A Media Lens article on Michael Fallon
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Bert the Head  Epsom 10 Nov 17 10.45pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
This article highlights the dysfunctional information system that is the mainstream media. The article by Media Lens ('Inappropriate Behaviour' – Michael Fallon, Yemen, And The ‘Mainstream’ That Is Anything But') is worth a read if you are interested in the weird morality of the mainstream media. the link:
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Stirlingsays 10 Nov 17 11.14pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Bert the Head
This article highlights the dysfunctional information system that is the mainstream media. The article by Media Lens ('Inappropriate Behaviour' – Michael Fallon, Yemen, And The ‘Mainstream’ That Is Anything But') is worth a read if you are interested in the weird morality of the mainstream media. the link: I am interested in the politics of media and how the public are best provided for in terms of balance and objectivity. However, the article you link to itself is not a balanced piece but a highly opinioned one itself pushing its own political agenda. So it's just another, 'we are right and they are wrong' piece. It isn't a serious piece on how mainstream media or indeed any other form of media can work in a that is more balanced and objective for western populations. Edited by Stirlingsays (10 Nov 2017 11.14pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 10 Nov 17 11.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I am interested in the politics of media and how the public are best provided for in terms of balance and objectivity. However, the article you link to itself is not a balanced piece but a highly opinioned one itself pushing its own political agenda. So it's just another, 'we are right and they are wrong' piece. It isn't a serious piece on how mainstream media or indeed any other form of media can work in a that is more balanced and objective for western populations. Edited by Stirlingsays (10 Nov 2017 11.14pm) I think you are missing the point. Edited by nickgusset (10 Nov 2017 11.34pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 10 Nov 17 11.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
I think you are missing the point. Edited by nickgusset (10 Nov 2017 11.34pm) There is no point being missed. The thread title was about the media and Fallon but the actual article linked to was an atypical attack on foreign policy with the hyperbole on Fallon being used as cover. Also the answer to your question is as obvious as the nose on your face. We are not interested in the horrors in Yemen. We are not complicit, that is your atypical postmodernist opinion. A gun seller isn't complicit in a later murder. All we do is pick sides in an 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' situation.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Jimenez  SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 10 Nov 17 11.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Half of Yemen appear to be living on my street!!
Pro USA & Israel |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 11 Nov 17 12.04am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
There is no point being missed. The thread title was about the media and Fallon but the actual article linked to was an atypical attack on foreign policy with the hyperbole on Fallon being used as cover. Also the answer to your question is as obvious as the nose on your face. We are not interested in the horrors in Yemen. We are not complicit, that is your atypical postmodernist opinion. A gun seller isn't complicit in a later murder. All we do is pick sides in an 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' situation.
We are complicit. We know what the weapons are to be used for and the dire consequences that brings for millions. yet we still sell them to a country that we know is funding terrorism. What s the likelihood of one of our squaddies being killed by a weapon sold by this government? Edited by nickgusset (11 Nov 2017 12.06am)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 11 Nov 17 12.24am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
We are complicit. We know what the weapons are to be used for and the dire consequences that brings for millions. yet we still sell them to a country that we know is funding terrorism. What s the likelihood of one of our squaddies being killed by a weapon sold by this government? Edited by nickgusset (11 Nov 2017 12.06am) I think you are missing the point.....yeah, I know, arrogance is irritating isn't it. No one speaks for anyone else. I wouldn't let you speak for me and obviously vice versa as you say. What you find morally repugnant is for you. Being told how I should feel morally is usually what religion sells. As for your complicity point. This is entirely a perspective point of view and I reject your perspective. For example, the US sold us arms to fight and murder both German soldiers and to my regret civilians in WW2. Was the US brought to trial for supplying murderers? Nope, because this is perspective. Like I said previously, this is 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'.....the least worst option. As for selling arms as a moral question.....Sure, there's a morality point here....however, perhaps you can be the one to phone the people you are going to put out of work....perhaps you can pay their mortgages. Terrible things are done in war....I totally agree on that....The innocent are butchered with the guilty. A gun seller is not responsible for what is done with the gun. That is the person with the actual gun. It's a weird idea that weapons can be sold with some ethical mandate about how the buyer should use them. I agree that having lots of guns around isn't good...but there you go. Ultimate responsibility lies with the gun holder. Complicity is a perspective.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 11 Nov 17 12.37am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I think you are missing the point.....yeah, I know, arrogance is irritating isn't it. No one speaks for anyone else. I wouldn't let you speak for me and obviously vice versa as you say. What you find morally repugnant is for you. Being told how I should feel morally is usually what religion sells. As for your complicity point. This is entirely a perspective point of view and I reject your perspective. For example, the US sold us arms to fight and murder both German soldiers and to my regret civilians in WW2. Was the US brought to trial for supplying murderers? Nope, because this is perspective. Like I said previously, this is 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'.....the least worst option. As for selling arms as a moral question.....Sure, there's a morality point here....however, perhaps you can be the one to phone the people you are going to put out of work....perhaps you can pay their mortgages. Terrible things are done in war....I totally agree on that....The innocent are butchered with the guilty. A gun seller is not responsible for what is done with the gun. That is the person with the actual gun. It's a weird idea that weapons can be sold with some ethical mandate about how the buyer should use them. Ultimate responsibility lies with the gun holder. Complicity is a perspective. Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Nov 2017 12.31am) I'm afraid we differ here. Would you sell a gun knowing full well that the person you are selling it to is going to murder someone with it? I couldn't have that on my conscience.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 11 Nov 17 12.54am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
I'm afraid we differ here. Would you sell a gun knowing full well that the person you are selling it to is going to murder someone with it? I couldn't have that on my conscience. So you wouldn't have supplied guns to the British in WW2 then. On the global stage where real decisions have to be made...a clear conscience is.....what was that line in Yes Prime Minister?.....luxury. Far easier to rage against the machine than actually run one.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 11 Nov 17 1.44am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
So you wouldn't have supplied guns to the British in WW2 then. On the global stage where real decisions have to be made...a clear conscience is.....what was that line in Yes Prime Minister?.....luxury. Far easier to rage against the machine than actually run one. Sorry that's a ridiculous question. If you're happy for the U.K government to have blood on its hands and be part of a chain that has left 20m out of 27m Yemenis facing starvation and funds terrorist groups then that's your prerogative.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 11 Nov 17 2.01am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Sorry that's a ridiculous question. If you're happy for the U.K government to have blood on its hands and be part of a chain that has left 20m out of 27m Yemenis facing starvation and funds terrorist groups then that's your prerogative. Explain to me how that's a ridiculous question. The question lies at the hub of the whole point. The war between these two sides is not something I'm very aware of nor have much interest in. I know we back SA because we judge that to be the least worst option. This is just a proxy war between Iran and SA. To answer your question, no, because I feel more connected to Australians. Most of them are historically anglo saxon and culturally the vast majority of them. While I have regard for all human life I don't equate equality between those I feel more affinity to and those I don't. And either do you. Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Nov 2017 2.25am)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 11 Nov 17 5.15am |
|
|---|---|
|
Realistically a proxy war between two religious fundamentalist countries has no positive outcome for the UK
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.