Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

mick087

schmoo2k wrote: »

There is a relatively simple solution - If your site/paper/tv claims to be "news" then you implement a law which says it must be "clearly truthful", then simply implement punitive penalties for "fake news".

Who would decide what is fake news?
Who would decide what is truthful news?

Who ever decides in who's interest would they be serving?

Nate--IRL--

mick087 wrote: »

Who would decide what is fake news?
Who would decide what is truthful news?

Who ever decides in who's interest would they be serving?

Currently the Owner of the newspaper decides all of the above, not necessarily in the publics interest though.

Nate

schmoo2k

mick087 wrote: »

Who would decide what is fake news?
Who would decide what is truthful news?

Who ever decides in who's interest would they be serving?

No different to defamation - the courts (and its expensive). Just means the Sunday Sport / World / "News" will rename themselves to be "opinion" papers, which is fine as long as they are no longer allowed to use the word "news".

mick087

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Currently the Owner of the newspaper decides all of the above, not necessarily in the publics interest though.

Nate

Hence banning would not be a good idea.

mick087

schmoo2k wrote: »

No different to defamation - the courts (and its expensive). Just means the Sunday Sport / World / "News" will rename themselves to be "opinion" papers, which is fine as long as they are no longer allowed to use the word "news".

Yes if the media reports fake news, lies then courts are a good option.

schmoo2k

Deleted User wrote: »

Privately owned "news" organisations have and probably always shape the reports in such a way that they promote the owner's political leanings, the only time they are mostly true is with the reporting of natural events that cannot be politicised.
This is why it is always best to read the reports from more than one foreign news source as well as the "opposition" papers, usually the truth is somewhere between the lines.

Yup - all your doing is removing the ability to use the word "news", but its important, especially when you bring social media into it.

Nate--IRL--

mick087 wrote: »

Hence banning would not be a good idea.

Agree, but they should be held to account and not self regulated.

Nate

yagan

I think corrections and apologies having to be of the same banner size, same page prominence and at the top of their web page feed as their incorrect piece would soften their spin. It would put the Daily Express out of business.

schmoo2k

yagan wrote: »

I think corrections and apologies having to be of the same banner size, same page prominence and at the top of their web page feed as their incorrect piece would soften their spin. It would put the Daily Express out of business.

I agree, but lets face it the express would no longer be a "news" paper, they would simply a rag like TMZ or the like...

Kermit.de.frog

fash wrote: »

.
Another headache, it seems. I wonder where this ends? What is the plan? Do they get some deal on soil equivalence and call it a victory? Or capitulate entirely? Or is this an plan to renege on the WA/TCA? Honestly I am not sure the UK is willing to renege on WA/TCA if push comes to shove - due to the financial hit (however thinking about it, it might be easier to go "no deal" now/in short- given that they've had a few extra months to prepare and their businesses are more familiar with a "no deal" style brexit).

The article is a nothing burger.

It's the same old stuff about looking for "permanent solutions" as if there is some negotiation going on.

The UK signed up to a treaty that is binding in law.

That's the be all and end all of it.

What you are seeing is denial and deceit for internal consumption.

The EU is not changing a comma in the deal. Boris knows that.

Brussels Sprout

schmoo2k wrote: »

There is a relatively simple solution - If your site/paper/tv claims to be "news" then you implement a law which says it must be "clearly truthful", then simply implement punitive penalties for "fake news".

This is a lot more complicated than at first glance. Most complex stories contain a lot of nuance. It is very easy to "spin" a story simply by omitting whatever details suit the angle that you are looking to achieve. You can do this without telling any objective untruths.

To take an example that has been in the headlines in the USA in the past week.

Simplifed version: Several Dr. Seuss books were removed from publication after a panel of experts decided that they contained racist imagery.

Nuanced version: The publishers of the Dr. Seuss books took it upon themselves to have their books analysed by an external group of experts and teachers. After receiving the report they decided themselves to remove 6 of the books from publication over the way that they depicted non-white characters. After news of this got out the publishers saw a massive spike in sales.


The simplified version doesn't contain any lies. It just omits the crucial detail that the publishers themselves made the decision both to seek out advice and to pull the books.

This is a relatively simple story. When you tackle something complex like Brexit the potential for spinning stories simply by omitting details or other tricks of the trade is huge.

Capt'n Midnight

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

To take an example that has been in the headlines in the USA in the past week.

Simplifed version: Several Dr. Seuss books were removed from publication after a panel of experts decided that they contained racist imagery.

Nuanced version: Dr. Seuss book sales have soared thanks to the free publicity from dogwhistling.

In this case you can see who benefits. And there aren't that many losers.

With Brexit there are a lot of losers and it's not clear who benefits apart from effects similar to where pouring water (or the economy) down the drain can mean splashback where a tiny part of the water can end up higher than where you are pouring from.

schmoo2k

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

This is a lot more complicated than at first glance. Most complex stories contain a lot of nuance. It is very easy to "spin" a story simply by omitting whatever details suit the angle that you are looking to achieve. You can do this without telling any objective untruths.

To take an example that has been in the headlines in the USA in the past week.

Simplifed version: Several Dr. Seuss books were removed from publication after a panel of experts decided that they contained racist imagery.

Nuanced version: The publishers of the Dr. Seuss books took it upon themselves to have their books analysed by an external group of experts and teachers. After receiving the report they decided themselves to remove 6 of the books from publication over the way that they depicted non-white characters. After news of this got out the publishers saw a massive spike in sales.


The simplified version doesn't contain any lies. It just omits the crucial detail that the publishers themselves made the decision both to seek out advice and to pull the books.

This is a relatively simple story. When you tackle something complex like Brexit the potential for spinning stories simply by omitting details or other tricks of the trade is huge.

That alone would be a huge improvement on what we have now...

An Claidheamh

Akrasia wrote: »

The border poll is pretty much inevitable demographically and you’d have to wonder if the Tories would consider losing NI as a price very much worth paying to lubricate their attempts at securing a US trade deal

Ulster has always been a bargaining chip, little more than a way to exert control over Ireland, the time for cashing it in is getting closer with every passing blunder

If NI gets an official Irish majority, either via census or Stormont, then NI will simply declare unity with Ireland whether the UK “grant” a poll or not

Otherwise, you know who will be back with a vengeance

The Irish government are the ones blocking a poll, not London, and the Irish government, no doubt much to the chagrin of Europe, refuse to play this card - despite the UK trying to break and undermine the EU by using the North

Hurrache

Not giving a crap about international treaties and the way they treat their own population this evening, England really is a pathetic snivelling state.

reslfj

An Claidheamh wrote: »

If NI gets an official Irish majority, either via census or Stormont, then NI will simply declare unity with Ireland whether the UK “grant” a poll or not

A border poll and potentially a UI is governed by the GFA/Belfast Agreement, where a majority for reunification is required in both the RoI and in NI. The minimum time between two border polls is described too (7 years iirc).

The NI will undoubtedly rather soon have a majority (more secular, centrist voters) that could see themselves as part of Ireland and a slowly declining number of core unionists voters that can't

But NI receives ~£ 8bn/year from London (ex defence, royals, iirc)

Ireland in spite of being much better off economically (GDP or GNI /citizen) will need this money from London likely reduced over 10-15 years to ensure a yes vote in the RoI, which I don't think is a sure thing just now.

Even a small yes majority in the RoI will be OK. There will, however, be great benefits from a very clear majority in NI.
Such a majority (say 60/40 or better) will make it easier for all groups to accept a UI.

The GFA with the SM+CU created the de facto reality of "looking South and no border, looking East and no border". This again allowed for the border poll to be postponed long into the future - one of the great qualities of the GFA.

The Irish Sea 'goods only' border - regrettable - destroys some of this quality. If the UK implements the NIP effectively and faithfully, paperwork for most business transactions should be manageable.

The EU will not in any way try to use ancient local conflicts to promote its trading policies. The EU's instinct will be to calm things down and get the hell out of there.
Remember EU is first and foremost about peace.

Lars

BonnieSituation

Hurrache wrote: »

Not giving a crap about international treaties and the way they treat their own population this evening, England really is a pathetic snivelling state.

What's all this then?

Hurrache

BonnieSituation wrote: »

What's all this then?

Clapham common, the police made a bollox of their treatment of women protesting. Really bad optics given how they handle with kid glove other mass gatherings and the topic.

That, and laws they're pushing through parliament to essentially make it a police state in terms of protest.

BonnieSituation

Hurrache wrote: »

Clapham common, the police made a bollox of their treatment of women protesting. Really bad optics given how they handle with kid glove other mass gatherings and the topic.

Ah right.

An Claidheamh

Hurrache wrote: »

Clapham common, the police made a bollox of their treatment of women protesting. Really bad optics given how they handle with kid glove other mass gatherings and the topic.

That, and laws they're pushing through parliament to essentially make it a police state in terms of protest.

Thing is, that protestor went out with the intention of getting arrested, and they know how to

fash

reslfj wrote: »

The GFA with the SM+CU created the de facto reality of "looking South and no border, looking East and no border". This again allowed for the border poll to be postponed long into the future - one of the great qualities of the GFA.

The Irish Sea 'goods only' border - regrettable - destroys some of this quality.

Isn't it rather under NIP: "look South, services border, look East, goods only border"?

Plus of course, the fact is certain areas in NI voted for Brexit- these ones:
- notice where they are not?

fash

reslfj wrote: »

The GFA with the SM+CU created the de facto reality of "looking South and no border, looking East and no border". This again allowed for the border poll to be postponed long into the future - one of the great qualities of the GFA.

The Irish Sea 'goods only' border - regrettable - destroys some of this quality.

Isn't it rather under NIP: "look South, services border, look East, goods only border"?

Plus of course, the fact is certain areas in NI voted for Brexit- these ones:


] - notice where they are not?

Hurrache

An Claidheamh wrote: »

Thing is, that protestor went out with the intention of getting arrested, and they know how to

Off topic, but "that" protestor? Dunno who you mean as I'm not taking about any protestor or arrest, just the general behaviour of the police. Compare and contrast with the thousands of soccer supporters given a police escort through Glasgow in order to gather in a huge crowd.

Itssoeasy

Hurrache wrote: »

Clapham common, the police made a bollox of their treatment of women protesting. Really bad optics given how they handle with kid glove other mass gatherings and the topic.

That, and laws they're pushing through parliament to essentially make it a police state in terms of protest.

Wasn’t the vigil cancelled though ? Really bad optics leads to calls for resignations in the past.

Akrasia

schmoo2k wrote: »

There is a relatively simple solution - If your site/paper/tv claims to be "news" then you implement a law which says it must be "clearly truthful", then simply implement punitive penalties for "fake news".

A simpler to enforce law would be to make it an offense to ‘willfully mislead the public in a non satirical news publication’

This would make it an offense to have a headline that contradicts the body of the text. The tabloids usually have at least some nugget of truth in the body of their text (to avoid being sued for defamation ) but most people don’t read the story all the way to the end

It could also be used by whistleblowers who are involved in the editorial board meetings and are sick of being ordered to lie to the public by burying the story or making up false narratives

I would then use the tax system to differentiate between ‘news’ and ‘entertainment’ publications so that there is a higher rate of tax on profits from entertainment classes of publication and tax write offs for the publications classed as ‘News’ ‘newspapers could still be entertaining, but their news reporting must not be misleading)

This would reduce the incentive for tabloids to reclassify themselves as satire to avoid the law

Akrasia

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Privately owned "news" organisations have and probably always shape the reports in such a way that they promote the owner's political leanings, the only time they are mostly true is with the reporting of natural events that cannot be politicised.
This is why it is always best to read the reports from more than one foreign news source as well as the "opposition" papers, usually the truth is somewhere between the lines.

This is a problem because elections are not decided by the informed voters who go out of their way to get multiple perspectives on the scandal of the day, they’re decided by the majority of voters in each constituency, and a bendy banana believers vote is worth exactly the same as the informed voter.

The owners of the media companies know how to manipulate people to vote against their own interests, they’ve been doing it for generations. The only way it’s going to change is if they’re held accountable for the lies they publish. But nobody is going to do that

Leroy42

Akrasia wrote: »

This is a problem because elections are not decided by the informed voters who go out of their way to get multiple perspectives on the scandal of the day, they’re decided by the majority of voters in each constituency, and a bendy banana believers vote is worth exactly the same as the informed voter.

The owners of the media companies know how to manipulate people to vote against their own interests, they’ve been doing it for generations. The only way it’s going to change is if they’re held accountable for the lies they publish. But nobody is going to do that

Perfect case in point is that Johnsons approval ratings are increasing on the back of the vaccine numbers.

All else is being buried.

fash

Akrasia wrote: »

This is a problem because elections are not decided by the informed voters who go out of their way to get multiple perspectives on the scandal of the day, they’re decided by the majority of voters in each constituency, and a bendy banana believers vote is worth exactly the same as the informed voter.

With the correct level of control of the media, from a politician's perspective, I'm sure a bendy banana believer is worth more - they are a lot easier to manipulate than an informed voter.

View

fash wrote: »

.
Another headache, it seems. I wonder where this ends? What is the plan? Do they get some deal on soil equivalence and call it a victory? Or capitulate entirely? Or is this an plan to renege on the WA/TCA? Honestly I am not sure the UK is willing to renege on WA/TCA if push comes to shove - due to the financial hit (however thinking about it, it might be easier to go "no deal" now/in short- given that they've had a few extra months to prepare and their businesses are more familiar with a "no deal" style brexit).

With this latest announcement, the U.K. has already reneged on the WA. This is the second time this has happened. That isn’t an accident. The UK government clearly has no intention of even trying to act “in good faith” wrt to the NI protocol. The NI protocol is therefore dead in the water

That leaves Ireland with the obligation to implement a hard border with NI and the EU should reject the EU-U.K. FTA out of hand. The Conservatives can then explain to their backers why they blew a lucrative FTA over the obscurity of NI Protocol (that doesn’t matter in the slightest to their backers).

Professor Moriarty

View wrote: »

With this latest announcement, the U.K. has already reneged on the WA. This is the second time this has happened. That isn’t an accident. The UK government clearly has no intention of even trying to act “in good faith” wrt to the NI protocol. The NI protocol is therefore dead in the water

That leaves Ireland with the obligation to implement a hard border with NI and the EU should reject the EU-U.K. FTA out of hand. The Conservatives can then explain to their backers why they blew a lucrative FTA over the obscurity of NI Protocol (that doesn’t matter in the slightest to their backers).

If they force a border on this island, they can forget an FTA with the EU and USA. It would be eminently stupid but political stupidity is custom and practice for Johnson and his populists.