Smiler Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 I'm not sure what you mean by 'propaganda is propaganda'. However, I believe that the portrayal of a story in the mass media is different to the portrayal of a viewpoint on a website because: * the coverage (x million readers of nespapers, versus 5,000 readers here at best); * the interactive nature of such a website enables views to be challenged and debated, unlike newspapers who only have limited and highly edited readers letters than come out a day or so later; and * the mass media usually have a vested interest in their perspectives and stories being believed. I don't think that posters on this site would have any vested interests. T020 I am also concerned by your repeated use of the words 'rape' and 'asylum seekers' in posts. I accept some asylum seekers commit crimes and there has of course been a highly publicised allegation of rape. But the repeated use of these words together, in my view, is misleading. I doubt there is any reason to suspect asylum seekers are more likely to commit rape, so why do you continue to highlight this example? Are we going off topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Originally posted by Smiler T020 I am also concerned by your repeated use of the words 'rape' and 'asylum seekers' in posts. I accept some asylum seekers commit crimes and there has of course been a highly publicised allegation of rape. But the repeated use of these words together, in my view, is misleading. I doubt there is any reason to suspect asylum seekers are more likely to commit rape, so why do you continue to highlight this example? T020s approach, whether conscious or not, bears a striking similarity to the black art of 'push polling' where you phone people up in the middle of a campaign: pollster: "hello I'm so and so doing a political poll. If you discovered that Tony Blair was a paedophiliac transgender nazi, would you: a)be more inclined to vote labour? b)less inclined to vote labour? c)equally inclined to vote labour.?" punter: "er b)" "thank you for your time" *click* just planting seeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojoworking Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Originally posted by nomme Care to give us the facts? Nomme Would you care to do likewise? What you're at it, perhaps you'd care to justify/prove some of the claims made in the original post. It's interesting how you instantly jump on anything that doesn't comply with your own politics, yet you blindly defend stuff like the emotion-charged, cliché-ridden, bleeding heart, lefty tripe that started this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Originally posted by Rusted Root Thats a bit harsh isn't it? As a forum for Sheffield surely Sheffielders should be able to speak their minds? When hanging around in town quite alot of the time the subject of refugees and the immigration system are heard on peoples lips. Just peoples views thats all. Surely the amount of threads dedicated to this subject suggests that it must be quite a hot topic in Sheffield at the mo. And all people are not narrow minded. Maybe people who try to silence others for airing their views, however right or left wing they may be, are the narrow minded ones. Sorry but I just want people to have freedom of speech - no matter how nutty they are. Fair comment, but aren't I allowed the freedom to make my comments? I'm not stopping anyone from airing their opinions just using my right to free speech and sympathising with nosey for the reaction she got from the usual less than sympathetic minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theflyingfish Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Originally posted by mojoworking This is simply not true in most cases Really? So political, and religious persecution does not exist around the world? People aren't getting killed for their beliefs all over the world, or threatened and persecuted because of what religion they are, or what party they vote for? Dang, so all the things I have heard about countries from Central and South America, Africa and Asia simply aren't true? I'll be damned. And as for the post who advocates accepting asylum seekers on the basis of income - that's just plain sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theflyingfish Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Originally posted by mojoworking Would you care to do likewise? What you're at it, perhaps you'd care to justify/prove some of the claims made in the original post. It's interesting how you instantly jump on anything that doesn't comply with your own politics, yet you blindly defend stuff like the emotion-charged, cliché-ridden, bleeding heart, lefty tripe that started this thread. It's called thinking critically. Not blindly accepting 'facts' like this without considering their veracity and implications. "the majority of Asylum seekers are not fleeing persecution" is a 'fact' that has massive implications for people's view of them, media coverage and ultimately policy. If we have any sense of social responsibility at all we owe it to ourselves and other people to questio nthese claims before we condemn people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sony Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 I have worked with a few asylum seekers and 9 times out of ten they chose the UK as I quote" We get lots more money in england" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojoworking Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Originally posted by theflyingfish Really? So political, and religious persecution does not exist around the world? People aren't getting killed for their beliefs all over the world, or threatened and persecuted because of what religion they are, or what party they vote for? Dang, so all the things I have heard about countries from Central and South America, Africa and Asia simply aren't true? I'll be damned. And as for the post who advocates accepting asylum seekers on the basis of income - that's just plain sad. Let's get it right. The original (somewhat hysterical) quote was this: "They have FLED THEIR COUNTRY BECAUSE OTHERWISE THEY WOULD BE KILLED" While I'm not denying that persecution exists, that doesn't necessarily equal death. It could just mean they don't have freedom to worship, or any number of other variations of the word. In any case, very many asylum seekers simply come looking for work and a better life with no threat of death or persecution at all. And who would begrudge them that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theflyingfish Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Originally posted by Sony I have worked with a few asylum seekers and 9 times out of ten they chose the UK as I quote" We get lots more money in england" So it's OK for us to aspire to improve our lot, and take jobs that pay us more money? God forbid if someone from a country much poorer than ours should display similar aspirations and want more money, heavens above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sony Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Originally posted by theflyingfish So it's OK for us to aspire to improve our lot, and take jobs that pay us more money? God forbid if someone from a country much poorer than ours should display similar aspirations and want more money, heavens above. Yes thats fine, but they were talking about were benefits... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts