Thread: End of Freedom of Speech or a blow for Journalistic integrity?

I find it offensive that you call me stupid even though you have shown to be misleading in this thread.

Originally Posted by Karate_Tommy

True. But I am talking about Australian main stream (Daily Telegraph,Courier Mail,Sunday Mail,The Australian,Herald Sun,Sunday Telegraph and the Sunday Mail) which is owned by one corporation.

So you want to retract your statement that journalist and integrity should not be used in the same sentence?

That's why I pointed it to in case you forgot.

You were going on about unfair bias against the Syrian government. If you're saying that they violated human rights, then that's fine.

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

So you want to retract your statement that journalist and integrity should not be used in the same sentence?

Why would I? The papers I mention are owned by a single corporation. An integral corporation does not mislead or present bias arguments.

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

You were going on about unfair bias against the Syrian government. If you're saying that they violated human rights, then that's fine.

If you cannot comprehend that's fine I will tell you, I was stating that they are giving us one side of the story; which forms a bias opinion.

I find it hilarious that you are trying to defend integrity despite lying in a previous post.

Originally Posted by Karate_Tommy

I find it offensive that you call me stupid even though you have shown to be misleading in this thread.

So it's just the Gaddafi regime you claim hasn't violated human rights, and the Syrian government has just been unfairly criticized by journalists, but apparently not the criticism that says they have violated human rights. Okay then.

Why would I? The papers I mention are owned by a single corporation. An integral corporation does not mislead or present bias arguments.

This is what you said:

Journalism and integrity should never been used in the same sentence.

If you cannot comprehend that's fine I will tell you, I was stating that they are giving us one side of the story; which forms a bias opinion.

I find it hilarious that you are trying to defend integrity despite lying in a previous post.

Then you have Syria it is always "Opposition claims it was government" followed by a minute video of a activist claiming the same,when the UN itself has no idea who it was but they present bias clip of it being the Government.

And then in the same paragraph that you claim that Gaddafi hasn't violated human rights, you defend the Syrian government against "bias" from people saying that they are abusing human rights.

But hey, if you're saying that the Syrian government are abusing human rights, then I accept that and I apologise and retract my earlier statement to the contrary.

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

So it's just the Gaddafi regime you claim hasn't violated human rights, and the Syrian government has just been unfairly criticized by journalists, but apparently not the criticism that says they have violated human rights. Okay then.

I never said Gaddafi was good I said the fact he was represented as the leader of Libya was incorrect. And if he abused Human Rights why was he going to be award a "UN Human Rights" award, It does not add up. This fact was not presented in the media.

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

And then in the same paragraph that you claim that Gaddafi hasn't violated human rights, you defend the Syrian government against "bias" from people saying that they are abusing human rights.

But hey, if you're saying that the Syrian government are abusing human rights, then I accept that and I apologise and retract my earlier statement to the contrary.

If you're too stupid to comprehend what is being said then that's fine and I understand. But what I think you are really doing is twisting words because you are wrong. I will say that again,Wrong.
If you can pin point where I said the Syrian Government is not abusing human rights, do so. Because what I said is the News is presenting a one sided / bias argument to the public without presenting all sides of the conflict, They are not getting the Governments side nor are they presenting the fact that the UN Peacekeepers are unsure what happened.

It is very sad to see a desperate move like this but it is expected from a liar.


I might point out the Journalist and Integrity comment I said, You said earlier

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

Some journalists have integrity, some don't, just the same as the rest of us.

So if some journalists don't have integrity and repeatedly print their opinion/views that would mean the media company has no integrity. Therefore that would mean the journalist with integrity in fact has none as someone with integrity does not work for a company that is not, Unless motivated, Which in this case is money therefore greed is the motivator here and someone who is blind or quiet for money has no integrity.

Originally Posted by Karate_Tommy

I never said Gaddafi was good I said the fact he was represented as the leader of Libya was incorrect. And if he abused Human Rights why was he going to be award a "UN Human Rights" award, It does not add up. This fact was not presented in the media.

What do you mean it was "not presented in the media"? It was presented in the media, presumably that's how you know about it in the first place. And the reason that he wasn't awarded for his human rights record is that his regime started massacring its own citizens, pretty obvious, no conspiracy.

If you're too stupid to comprehend what is being said then that's fine and I understand. But what I think you are really doing is twisting words because you are wrong. I will say that again,Wrong.

If you can pin point where I said the Syrian Government is not abusing human rights, do so. Because what I said is the News is presenting a one sided / bias argument to the public without presenting all sides of the conflict, They are not getting the Governments side nor are they presenting the fact that the UN Peacekeepers are unsure what happened.

It is very sad to see a desperate move like this but it is expected from a liar.

What you said was that all journalists have no integrity and that all of the alleged human rights abuses reported from the opposition and civilians were a misrepresentation of events. I hope you don't actually expect the Syrian government to publicly admit to human rights abuses. No, you didn't outright say that the Syrian government hasn't violated human rights, I didn't say that you had. It was my opinion that it was your opinion. I may have been mistaken, and I'm still waiting for you to actually refute it instead of dancing around the issue, throwing a silly tantrum, and accusing me of being a "liar".

And yes they are reporting the governments side, you are just spouting nonsense.

I might point out the Journalist and Integrity comment I said, You said earlier

So if some journalists don't have integrity and repeatedly print their opinion/views that would mean the media company has no integrity. Therefore that would mean the journalist with integrity in fact has none as someone with integrity does not work for a company that is not, Unless motivated, Which in this case is money therefore greed is the motivator here and someone who is blind or quiet for money has no integrity.

What the hell are you even talking about? Do you stand by your original comment or not? This is just more nonsense.

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

What do you mean it was "not presented in the media"? It was presented in the media, presumably that's how you know about it in the first place. And the reason that he wasn't awarded for his human rights record is that his regime started massacring its own citizens, pretty obvious, no conspiracy.

He started "massacring" or better put "defending his state" after his soldiers were attacked by refugees,who attacked Libyans and stole weapons, that came from Egypt.

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

What you said was that all journalists have no integrity and that all of the alleged human rights abuses reported from the opposition and civilians were a misrepresentation of events.

I was referring to Australian journalism. And as you can see from my link below there is another misrepresentation of events. Sucks to be wrong! but what really ticks me off is you calling me a liar.

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

I hope you don't actually expect the Syrian government to publicly admit to human rights abuses. No, you didn't outright say that the Syrian government hasn't violated human rights, I didn't say that you had. It was my opinion that it was your opinion. I may have been mistaken, and I'm still waiting for you to actually refute it instead of dancing around the issue, throwing a silly tantrum, and accusing me of being a "liar".

You were mistaken so I think an apology is in order. You also quote

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

you defend the Syrian government against "bias" from people saying that they are abusing human rights

Again look at my link to see again you are indeed wrong.

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

And yes they are reporting the governments side, you are just spouting nonsense.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/pre...-1226426314275
Like this fresh one,Misleading title "Assad given a 'licence to kill'" Well if a license to kill means attacking after being attacked I would like a license also.

Yet you go to a foreign site;Let see one with credibility on this issue..I'll try Al Jazeera.
"“An army convoy was on its way to the region of Hama when it was attacked by the FSA,” he said. “The army staged a counter-attack with the support of [pro-regime] reinforcements from [nearby] Alawite villages. The FSA resisted for an hour before it was defeated,” AFP quoted the man named Jaafar."

I see none of that in the link I posted.

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

What the hell are you even talking about? Do you stand by your original comment or not? This is just more nonsense.

Nonsense? I'm using your own argument against you,which is right. How can someone with "integrity" work for a Corporation that does not have any? They would have to be motivated by something else other then ethics.You fail to put that together.

Despite the Leveson inquiry, How can a journalist with "integrity" work for such a ethic less company, You would have to argue that their ethics change country to country which is absurd.

"Hundreds of soldiers backed by helicopter gunships attacked Khirbet Ghazaleh in the province of Daraa - the cradle of a 16-month uprising - amid heavy gunfire, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said."

"Elsewhere, a pregnant woman was among 28 people killed across the country, the Observatory said"

"The Observatory was more cautious, saying "several dozen rebel fighters were among those killed," adding that only around 40 of the dead had been identified, while 30 were burned and 18 were "summarily executed"."

Wow, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is another opposition group yet this article does not divulge that information, Do you think that is misleading Ziggy?
"The SOHR which is often cited by mainstream media is run out of a two-bedroom terraced home in Coventry, UK"

You say you were referring to Australian Journalism, and apparently specifically News Ltd, so not even Australian journalism now either, and international media corporation all over the world. That does not in any way square with you blanket statement: "Journalism and integrity should never be used in the same sentence". DO YOU STAND BY THIS STATEMENT OR NOT? It's not a difficult question.

Now you are defending Gaddafi's human rights record, can't say I'm surprised.

You claim that there is "clear bias" against the Syrian govt, but what bias? Human rights watch, and the UN, and everyone except apparently you, is fully aware of the clear human rights violations by the Syrian government, and their constant denial that they are doing anything wrong.

I'm still waiting for you to admit that Assad and the Syrian govt have carried out appalling abuses of human rights. All you're doing in this post is yet again defending the regime against crticism by picking out ONE line from ONE news report.

So the Al Jazeera report spoke to one guy, an ACTIVIST, who says that the army convoy was attacked, and both of the reports say that a bunch of other people say that rebels were shelled by the army FIRST and the village was attacked.

There is no frickin bias there, they just spoke to different people. And I might add, the Daily Tele article quotes a spokesman for the military, the very thing you accuse them of NOT doing and therefore being biased.

They also clearly said:

The circumstances surrounding the incident have still not been clarified, but UN observers made their way to the village in the central province of Hama today to investigate.

Another thing you accuse them of NOT doing and therefore being biased.

And the "license to kill" thing relates to a comment by the UN bloke, bit sensationalist but then daily tele headlines are.

Before I respond to the latest, are you going to provide a link to the Al Jazeera article? Or are you just going to present ONE SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT?