PC in journalism

A topic which pervades many others

PC in journalism

Postby Gavin » 20 Sep 2014, 20:30

Obviously there is a great deal of PC in journalism (indeed it often seems to be nothing but PC) and we draw attention that across many articles on this site.

But just now I decided to have a look at the National Union of Journalists' guidelines on race reporting. This is an interesting document, especially given the cover-up of the Pakistani paedophile gangs who have been torturing, raping and threatening to kill thousands of white schoolgirls for at least 15 years across the UK.

The first thing I noted when I decided to research these journalistic guidelines was that they are - indeed - drawn up by the National Union of Journalists. I don't know about you, but whenever I hear the word "union" (as in trade union) I'm immediately suspicious. These are the types of bully-boy organisations who call people "scabs" for going to work, and leftism is rife in most, if not all, unions.

Anyway, putting that aside for now, let's have a look at the guidelines:

1. The NUJ believes that the development of racist attitudes and the growth of fascist parties pose a threat to democracy, the rights of trade union organisations, a free press and the development of social harmony and well-being.


What, exactly, are "racist attitudes"? Terms have not been defined. We don't even know what is racist and what isn't, yet.

Which fascist parties are posing a threat, and why are the NUJ not equally concerned about extreme leftist organisations posing a threat by ... I don't know ... allowing murderers through our borders, covering up mass rape and allowing hate preaching in mosques? This is rather one-way, isn't it, but we find out why in the same paragraph: it's because they mainly want to protect their own rights.

Further, how is "the development of social harmony and well-being" encouraged by allowing mass immigration and self segregation and the growth of an ideology such as Islam within the UK?

2. The NUJ believes that its members cannot avoid a measure of responsibility in fighting the evil of racism as expressed through the mass media.


The "evil" of racism! It's like Star Wars. Yet still the evil alluded to remains nebulous. Terms have not been defined so how are journalists supposed to know when they have fallen foul of this evil and when not?

3. The NUJ reaffirms its total opposition to censorship but equally reaffirms its belief that press freedom must be conditioned by responsibility and an acknowledgement by all media workers of the need not to allow press freedom to be abused to slander a section of the community or to promote the evil of racism.


The NUJ, then, is opposed to all censorship. (I'm no journalist, but believe "total" means "all".) Yet they obviously do censor, and rightly so on some occasions. The evil of racism is mentioned again, but also the need for journalists not to slander a section the community. It's not slander (or libel), however, if a section of the community are presenting a clear and present danger, yet they seem very slow off the starting block in this case too.

4. The NUJ believes the methods and lies of the racists should be publicly and vigorously exposed.


"The racists". What racists? And what lies, exactly? This is a pretty meaningless sentence until they have defined their terms and is more like what philosophers call emotivism - it's like a grunt of "We're good!". Thinkright.

5. The NUJ believes that newspapers and magazines should not originate material which encourages discrimination on grounds of race or colour, as expressed in the NUJ's rule book and code of conduct.


Yet there is much such discrimination. There are magazines for black people, entire radio stations for "Asians" (this actually means Pakistanis mainly) and even unions for black people.

6. The NUJ recognises the right of members to withhold their labour on grounds of conscience where employers are providing a platform for racist propaganda.


Again we don't know whey mean.

7. The NUJ believes that editors should ensure that coverage of race stories should be placed in a balanced context.


Now this is an interesting one. On the surface it seems meaningless, but it may in fact suggest that if a finding is, in reality, "unbalanced", then the journalist has a duty to instead make it appear "balanced". That is quite sinister, and would explain the knots they have been tied in over reporting matters such as the black rate of crime in London and the Pakistani rape gangs.

8. The NUJ will continue to monitor the development of media coverage in this area and give support to members seeking to enforce the above aims.


Not much to say on this one.

There is a lot more on the page underneath these initial points. In fact, that's where the bulk of the guidance is, so I suggest you follow the link and read that. I could analyse it line by line but I won't bother. In general it just seems a bit juvenile - addressing the journalists as if they have no judgement of their own (granted, probably many are not very good at their jobs, but the ones who are will simply be gagged by these kinds of guidelines - nod to Ed West and Andrew Gilligan). There are also typos in the document.

I find the guidelines actually quite amusing to read, but also distinctly Orwellian. They go way beyond forbidding outright abuse. I will just present a few highlights:

Do not allow the letters column or 'phone-in' programmes to be used to spread racial hatred in whatever guise.


This perhaps gives us our answer, then, on why we don't hear more "man in the street" views on the media, especially the "in whatever guise" part. Obviously I am against "hatred" of races, but the latter clause could easily be over-carefully interpreted and probably is. People of Rotherham might develop a bit of hatred for Pakistanis, in general, after all, and I might not approve of the typical lifestyle of Romanian gypsies. Does that make me a "racist"? Who knows any more.

In a sense, who would envy journalists with guidelines like these? It's a like minefield to check what what you want to say is doubleplusgood when what you should be doing is simply telling the truth, whatever you discover that to be.

While journalists have to be very careful about dwelling on the activities of particular races, not so when it comes to racists:

Seek to publish or broadcast material exposing the myths and lies of racist organisations and their anti-social behaviour.


But what if they're actually not being very anti-social and what they're saying is not all lies? Nick Griffin was vilified when he tried to draw attention to the activities of the Pakistani child rapists in northern England several years ago. Now we know that what he said was true, and that by shooting the messenger and refusing to investigate, the press allowed the rapes and tortures to continue.

I believe this page is somewhat enlightening when it comes to understanding the PC reporting we see day to day in the press and of course on broadcast media. It goes a good way towards explaining it and in my opinion the guidelines are totally unnecessary when we have a law. This is just the union trying to exercise control and justify its own existence.

Allow me to explain why I was led to check these guidelines in the first place. It's because I read this report in The Times:

20140920_194307.jpg


I could not help but notice that the Times reporter made a point of mentioning the race of the person who was allegedly strip searched here.

Is this not in clear breach of the NUJ guidelines? What was the point of mentioning the race? Would they have done the same thing if this had been a white person who had filed the complaint? Are black people some kind of particularly protected species (despite white people being a minority in the world)? Was it mentioned because, in fact, the majority of robberies, knife crimes and gun crimes in London are committed by black people?

We are not told.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3432
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: PC in journalism

Postby Jonathan » 21 Sep 2014, 08:55

I wouldn't read too much into the fact that Racism is never defined, Gavin. The fundamental tenets of any society are usually used without being defined - the assumption is that everyone understands what you're talking about, and this assumption is often true.

Witness how often we talk about British Culture and Western Culture without giving a clear definition each time. And in fact, we all understand what they mean by Racism. It's the idea that whenever anything bad happens to any member of any minority, a Sin has occurred, and it's the responsibility of the majority to make things right.

Of course it's hard to argue against it when it goes unstated, which is frustrating to those of us who think this tenet is being given too much weight, at the expense of other tenets. But even if it were defined, it would not be done in the terms I've used; it would be defined as a small extension of the meaning it had in the '50s, and the massive extension its meaning has undergone since then would go unstated.

I suppose the meaning of the word 'Heresy' underwent similar transformations during periods of persecution. The original definition was crystal clear - refusing to accept one of the main tenets of Christianity. But the term was used to condemn many Christians who fully believed they were following all the teachings of the Church. Come to think of it, Kuffar has probably changed in the same way, as it is used by ISIS to condemn thousands of Muslims who are insufficiently zealous.

At least we don't behead anyone for being Racist.
Jonathan
 
Posts: 411
Joined: 03 Aug 2011, 05:14
Location: Israel

Re: PC in journalism

Postby Nathan » 27 Nov 2014, 21:32

There's an article in last weekend's Financial Times entitled "Why we need to break the white male grip on markets". When I saw the title I wondered if I really wanted to punish myself by reading it, but I couldn't resist.

The article went on to say that markets are prone to groupthink and that a homogenous team will be more prone to these problems - fair enough, they likely would be. It then quoted a study where two groups of traders in both Texas and Singapore were set up, one in each place being entirely of the dominant racial group in each place and the other being mixed.

In both experiments the mixed group did better, but in amongst the normal PC stuff you'd expect about diversity good and white man bad, the author dropped the ball a little.

In a diverse market, traders scrutinised others’ behaviour more, and were less likely to assume that prices were reasonable. In homogeneous markets, traders trusted others.


Of course people trusted those similar to themselves, and were wary of the outsiders whose intentions and thought processes they couldn't work out as intuitively!

It's just infuriating how this fact can be pointed out when it suits the author's argument, yet so much effort has been made to deny something so obvious when it comes to the ramifications of the modern-day immigration policy that the author no doubt supports.
Nathan
 
Posts: 880
Joined: 08 Dec 2012, 17:58

Re: PC in journalism

Postby Charlie » 17 Dec 2014, 12:26

One can only hope that PC dross like this ends up bringing all who work at the Telegraph to their knees.
Charlie
 
Posts: 435
Joined: 13 Jan 2013, 19:43

Re: PC in journalism

Postby Elliott » 18 Dec 2014, 04:54

I can't bring myself to read that.

Just a quick observation. They manage to squeeze in a picture of a mixed-race child, along with the uber PC thrust of the article itself.

Apparently it used to be a right-wing newspaper...?
Elliott
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh

Re: PC in journalism

Postby Gavin » 29 Dec 2014, 21:17

The joke paper that is the Telegraph has surpassed itself in terms of PC here!

Take a look at this, they use picture of a neo-Nazi to accompany a story about the rise of antisemitism in the UK.

How many neo-Nazis do you meet in the UK, which religion is well known to be antisemitic, and what's the rapidly growing demographic in our country?

To think, newspapers are supposed to pursue truth!
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3432
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: PC in journalism

Postby Elliott » 29 Dec 2014, 22:42

It's getting to the point where it's actually more damaging to read the MSM than to remain entirely ignorant.
Elliott
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh


Return to Political Correctness

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

User Menu

Login Form

This site costs £100 per year to run and makes no money.

If you would like to make a small contribution to help pay for the web hosting, you can do so here.

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 175 on 12 Jan 2015, 18:23

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
Copyright © Western Defence. All Rights Reserved.