[BettyOblivious]

(Original post by Howard)
Do you think they made it all up?

Obviously you've never lived in Luton. If you had you would know that the sentiments expressed by these young Islamics aren't exactly rare.

No, I'm not saying they made it all up, but from the experiences people I know have had with the media I realise you have to be aware that distortions are common. Remember that newspapers are a product - they want to be sensational to sell more copies. "Truth" isn't necessarily the main consideration for an editor.

Saying that though, I do recognise that there are a lot of repuksive people in the world - religious fundamentalists, the BNP and other fascist nutjobs etc.

[Trousers]

(Original post by Howard)
You asked me "what should we do about it?" and I told you.

I still don't understand why you see the article as "blatantly racist".

It's not a matter of every Muslim in the county plotting to set off bombs. We both know that's rubbish.

But think about it. I'm sure you'd agree that if the UK suffers a terrorist attack anytime soon (a better that average possibility I'd say) it's highly likely to come from an Muslim extremist cell, and not from the IRA. And if the intelligence services are right then there's a very good chance that this cell will be home grown.

Now, if an attack is likely, and if it's likely to come from a home grown Islamic jihadist group, don't you think that makes the article we're talking a matter of public interest rather than a blatently racist inflammatory outburst? I do.

It is a matter of some people's interest, I agree. Many people will have read and enjoyed that article. But it does give the impression that Muslims who are not terrorists are likely to be hanging around in burger joints and having these discussions. I know it's taken from one conversation, but the setting and the fact that it is apparently not 'put on' for the journalist, makes it appear commonplace, like these discussions are going on all around the country. The conversation might not have been overheard at all - the meeting might have been organised by the journalist himself. But the reader is led to believe otherwise.

When the article gets around to telling us some facts, it could be informative and it details a lot of the things that people might like to know. But this could have been done without the introduction, which doesn't tell us anything useful.

The part of the article that is most in the public interest is shunted to the bottom of the page. The inflammatory aspect of it is right at the top, and isn't even needed. Yes, we should be informed, but the element I'm complaining about can easily be removed and we will be better informed without it.

[Weejimmie]

(Original post by vienna95)
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/l...9634?version=1

easily the worst account ive read yet..amusing how the all seem to hang out in fast-food restaurants..

Have you ever heard of wind-ups?
I think this is probably a bunch of kids winding up an ignorant journalist for the fun of it.

[Howard]

(Original post by BettyOblivious)
No, I'm not saying they made it all up, but from the experiences people I know have had with the media I realise you have to be aware that distortions are common. Remember that newspapers are a product - they want to be sensational to sell more copies. "Truth" isn't necessarily the main consideration for an editor.

Saying that though, I do recognise that there are a lot of repuksive people in the world - religious fundamentalists, the BNP and other fascist nutjobs etc.

I think in the circumstances we should all be a bit more alarmed at the enormous rise of the jihadist terrorist groups than the BNP getting the odd candidate voted for counsellor in some obscure city hall.

Last time I checked the BNP was a bona-fide political party and not a terrorist group.

[Howard]

(Original post by Weejimmie)
Have you ever heard of wind-ups?
I think this is probably a bunch of kids winding up an ignorant journalist for the fun of it.

And why do you think that?

[swatfa]

[Weejimmie]

(Original post by Howard)
And why do you think that?

Because the chances of a jounalist coming across just the right people is slim. A bunch of bigmouths who'd take him for a laugh is much more likely

[Howard]

(Original post by Trousers)
It is a matter of some people's interest, I agree. Many people will have read and enjoyed that article. But it does give the impression that Muslims who are not terrorists are likely to be hanging around in burger joints and having these discussions. I know it's taken from one conversation, but the setting and the fact that it is apparently not 'put on' for the journalist, makes it appear commonplace, like these discussions are going on all around the country. The conversation might not have been overheard at all - the meeting might have been organised by the journalist himself. But the reader is led to believe otherwise.

When the article gets around to telling us some facts, it could be informative and it details a lot of the things that people might like to know. But this could have been done without the introduction, which doesn't tell us anything useful.

The part of the article that is most in the public interest is shunted to the bottom of the page. The inflammatory aspect of it is right at the top, and isn't even needed. Yes, we should be informed, but the element I'm complaining about can easily be removed and we will be better informed without it.

Well, I think we'll agree to disagree on this one. I don't find anything in the article inflammatory at all (apart from what is directly cited by the Journalist as having being said by the interviewees) What's the journalist supposed to do? Censor the ugly comments?

I don't feel the journalist unfairly twisted the article to reflect on the entire Islamic community either. There just isn't any use of wording to that effect and nor can it be implied.

[Howard]

(Original post by Weejimmie)
Because the chances of a jounalist coming across just the right people is slim. A bunch of bigmouths who'd take him for a laugh is much more likely

I bet if the journalist had stumbled on a meeting of bigmouthed Combat18 members "having a laugh" about blowing up mosques you'd be interested in reading about it wouldn't you? Then it would be serious journalism.

[Trousers]

(Original post by Howard)
Well, I think we'll agree to disagree on this one. I don't find anything in the article inflammatory at all (apart from what is directly cited by the Journalist as having being said by the interviewees) What's the journalist supposed to do? Censor the ugly comments?

I don't feel the journalist unfairly twisted the article to reflect on the entire Islamic community either. There just isn't any use of wording to that effect and nor can it be implied.

You don't find it inflammatory because you agree with it. It is justifying your views. I'm not accusing you of being violent or completely bonkers, but imagine you were.

Just imagine that you were the sort of person who would beat someone up on the grounds of their race. Wouldn't this article make you think it was ok to do this? Wouldn't it make you think "well, I might get hurt, I might get arrested, but they deserve it."

There are so many people who would see the Islamic "plotting" portrayed here as a personal insult, or an insult to their country. The natural progression of that kind of feeling, in some people, is violence.

And I don't expect the journalist to censor his findings any more than he would stop himself from writing about what he had for dinner last night. I expect him to realise that it's not appropriate, and to refrain from writing about it in the first place.

[swatfa]

That aticle was uncalled for. Its articles like these which are increasing the already present tension in the U.K. This kind of article is what i call 'tension abuse.' Meaning that an article is written based on an issue troubling britons and magnifying it and exaggerating a 100 times so as to fully capture the reader. Its a cheap selfless jounalist stunt.

''Four young British Muslims in their twenties - a social worker, an IT specialist, a security guard and a financial adviser - occupy a table at a fast-food chicken restaurant in Luton. Perched on their plastic chairs, wolfing down their dinner, they seem just ordinary young men. Yet out of their mouths pour heated words of revolution.''

Look how it starts, do you see the subliminal message within this first paragraph? its says ''They act like us, they work like us, theyre all around us, but they PLOT against us.'' It depicts their movements, actions and location so as to later provide the twist of them being potential terrorists. Now this kind of journalism although effective is not necessarily fully accurate. The fact alone that we see the journalist trying to add a twist and promote tension means he want the story to be interesting and create an impact by technically scarying them, therefore exaggeration in the story is very likely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard
Now, if an attack is likely, and if it's likely to come from a home grown Islamic jihadist group, don't you think that makes the article we're talking a matter of public interest rather than a blatently racist inflammatory outburst? I do.


How is this information usefull, and no the article itself is not directly implying racist remarks however by it being published it is more likely than not that it will spur racism amongst some people. Why not? by reading the article in general your mind formulates opinions and most likely your opinions would agree with the writer. Such as ''oh those muslims live in our country and benefit from it and yet they plot against the locals.'' or something like that. If thoughts similar to these dont cross your mind when reading that article then the journalist has done a bad job. Clearly this is not the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard
It's not a matter of every Muslim in the county plotting to set off bombs. We both know that's rubbish.


yes we know that, but what this article is implying is 'beware, all muslims are potential terrorists.'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard
I still don't understand why you see the article as "blatantly racist".


not 'blatantly' racist, but definetly adds to the on growing racism

[Weejimmie]

(Original post by Howard)
And why do you think that?

I've come across journalists from the Evening Standard. If you stapled a press release in large print and very short words to their foreheads they'd still get it wrong.

[Howard]

(Original post by Trousers)
You don't find it inflammatory because you agree with it. It is justifying your views. I'm not accusing you of being violent or completely bonkers, but imagine you were.

Just imagine that you were the sort of person who would beat someone up on the grounds of their race. Wouldn't this article make you think it was ok to do this? Wouldn't it make you think "well, I might get hurt, I might get arrested, but they deserve it."

There are so many people who would see the Islamic "plotting" portrayed here as a personal insult, or an insult to their country. The natural progression of that kind of feeling, in some people, is violence.

What do you mean agree with it? The journalist quotes the interviewees. It stands on it's own merits. There's nothing to agree/disagree with. It a record of a conversation. Period.

And BTW, I don't need race as an excuse for beating someone up! Just looking at me in a funny way is enough to earn a 2 week season ticket to the facial injuries ward.

[Weejimmie]

(Original post by Howard)
I bet if the journalist had stumbled on a meeting of bigmouthed Combat18 members "having a laugh" about blowing up mosques you'd be interested in reading about it wouldn't you? Then it would be serious journalism.

I think that bull****ting is a universal human right. Journalists are fair game for anyone

[Howard]

(Original post by Weejimmie)
I've come across journalists from the Evening Standard. If you stapled a press release in large print and very short words to their foreheads they'd still get it wrong.

What the hell's that supposed to mean? You're a math student aren't you? What do you know about journalism? How have you come accross ES journalist? You mean you met one once on a train?

I think your sweeping generalization of ES journalists leaves much to be desired.

[Howard]

(Original post by Weejimmie)
I think that bull****ting is a universal human right. Journalists are fair game for anyone

But my point is that if the same journalist wrote an atricle based on a C18 meeting in which bombing mosques was discussed you'd regard that as a serious, (or certainly more serious) piece of journalism wouldn't you?

[Vienna]

(Original post by Trousers)
People say racist or confrontational things all the time (like you just did). They also joke about bombing places they don't like, or perhaps they're serious but would never take action personally. The guy in the article was talking about pointing terrorists in the right direction or giving them a safe-house. Since he's just talking about it, he's doing nothing illegal. We also have a thing in this country called freedom of speech.

which most decent Britons appreciate..we're not used to savages. hardly the point of the article either...

I bet this journalist doesn't report every conversation he overhears in a fast food restaurant. He reported this one to tell us what evil people those nasty Muslims are. If the law was upheld properly, he would be taken to court for inciting racial hatred.

overhears? it was an interview.
he reported it to tell us some of the vile ppl that scrounge off the state while enjoying the benefits of a society that brought them up, moulded them as people and they enjoy living in, while they get off on the idea of its destruction.
racial hatred? how is this racial?

I can read a newspaper article without calling it tripe. I read many newspaper articles every day without calling them tripe, but this one was tripe.

and your post holds about as much water as a swiss cheese. naive or just stupid?

[Weejimmie]

(Original post by Howard)
What the hell's that supposed to mean? You're a math student aren't you? What do you know about journalism? How have you come accross ES journalist? You mean you met one once on a train?

I think your sweeping generalization of ES journalists leaves much to be desired.

So do ES journalists. Have you ever come across them? Many years ago I had to explain something to an ES journalist. We wrote down the important facts to make sure they did not get it wrong. We explained things simply in small words. The fool got it wrong. Not nuances of interpretation or similar binkum. Only the facts were changed to make it more interesting.

[Vienna]

(Original post by Howard)
But my point is that if the same journalist wrote an atricle based on a C18 meeting in which bombing mosques was discussed you'd regard that as a serious, (or certainly more serious) piece of journalism wouldn't you?

howard, is it me or is the entire forum full of idiots?

[Weejimmie]

(Original post by Howard)
But my point is that if the same journalist wrote an atricle based on a C18 meeting in which bombing mosques was discussed you'd regard that as a serious, (or certainly more serious) piece of journalism wouldn't you?

Not with my opinion of journalists I wouldn't.
A lot of journalists working together spoonfed info may get things roughly right. One on their own looking for a Big Story? Probably not. They'd fall for the first people to get to work on them.

You cannot hope to bribe or twist
(Thank god) the British journalist.
But seeing what the man will do
Unbribed there is no reason to.