoa, way too colourful lol, all those emoticons, just too much for the brain to take in (sarcasm lol)

You have to explain your humour to 4ever, don't you..........?

No

I just think that anyone who has any plan at all to enter politics needs to stay off Facebook/Twitter and be very careful what they say. If they said something before they thought of going into politics, they need to fess up beforehand so that it doesn't come back to haunt them. People forget that this is the age of the internet, and things they say will be out there for anyone to find.

Unless your name is David Cameron and the Conservative Party have speeches you have made and things you have promised, that you have now gone back on, taken off the net completely.

sassy wrote:Unless your name is David Cameron and the Conservative Party have speeches you have made and things you have promised, that you have now gone back on, taken off the net completely.

Someone somewhere will have them recorded Sassy.

But then they point to the sources and say it's a conspiracy theory and they aren't on the source anymore

sassy wrote:I think Zack is a bit richer than you and probably goes to formal events.  Don't be envious Tommy.   Either that or he was/taking classes/teaching relative/dancing with his Mum or Grandma.   You do like to fall for everything tommy.

Yes of course he was sassy...!!!

sassy wrote:But then they point to the sources and say it's a conspiracy theory and they aren't on the source anymore

No matter - the more things are denied, the more press coverage there will be.

sassy wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:
BUMPED*** from my first post on this thread**

Does it NOT behoove us to be better informed about the people that are running for office and what they've stated and have been quoted in the past?  It's one thing to have a change of mind about a POLICY issue but quite another to LIE about a racial prejudice when running for election

Exactly, the post Naz made was long before she became and MP, just as Boris's was long before he became an MP, but because of media bias, one is a big deal and one is ignored.

Oh well that's all right then...

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:But then they point to the sources and say it's a conspiracy theory and they aren't on the source anymore

No matter - the more things are denied, the more press coverage there will be.

If only that were true, it's get's no media coverage.

Tommy Monk wrote:

sassy wrote:I think Zack is a bit richer than you and probably goes to formal events.  Don't be envious Tommy.   Either that or he was/taking classes/teaching relative/dancing with his Mum or Grandma.   You do like to fall for everything tommy.

Yes of course he was sassy...!!!

I must admit I can't imagine Zack doing a waltz.

Or maybe he was/taking classes/teaching relative/dancing with his Mum or Grandma...

eddie wrote:

sassy wrote:Whoa, way too colourful lol, all those emoticons, just too much for the brain to take in (sarcasm lol)

You have to explain your humour to 4ever, don't you..........?

NOOOO...that was for those that keep having to ASK for assistance.

4EVER2 wrote:

eddie wrote:

You have to explain your humour to 4ever, don't you..........?

  NOOOO...that was for those that keep having to ASK for assistance.

To understand what you're burbling on about?

4EVER2 wrote:

eddie wrote:

You have to explain your humour to 4ever, don't you..........?

  NOOOO...that was for those that keep having to ASK for assistance.

Quite!

Eddie clearly said in this thread that her initial comment was referring to Tommy, so could someone please explain why 4EVER carried on ranting like a deranged idiot?

Because she IS a deranged idiot...!!!

4EVER2 wrote:

sassy wrote:Does everything have to be in monotone for you to understand it, or have you something against colourful descriptive language?

Poor RAGGY, feeling ignored - left out; now that her idiot partner has stormed off ...she's left with no mental egual to give her verbal diarrhea too!  
Now annoying the adults with demands for explanations to topics that are just far to complex for her capabilities...perhaps Didgy-dooer will return and provide her with a playmate... they do love to test their mental skills on each other  
GOLLY...love starting my morning off with LMAO moment.

If you're referring to Didge, you clearly don't understand anything at all. No surprise there as you apparently have me on ignore ...

It's quite strange that every time Didge flounces, you take his place and start disrupting threads all over the place. Clearly, you usually feel ignored because of the competition to behave like a complete fuckwit, but once he's gone for a day or two, you make it up for it.

I asked Sassy to explain your bizarre rantings because she obviously understands gibberish better than I do.

Tommy Monk wrote:Because she IS a deranged idiot...!!!

Good explanation. I don't think I've ever encountered anyone so completely barking mad on a forum before, and that's saying something.

Raggamuffin wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:
Poor RAGGY, feeling ignored - left out; now that her idiot partner has stormed off ...she's left with no mental egual to give her verbal diarrhea too!  
Now annoying the adults with demands for explanations to topics that are just far to complex for her capabilities...perhaps Didgy-dooer will return and provide her with a playmate... they do love to test their mental skills on each other  
GOLLY...love starting my morning off with LMAO moment.

If you're referring to Didge, you clearly don't understand anything at all. No surprise there as you apparently have me on ignore ...

It's quite strange that every time Didge flounces, you take his place and start disrupting threads all over the place. Clearly, you usually feel ignored because of the competition to behave like a complete fuckwit, but once he's gone for a day or two, you make it up for it.

I asked Sassy to explain your bizarre rantings because she obviously understands gibberish better than I do.

Sassy is fluent in gibberish!!!

You two think it is gibberish because you don't have the brains to understand it.   It's in very good English with emoticons, how sad that everything has to be laid out in a certain way for you to comprehend it.

sassy wrote:You two think it is gibberish because you don't have the brains to understand it.   It's in very good English with emoticons, how sad that everything has to be laid out in a certain way for you to comprehend it.

No, I think it's gibberish because it is gibberish. Her rants generally have nothing to do with what's been said, she just rants about the first thing which comes into her head, and it's generally scrambled up because her head is all over the place.

London Evening Standard is 'Tory mouthpiece' – research
Media Reform Coalition says free newspaper shows overwhelming bias towards Conservative Zac Goldsmith

The London Evening Standard has become the “mouthpiece of the Conservative party” after showing an overwhelming bias towards Zac Goldsmith, the party’s candidate for London’s mayor, in the run-up to next month’s election, according to new research.

Thirteen out of 15 official press releases from the Goldsmith campaign released during the two months to 12 April were published as news stories in the paper, “reproducing headlines from the news release virtually verbatim”, according to the study produced by the Media Reform Coalition and Goldsmiths University of London.

There were almost twice as many positive headlines about Goldsmith than for his Labour rival Sadiq Khan, who was the subject of twice as many negative headlines. What’s more, Khan’s press releases were far less frequently covered.

The research, published on Wednesday night, stopped well before Tuesday’s front page story trumpeting David Cameron’s view that “Britain will pay the price if Sadiq Khan is elected mayor”.

Justin Schlosberg, chair of the Media Reform Coalition, a network of researchers, activists and campaigners for reform of media policy, said: “The Evening Standard appears to have been operating as the mouthpiece of the Conservative party.” The research suggests that while the features and opinion pages show greater balance, the news stories at the front of the paper does not.

Accusing the Standard of being “systematically biased in the way that headlines and news stories were framed, selected and prioritised”, Schlosberg said: “This is all the more concerning because bias was concentrated in relatively prominent headlines and in news reports where readers are less likely to expect opinion to be mobilised.”

The research found that, although the majority of all stories about the candidates were neutral or balanced, those that exhibited the strongest bias – and especially those that were negative towards Khan – were the most prominent. Negative stories about Khan were more likely to be published on the first ten pages of the paper, with three of them on the front page.

The three biggest negative Khan stories concerned his alleged links to people with extremist backgrounds. Headlines included: “Exposed: Sadiq Khan’s family links to extremist organisation”, and “Minister: Khan is unfit to be mayor”. Khan’s rebuttals were not given due prominence and “would not have been noticed by anyone reading the paper at speed”, according to the research.

In contrast, the two biggest negative stories for Goldsmith related to his tax affairs and were published on page 10. “In both cases the Goldsmith rebuttals were given equal prominence and favourable treatment in editorials,” Schlosberg said.

The total number of headlines in the sample that were positive towards Goldsmith and/or negative to Khan totalled 27 out of 121 articles in total, compared with 14 that were negative towards the Conservative. Articles favouring the Conservative candidate, as opposed to headlines,
outnumbered those favouring his opponent by more than three to one and tended to be more prominent than any positive stories about Khan.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/27/london-evening-standard-tory-mouthpiece-zac-goldsmith



Doesn't surprise me in the least.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If you're referring to Didge, you clearly don't understand anything at all. No surprise there as you apparently have me on ignore ...

It's quite strange that every time Didge flounces, you take his place and start disrupting threads all over the place. Clearly, you usually feel ignored because of the competition to behave like a complete fuckwit, but once he's gone for a day or two, you make it up for it.

I asked Sassy to explain your bizarre rantings because she obviously understands gibberish better than I do.

Sassy is fluent in gibberish!!!

At least she can string a sentence together though.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Sassy is fluent in gibberish!!!

At least she can string a sentence together though.

Yes...


Sassy wrote:
I think Zack is a bit richer than you and probably goes to formal events. Don't be envious Tommy. Either that or he was/taking classes/teaching relative/dancing with his Mum or Grandma. You do like to fall for everything tommy.

sassy wrote:You two think it is gibberish because you don't have the brains to understand it.   It's in very good English with emoticons, how sad that everything has to be laid out in a certain way for you to comprehend it.

Awww, is lost without her tag-team buddy and now she's attached herself to the likes of 'Tommy' --- WOW; now that is amusing and yet I'm glad that I've only Tommy's verbal dumps to skim over!
Lowering the IQ level so they could keep up    naaaa, that won't work, even the cute image's just seems to annoy the children!

sassy wrote:

London Evening Standard is 'Tory mouthpiece' – research
Media Reform Coalition says free newspaper shows overwhelming bias towards Conservative Zac Goldsmith

The London Evening Standard has become the “mouthpiece of the Conservative party” after showing an overwhelming bias towards Zac Goldsmith, the party’s candidate for London’s mayor, in the run-up to next month’s election, according to new research.

Thirteen out of 15 official press releases from the Goldsmith campaign released during the two months to 12 April were published as news stories in the paper, “reproducing headlines from the news release virtually verbatim”, according to the study produced by the Media Reform Coalition and Goldsmiths University of London.

There were almost twice as many positive headlines about Goldsmith than for his Labour rival Sadiq Khan, who was the subject of twice as many negative headlines. What’s more, Khan’s press releases were far less frequently covered.

The research, published on Wednesday night, stopped well before Tuesday’s front page story trumpeting David Cameron’s view that “Britain will pay the price if Sadiq Khan is elected mayor”.

Justin Schlosberg, chair of the Media Reform Coalition, a network of researchers, activists and campaigners for reform of media policy, said: “The Evening Standard appears to have been operating as the mouthpiece of the Conservative party.” The research suggests that while the features and opinion pages show greater balance, the news stories at the front of the paper does not.

Accusing the Standard of being “systematically biased in the way that headlines and news stories were framed, selected and prioritised”, Schlosberg said: “This is all the more concerning because bias was concentrated in relatively prominent headlines and in news reports where readers are less likely to expect opinion to be mobilised.”

The research found that, although the majority of all stories about the candidates were neutral or balanced, those that exhibited the strongest bias – and especially those that were negative towards Khan – were the most prominent. Negative stories about Khan were more likely to be published on the first ten pages of the paper, with three of them on the front page.

The three biggest negative Khan stories concerned his alleged links to people with extremist backgrounds. Headlines included: “Exposed: Sadiq Khan’s family links to extremist organisation”, and “Minister: Khan is unfit to be mayor”. Khan’s rebuttals were not given due prominence and “would not have been noticed by anyone reading the paper at speed”, according to the research.

In contrast, the two biggest negative stories for Goldsmith related to his tax affairs and were published on page 10. “In both cases the Goldsmith rebuttals were given equal prominence and favourable treatment in editorials,” Schlosberg said.

The total number of headlines in the sample that were positive towards Goldsmith and/or negative to Khan totalled 27 out of 121 articles in total, compared with 14 that were negative towards the Conservative. Articles favouring the Conservative candidate, as opposed to headlines,
outnumbered those favouring his opponent by more than three to one and tended to be more prominent than any positive stories about Khan.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/27/london-evening-standard-tory-mouthpiece-zac-goldsmith

Doesn't surprise me in the least.

See, all that reading material and neither one of the 's would/could be bothered to read it - remark about it; you've got to start employing some EMOTIONCON's or they just can't pay any attention! 
Not that they'll understand/comprehend all of those adult words, but it might make them slooooow downnnn and glance at the entire article

4EVER2 wrote:

sassy wrote:You two think it is gibberish because you don't have the brains to understand it.   It's in very good English with emoticons, how sad that everything has to be laid out in a certain way for you to comprehend it.

Awww, is lost without her tag-team buddy and now she's attached herself to the likes of 'Tommy' --- WOW; now that is amusing and yet I'm glad that I've only Tommy's verbal dumps to skim over!
Lowering the IQ level so they could keep up    naaaa, that won't work, even the cute image's just seems to annoy the children!

...says the idiot to her tag team buddy...!

clipped from your link > In contrast, the two biggest negative stories for Goldsmith related to his tax affairs and were published on page 10. “In both cases the Goldsmith rebuttals were given equal prominence and favourable treatment in editorials,” Schlosberg said.
The total number of headlines in the sample that were positive towards Goldsmith and/or negative to Khan totalled 27 out of 121 articles in total, compared with 14 that were negative towards the Conservative. Articles favouring the Conservative candidate, as opposed to headlines,
outnumbered those favouring his opponent by more than three to one and tended to be more prominent than any positive stories about Khan.

You've just encapsulated the entire thought process for the ILK that are pushing Chump-Trumps campaign agenda and the same mind-set from LordFouls topic about media and the honesty of what we are provided...
These two fellow members are the PRIME example of why the news has and the IQ for factual data has been lowered to nothing more then the sensational - gotcha - entertainment BS.  They can't read - can't fathom - have to have it explained in finite detail that they just skim over it and ignore the deep issues! 

4EVER2 wrote:

sassy wrote:You two think it is gibberish because you don't have the brains to understand it.   It's in very good English with emoticons, how sad that everything has to be laid out in a certain way for you to comprehend it.

Awww, is lost without her tag-team buddy and now she's attached herself to the likes of 'Tommy' --- WOW; now that is amusing and yet I'm glad that I've only Tommy's verbal dumps to skim over!
Lowering the IQ level so they could keep up    naaaa, that won't work, even the cute image's just seems to annoy the children!

There you go again. How is Didge my "tag team" partner? you just say the first thing which comes into your head, and it's generally a load of lies. You should do something about your compulsive lying, or is it part of your OCD? Considering the way you're joined at the hip with Sassy at all times, it's amazing that you have no self-awareness when you come out with your gibberish and accuse others of tag-teaming.

As for low IQs, you clearly missed out when brain cells were handed out.

Tommy Monk wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:

Awww, is lost without her tag-team buddy and now she's attached herself to the likes of 'Tommy' --- WOW; now that is amusing and yet I'm glad that I've only Tommy's verbal dumps to skim over!
Lowering the IQ level so they could keep up    naaaa, that won't work, even the cute image's just seems to annoy the children!

...says the idiot to her tag team buddy...!

4EVER2 wrote:

clipped from your link > In contrast, the two biggest negative stories for Goldsmith related to his tax affairs and were published on page 10. “In both cases the Goldsmith rebuttals were given equal prominence and favourable treatment in editorials,” Schlosberg said.
The total number of headlines in the sample that were positive towards Goldsmith and/or negative to Khan totalled 27 out of 121 articles in total, compared with 14 that were negative towards the Conservative. Articles favouring the Conservative candidate, as opposed to headlines,
outnumbered those favouring his opponent by more than three to one and tended to be more prominent than any positive stories about Khan.

You've just encapsulated the entire thought process for the ILK that are pushing Chump-Trumps campaign agenda and the same mind-set from LordFouls topic about media and the honesty of what we are provided...
These two fellow members are the PRIME example of why the news has and the IQ for factual data has been lowered to nothing more then the sensational - gotcha - entertainment BS.  They can't read - can't fathom - have to have it explained in finite detail that they just skim over it and ignore the deep issues! 

Translate please.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Because she IS a deranged idiot...!!!

Good explanation. I don't think I've ever encountered anyone so completely barking mad on a forum before, and that's saying something.

oooooh I dunno! Remember that Andrea person. Nuttier than squirrel shit!

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Good explanation. I don't think I've ever encountered anyone so completely barking mad on a forum before, and that's saying something.

oooooh I dunno!   Remember that Andrea person.  Nuttier than squirrel shit!

Of course I remember her. Andrea wasn't as spiteful and abusive though. She did have a go at Ben and Korben, but I don't think she knew she was being offensive.

sassy wrote:I think Zack is a bit richer than you and probably goes to formal events.  Don't be envious Tommy.   Either that or he was/taking classes/teaching relative/dancing with his Mum or Grandma.   You do like to fall for everything tommy.

Are you lot for real? Waltzing? I bet he doesn't even know how to do the hokey cokey!

sassy wrote:I think Zack is a bit richer than you and probably goes to formal events.  Don't be envious Tommy.   Either that or he was/taking classes/teaching relative/dancing with his Mum or Grandma.   You do like to fall for everything tommy.

I can't stop laughing at this.

If I'm a bit richer than you, I get to do the waltz. If I'm really really really richer than you, I get to do the Gay Gordons!

I know... the level of gibberish is stupendous...

Zack was Waltzing?, he was taking the piss, he didn't give a toss.

thread no longer functional


LOCKED