Press censorship

Should the government be selective over which press political editors are invited to non political civil service briefings?

I always thought a free press should be able write about things the government opposes or disagreed with.

If the government only allows access to reporters who agree with it, does it become propaganda?

News organisations walk out as No 10 seek to pick and choose who gets briefings

Reporters stage walkout at Downing Street Brexit briefing in protest after No10 refuses entry to media outlets

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10885619/reporters-stage-walkout-downing-street-protest/

It seems the press and media, left, centre and right have united in their disapproval of this tactic by No10 advisors.

Brutus wrote:Should the government be selective over which press political editors are invited to non political civil service briefings?

No

I always thought a free press should be able write about things the government opposes or disagreed with.

Indeed

If the government only allows access to reporters who agree with it, does it become propaganda?

Yes

News organisations walk out as No 10 seek to pick and choose who gets briefings

Reporters stage walkout at Downing Street Brexit briefing in protest after No10 refuses entry to media outlets

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10885619/reporters-stage-walkout-downing-street-protest/

It seems the press and media, left, centre and right have united in their disapproval of this tactic by No10 advisors.

Good for them

perhaps if the media were, as they should be, impartial in reporting news this wouldnt happen?
perhaps the editors should stop reporting stories to suit their own agenda, and stop sensationalising news.

surely the newspapers should, if the reported things factually with no spin or hype, be as interesting as old dust and purely a source of (accurate) information, nothing more.

Victorismyhero wrote:perhaps if the media were, as they should be, impartial in reporting news this wouldnt happen?
perhaps the editors should stop reporting stories to suit their own agenda, and stop sensationalising news.

surely the newspapers should, if the reported things factually with no spin or hype, be as interesting as old dust and purely a source of (accurate) information, nothing more.

Such irony. You are asking a totally partial public, to determine what is an impartial report? There is no report without a point-of-view to frame the story. And the point-of-view determines which facts to emphasize.

I believe that the only reporting without a point-of-view is one imposed via rules...and, as Brutus said above, that is propaganda, not news.

Wrong Quill, i'm not asking the publics "interpretation" of a report

I'm saying it should be a cold open report of the facts of the matter with no spin hype or editorial comment, rather like a good lab report. With no sensationalising headlines or subsequent "guesses" as to any otherpossible meanings/interpretations..

I am with Victorismyhero on this. I don't have an issue with the press or MSM having an opinion, but that opinion should be supported by the facts, not fake news or selective editing.
When stories become ridiculous and risable, like we see with the weather forecasts in the Express, the paper becomes a comic.
I can see here Cain and Cummings are coming from, they are fed up with the lies , bias and spin, from the left and the right, from Brexiteers and Remainers. Quite rightly , Cummings doesn't trust the press, or the TV news outlets.
Perhaps it's time for a reset. Return to honest reporting, and stop telling the public lies, some of which are simple to spot, other are more refined and devious, and the public have fallen for them.
Oddly, Piers Morgan was critical of No10 over this.
I'm not sure he sees the irony of his remarks, perhaps the most disingenuous newspaperman not to have been to court over lying.

Victorismyhero wrote:Wrong Quill, i'm not asking the publics "interpretation" of a report

I'm saying it should be a cold open report of the facts of the matter with no spin hype or editorial comment, rather like a good lab report. With no sensationalising headlines or subsequent "guesses" as to any otherpossible meanings/interpretations..

And there should be an absolute 'up' and an absolute 'down'. Alas, no one has found it yet.

If there's one thing I learned in basic composition class, it is that there is no "good lab report". There is no such thing as 'just describing the way it is'. Even in your lab report, you are impliedly saying an 'X' test is more valid than a 'Y' test, or you are taking a stand over whether it is heart disease or cancer. If not, what is the point?

Anything worth writing has both a theme and a thesis. You can't report an 'accident at the circle', without taking a stand on whether it was an 'accident' at all?? Maybe it was intentional. Was it a terrorist attack? Or, perhaps it was down to drunk driving. Maybe alcohol should be prohibited in the UK.

The words you use will give rise to a controversy somehow, somewhere, because you can't say anything of a factual nature without framing the subject. The reader almost pulls the perspective out of you: a stabbing; was it gang-related? Was it terrorism? Nothing happens in a vacuum.

Original Quill wrote:

Victorismyhero wrote:Wrong Quill, i'm not asking the publics "interpretation" of a report

I'm saying it should be a cold open report of the facts of the matter with no spin hype or editorial comment, rather like a good lab report. With no sensationalising headlines or subsequent "guesses" as to any otherpossible meanings/interpretations..

And there should be an absolute 'up' and an absolute 'down'.  Alas, no one has found it yet.

If there's one thing I learned in basic composition class, it is that there is no "good lab report".  There is no such thing as 'just describing the way it is'.  Even in your lab report, you are impliedly saying an 'X' test is more valid than a 'Y' test, or you are taking a stand over whether it is heart disease or cancer.  If not, what is the point?

wrong, or at lest you fail to understand a "good lab report" mine would say "the cells in the sample provided show chromosome abnormalities consistant with (whatever). It would THEN be up to the specialist to make his/her mind up about it...It is NOT my job as a lab tech to diagnose or bias someone else's opinion in the matter...... I am merely providing the (hopefully accurate) information for them to make their own mind up about what to do. And THAT should also be the only job of the press to us the readers thereof


Anything worth writing has both a theme and a thesis.  You can't report an 'accident at the circle', without taking a stand on whether it was an 'accident' at all??  Maybe it was intentional.  Was it a terrorist attack?  Or, perhaps it was down to drunk driving.  Maybe alcohol should be prohibited in the UK.

yes you CAN report merely an accident at the circle......anything more should wait until an official response is given, and then that should be faithfully reported. ONLY IF there is good reason to suspect the official report is "less than the truth" should there be any speculation, and then only with reasoned and published evidence to support such speculation

The words you use will give rise to a controversy somehow, somewhere, because you can't say anything of a factual nature without framing the subject.  The reader almost pulls the perspective out of you: a stabbing; was it gang-related?  Was it terrorism?  Nothing happens in a vacuum.

perhaps media should be constrained by law to publish only verifiable fact?..with no commentry

You have too much faith in "law". The law is the government, as Trump has proved, and the government will take the position that verified fact = their own propaganda.

We addressed these issues 240-years ago, and came up with the First Amendment. Now, we are in the counter-swing.

and the result is fox news

The press should be free to publish the facts as reported by its news people and the opinions as formulated by its opinion writers with impunity.

It's not up to the government to wade through what is quality journalism and what is not. It's up to the public, and it should always remain that way.

Otherwise, the public will never become sophisticated enough to see through people trying to hoodwink them.

But there should be a clear distinction between what is reported as fact nd what is an editorial opinion.
Too many journalists are cowed and subservient to their editor or owner, putting a biased spin and slant on a news item.
That is what I dislike, bending the truth to their own ends.

I would never let the media near mne for an interview

can you imagine

victor...what do you think about shooting crows

my reply...well they need to be controlled so they dont become a bigger pest than they are, but not exterminated as they are a part of the environment

newspaper 1 reports

"Victor says crows should be exterminated and quotes only the first part#

newspaper 2 says
Victor says crows should not be shot, citing environmental concerns

newspaper 3 says

"crow shooting, even victor cant make up his mind "

Not one of them would report what I ACTUALLY said
let alone what I meant

I will always stand by my belief that there are plenty of honest, accurate journalists out there. Me and the dozens of colleagues I've had over the decades can't be the only ones.

Victorismyhero wrote:and the result is fox news

Someone has to write the propaganda lies. It is said that Fox News anchor Sean Hannity is on the phone with impeached-President Donald Trump every night. Somehow, I don't think they talk about their kids.

Ben Reilly wrote:I will always stand by my belief that there are plenty of honest, accurate journalists out there. Me and the dozens of colleagues I've had over the decades can't be the only ones.

I don't question the integrity of the mainstream journalists. My points go to the false notion that there is a zero-point of absolute neutrality, not just in the validity and veracity of the facts, but in the selection of the facts.

And now, with the advent of Fox News, and the Internet, I do think there are some faux journalists putting lies into the system.

It was always entertaining when fights (bitter slanging matches) started between the press secretary and visiting journalists at the White House. Some got so irate, they came close to being ejected from the room by security staff.

You cannot hope to bribe of twist
(thank God) the British journalist.
But, seeing what the man will do
unbribed, there's no occasion to.

Humbert Wolfe