Burma: A March for Freedom

If a monk burns in the streets and no one is there to see it does it make a point? There's a time and a place for everything... including violence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dsl3FH6mi0E

Fighting for peace is NOT like fucking for virginity

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=U2_EKx2KZ9A

This shit's really happening! I don't think it's nazi propoganda bullshit (not all of it at least). I had no idea to what extent this was happening. it's like cambodia all over again. Why is this really happening Skip? I'm sure the motive is greed that's a given, but greed for what? Whose hands are ultimately pulling the strings on this one? I'm hearing so much, yet so little about this.


In time of war the first casualty is always truth

 

Christ, don't be so fucking dull. You don't even know me, and I don't think you even understand much of what goes on in the UK forum; I only got that drunkenness award because of a certain photo, not because I drink alot. I think the people who actually know me on this forum know that I'm not a drunk, and I sure as hell don't write like a drunk. In fact, I'm one of the few people on this forum that actually writes properly. Atleast I don't write like a stuck-up hippie stuck in his own ignorance, who isn't willing to tolerate anyone else's opinions. It's not just the fact that you use right-wing media, but the fact that on times you totally contradict yourself.

Besides, I wasn't even questioning your view, I was questioning the source you used. Stop being so petty, Skip.

 

Skip is right, there's no question of expecting Buddhist monks to take up arms. And as for this country, the problem right now is that guns are too easy to get hold of, not too hard.

 

I think what he means to say is, you write like Dylan Thomas. That's not so bad is it?

 

Oh, piss off you silly twat.

I've done fuck all except to say that I don't trust tabloids. I don't think that's a personal attack to you, Skip; only to the source you used. So I must be a drunk who can hardly type coherently!...Please. :banghead:

 

No, I suppose not...Atleast I have something to credit to Wales: lamb, a drunk poet (only one), and some singing prancing twats in choirs.

 

It is fair to be sceptical of any single source of information. That's not to say one should be cynical or slip into the realm of conspiracy theory, but a healthy level of scepticism is right and proper....

 

News is usually news, opinion is usually opinion, one shouldn't get the two mixed up really. If the press in the UK stated an event occured then you can be pretty damn sure it happened, and just because it might appear in the Mail shouldn't stop one from believing it, editorial control does not mean they can lie about the facts.

 

I'm not entirely sure that's true Dappy, I've seen Mail articles about news events which are very skewed, so much so that they give an entirely misleading impression of the facts of a case. Often they are quite careful about it, so that the headline and first paragraphs give the misleading impression and equivocation happens in the main article giving them a factual get-out in case they are accused of outright lying. Very often the Mail's factual news reporting is very skewed towards the right-wing ideologically, and its perspective often has elements of opinion-piece even in front page news stories, so it is entirely right to be sceptical of any story appearing in the Mail, more so than many other sources.

All this is not to say they can't sometimes get it right, but you need to be aware of the context of a story and don't rely entirely on the Mail's slant given their track record.

 

There have been clear examples of newspapers fabricating stories over the years: for instance the Sun once printed an entirely fictitious interview with a Falklands widow, and was boycotted in Liverpool for years after their mendacious coverage of the Hillsborough stadium disaster. More recently, just about every day the Express has been running front-page stories on either Princess Diana or Madeleine McCann, most of which seem to have scant basis in fact.

 

That's simply not true. I'm not saying it's all lies, but it would be a mistake to see 'news' as the unbiased reporting of the facts. Even where the statistics quoted are 100% accurate and are reliably sourced, a lot more is conveyed by what statistics are not reported. The editorial slant has a huge effect on the content of 'news' articles, not just on opinion pieces. Usually one doesn't even have to take it to such a subtle level as to read into the statistics they omit, the language used itself is key and in red top tabloids, even in their 'news' pieces this tends to be highly emotive, rather than presenting the cold hard facts. As for the events themselves, well journalists are human and humans make errors. As a supporter of Palestinian rights and an anti-Zionist, it pains me to admit it, but I believed the reporting which seemed to present clear evidence of a massacre in Jenin in 2002. Considering the Israelis had been shooting at reporters and keeping them out, it's not surprising that these reports were highly inaccurate. As it turns out there was no massacre on anywhere near the scale that most news sources seemed to agree at the time there had been. Even if we're not looking at a more insidious agenda in reporting, there's a tremendous scope for papers just to get things wrong. So no, if the press in the UK state something, one cannot be certain it happened, even if 99% of the time their reports are accurate....