FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

Revisionist History

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

I listened to a podcast the other day called Revisionist History. The author is an ex Washington Post journalist.

He claims the USA is the only society that has true freedom of the press. It immediately got my back up being British.

He went onto explain that they can cover stories that may uncover and unleash threats to national security. Most responsible journalists discuss their findings with the FBI/CIA/Goverment prior to disclosure before disclosing said information.. in order to act in the public's best interest.

I wondered how it differed from our own.

Apparently our press isn't truly free and our Government can actually close down stories they believe to threaten what THEY determine to be in the best Public Interest. Using a certain law I've since forgotten the name of.

Both ways make sense to me, but since I was sent to Iraq in 2003 I have little-to-no faith in our Governments and find myself leaning towards the USA's approach to Freedom of the Press and Speech.. than our own.

Anyone care to comment? Without losing their shit..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

We have a biased media in both countries, partly due to ownership. There are always ways to stop stories that are unwanted and they are used.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"We have a biased media in both countries, partly due to ownership. There are always ways to stop stories that are unwanted and they are used."

Oh.. agreed.. totally. But if you had to choose one system or the other?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm for a completely free press even though aspects of it may be unpleasant, the long run of curtailing it will be to higher price to pay

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The internet is taking over from the press.Here and over there and it's an echo chamber.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The internet is taking over from the press.Here and over there and it's an echo chamber."

Thd internet creates echo chambers too.

You only have to see far left and right on youtube and forums

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

No press is totally free anywhere in the world.

In both the UK and USA the press is licensed and the government of the day can revoke said licence at any time without giving a reason. Also the press is only free within the law, even the US first amendment right to free speech is not an absolute right although many have tried to claim it is.

Fact is in any sovereign state ultimate power in everything lies with the state and any rights devolved from the state to either individuals or organisations are only temporary boons that can be revoked at any time should the state choose.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"The internet is taking over from the press.Here and over there and it's an echo chamber."

Maybe it has not registered on you Bob but states around the world are now beginning to regulate the internet, this regulation will only become greater over time. Eventually all internet content will be controlled by the state (and that is coming faster than you would think).

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

The only "control" I'm aware of in the UK is the Defence and Security Media Advisory Notice, or D-notice, system.

That, and the same laws that the rest of us must comply with.

The D-notice dates from WW1 and is voluntary agreement between the state and national media designed to prevent disclosure of information harmful to national security.

The record is patchy. Editors sometimes comply with a D notice and sometimes they do not. It is not legally enforceable.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

i forgot to add that it is widely accepted that the intelligence and security service operate snouts in the newsrooms of every national newspaper.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"The only "control" I'm aware of in the UK is the Defence and Security Media Advisory Notice, or D-notice, system.

That, and the same laws that the rest of us must comply with.

The D-notice dates from WW1 and is voluntary agreement between the state and national media designed to prevent disclosure of information harmful to national security.

The record is patchy. Editors sometimes comply with a D notice and sometimes they do not. It is not legally enforceable.

"

That's what I was on about.. the US has no such thing as a D notice

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Zircon

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago

upton wirral

Typical American bullshit,I bet if you started a communist paper in the states they would soon shut you down.Or maybe the Muslim Times lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Nobody has answered the question though yet..

To D Notice or not to D Notice, which would you prefer?

I think I prefer no D Notice.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

I'd prefer some control with oversight and appropriate openness about the type, if not the details, being made public. It's about the level of censorship and control, all of which currently exist in the UK and USA.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Theres a new political split and its not left or right but about those that favour freedom and those that favour authoritarian control.

Its the one thing that unites some lefties with righties and some righties with lefties.

.

Me personally I'm for the smallest possible state involvement in life.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Theres a new political split and its not left or right but about those that favour freedom and those that favour authoritarian control.

Its the one thing that unites some lefties with righties and some righties with lefties.

.

Me personally I'm for the smallest possible state involvement in life."

I don't want ANY authoritarian control over me.. but I accept that there are some, who need controlling because they are simply too dangerous/stupid/vulnerable to be left unattended.

I do see the benefits of control, but I despise being told what to do by anyone, let alone a government with its head up it's arse.. and police with a raging power hard on.

I respect the job the police do.. I've done similair stuff myself, but the second I bump into one with an attitude.. it doesn't go well for either of us.

There is a local one who looks down his nose at me a fair bit.. no idea why, I don't know him, done nothing to hurt him.. but he stops me when he can and is a total arse when he does. I've since learnt some personal stuff about him, I may bring up next time we meet

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Theres a new political split and its not left or right but about those that favour freedom and those that favour authoritarian control.

Its the one thing that unites some lefties with righties and some righties with lefties.

.

Me personally I'm for the smallest possible state involvement in life.

I don't want ANY authoritarian control over me.. but I accept that there are some, who need controlling because they are simply too dangerous/stupid/vulnerable to be left unattended.

I do see the benefits of control, but I despise being told what to do by anyone, let alone a government with its head up it's arse.. and police with a raging power hard on.

I respect the job the police do.. I've done similair stuff myself, but the second I bump into one with an attitude.. it doesn't go well for either of us.

There is a local one who looks down his nose at me a fair bit.. no idea why, I don't know him, done nothing to hurt him.. but he stops me when he can and is a total arse when he does. I've since learnt some personal stuff about him, I may bring up next time we meet "
.

Those that seek power and authoritarian control over others will NEVER be satisfied by one rule or two rules or three rules.... There'll always be some reason that they justify why they NEED it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Theres a new political split and its not left or right but about those that favour freedom and those that favour authoritarian control.

Its the one thing that unites some lefties with righties and some righties with lefties.

.

Me personally I'm for the smallest possible state involvement in life.

I don't want ANY authoritarian control over me.. but I accept that there are some, who need controlling because they are simply too dangerous/stupid/vulnerable to be left unattended.

I do see the benefits of control, but I despise being told what to do by anyone, let alone a government with its head up it's arse.. and police with a raging power hard on.

I respect the job the police do.. I've done similair stuff myself, but the second I bump into one with an attitude.. it doesn't go well for either of us.

There is a local one who looks down his nose at me a fair bit.. no idea why, I don't know him, done nothing to hurt him.. but he stops me when he can and is a total arse when he does. I've since learnt some personal stuff about him, I may bring up next time we meet .

Those that seek power and authoritarian control over others will NEVER be satisfied by one rule or two rules or three rules.... There'll always be some reason that they justify why they NEED it.

"

Agreed, if someone has to be given power.. give it to the person who begs you not to give it to them.. not the person begging for it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The illusion of control is a cognitive bias.Which is true for an individual or organisation or state.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago

upton wirral


"I'd prefer some control with oversight and appropriate openness about the type, if not the details, being made public. It's about the level of censorship and control, all of which currently exist in the UK and USA. "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Theres a new political split and its not left or right but about those that favour freedom and those that favour authoritarian control.

Its the one thing that unites some lefties with righties and some righties with lefties.

.

Me personally I'm for the smallest possible state involvement in life.

I don't want ANY authoritarian control over me.. but I accept that there are some, who need controlling because they are simply too dangerous/stupid/vulnerable to be left unattended.

I do see the benefits of control, but I despise being told what to do by anyone, let alone a government with its head up it's arse.. and police with a raging power hard on.

I respect the job the police do.. I've done similair stuff myself, but the second I bump into one with an attitude.. it doesn't go well for either of us.

There is a local one who looks down his nose at me a fair bit.. no idea why, I don't know him, done nothing to hurt him.. but he stops me when he can and is a total arse when he does. I've since learnt some personal stuff about him, I may bring up next time we meet .

Those that seek power and authoritarian control over others will NEVER be satisfied by one rule or two rules or three rules.... There'll always be some reason that they justify why they NEED it.

Agreed, if someone has to be given power.. give it to the person who begs you not to give it to them.. not the person begging for it."
.

Its relevant to politics, its what we see going on in the US right now with the spying on carter page!.

I was told by Fabio that the FBI had him under surveillance before the dossier.... Well Martin Luther king was under surveillance by the FBI for years as well.

I ask, was he guilty?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top