Thursday, April 06, 2006
ATW makes the Guardian (again)
I got some mild criticism for linking to A Tangled Web yesterday. But we aren’t the only ones to have a taste for the wild side of Unionist opinion. For the second time in a week they make page two of the print version of the Guardian.
Mick Fealty @ 01:26 PM
Today’s Guardian Mick?
You must have a different version than the one I’m looking at..
Posted by on Apr 06, 2006 @ 01:40 PMBut we aren’t the only ones to have a taste for the wild side of Unionist opinion.
Is this what constitutes a defence these days?
Posted by on Apr 06, 2006 @ 01:44 PMPete, it’s in the Today on the web section with a post on Moussaoui.
EWI, check out post 25 on the thread above.
Posted by on Apr 06, 2006 @ 01:55 PMSure about that, Mick?
I have moltbe, evenlittlesparrows, sovietinthecity, mbanks, yin, and slate in my copy. No atw.
Posted by on Apr 06, 2006 @ 01:59 PMWhy do the Guardian and the BBC give, respectively, print space and airtime to such people when both are routinely abused and their personnel insulted?.
The most appropriate space to be provided in response to incitement to racial hatred is cell space.
Posted by on Apr 06, 2006 @ 02:08 PMCensor Vance now! Behead him if neccessary - it’s the only language these people understand. Why can’t we have a tolerant, diverse blogosphere, where only reasonable minded liberals speak solely to, erm, other reasonable minded liberals? Defend free speech: ban different opinions! Blah, blah, blah.
Posted by on Apr 06, 2006 @ 02:22 PMIt’s all Moussaoui in mine - 9 blogs in all.
Posted by on Apr 06, 2006 @ 02:23 PMYes, Mick.. all Moussaoui.. but my copy only has 6 blog extracts - see previous comment.
Posted by on Apr 06, 2006 @ 02:26 PMThere seems to be a lack of understanding of this wee free speech thing about here…
Posted by on Apr 06, 2006 @ 02:27 PM“Why do the Guardian and the BBC give, respectively, print space and airtime to such people when both are routinely abused and their personnel insulted?.”
It is for that very reason they provide a platform.
The routine abuse is a tactic that has proven productive.
DV has learnt from experience that if he complains long enough about bias and no space for right wing views in certain sections of the mainstream media, they will make room for him every so often.
He is exploiting the PC tendencies of the likes of the BBC and the Guardian.
He has even been as open about it as claiming “if only I were given a chance I would tear so-and-so apart in debate”.
The over the top views and claims of bias etc. are essentially attention seeking devices for someone who lusts after a media profile and perhaps even a regular column, radio or television slot.
It’s a sort of “why not me?” syndrome
Good luck to him.
It sure ain’t pretty to watch but it takes all sorts to make a world.Posted by on Apr 06, 2006 @ 02:30 PMIn providing airtime and space they are implicitly accepting the views of extreme racial prejudice and hatred which are either promulgated or accepted. That to me is unacceptable.
It is akin to providing pornography to a compulsive masturbator (an apt image, I hope some will agree)
Sooner or later the encouragement of this type of exploitative “free speech” provides enough comfort and networking confidence to the extremes so that they think they can and should do more than simply type words and press the Enter button.
Posted by on Apr 06, 2006 @ 02:37 PMI disagree. The Guardian and the BBC deliberately pick their right wingers from the political fringes while completely and consciously ignoring, for example, the tens of millions of ordinary people who voted for Margaret Thatcher.
Far from balancing the media’s soft-left consensus, pundits like DV simply enable the luvvies to indulge their own prejudices and flatter their own ‘tolerance’.‘Normal people’ holding views even slightly similar to DV’s are quite literally banned from the airwaves. Several who have gotten through and made comments on gay marriage or even, god save us, the Welsh, have actually been investigated by the police.
Do the right a favour David. Expose your own cynical exploitation - by shutting up for a bit.
Posted by on Apr 06, 2006 @ 02:40 PMPS: I disagree with ‘Joinedupthinking’, that is.
Jo’s post above is just bonkers - every bit as intolerant than anything I’ve read on ATW.Posted by on Apr 06, 2006 @ 02:43 PMThe important thing is, we all agree with Jo’s post. Vance hurts her feelings, so his fingers should be chopped off. One by one, live, on Newsnight Review.
Posted by on Apr 06, 2006 @ 02:45 PMJo offends me.
What happens now?Posted by on Apr 06, 2006 @ 02:49 PMI DEMAND that I, from this point on, only now hear or read opinions Jo agrees with. Peace, Freedom, and Justice depend upon it.
Posted by on Apr 06, 2006 @ 02:52 PMSRR,
The investigation into Anne Robinson was a joke. But surely if incitement to hatred legislation had been applied here more rigorously against those whipping up sectarian hatred on both sides, then things mightn’t have been as bad, and may well have ended sooner.
Posted by on Apr 06, 2006 @ 02:55 PMAin’t dat dey truth, Gar! Why if only, thirty years ago, we had had brought into law hate-speech codes worthy of a middle ranking American university campus circa 1997 ,then who could even imagine eg a Provo planting a bomb? The idea is unthinkable. And ought - see Jo passim - to be unsayable too.
Posted by on Apr 06, 2006 @ 02:58 PMKarl, if I thought shutting you or anyone up would save a life, I’d shut you or them up.
Try me.Posted by on Apr 06, 2006 @ 03:02 PMPrepare to be spanked with a rolled-up copy of The Guardian, Karl.
Personally, I prefer to be spanked with the Daily Telegraph.Posted by on Apr 06, 2006 @ 03:05 PMTry me, my little censoring posterlette (and quick, because if you don’t shut me up soon, Vance WILL kill again . . .).
Posted by on Apr 06, 2006 @ 03:05 PMSo Karl, decades of sectarian rhetoric by politicians on both sides had no impact whatsoever in creating and fostering a climate where it was respectable within certain communities to engage in sectarian violence. No, sure it was all a bunch of psychopaths with no connections to the wider political culture of the place.
Posted by on Apr 06, 2006 @ 03:07 PMNote: Garibaldy. If the law as it stood had been applied here more rigorously against bigots of all stripes then things would have been very different.
Thought Police are no solution to anything - as you’d imagine the left would agree. Unless it’s their Thought Police, of course.Posted by on Apr 06, 2006 @ 03:07 PMThe Telegraph? Good God no: far too racy, what with the photographs on the front. I’m still reading the Morning Post. I predict that young fellah Deedes will go far.
Posted by on Apr 06, 2006 @ 03:08 PMSRR,
my point exactly
Posted by on Apr 06, 2006 @ 03:09 PM
