Media Issues

[Lucky Toma]

Apologies for widening the debate here but if we are talking about the media then we must also include the social network sites and forums such as this.
For far too long now 'we' (the public) have shown startling hypocrisy by being affronted by the output of the print press whilst acting in a similar immoral manner online. Ultimately however, what is the difference between the two? Numbers. That's all. Just the amount of readers the words effect.

In fact I'd argue that a widely-read thread on BlueMoon can easily outnumber the readership from a story written in a local newspaper. Yet if some of the content on here, or a slanderous comment on a Facebook status, was published in that local newspaper people would be up in arms.

One is regulated. One is not. But ultimately beyond that, what the hell is the difference? It is still being read - and possibly believed - by a large amount of strangers. Who then pass it on as gospel to others. And so on.

'Controlling' the internet is a whole nest of wasps and personally I dont want to see such a thing occur (if its even possible to anyway which it probably isnt).

However, there are certain moral guidelines that amount of self-regulation.

The OP for example went into a RIP thread in the General Football section yesterday and began widely speculating as to the reasons behind the tragic death of Gary Speed. There were people in that thread such as myself and others who had personal connections to Gary and were genuinely upset by his passing. Others too were shell-shocked by the news.
If the OP had behaved in such a disrespectful manner in 'real' life - lets say outside a funeral, approaching strangers and spreading idle gossip that smeared the name of the recently departed - anyone in their right mind would be mortified.
But on the internet?.....well that seems okay.

This myth that anything goes online has been perpetuated to such a degree that its now the norm. But if thats the case then I genuinely believe that all this.....you reading this now and me writing it....is utterly pointless.
If we are beyond the boundaries of 'normal', if we are outside of the basic laws of decency that structure our society and seperate us from the animals, then there is no purpose, no depth, no 'real'ness about airing our views online.
We may as well just be chucking virtual shit at each other like virtual monkeys.

I saw the same thing on Blue Moon last year on Remembrance Day. A thread for people to pay their respects for our war dead was almost immediately sullied by someone airing their political views. I actually agreed with his views but seriously, what kind of person does that?
If he walked amongst a group of people in real life who were standing by a memorial silently paying their respects and began spouting his anti-war views he would be widely lambasted by one and all.
Yet because it was 'just' the internet it didnt really matter right?

Well if so then all we do on here means nothing. Nothing at all.

There will always be a chasm between what is morally permittable online and what is the norm in 'real' life.
But we need to narrow that gap considerably more before we can start acting like judge and jury over our print media.

 

[cleavers]

As far as I'm concerned, if the media can prove the information was obtained legally and was not knowingly false, print at leisure. Maybe retractions should be better policed and apologies shouldn't be pushed back to page sixteen in very small print.

There would be no need for retractions or apologies if they stuck to the truth, but they don't, they print stuff first and retract later.

 

[Skashion]

Lucky Toma

What's the difference? The forum has no investigative capacity. That's a huge difference. We don't have paid investigative journalists doing borderline or actually illegal acts to obtain information potentially in the public interest. Pretty much anyone else would be charged with various crimes if they were to do it on their own but there is a higher degree of protection afforded to them in the name of the free press. Arguably with that comes greater responsibilities. By the way, understand I'm playing devil's advocate here and as a libertarian I would prefer greater freedom for all. If someone can demonstrate damages due to defamatory remarks made in the press or on a forum then go to court, don't pre-censor.

 

[crizack]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ_NZoBsZSE&feature=related[/youtube]

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

Lucky Toma

What's the difference? The forum has no investigative capacity. That's a huge difference. We don't have paid investigative journalists doing borderline or actually illegal acts to obtain information potentially in the public interest.

Correct. We just have quagmire ;)

 

[Dubai Blue]

Apologies for widening the debate here but if we are talking about the media then we must also include the social network sites and forums such as this.
For far too long now 'we' (the public) have shown startling hypocrisy by being affronted by the output of the print press whilst acting in a similar immoral manner online. Ultimately however, what is the difference between the two? Numbers. That's all. Just the amount of readers the words effect.

In fact I'd argue that a widely-read thread on BlueMoon can easily outnumber the readership from a story written in a local newspaper. Yet if some of the content on here, or a slanderous comment on a Facebook status, was published in that local newspaper people would be up in arms.

One is regulated. One is not. But ultimately beyond that, what the hell is the difference? It is still being read - and possibly believed - by a large amount of strangers. Who then pass it on as gospel to others. And so on.

'Controlling' the internet is a whole nest of wasps and personally I dont want to see such a thing occur (if its even possible to anyway which it probably isnt).

However, there are certain moral guidelines that amount of self-regulation.

The OP for example went into a RIP thread in the General Football section yesterday and began widely speculating as to the reasons behind the tragic death of Gary Speed. There were people in that thread such as myself and others who had personal connections to Gary and were genuinely upset by his passing. Others too were shell-shocked by the news.
If the OP had behaved in such a disrespectful manner in 'real' life - lets say outside a funeral, approaching strangers and spreading idle gossip that smeared the name of the recently departed - anyone in their right mind would be mortified.
But on the internet?.....well that seems okay.

This myth that anything goes online has been perpetuated to such a degree that its now the norm. But if thats the case then I genuinely believe that all this.....you reading this now and me writing it....is utterly pointless.
If we are beyond the boundaries of 'normal', if we are outside of the basic laws of decency that structure our society and seperate us from the animals, then there is no purpose, no depth, no 'real'ness about airing our views online.
We may as well just be chucking virtual shit at each other like virtual monkeys.

I saw the same thing on Blue Moon last year on Remembrance Day. A thread for people to pay their respects for our war dead was almost immediately sullied by someone airing their political views. I actually agreed with his views but seriously, what kind of person does that?
If he walked amongst a group of people in real life who were standing by a memorial silently paying their respects and began spouting his anti-war views he would be widely lambasted by one and all.
Yet because it was 'just' the internet it didnt really matter right?

Well if so then all we do on here means nothing. Nothing at all.

There will always be a chasm between what is morally permittable online and what is the norm in 'real' life.
But we need to narrow that gap considerably more before we can start acting like judge and jury over our print media.

Comparing a thread about Gary Speed on a random footballl forum with a funeral attended by actual family and friends is extremely dramatic. As is comparing a Remembrance Day thread with people who have actually gone out of their way to visit a particular monument in order to pay their respects in silence.

They're treated differently because they are completely different.

 

[BimboBob]

As Ian Hislop said the other day...

1.If the press had stuck to the law instead of breaking it then none of this would have happened.
2. If the Police had done their job instead of being on the payrole then that would have nipped it all in the bud.


So...

No need for new measures, we need press freedom (how else would we have found out about the MP expenses thing?) but they need to do it within the letter of the law. If they don't they need to be sorted out by the Police.

 

[Lucky Toma]

Skashion, I agree with all of that and accept they are fair comments.

Dubai Blue, I dont agree with your view however. To suggest that paying your respects on an internet forum as opposed to in person is an 'extremely dramatic' comparison and that they're 'completely different' is basically an admittance that anything written on a forum is completely meaningless and without substance.
I refuse to accept that. Words have consequences and impact whether they are spoken or written. They evoke responses and can move someone or hurt them.
Otherwise....why are people writing things on here at all if that is not true?

I am obviously not comparing going to a funeral and contributing to a RIP thread online as like-for-like. I accept that would be ridiculous.
What I'm saying is that the moral parameters are exactly the same. Whether you are talking about the deceased to a friend at the church or talking about them online to a stranger you are still referring to someone who has recently passed.
It really doesnt take a lot of effort to either be respectful in such threads or give them a swerve, aware that deciding upon the third option breaks one of the oldest, most established moral codes of our social structure....to show respect towards the dead.
Why do some people think that 'just' because we're online that code doesnt apply to us?

 

[Dubai Blue]

Skashion, I agree with all of that and accept they are fair comments.

Dubai Blue, I dont agree with your view however. To suggest that paying your respects on an internet forum as opposed to in person is an 'extremely dramatic' comparison and that they're 'completely different' is basically an admittance that anything written on a forum is completely meaningless and without substance.
I refuse to accept that. Words have consequences and impact whether they are spoken or written. They evoke responses and can move someone or hurt them.
Otherwise....why are people writing things on here at all if that is not true?

I am obviously not comparing going to a funeral and contributing to a RIP thread online as like-for-like. I accept that would be ridiculous.
What I'm saying is that the moral parameters are exactly the same.

And you're entirely entitled to your opinion.

Maybe it's just me, but I really don't understand the way that some users expect everyone else to tip-toe around threads about people who have died. I fail to believe that people turn to a particular thread on a random, completely unconnected football forum to share a moment of sombre reflection with their fellow users. They go on to forums for discussion.

If people simply want to read post after post of people saying RIP to a complete stranger, perhaps they'd be better off visiting on online book of condolence. In my opinion, if something's in the news it should be up for discussion. And if there is a thread called 'Gary Speed has died', that would probably be the most sensible place to discuss anything on that particular subject.

 

[Lucky Toma]

Skashion, I agree with all of that and accept they are fair comments.

Dubai Blue, I dont agree with your view however. To suggest that paying your respects on an internet forum as opposed to in person is an 'extremely dramatic' comparison and that they're 'completely different' is basically an admittance that anything written on a forum is completely meaningless and without substance.
I refuse to accept that. Words have consequences and impact whether they are spoken or written. They evoke responses and can move someone or hurt them.
Otherwise....why are people writing things on here at all if that is not true?

I am obviously not comparing going to a funeral and contributing to a RIP thread online as like-for-like. I accept that would be ridiculous.
What I'm saying is that the moral parameters are exactly the same.

And you're entirely entitled to your opinion.

Maybe it's just me, but I really don't understand the way that some users expect everyone else to tip-toe around threads about people who have died. I fail to believe that people turn to a particular thread on a random, completely unconnected football forum to share a moment of sombre reflection with their fellow users. They go on to forums for discussion.

If people simply want to read post after post of people saying RIP to a complete stranger, perhaps they'd be better off visiting on online book of condolence. In my opinion, if something's in the news it should be up for discussion. And if there is a thread called 'Gary Speed has died', that would probably be the most sensible place to discuss anything on that particular subject.

Might sound like I'm contradicting myself mate but I agree with that in a general sense.
Where I divert is that once a thread has become essentially somewhere for people to pay their respects then it should be kept as such.
Its not hard for someone to simply click 'New Topic' if they want to debate the nature/cause of the death or to say they personally never liked that person etc.
Sorry to extend the analogy again of paying your respects in real life as opposed to online but these posters who are going onto the Gary Speed thread and alluding to all kinds of things wouldnt do likewise if the posters paying their respects were before them in real life, huddled in a group. They would walk away and indulge their gossip privately surely? Away from the mourners.
Ultimately it is exactly the same. Behind every post is a real person. Just because it is written, not spoken, I fail to see why that permits such people to act so disrespectfully when it elicits the same hurt and outrage.