Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
It's all too little too late due to the massive decline in newspaper circulation. Think the Mirror is less than a million now - used to be something like 15 million readers? My dad's in his sevenites and has quickly got used to his Galaxy Tab and his Express is surplus to his needs.
In five years' time there aren't going to be many organisations slapping ink onto cut-down trees on a daily basis.
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
Yep, it's rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic!
Quote: In five years' time there aren't going to be many organisations slapping ink onto cut-down trees on a daily basis.
I don't follow how that will change anything. Is something less offensive to a reader if it is on a tablet? What has the means of delivery to do with the content?
I spend several months of the year in southern France, so I get my Saturday Times and Sunday Times on my iPad. That doesn't seem any different to buying it at the newsagents to me. The online Daily Mail (with massive readership, vastly more than the print edition ever had) looks and contains much the same as the paper as far as I can see (not that I ever do see or read the Mail, of course, heaven forbid. Or the Times newspapers, owned by that scoundrel Murdoch. And as for the Independant owned by a Russian.., no, never seen it. Or the scandal sheet Telegraph that ridiculed our MP's perfectly legitimate expense claims which it obtained by means that may shortly be illegal, never ever see that...except that I forgot I hate politicians....now I'm confused )
I think the point is that news sources go way beyond even the online versions of established newspapers. Even some 'blogs' are eagerly read and treated as sources of news.
The Leveson proposals only cover what is the tip of an iceberg..... before the iceberg eventually slips out of sight altogether.
Quote: I don't follow how that will change anything
I thought you'd hidden me Lemmy my friend
Seemingly Leveson drew a distinction between web editions and print editions so the regulations maybe won't apply to the version of the Sunday Times on your iPad.
Quote: I thought you'd hidden me Lemmy my friend
For that thread but then I got pms from people who advised me that they simply duck out of any thread where you appear which seems the simplest way. G'day
"For that thread" Can you hide users on a per thread basis or is that you backtracking and telling more fibs
PMs? From those strong characters like ***theclown who never want to argue their case or backup their "facts" Good advice and probably you're best bet Lemmy, know when you're beat son
It was funny in that thread how you denied saying something even though it was there in black and white, have to give you credit for that
Quote: I think we'd both agree that that is the central problem! If people didn't buy them, they'd change their ways faster and more deeply than any legislation could ever make them do. But...people do buy them, usually while denying it and expressing hatred for them. A bit like those closet gay clerics who disparage homosexuals while making a grab for the nearest choirboy
I'd never argue for papers right to do anything they want but if only right and wrong in this context were black and white. In practice one person's black is another's white where news is concerned. I always laugh about people who want 'objectivity' from newspapers or TV. The BBC do their best, I imagine to be 'objective' within the meaning of the act. Yet they are accused by some of having a leftist agenda, by others of being the voice of the establishment. You pays yer money and makes yer choice....
One observation, isn't it nice that something like this can be discussed rationally here, yet for our politicians is subject to the usual Punch and Judy all journalists bad/ all journalist good party political routine?
I agree with nearly everything you say, Lemmy. Sadly, you're right about 'objectivity' as being a risable idea in the newspaper media. Surely this situation will remain while most of the media is controlled by the super-rich proprietors and editors whose interests are not usually in line with the poorer sections of society.
However, I disagree that the BBC does it's best to be always neutral and objective - I would refer you to my previous postings. The BBC has signed a charter that declares that it will always try to be unbiased: There are manifestly numerous occasions when the BBC has taken sides...and they still are! As to the BBC being leftist...that's just plain stupid and could only come from the ignorant on the right - those who think Blair and his gang were lefties!
As I've said before, the BBC does usually appear to try to be objective or neutral in everyday national current affairs - but not at on political or especially foreign affairs.
I feel that it is a very difficult problem and might be partly solved if only we could have more viable media supporting all sides of an argument and not just the centre-right and right arguments that are currently (and always have been) dominant. In other words, I would like to see a situation where a left or genuinely liberal media was able to survive and somehow create a large readership circulation.
We should never be afraid of what we might consider puerile or biased opinions per se - everyone should be entitled to free speech - but we should be afraid of a media that is basically a propaganda machine - one that distorts, lies, dis-informs, omits vital information...
Lots of people read Twitter and the like these day. Plenty of commentators on there - even the Pope!
The Leveson proposals would have mattered a lot more 20 years ago, before the internet really took hold.
Leveson does help objectivity because it helped stop Murdoch getting 100% of Sky.
If there's a budget meeting at Sky News and one editor wants money to fund a report on Chinese sweat shops and another wants money to do a profile on a prominent Republican presidential candidate you don't want a Murdoch holding the purse strings.
If Sky One want money to produce a drama series that shows unions in a bad light but Sky Arts wants money for something less political you don't want Murdoch holding the purse strings.
It's already bad enough that he's got 20th Century Fox and Fox TV, Fox News
Quote: Lots of people read Twitter and the like these day. Plenty of commentators on there - even the Pope!
The Leveson proposals would have mattered a lot more 20 years ago, before the internet really took hold.
Yes, CB - you're probably right. However, I suspect that a lot of oldies and middle aged characters still take some notice of what the papers and the BBC say, while the younger ones use twitter and the internet generally. I suppose that there are plenty of new dangers on obtaining our information from the internet, of course...
I think the most accurate description of the beeb i have heard is a right-leaning establishment organisation overseeing a left-leaning programming staff. And to my mind the balance works.
Quote: I would like to see a situation where a left or genuinely liberal media was able to survive and somehow create a large readership circulation
Are you saying the Guardian, Mirror and Sunday telegraph are not left leaning? The independent is not liberal leaning?
I agree the big-selling papers are on the right, but they will only sell if people want to buy them. And if people do not want to buy left-leaning press then how do you get the circulation? I think there is far too much angst when we analyse the press and sometimes it sounds like Lord Reith telling us what we should be watching instead of what we want to watch.
Quote: we should be afraid of a media that is basically a propaganda machine - one that distorts, lies, dis-informs, omits vital information...
I'm with you there. But the press is often its own worst enemy and will censor itself without any real input from politicans.
It is interesting to see that the internet has not really changed anything. More and more analysis of browsing behaviour shows that rather than liberalising peoples' opinions the so-called 'freedom' of the internet actually gives people more opportunity to find and read only those articles that support their existing opnion - at least with a newspaper you can have some dissenting opinion staring them in the face and they may well read it to pass the time. On the internet they hit the 'next' button. And once you understand peoples' browsing behaviour it makes me question how much the right wing press is dominant because they print the sort of opinion people want to read, as opposed to the right wing press leading peoples' opnions.
Quote: But the press is often its own worst enemy and will censor itself without any real input from politicans
I'm not with you there. Kindly explain as I'm sure you'll be at pains to...
The biggest example is Murdoch. People in this country talk about him being right wing, but it if you look at his dealings in China it is clear that he is apolitical and virtually amoral. He will do what it takes to get his empire a foothold in the country or progress its aims - left wing, right wing does not matter to him. All he wants is to earn more money.
Then there is the MPs expenses scandal. That has been bubbling for 30 years, but the press decided not to make much out of it. Then we reach a point where disillusion with politicans reaches a level that the Telegraph takes a flyer and goes into it full bore (other parts of the press were somewhat aghast at the risk they were taking). IMO the reason they did not do much about it was not because politicans said 'if you print this we will land you in court' but they got too cosy with Westminster and there was too much backscratching. The press chose to build that sort of relationship and censored themselves to avoid rocking the boat, and when the Westminster beast was wounded the rest of Fleet Street piled in like pack of jackals.
Quote: The press chose to build that sort of relationship and censored themselves to avoid rocking the boat
I see your point but there is a difference. The self-censoring you describe was in the press's own selfish interests. It suited them not to get involved insofar as politicians and the press seem to sleep in the same bed much of the time. It's a wholly different proposition to that of legal governance where the 'you scratch my back' mentality is removed and cannot be an issue.
The existing censorship mechanism is understood in that ultimately those crossing the line will be brought to law as is the case at the moment. But the disgraceful behaviour that led to the subsequent exposure of gross malpractice must be hounded and those considering any re-enactment must be made to understand the real prospect of jail. I expect the likes of Coulson and Brookes will be focusing their minds on the possibility of an example being set if found guilty, and so they should.
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
01/09/2014 - 30/09/2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View September's Photo Month Calendar