Who do we believe these days?

[Lid]

After this day of protest by environmental 'activists' at Drax, it's lead me to wonder which spin is predominantly right, or even factual, in our society.

Take Indymedia today:

just after 4.30am seven activists occupied a Drax lighting tower.

On the BBC's Look North at 1pm, the Chief Constable of North Yorkshire police said

A tower was occupied by these people on open land near the Drax site. This was not belonging to, or on the Drax site.

Indymedia:

Later nearby roads were blocked by different affinity groups and another Drax lighting tower was also occupied with a banner reading "No Future For You"

Look North:

The Police closed nearby roads to stop clashes with motorists and delays. Some protesters took this as a green light to use the highway as a means of protest.

Indymedia:

Police are justifying draconian stop and search activity around the Camp for Climate Action by telling press that they have arrested people for posession of weapons.... Legal obersevers [sic] are reporting incrediable [sic] abuse of police powers to seize property.... it is not unreasonable for people to have folding pocket knifes etc

BBC News Online:

a giant home-made ostrich had been seized by police, and found to be containing tools which could have been used by demonstrators to chain themselves to fences.

Indymedia:

Total arrests are currently unknown, but believed to be in the region of 35-45 people, some of whom were violently attacked by police.

BBC News Online:

Thirty-eight campaigners have been arrested during a "mass day of action" against carbon emissions at Britain's largest coal-fired power station.

Offences included criminal damage, aggravated trespass and possession of offensive weapons.

Police said the majority were arrested outside Drax but said a "small number" had gained access to the plant.

Drax Power was granted an injunction earlier this month banning unauthorised people from entering the site or using an adjacent footpath.

Now I know, Indymedia is probably the least neutral of reporters. However let's just take the accusation of 'attacks' by police officers. Surely something of that nature would gain mention on the news?

This is a minority that are doing this, I understand that, but those that are intent on breaking the law are doing just that. However they try to justify it by saying "it's morally right" or the police are "Draconian" is not an issue to take up with the police, it's an issue for Parliament. I detest people that try to justify breaking laws that they full-well know exist, and their only justification is "morals" as seems to have been what this minorty of violent protesters have done.

However the question remains.. who do we believe these days. People can very easily be swayed by the media. Look at the "Murdoch effect" in the last few elections. People could be as naive as to read that stuff Indymedia churn out and believe it as fact. How much are we swayed by the media?

[hr]

We are not drunks, we are multi-millionaires

[Marco Biagi]

Anarchists. Yuk.

They're like libertarians with more anger.

[Lid]

I prefer to call them part-time anarchists.

For when they require something from the government, the cap usually fits differently.

[hr]

We are not drunks, we are multi-millionaires

[Malcolm]

I'd sooner trust the BBC.

"Indymedia" ie The Hippy Anarchist Times. Of course they're going to hit out at the police, the government, and the "system" - they're anarchists and hippies, that's all they do. Society has shunned them, so they fight back with petty rhetoric.

That said, I fully agree with their complaints about Drax - this is the 21st century, we're supposed to be developing clean energy.

On the flipside, though, I worked at one of Scottish Power's 2 coal-fired Scottish stations over the summer, and the consensus was that wind power produces Sweet Fanny Adams in the way of useable electricity - in actual fact, the staff at that particular station treat the windfarms as a running joke. So we've got a choice to make.

[hr]

" ... No-one knows what it's like, to be the bad man, to be the sad man, Behind Blue Eyes ... "

[Duggeh]

I read the bbc and the daily mail. Reverse anything in the mail and compare against the beeb, then you usually get the real story.

[hr]

IMAGE:www.macintyre42.plus.com/images/tb2-100.jpg
Duggeh: Master Of Ceremonies

[Jono]

Spin, by it's very definition, is never right or factual. Who you believe is based largely on what you believe, and whose spin galvanises your own rhetoric.

Me, I prefer the economist. wooly liberal sentiment, held to the paper's line with fascist efficiency.



[hr]


http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37105376

[Lid]

I thought spin was the control and release of factual information in a way that makes it easier to stomach by those who'll be most disgruntled to hear it.

Why do people actually read Indymedia?

[hr]

We are not drunks, we are multi-millionaires

[Jono]

Quoting Lid from 16:59, 1st Sep 2006
I thought spin was the control and release of factual information in a way that makes it easier to stomach by those who'll be most disgruntled to hear it.

Why do people actually read Indymedia?

[hr]

We are not drunks, we are multi-millionaires

Because, Man. It makes em feel like free-birds..... Like Skynard, Man!!! Coz we're not gonna be stomped on by the fascists in washi...er... westminister.



[hr]


http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37105376

[Anon.]

Quoting Lid from 16:59, 1st Sep 2006
Why do people actually read Indymedia?

Who does? I'd never even heard of it before reading this thread.

[Lid]

According to Alexa, the internet traffic statistician, they have a daily reach of 35 per million (about 10 times that of The Sinner) and commands about 600,000 hits per day.

People that visit it are also most likely to visit The Guardian.

[hr]

We are not drunks, we are multi-millionaires

[WashingtonIrving]

A good idea would probably be to read the telegraph then the guardian, with the truth being somewhere in the middle.

[hr]

"I said farewell honey, I'll see you Judgment Day"

[Lid]

I read the Telegraph.

The Times was always a bit fuzzy and liberal for my liking.

[hr]

We are not drunks, we are multi-millionaires

[Lodestone]

Lid,

However the question remains.. who do we believe these days. People can very easily be swayed by the media. Look at the "Murdoch effect" in the last few elections. People could be as naive as to read that stuff Indymedia churn out and believe it as fact. How much are we swayed by the media?

Anyone reading Indymedia, just as anyone reading the Sun, ought to be reading it knowing that it will be accompanied with rhetoric and spin. This is because the intention of its reporters is not just to bring news but also to argue a case (although in both cases, though perhaps more with the Sun, it's deliberate choir-preaching).

I tend to trust the BBC very much, because they're always accused by every side as being biased towards every other side. However, even they must selectively report. As an antidote to that, I try and read as much of Global Voices (http://www.globalvoicesonline.org) each day as I can.

Why do people actually read Indymedia?

Because I'm involved in the activist community, and it lets me know what's going on in that community.

Malcolm,

"Indymedia" ie The Hippy Anarchist Times. Of course they're going to hit out at the police, the government, and the "system" - they're anarchists and hippies, that's all they do. Society has shunned them, so they fight back with petty rhetoric.

Yes, and the Tories are callous scum without a social conscience who just want to stomp on the underpriveleged. And these Muslims, they're all terrorists with bombs under their turbans forcing honest Western Isles girls off to Pakistan to get married to their cousins.

These movements mean a lot to a lot of people, and the people in them tend to have very strong beliefs which are a core part of their lives. They're complicated, broad movements with principled people in them. They can be thoughtfully criticised, but not lampooned in that silly, silly way. The movements have too great an effect on our lives to be so flippantly dismissive.

Lid again,

This is a minority that are doing this, I understand that, but those that are intent on breaking the law are doing just that. However they try to justify it by saying "it's morally right" or the police are "Draconian" is not an issue to take up with the police, it's an issue for Parliament. I detest people that try to justify breaking laws that they full-well know exist, and their only justification is "morals" as seems to have been what this minorty of violent protesters have done.

One liner of an argument similar to summoning Hitler, I know, but: the Civil Rights movement relied on civil disobedience. The point being that something we now take for granted as right was founded on law-breaking. To understand the mindset of these activists, you must understand that they believe their principles to be as right as you know, that-woman-who-wouldn't-give-up-her-seat-on-the-bus.

[ludy]

As one of the environmental 'activists' present at the Drax protests this week, and having been involved in legal support for those arrested, I can tell you that in the samples given here indymedia appears slightly more accurate than the mainstream media. For example, one protestor was released from police custody into hospital after suffering a serious truncheon-shaped head injury during the process of his arrest. I would say that counts as an attack by the police, wouldn't you?


Regardless of the specifics, I would argue that comparing a website like indymedia with the BBC is so problematic as to be pointlss. The BBC present news prepared and edited by professionals, indymedia is a service by which anyone can post information with minimal editorial control. Thus the two have very different styles and purposes, and it's hardly surprising that they differ widely. Those who read indymedia are aware of this and choose to read it precisely because it is so free from editorial control, taken with a pinch of salt it gives a fairly good overview of the activist scene.

To all those who jumped on this thread for a bit of lefty-bashing, do try and rein it in darlings, you'll be back in St Andrews within a few weeks and then you can disapear up your own copies of the Daily Mail without any of us crusty hippies bothering you for another year.

[Shouk]

Quoting Lid from 04:38, 1st Sep 2006
However the question remains.. who do we believe these days. People can very easily be swayed by the media. Look at the "Murdoch effect" in the last few elections. People could be as naive as to read that stuff Indymedia churn out and believe it as fact. How much are we swayed by the media?

If you don't watch the news, you are uninformed.
If you do watch the news, you are misinformed.

Simple as that.

[hr]

IMAGE:www.shuhrat.alpha.tj/images/givingad.gif

[Rufus]

Quoting ludy from 23:24, 2nd Sep 2006
To all those who jumped on this thread for a bit of lefty-bashing, do try and rein it in darlings, you'll be back in St Andrews within a few weeks and then you can disapear up your own copies of the Daily Mail without any of us crusty hippies bothering you for another year.

Well said!

[Lid]

Quoting ludy from 23:24, 2nd Sep 2006
you can disapear up your own copies of the Daily Mail without any of us crusty hippies bothering you for another year.

Oh please. I much prefer the Telegraph. Or the Yorkshire Post while I'm home.

For example, one protestor was released from police custody into hospital after suffering a serious truncheon-shaped head injury during the process of his arrest. I would say that counts as an attack by the police, wouldn't you?

Well that all depends on the circumstances of the arrest. I'm sure the police would argue it was suitable restraint. I'd only consider an attack in these circumstances outside the line of duty, i.e. it would be an attack if it weren't provoked by law-breaking. I'm perhaps naive, but I was under the impression that those evil nasty Mr Police Officers don't go around arresting people for the hell of it.

Lodestone:

One liner of an argument similar to summoning Hitler, I know, but: the Civil Rights movement relied on civil disobedience.

One man's terrorist...

Furthermore, I detest direct action. I'm under the impression that a lot of the time it can in fact harden opinions against their cause, both from politicians and the public. Certainly one patron of my pub, caught up in the miles of tailbacks caused (and like most others left his engine running, I dare to add) commented when arriving at the pub "those fucking hippies. I didn't have an opinion before, but now I think Drax should stay open for good." (see notes on The Sun readers below).

Anyone reading Indymedia, just as anyone reading the Sun, ought to be reading it knowing that it will be accompanied with rhetoric and spin.

Well then maybe the average Indymedia reader is more well informed than the average The Sun reader. It's probably going to be controversial to say it, but a lot of people who read The Sun do believe it word-for-word and aren't all that well informed. And by well informed, I mean read a wide range of news items and different opinions.

[hr]

We are not drunks, we are multi-millionaires

[Lodestone]

One man's terrorist...

Indeed. Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. This should help explain the mindset of direct action which seems to be confusing some people.

Furthermore, I detest direct action. I'm under the impression that a lot of the time it can in fact harden opinions against their cause, both from politicians and the public. Certainly one patron of my pub, caught up in the miles of tailbacks caused (and like most others left his engine running, I dare to add) commented when arriving at the pub "those fucking hippies. I didn't have an opinion before, but now I think Drax should stay open for good." (see notes on The Sun readers below).

Why do you detest direct action? Do you detest it in the case of Rosa Parks?

Direct action has a very complex dynamic, and you can rest assured that those who organise it spend a lot of time judging what the effects are going to be. Sometimes they get it wrong. A lot of the time they get it spot on. But it's impossible to judge it solely on the grounds you mention.

As it is, you just come off as a middle-Englander resentful that your ordinary life should have to suffer the inconvenience of somebody actually believing in something.

[Lid]

Careful now, give the government their way, and you'd be glorifying terrorism!

Mandela is an odd one, his cause was just, as is sometimes the case with terrorists, but then again, how do you condone someone who was a paramilitary, where is the line you draw?

Blair has said in the past "terrorism is never justifiable", yet Blair has met Nelson Mandela in the past, shook his hand.

Allow me to re-define what I meant by direct action. I meant the civil disobediance that is a result of direct action. I don't think there's any justification in breaking a court order to break into a power plant, no matter how strongly you feel. I simply feel there are better ways of making a political point than direct action.

[hr]

We are not drunks, we are multi-millionaires

[Jono]

Terrorism is technically a form of direct action.

For those who are claiming that the BBC is even handed and unbiased....yeh right. Just because its reporters don't scream right wing diatride as a matter of course it doesn't mean that it's an unbiased media source. The problem with the BBC is that it exists on the back of an institutionalised lisence fee (something that, Ironically, only continues to hold majority support because it carries itself in an even-handed way). Furthermore it's mandate is to broadcast what is in the public interest. It probably isn't in the public interest for example, to publish unconfirmed reports of police brutality.

Nothing broadcast or published is unbiased, in my opinion.

[hr]


http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37105376