I don't know if I am misremembering but I have a vague recollection of the government making a visible push for journalistic ethics, with specific mention of the BNP(British National Party), back...
I don't know if I am misremembering but I have a vague recollection of the government making a visible push for journalistic ethics, with specific mention of the BNP(British National Party), back when they were particular good at baiting media outlets into giving them attention.
This would be somewhere around 15-20 years ago though.
Just a weird memory that popped up as a result of this article. The issue hasn't changed - stop giving coverage to such fringe things that don't matter because they're controversial. It gives them credibility. It gives visibility. It does nothing but help them even when the coverage is horrible.
This goes for everything, extremist groups on all ends, and other nutso things like anti-vaccination.
They're not showing very good foresight in their language choice here though. I absolutely would not be publishing the phrase "strategic silence". The use of "strategic" will only be used within the kinds of extreme circles that this would affect to confirm the idea that there is a conspiratorial machine working against them.
But that is exactly what the author is suggesting. Whether you put it in one phrasing or another, you are already admitting that this is what these groups say is happening or at risk of happening.
They're not showing very good foresight in their language choice here though. I absolutely would not be publishing the phrase "strategic silence". The use of "strategic" will only be used within the kinds of extreme circles that this would affect to confirm the idea that there is a conspiratorial machine working against them.
But that is exactly what the author is suggesting. Whether you put it in one phrasing or another, you are already admitting that this is what these groups say is happening or at risk of happening.
Their action is a reaction to the use of a strategy though, not a strategy to put people down. A highly motivated extreme political minority is baiting the news cycle. The news cycle must react to...
Their action is a reaction to the use of a strategy though, not a strategy to put people down.
A highly motivated extreme political minority is baiting the news cycle.
The news cycle must react to this by being savvy enough to not get baited. These groups aren't news, they're trying to force themselves into being interpreted as news by baiting though.
"Strategic silence" is just a fancy way to say "don't feed the trolls". All I'm getting at though is that they have chosen the wrong way to rephrase this age-old adage of the internet. Strategic silence is a phrase that lacks awareness of how the word strategic will be used to interpret their actions in particular ways and to further rile up the groups of idiots that are manipulated behind these extremist causes. I think you already understand this though Mumber, you're relatively savvy yourself.
Why has it become necessary for news-media to quarantine ideas? It seems to me that it shouldn't be the news' job to filter ideas in or out of the public consciousness. Instead, they should -- you...
Why has it become necessary for news-media to quarantine ideas? It seems to me that it shouldn't be the news' job to filter ideas in or out of the public consciousness. Instead, they should -- you know -- report the state of the world.
Somehow the relationship between journalism and activism has become confused. People have seen the results of courageous journalism, and have conflated the how-to of it with the techniques of the propagandist.
It's not a new idea. This goes back to American Nazi supporters (not the Charlottesville variety, actual WW2 Nazi supporters) and the KKK. It's not an issue on whether or not to report about the...
It's not a new idea. This goes back to American Nazi supporters (not the Charlottesville variety, actual WW2 Nazi supporters) and the KKK.
It's not an issue on whether or not to report about the state of the world. The problem is that these extremist groups wield insignificant influence in the world in terms of numbers, but they make for attractive headlines, so editors of the past made a point of not giving them a voice because it actually distorts the state of the world by amplifying fringe voices in a disproportionate manner.
As @Awoo said earlier it's the language "strategic silence" which makes it appear as if there is some sort of agenda rather than just reporting the news. We should also keep in mind that news is...
As @Awoo said earlier it's the language "strategic silence" which makes it appear as if there is some sort of agenda rather than just reporting the news.
We should also keep in mind that news is not the ordinary, it's the out of ordinary.
If someones platform is believing other people are inferior to others and they shouldn't be part of the country then they absolutely shouldn't be given the bullhorn of the media. You're walking...
If someones platform is believing other people are inferior to others and they shouldn't be part of the country then they absolutely shouldn't be given the bullhorn of the media.
You're walking along the line of 'intolerance of hateful people is being intolerant towards them.' Hateful people deserve no tolerance. They should be chastised and they should be shunned by society not given an 'equal seat at the table' of ideas.
Reporting the news is all about making choices. You have limited resources, limited methods of exposure/dissemination, and barely any time to do it in. The first question you ask is: Should this...
Reporting the news is all about making choices. You have limited resources, limited methods of exposure/dissemination, and barely any time to do it in.
The first question you ask is: Should this be covered at all?
After that there are a more questions: Does this deserve our attention, time, money, effort? Does it deserve the same of our audience?
Are we the best media organization to do this particular story, or are there others who will do it, and do it better than us? Can we report this in a responsible fashion? Can we verify the facts? Can we do that in time? Can we provide proper context? Does it meet the interests of our audience, and does it fit with the identity of our medium? Etc.
After many decisions and a lot of hard work you end up with something that is a news report. Handcrafted, artisanal news.
"Just report the news" is a gross oversimplification, and in my opinion that phrase betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what news is by the people who use it. News is not something that exists independently. It's not something like gold that remains what it is after it is mined, and that isn't influenced by who mines it.
There was a brilliant piece in Aljazeera a few months ago called Media Theorized that speaks very much to a lot of your points. It's a series of YouTube videos on famous anthropologists,...
There was a brilliant piece in Aljazeera a few months ago called Media Theorized that speaks very much to a lot of your points. It's a series of YouTube videos on famous anthropologists, linguists, and other theorists from different countries in how we interact with the genre of media:
Again, as the article explains it... It's not about whether or not you report the news. It's about whether or not you give a voice to a fringe group with very little real influence by giving them...
Again, as the article explains it... It's not about whether or not you report the news. It's about whether or not you give a voice to a fringe group with very little real influence by giving them a public tribune. That's kind of the key here... They are NOT newsworthy, but it's a dark, exciting subject that sells newspaper copies.
There are good reasons to not report on mass shootings, suicides, etc, as it seems that such reports inspire others to copy. This article is about legally or corporately enforcing Overton Windows,...
There are good reasons to not report on mass shootings, suicides, etc, as it seems that such reports inspire others to copy.
This article is about legally or corporately enforcing Overton Windows, a concept that scares the crap out of me. As someone who likes the fact that homosexual activity has been legalised, and hopes to see drug use legalised, it's crucial that we can discuss it. Giving further power to established authorities will only ever benefit status quo.
I'm just comparing the fact that it popularizes it. Obviously school shootings are objectively bad and shouldn't be popularized while the ideas discussed in the article are less obvious, which...
I'm just comparing the fact that it popularizes it. Obviously school shootings are objectively bad and shouldn't be popularized while the ideas discussed in the article are less obvious, which think is the point you are trying to make.
I think the article strikes a chord, but comes at the problem from an ineffective angle. Casting the reporting choice as between covering or not covering extremists means leaving the extremists...
I think the article strikes a chord, but comes at the problem from an ineffective angle.
Casting the reporting choice as between covering or not covering extremists means leaving the extremists with the choice of what content is in the story: the journalist only decides whether to show it or not.
The Western press seems less and less capable of finding its own angle and voice in reporting. Most often, articles report on political controversy by simply lending the microphone to the various factions; an approach that is "impartial" only in the most superficial sense, and which is naturally exploited by populists, who know how to sound louder and more interesting than anyone else.
Instead, the press needs to find its own authoritative voice, self-critical and aware of its limitation and potential for bias, but not simply surrendering to third-party opinions for fear of having its own.
When the far-right holds some kind of event and presents their own narrative of it, simply not reporting on it leaves them in charge of the messaging, and it will get out through sympathetic outlets and social media. Instead, the press should report on it, but clearly expose the lies and crimes in their behavior.
This is probably them following their internal style guide. The Associated Press Stylebook, for instance, recommends that proper nouns be capitalized, and that stylized brand names be given proper...
This is probably them following their internal style guide. The Associated Press Stylebook, for instance, recommends that proper nouns be capitalized, and that stylized brand names be given proper capitalization. (So, for instance, even though NIKE likes to write their brand name in all caps, the AP would write it "Nike.")
I haven't seen guidelines for an actual person's stylized name, but I figure it's the same logic: standard capitalization takes precedence over stylized preferences.
Sorry, I'm a professional writer... In case my geeking out over style guides didn't make it obvious. :)
I mean, I could wish that you spelt Lovich like sgxuen26492!*7 but still pronounce it the same. People don't have to follow my wishes, and probably won't if they are trying to keep a consistent...
I mean, I could wish that you spelt Lovich like sgxuen26492!*7 but still pronounce it the same. People don't have to follow my wishes, and probably won't if they are trying to keep a consistent rule set when writing. Having one person be the exception just invites confusion
I don't believe censorship is the way to solve extremism. It will allow them to claim persecution, and strengthens the argument about media conspiracy. It is better to permit the ideas to be...
I don't believe censorship is the way to solve extremism. It will allow them to claim persecution, and strengthens the argument about media conspiracy. It is better to permit the ideas to be available for public examination, and criticism. When you censor ideas, you convey (whether warranted or not) that you are incapable of defeating them through argument. I assume nobody at the guardian has heard of the Streisand effect, either.
Additionally, when war with words is no longer possible, war through other means becomes inevitable. :/
This has absolutely nothing to do with censorship. Censorship means not being able to express your opinion, or facing consequences for doing so. The media is under no obligation whatsoever to...
This has absolutely nothing to do with censorship.
Censorship means not being able to express your opinion, or facing consequences for doing so. The media is under no obligation whatsoever to report on your opinion and broadcast it to a larger audience.
It has everything to do with censorship. The whole article is about trying to fight a battle for control over what goes into the minds of their readers.
It has everything to do with censorship. The whole article is about trying to fight a battle for control over what goes into the minds of their readers.
The OP article is talking about a conspiracy of news outlets to hide certain ideas and events from the public awareness in order to control public perceptions because they believe people are too...
The OP article is talking about a conspiracy of news outlets to hide certain ideas and events from the public awareness in order to control public perceptions because they believe people are too stupid to think for themselves. You have the right as a private company to report or not report on whatever you want - but for something like the BBC for example which is indebted to the public, or more generally a massive conspiracy between all of the major news outlets to filter out a segment of actual newsworthy events like the OP article is describing... and that segment right now is defined as something that you find worthy of being hidden away, but what if that definition changed?
Generally speaking the press has a moral responsibility to publish the news to help democracy function. I don't believe deplatforming on a massive scale like what the article is suggesting is smart - it is insulting to the intelligence of their readers, and it sets a dangerous precedent that might bite you in the backside down the line.
So you're saying every single time a news editor decides what gets reported on the front page or in the six o'clock news, what gets rejected is censorship?
So you're saying every single time a news editor decides what gets reported on the front page or in the six o'clock news, what gets rejected is censorship?
I know this may seem like I'm being pedantic, but I assure you I am not: I did not say those words. You have interpreted what I did say as something completely different.
I know this may seem like I'm being pedantic, but I assure you I am not: I did not say those words. You have interpreted what I did say as something completely different.
You're arguing that a news editor has the power of censorship by choosing what gets on the news or not. I'm pushing your argument to its limits and thus demonstrating its absurdity. My argument,...
You're arguing that a news editor has the power of censorship by choosing what gets on the news or not. I'm pushing your argument to its limits and thus demonstrating its absurdity. My argument, through this, is that news editors are not the people carrying out censorship, and your definition of censorship is wrong.
You can keep saying "I didn't say that," but you've implied it, whether you realized it or not.
It is absurd because you are pushing it into an absurdity that no longer resembles the original claim. This is not a clever argument/debate tactic, it is an emotional response. The OP article is...
It is absurd because you are pushing it into an absurdity that no longer resembles the original claim. This is not a clever argument/debate tactic, it is an emotional response.
The OP article is saying "We (the media) should have a list of things that we consider unacceptable. We (the media) should agree, informally or formally, to not publish news about the things on this list. If enough of us do it, it might help stop the spread of these ideas into our readers' minds."
That is not the same as saying that every decision not to report on a random thing is censorship - an editor may choose not to report on an instance of a man walking his snake on the sidewalk regardless of whether it breaks a law or not. An editor may choose not to report on the elementary school performance of hansel and gretel. The decision not to report on those things is because they are not important, they are not some combination of surprising, unusual, impacting, dangerous, political, etc. etc.
But if your motivation for not reporting on something is ideological, if it is not because it isn't newsworthy, but because you don't want your readers to be exposed to it, AND if you and "enough" of your fellow news orgs agree for the same reasons not to report on this thing, that is a much different case than an editor deciding to not report on johnny's lemonaide stand.
Okay, at least you're engaging with my argument, now. How can you tell if something isn't being reported because it isn't newsworthy, and what isn't reported because of a political act? How do you...
Okay, at least you're engaging with my argument, now.
How can you tell if something isn't being reported because it isn't newsworthy, and what isn't reported because of a political act? How do you draw this line, in your opinion?
You can't. That is why this is dangerous. What the OP article is saying is explicitly "strategic silence" for ideological purposes, for the purposes of controlling perceptions. This is as clear an...
You can't. That is why this is dangerous. What the OP article is saying is explicitly "strategic silence" for ideological purposes, for the purposes of controlling perceptions. This is as clear an expression of intent as one would need - and it is the intent I am criticizing at this time.
Which is my point. Any news editor, by the simple virtue that they edit, is demonstrating intent. Any news has an inherent bias. Whether it's explicitly stated or implied by one's worldview, there...
Which is my point. Any news editor, by the simple virtue that they edit, is demonstrating intent. Any news has an inherent bias. Whether it's explicitly stated or implied by one's worldview, there is no such thing as unbiased news.
In other words, the sort of bias you're calling "censorship" is part and parcel of what constitutes the news. I've said it above: that's not censorship.
Do I understand correctly that you are saying "editors already are ideological activists, so we should condone a call to all media to be ideological activists"?
Do I understand correctly that you are saying "editors already are ideological activists, so we should condone a call to all media to be ideological activists"?
No, I'm saying, "Any and all editorial activity is tinged by implied or explicit ideology. We need to be aware of this whenever we absorb the news because critical thinking is a wonderful thing."
No, I'm saying, "Any and all editorial activity is tinged by implied or explicit ideology. We need to be aware of this whenever we absorb the news because critical thinking is a wonderful thing."
Then I think we're on the same page - there is, apparently given the article linked, a group that feels comfortable enough to publicly discuss conspiring to apply an ideological filter on what...
Then I think we're on the same page - there is, apparently given the article linked, a group that feels comfortable enough to publicly discuss conspiring to apply an ideological filter on what they publish - and we have no control over what may go into that filter now or in the future. I hate the actual extremists they refer to - the nazis, the kkk, etc., and I do not hate people like Count Dankula. Yet their list of unacceptable people would likely include him, and potentially people like Jordan Peterson (who is doing all he can to prevent people becoming extremists). So it's important we remain aware of what ideological filter Big Brother is employing in their telescreen broadcasts. :P
This literally happens every single day in the news. You're making a mountain out of a molehill through this entire post, man. In a news environment you'll have 25 stories that are on your desk...
This literally happens every single day in the news. You're making a mountain out of a molehill through this entire post, man. In a news environment you'll have 25 stories that are on your desk and then you'll only have 8 you can cover and 4 you can mention in passing. What he's saying, is that if that news involves hate groups pushing an agenda that you don't cover that event in favor of something else.
I'm in agreement that a private entity has no legal, moral, or ethical obligation to 'get the facts out there' on groups that think minorities should be subservient to white people, or groups who want to commit eco terrorism. Those kind of topics require investigative journalists and time slots that don't traditionally fit into the 1 hour news block.
That's not censorship that's your production team picking stories the public should know about. The people doing that are all college educated or have worked in newsrooms for a long time to be able to make those calls.
So? It is the responsibility of everybody in a society to reject ideologies that would harm that society. You're using and endorsing a website that is founded on the very principle of rejecting...
So?
It is the responsibility of everybody in a society to reject ideologies that would harm that society. You're using and endorsing a website that is founded on the very principle of rejecting ideologies that practice intolerance. A tolerant society should reject ideologies that are intolerant. Sources of media that do not do this are responsible for helping the intolerant ideology grow and harm that society. They are harmful to society by extension due to their lack of responsibility.
I agree and disagree. I agree that censorship doesn't necessarily solve extremism, however allowing extremist views completely free rein on a platform drives away the...
I don't believe censorship is the way to solve extremism.
I agree and disagree. I agree that censorship doesn't necessarily solve extremism, however allowing extremist views completely free rein on a platform drives away the moderates/centrists/apolitical (which are the vast majority of people) and eventually all you are left with is the extremists on both ends fighting tooth and nail against each other... which is an even less productive environment than a heavily censored one.
IMO the most productive environment is one that attempts to strike a balance between the two extremes of heavily censored and extremist soapbox, and between paradox of tolerance and echo chamber. Which is exactly what ~ is attempting to do: Allow perspectives from all sides to be expressed but draw a line in the sand at hate speech, harassment and threats, which is the point where productive dialogue breaks down and allowing such things to be expressed drives everyone but the extremists away.
That's pretty much what Canada has historically done too, BTW. Attempt to find that balance between free expression and limits to types of speech that are counterproductive to society. And it's worked pretty well for us as a country, IMO.
Just to be clear, I wasn't talking about censorship of extremism on tildes. I meant what the OP article is talking about - a literal conspiracy to not report on anything they define as extremist....
Just to be clear, I wasn't talking about censorship of extremism on tildes. I meant what the OP article is talking about - a literal conspiracy to not report on anything they define as extremist. Which is exactly what the people on a wide swath of the right are concerned about regarding media publication.
edit: What if it were a right-wing media hegemony that decided anything remotely socialist or pro-LGBT was extremist or hateful, and needed to be 'quarantined'?
That's some rather serious levels of false equivalence that fall flatly into paradox of tolerance territory, IMO. A group being censored that's express purpose is to promote hatred of non-whites...
That's some rather serious levels of false equivalence that fall flatly into paradox of tolerance territory, IMO. A group being censored that's express purpose is to promote hatred of non-whites is not even remotely in the same territory as those trying to fight for equal rights.
Would I be angry if a right-wing media hegemony censored LGBTQ groups for being "extremist or hateful"? Of course I would, because the vast majority of those groups are neither extremist in actions nor expressly promote hatred toward any particular group (other than the hate groups that target them) which is not the case for the vast majority of extremist groups this article is talking about whose express purposes are to promote hatred.
Part of the problem with this is that what is defined as hateful is in the hands of this group of media conspirators, and not you or me. Right now, it is considered hateful in the UK to mention...
Part of the problem with this is that what is defined as hateful is in the hands of this group of media conspirators, and not you or me. Right now, it is considered hateful in the UK to mention Tommy Robinson (as we saw on my post about him), despite the fact that he is not hateful. This is due to the media filtering the perceptions of people already to see him as hateful.
Uhm ... More ... More ... "is not hateful", give me a break. The man is a 100% transparent Islamophobe who regularly uses inciteful rhetoric accusing all Muslims of being equally responsible for...
Tommy Robinson ... is not hateful
Uhm ... More ... More ... "is not hateful", give me a break. The man is a 100% transparent Islamophobe who regularly uses inciteful rhetoric accusing all Muslims of being equally responsible for every action any other Muslim takes. And yet whenever members of the EDL or associated groups commit violent acts against Muslims he plays the "I'm not responsible for that, I don't support it and not all of us are the same!" card, despite his constant and clear attempts to incite exactly that sort of violent action against Muslims. It's hypocrisy of the highest order.
Okay, i guess this comes down to what hate means. I hate murderers. I hate rapists. I hate litterbugs. I hate war. I hate evil. I'm intolerant of intolerance. Tommy Robinson believes that Islam is...
Okay, i guess this comes down to what hate means.
I hate murderers. I hate rapists. I hate litterbugs. I hate war. I hate evil. I'm intolerant of intolerance.
Tommy Robinson believes that Islam is a violent, intolerant religion, and he abhors this (I suspect the religion moreso than the people who are forced to stay in it). So technically you are correct, there is hatred there (for an ideology that he perceives as largely violent and dangerous). My statement was made in the context of our conversation about people whose:
express purpose is to promote hatred of non-whites
Which is Tommy Robinson. I get that Tommy's views come from ignorance, fear and bigotry, but that is simply no excuse for his provocations and incitement. And it 100% is ignorance. See here and...
express purpose is to promote hatred of <Muslims>
Which is Tommy Robinson.
I get that Tommy's views come from ignorance, fear and bigotry, but that is simply no excuse for his provocations and incitement. And it 100% is ignorance. See here and here and here, etc. etc. etc.
If Tommy was attempting to warn people of the dangers of modern Wahhabism, fine... I am even with him on that one, (as would a large percentage of the Muslim population, I might add) but that is not what he is doing. He is trying to stir up anger towards all Muslims, regardless of their sect, beliefs or individual actions and intent, and exploit that for his own personal gain.
Unlike you, I am not merely intolerant of the intolerant when it comes to hate groups, I actively loathe them because they go out of their way to make the world a worse place. I especially loathe members of those groups who are too cowardly and/or lack the conviction of their beliefs to commit violent acts themselves so they instead attempt to incite other, dumber, more naive and gullible people to take violent actions for them. And ones like Tommy Robinson are the worst of the worst of the worst since he doesn't even have the courage to admit that's what he is doing despite it being 100% transparent to everyone paying attention, and when confronted he falls back on pure hypocrisy, claiming not all members of his group are the same despite him accusing his targets/victims of being a homogeneous, monolithic entity, equally culpable for the actions of every other member of the group.
I love that the Right is more concerned with the slippery slope of limiting extremism than they are with literally Nazis and white supremacists gaining a foothold in modern society.
Which is exactly what the people on a wide swath of the right are concerned about regarding media publication.
I love that the Right is more concerned with the slippery slope of limiting extremism than they are with literally Nazis and white supremacists gaining a foothold in modern society.
Believe me, the right is concerned about exremism. It mostly believes that the threat from radical islamic extremists is more pressing, and that nazism is a completely discredited movement and a...
Believe me, the right is concerned about exremism. It mostly believes that the threat from radical islamic extremists is more pressing, and that nazism is a completely discredited movement and a non-issue. The issue is that the far left people in media and academia have been convincing people that anything that isn't welcoming immigration is nazism, anything that isn't for socialism is nazism, anything that is capitalist is nazism, anything that is for national borders or patriotism is nazism, etc. etc. So yes, it is a fear of a slippery slope, because it is happening.
It isn't "limiting extremism" that people on the right are averse to - it is that idea being used as a political cudgel against people and ideas that are not extreme.
Okay. I get what you're saying, and it's true the "Nazi" label gets thrown around. I can see how the left does a lot of "guilty by association" links, for instance when white supremacists give...
Okay. I get what you're saying, and it's true the "Nazi" label gets thrown around. I can see how the left does a lot of "guilty by association" links, for instance when white supremacists give support to Trump. (Trump could have done a better job distancing himself from these groups, but that's not the issue here.)
So yeah, I see the slippery slope.
At the same time, I don't agree with the idea that white supremacists are less of a threat than Islamic fundamentalists... Just look at domestic terrorism numbers. But I realize you're not arguing this, just saying that's the right's sense of things.
By the way, I want to commend you for sticking to your argument and carrying on with calm discussion. Much appreciated.
I find the world view that we simply need to let bad ideas spew forth so we can defeat them in the open to be naive and reliant upon premises that aren't sound or realistic. The problem with the...
I find the world view that we simply need to let bad ideas spew forth so we can defeat them in the open to be naive and reliant upon premises that aren't sound or realistic.
The problem with the free marketplace of ideas will always be that, just as with any marketplace, it relies upon what is in demand. Unfortunately, often what is in demand are easy answers, answers that affirm preexisting biases, answers that appeal to someone's feelings. Well-reasoned and informed answers don't always win out in the marketplace. In each individual's head there is a marketplace, and from that we can see that there are a lot of people who value personal emotions over rational positions. In the gladitorial, Darwinistic area of the mind, it's not the most rational idea that is selected, it's the most viral idea that is selected.
Not all arguments enter into public discourse with intent to actually engage with opposition. Some merely treat it as a performance in which they have no regard for genuine discussion, but rather for appearance. To expose their ideas to as many people as possible, so that they may net the vulnerable ones in the audience who are primed to buy into it.
This notion that the only reason we haven't defeated things is because we haven't talked about it enough is just silly. There's only so many ways in which theists can fail in debates, yet they still hold massive followings despite constantly repeating already defeated arguments. Is the reason that flat-earthers exist because people just didn't make a strong-enough case for a round-earth? No, it's because there are people who do not care about reason, who cannot be reasoned out of the holes they dig for themselves.
What if the theists were the ones running the show? Would you be happy with an Islamic caliphate that forbids platforming of those dangerous atheists? "Atheism has lost all debates, therefore...
What if the theists were the ones running the show? Would you be happy with an Islamic caliphate that forbids platforming of those dangerous atheists? "Atheism has lost all debates, therefore there is no point in helping their ideas to spread further"
It is absolutely true that people are irrational, often illogical, and easily influenced by persuasive speakers and presentations - Edward Bernays has taught everyone that. And still, if you begin a system where some ideas are simply banned in an authoritarian manner, what inevitably will happen from just an evolutionary point of view is that authoritarianism as an ideology will censor anything that does not favor it. That is dangerous. We saw the same thing in nazi germany, in communist russia, that the suppression does not stop with only the very fringe if there is no means to stop the people who are already controlling perceptions. It doesn't even have to be malicious because the filter bubble will ensure polarization to extremes.
People are irrational. People are easily swayed by sophistry. And we still should not fall victim to nihilism on this point - because sometimes reason does win, and the alternative is an orwellian nightmare.
I don't know if I am misremembering but I have a vague recollection of the government making a visible push for journalistic ethics, with specific mention of the BNP(British National Party), back when they were particular good at baiting media outlets into giving them attention.
This would be somewhere around 15-20 years ago though.
Just a weird memory that popped up as a result of this article. The issue hasn't changed - stop giving coverage to such fringe things that don't matter because they're controversial. It gives them credibility. It gives visibility. It does nothing but help them even when the coverage is horrible.
This goes for everything, extremist groups on all ends, and other nutso things like anti-vaccination.
They're not showing very good foresight in their language choice here though. I absolutely would not be publishing the phrase "strategic silence". The use of "strategic" will only be used within the kinds of extreme circles that this would affect to confirm the idea that there is a conspiratorial machine working against them.
It's not savvy language choice.
But that is exactly what the author is suggesting. Whether you put it in one phrasing or another, you are already admitting that this is what these groups say is happening or at risk of happening.
Their action is a reaction to the use of a strategy though, not a strategy to put people down.
A highly motivated extreme political minority is baiting the news cycle.
The news cycle must react to this by being savvy enough to not get baited. These groups aren't news, they're trying to force themselves into being interpreted as news by baiting though.
"Strategic silence" is just a fancy way to say "don't feed the trolls". All I'm getting at though is that they have chosen the wrong way to rephrase this age-old adage of the internet. Strategic silence is a phrase that lacks awareness of how the word strategic will be used to interpret their actions in particular ways and to further rile up the groups of idiots that are manipulated behind these extremist causes. I think you already understand this though Mumber, you're relatively savvy yourself.
Why has it become necessary for news-media to quarantine ideas? It seems to me that it shouldn't be the news' job to filter ideas in or out of the public consciousness. Instead, they should -- you know -- report the state of the world.
Somehow the relationship between journalism and activism has become confused. People have seen the results of courageous journalism, and have conflated the how-to of it with the techniques of the propagandist.
It's not a new idea. This goes back to American Nazi supporters (not the Charlottesville variety, actual WW2 Nazi supporters) and the KKK.
It's not an issue on whether or not to report about the state of the world. The problem is that these extremist groups wield insignificant influence in the world in terms of numbers, but they make for attractive headlines, so editors of the past made a point of not giving them a voice because it actually distorts the state of the world by amplifying fringe voices in a disproportionate manner.
As @Awoo said earlier it's the language "strategic silence" which makes it appear as if there is some sort of agenda rather than just reporting the news.
We should also keep in mind that news is not the ordinary, it's the out of ordinary.
It's pretty clear there's an agenda. It's called "Stop the KKK and the Nazis from recruiting people, for crissakes."
The question is where do we draw the line when it comes to news organizations having agendas? It's a slippery slope...
Nazis. We can draw the line at Nazis.
So they can only have an agenda about Nazis and nothing else?
If someones platform is believing other people are inferior to others and they shouldn't be part of the country then they absolutely shouldn't be given the bullhorn of the media.
You're walking along the line of 'intolerance of hateful people is being intolerant towards them.' Hateful people deserve no tolerance. They should be chastised and they should be shunned by society not given an 'equal seat at the table' of ideas.
I couldn't agree more. If you're a "news" organization, then report the news.
Reporting the news is all about making choices. You have limited resources, limited methods of exposure/dissemination, and barely any time to do it in.
The first question you ask is: Should this be covered at all?
After that there are a more questions: Does this deserve our attention, time, money, effort? Does it deserve the same of our audience?
Are we the best media organization to do this particular story, or are there others who will do it, and do it better than us? Can we report this in a responsible fashion? Can we verify the facts? Can we do that in time? Can we provide proper context? Does it meet the interests of our audience, and does it fit with the identity of our medium? Etc.
After many decisions and a lot of hard work you end up with something that is a news report. Handcrafted, artisanal news.
"Just report the news" is a gross oversimplification, and in my opinion that phrase betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what news is by the people who use it. News is not something that exists independently. It's not something like gold that remains what it is after it is mined, and that isn't influenced by who mines it.
There was a brilliant piece in Aljazeera a few months ago called Media Theorized that speaks very much to a lot of your points. It's a series of YouTube videos on famous anthropologists, linguists, and other theorists from different countries in how we interact with the genre of media:
https://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2017/the-listening-post-media-theorised/index.html
Thank you. I'll check it out :)
Again, as the article explains it... It's not about whether or not you report the news. It's about whether or not you give a voice to a fringe group with very little real influence by giving them a public tribune. That's kind of the key here... They are NOT newsworthy, but it's a dark, exciting subject that sells newspaper copies.
Influential people buy what kind of news they want published. It's hardly a secret.
This seems similar to the concept of not reporting on mass shootings.
There are good reasons to not report on mass shootings, suicides, etc, as it seems that such reports inspire others to copy.
This article is about legally or corporately enforcing Overton Windows, a concept that scares the crap out of me. As someone who likes the fact that homosexual activity has been legalised, and hopes to see drug use legalised, it's crucial that we can discuss it. Giving further power to established authorities will only ever benefit status quo.
I'm just comparing the fact that it popularizes it. Obviously school shootings are objectively bad and shouldn't be popularized while the ideas discussed in the article are less obvious, which think is the point you are trying to make.
I think the article strikes a chord, but comes at the problem from an ineffective angle.
Casting the reporting choice as between covering or not covering extremists means leaving the extremists with the choice of what content is in the story: the journalist only decides whether to show it or not.
The Western press seems less and less capable of finding its own angle and voice in reporting. Most often, articles report on political controversy by simply lending the microphone to the various factions; an approach that is "impartial" only in the most superficial sense, and which is naturally exploited by populists, who know how to sound louder and more interesting than anyone else.
Instead, the press needs to find its own authoritative voice, self-critical and aware of its limitation and potential for bias, but not simply surrendering to third-party opinions for fear of having its own.
When the far-right holds some kind of event and presents their own narrative of it, simply not reporting on it leaves them in charge of the messaging, and it will get out through sympathetic outlets and social media. Instead, the press should report on it, but clearly expose the lies and crimes in their behavior.
Interesting how the Guardian capitalises author danah boyd's name against her stated wishes that it be left lower-case.
This is probably them following their internal style guide. The Associated Press Stylebook, for instance, recommends that proper nouns be capitalized, and that stylized brand names be given proper capitalization. (So, for instance, even though NIKE likes to write their brand name in all caps, the AP would write it "Nike.")
I haven't seen guidelines for an actual person's stylized name, but I figure it's the same logic: standard capitalization takes precedence over stylized preferences.
Sorry, I'm a professional writer... In case my geeking out over style guides didn't make it obvious. :)
I mean, I could wish that you spelt Lovich like sgxuen26492!*7 but still pronounce it the same. People don't have to follow my wishes, and probably won't if they are trying to keep a consistent rule set when writing. Having one person be the exception just invites confusion
I don't believe censorship is the way to solve extremism. It will allow them to claim persecution, and strengthens the argument about media conspiracy. It is better to permit the ideas to be available for public examination, and criticism. When you censor ideas, you convey (whether warranted or not) that you are incapable of defeating them through argument. I assume nobody at the guardian has heard of the Streisand effect, either.
Additionally, when war with words is no longer possible, war through other means becomes inevitable. :/
This has absolutely nothing to do with censorship.
Censorship means not being able to express your opinion, or facing consequences for doing so. The media is under no obligation whatsoever to report on your opinion and broadcast it to a larger audience.
It has everything to do with censorship. The whole article is about trying to fight a battle for control over what goes into the minds of their readers.
Censorship is me stopping you from saying what you want to say.
Me deciding not to tell other people what you said is not censorship.
The OP article is talking about a conspiracy of news outlets to hide certain ideas and events from the public awareness in order to control public perceptions because they believe people are too stupid to think for themselves. You have the right as a private company to report or not report on whatever you want - but for something like the BBC for example which is indebted to the public, or more generally a massive conspiracy between all of the major news outlets to filter out a segment of actual newsworthy events like the OP article is describing... and that segment right now is defined as something that you find worthy of being hidden away, but what if that definition changed?
Generally speaking the press has a moral responsibility to publish the news to help democracy function. I don't believe deplatforming on a massive scale like what the article is suggesting is smart - it is insulting to the intelligence of their readers, and it sets a dangerous precedent that might bite you in the backside down the line.
So you're saying every single time a news editor decides what gets reported on the front page or in the six o'clock news, what gets rejected is censorship?
No. That is not an accurate description of what I said, nor a reasonable inference to a general principle.
You said an editor deciding not to report on something is censorship. That's what I'm describing.
I know this may seem like I'm being pedantic, but I assure you I am not: I did not say those words. You have interpreted what I did say as something completely different.
You're arguing that a news editor has the power of censorship by choosing what gets on the news or not. I'm pushing your argument to its limits and thus demonstrating its absurdity. My argument, through this, is that news editors are not the people carrying out censorship, and your definition of censorship is wrong.
You can keep saying "I didn't say that," but you've implied it, whether you realized it or not.
It is absurd because you are pushing it into an absurdity that no longer resembles the original claim. This is not a clever argument/debate tactic, it is an emotional response.
The OP article is saying "We (the media) should have a list of things that we consider unacceptable. We (the media) should agree, informally or formally, to not publish news about the things on this list. If enough of us do it, it might help stop the spread of these ideas into our readers' minds."
That is not the same as saying that every decision not to report on a random thing is censorship - an editor may choose not to report on an instance of a man walking his snake on the sidewalk regardless of whether it breaks a law or not. An editor may choose not to report on the elementary school performance of hansel and gretel. The decision not to report on those things is because they are not important, they are not some combination of surprising, unusual, impacting, dangerous, political, etc. etc.
But if your motivation for not reporting on something is ideological, if it is not because it isn't newsworthy, but because you don't want your readers to be exposed to it, AND if you and "enough" of your fellow news orgs agree for the same reasons not to report on this thing, that is a much different case than an editor deciding to not report on johnny's lemonaide stand.
Okay, at least you're engaging with my argument, now.
How can you tell if something isn't being reported because it isn't newsworthy, and what isn't reported because of a political act? How do you draw this line, in your opinion?
You can't. That is why this is dangerous. What the OP article is saying is explicitly "strategic silence" for ideological purposes, for the purposes of controlling perceptions. This is as clear an expression of intent as one would need - and it is the intent I am criticizing at this time.
Which is my point. Any news editor, by the simple virtue that they edit, is demonstrating intent. Any news has an inherent bias. Whether it's explicitly stated or implied by one's worldview, there is no such thing as unbiased news.
In other words, the sort of bias you're calling "censorship" is part and parcel of what constitutes the news. I've said it above: that's not censorship.
Do I understand correctly that you are saying "editors already are ideological activists, so we should condone a call to all media to be ideological activists"?
No, I'm saying, "Any and all editorial activity is tinged by implied or explicit ideology. We need to be aware of this whenever we absorb the news because critical thinking is a wonderful thing."
Then I think we're on the same page - there is, apparently given the article linked, a group that feels comfortable enough to publicly discuss conspiring to apply an ideological filter on what they publish - and we have no control over what may go into that filter now or in the future. I hate the actual extremists they refer to - the nazis, the kkk, etc., and I do not hate people like Count Dankula. Yet their list of unacceptable people would likely include him, and potentially people like Jordan Peterson (who is doing all he can to prevent people becoming extremists). So it's important we remain aware of what ideological filter Big Brother is employing in their telescreen broadcasts. :P
This literally happens every single day in the news. You're making a mountain out of a molehill through this entire post, man. In a news environment you'll have 25 stories that are on your desk and then you'll only have 8 you can cover and 4 you can mention in passing. What he's saying, is that if that news involves hate groups pushing an agenda that you don't cover that event in favor of something else.
I'm in agreement that a private entity has no legal, moral, or ethical obligation to 'get the facts out there' on groups that think minorities should be subservient to white people, or groups who want to commit eco terrorism. Those kind of topics require investigative journalists and time slots that don't traditionally fit into the 1 hour news block.
That's not censorship that's your production team picking stories the public should know about. The people doing that are all college educated or have worked in newsrooms for a long time to be able to make those calls.
So?
It is the responsibility of everybody in a society to reject ideologies that would harm that society. You're using and endorsing a website that is founded on the very principle of rejecting ideologies that practice intolerance. A tolerant society should reject ideologies that are intolerant. Sources of media that do not do this are responsible for helping the intolerant ideology grow and harm that society. They are harmful to society by extension due to their lack of responsibility.
I agree and disagree. I agree that censorship doesn't necessarily solve extremism, however allowing extremist views completely free rein on a platform drives away the moderates/centrists/apolitical (which are the vast majority of people) and eventually all you are left with is the extremists on both ends fighting tooth and nail against each other... which is an even less productive environment than a heavily censored one.
IMO the most productive environment is one that attempts to strike a balance between the two extremes of heavily censored and extremist soapbox, and between paradox of tolerance and echo chamber. Which is exactly what ~ is attempting to do: Allow perspectives from all sides to be expressed but draw a line in the sand at hate speech, harassment and threats, which is the point where productive dialogue breaks down and allowing such things to be expressed drives everyone but the extremists away.
That's pretty much what Canada has historically done too, BTW. Attempt to find that balance between free expression and limits to types of speech that are counterproductive to society. And it's worked pretty well for us as a country, IMO.
Just to be clear, I wasn't talking about censorship of extremism on tildes. I meant what the OP article is talking about - a literal conspiracy to not report on anything they define as extremist. Which is exactly what the people on a wide swath of the right are concerned about regarding media publication.
edit: What if it were a right-wing media hegemony that decided anything remotely socialist or pro-LGBT was extremist or hateful, and needed to be 'quarantined'?
That's some rather serious levels of false equivalence that fall flatly into paradox of tolerance territory, IMO. A group being censored that's express purpose is to promote hatred of non-whites is not even remotely in the same territory as those trying to fight for equal rights.
Would I be angry if a right-wing media hegemony censored LGBTQ groups for being "extremist or hateful"? Of course I would, because the vast majority of those groups are neither extremist in actions nor expressly promote hatred toward any particular group (other than the hate groups that target them) which is not the case for the vast majority of extremist groups this article is talking about whose express purposes are to promote hatred.
Part of the problem with this is that what is defined as hateful is in the hands of this group of media conspirators, and not you or me. Right now, it is considered hateful in the UK to mention Tommy Robinson (as we saw on my post about him), despite the fact that he is not hateful. This is due to the media filtering the perceptions of people already to see him as hateful.
Uhm ... More ... More ... "is not hateful", give me a break. The man is a 100% transparent Islamophobe who regularly uses inciteful rhetoric accusing all Muslims of being equally responsible for every action any other Muslim takes. And yet whenever members of the EDL or associated groups commit violent acts against Muslims he plays the "I'm not responsible for that, I don't support it and not all of us are the same!" card, despite his constant and clear attempts to incite exactly that sort of violent action against Muslims. It's hypocrisy of the highest order.
Okay, i guess this comes down to what hate means.
I hate murderers. I hate rapists. I hate litterbugs. I hate war. I hate evil. I'm intolerant of intolerance.
Tommy Robinson believes that Islam is a violent, intolerant religion, and he abhors this (I suspect the religion moreso than the people who are forced to stay in it). So technically you are correct, there is hatred there (for an ideology that he perceives as largely violent and dangerous). My statement was made in the context of our conversation about people whose:
Which is not Tommy Robinson.
Which is Tommy Robinson.
I get that Tommy's views come from ignorance, fear and bigotry, but that is simply no excuse for his provocations and incitement. And it 100% is ignorance. See here and here and here, etc. etc. etc.
If Tommy was attempting to warn people of the dangers of modern Wahhabism, fine... I am even with him on that one, (as would a large percentage of the Muslim population, I might add) but that is not what he is doing. He is trying to stir up anger towards all Muslims, regardless of their sect, beliefs or individual actions and intent, and exploit that for his own personal gain.
Unlike you, I am not merely intolerant of the intolerant when it comes to hate groups, I actively loathe them because they go out of their way to make the world a worse place. I especially loathe members of those groups who are too cowardly and/or lack the conviction of their beliefs to commit violent acts themselves so they instead attempt to incite other, dumber, more naive and gullible people to take violent actions for them. And ones like Tommy Robinson are the worst of the worst of the worst since he doesn't even have the courage to admit that's what he is doing despite it being 100% transparent to everyone paying attention, and when confronted he falls back on pure hypocrisy, claiming not all members of his group are the same despite him accusing his targets/victims of being a homogeneous, monolithic entity, equally culpable for the actions of every other member of the group.
I love that the Right is more concerned with the slippery slope of limiting extremism than they are with literally Nazis and white supremacists gaining a foothold in modern society.
Believe me, the right is concerned about exremism. It mostly believes that the threat from radical islamic extremists is more pressing, and that nazism is a completely discredited movement and a non-issue. The issue is that the far left people in media and academia have been convincing people that anything that isn't welcoming immigration is nazism, anything that isn't for socialism is nazism, anything that is capitalist is nazism, anything that is for national borders or patriotism is nazism, etc. etc. So yes, it is a fear of a slippery slope, because it is happening.
It isn't "limiting extremism" that people on the right are averse to - it is that idea being used as a political cudgel against people and ideas that are not extreme.
Okay. I get what you're saying, and it's true the "Nazi" label gets thrown around. I can see how the left does a lot of "guilty by association" links, for instance when white supremacists give support to Trump. (Trump could have done a better job distancing himself from these groups, but that's not the issue here.)
So yeah, I see the slippery slope.
At the same time, I don't agree with the idea that white supremacists are less of a threat than Islamic fundamentalists... Just look at domestic terrorism numbers. But I realize you're not arguing this, just saying that's the right's sense of things.
By the way, I want to commend you for sticking to your argument and carrying on with calm discussion. Much appreciated.
I find the world view that we simply need to let bad ideas spew forth so we can defeat them in the open to be naive and reliant upon premises that aren't sound or realistic.
The problem with the free marketplace of ideas will always be that, just as with any marketplace, it relies upon what is in demand. Unfortunately, often what is in demand are easy answers, answers that affirm preexisting biases, answers that appeal to someone's feelings. Well-reasoned and informed answers don't always win out in the marketplace. In each individual's head there is a marketplace, and from that we can see that there are a lot of people who value personal emotions over rational positions. In the gladitorial, Darwinistic area of the mind, it's not the most rational idea that is selected, it's the most viral idea that is selected.
Not all arguments enter into public discourse with intent to actually engage with opposition. Some merely treat it as a performance in which they have no regard for genuine discussion, but rather for appearance. To expose their ideas to as many people as possible, so that they may net the vulnerable ones in the audience who are primed to buy into it.
This notion that the only reason we haven't defeated things is because we haven't talked about it enough is just silly. There's only so many ways in which theists can fail in debates, yet they still hold massive followings despite constantly repeating already defeated arguments. Is the reason that flat-earthers exist because people just didn't make a strong-enough case for a round-earth? No, it's because there are people who do not care about reason, who cannot be reasoned out of the holes they dig for themselves.
What if the theists were the ones running the show? Would you be happy with an Islamic caliphate that forbids platforming of those dangerous atheists? "Atheism has lost all debates, therefore there is no point in helping their ideas to spread further"
It is absolutely true that people are irrational, often illogical, and easily influenced by persuasive speakers and presentations - Edward Bernays has taught everyone that. And still, if you begin a system where some ideas are simply banned in an authoritarian manner, what inevitably will happen from just an evolutionary point of view is that authoritarianism as an ideology will censor anything that does not favor it. That is dangerous. We saw the same thing in nazi germany, in communist russia, that the suppression does not stop with only the very fringe if there is no means to stop the people who are already controlling perceptions. It doesn't even have to be malicious because the filter bubble will ensure polarization to extremes.
People are irrational. People are easily swayed by sophistry. And we still should not fall victim to nihilism on this point - because sometimes reason does win, and the alternative is an orwellian nightmare.