What gives anyone the right to 'knock' a newspaper?

Quite right Gj. And I defend my right to criticise Le Monde and the Frankfurter Allgemeine.

(Monday 12 October posted at 20.24)

A real Daily Mail front page. Did you know that blacks have 18 more kids than middle-class white people?

Perhaps Granjura could direct you to the front page she quotes ?

Sorry, 20.00!

I didn't mention that story, actually.

jane I understand that, although the title of the OP clearly asks a question and opens the debate- and therefore discussing the issues, including links and info, is valid in such a thread- That is the whole point no, of a discussion?

But what Alea wrote:

OUR OWN PRESS

implies something else totally. And that some are allowed to discuss the 'vicissitudes of the British Press, and some are not. I am asking for clairfication on what those 'qualifications are' simple enough, really.

Of course it is right to knock newspapers; as Noel Coward said in another context, they should be beaten regularly, like gongs. And newspapers tend to be identified with typical readers:- The Sun and white van man, The Torygraph and retired colonels in Cheltenham, The Grauniad and teachers, etc. So to knock any newspaper may be seen to knock its perceived typical readership, who may or may not take offence, but that should not stop the knocking. After all, we all know that people buy newspapers for all sorts of reasons, not just because they identify with a particular rag's politics.

I think it's a figment of someone's over-active imagination, JamJar - see my post of 21.00.

Has anyone found the story granjura mentioned? The blacks have eighteen more kids than white middle class? It sounds so incredible I have tried to search the Daily Mail site but just managed to get many articles on the All Black New Zealand rugby team.

It means we don't like being lectured to, gj.

Not the same at all as saying someone has no right to discuss a particular topic.

Quote:

However most of us are not quite so willing to be lectured to on the vicissitudes of

our own press

Now what else does it mean, other than it is you own, and therefore 'not mine' to comment on. So who is allowed to comment, what are the qualifications required?

Perhaps you ought to explain yourself better to us mere underlings, Alea, as I do not understand.

Thank you for noticing Ana
It would be helpful not to get the wrong end of the stick and then proceed to beat one about the head with it.

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Alea didn't say that, as you know very well granjura...

Alea, you have no right to tell anyone who has lived all their adult life in the UK, that they have no right to discuss the 'vicissitude' of the UK press. If you believe you do- then I'm afraid, inevitable conclusions will have to be reached.

Care to explain, who, in you view, has the 'right' to discuss the British Press- and who has not?

Unfortunately, granjura, Foxnews is owned by Murdoch, who has the government in his pockets.
Five years down the line, who knows.....

'Knocking' (i.e. criticising) newspapers, or any other published opinions and reports, is fine. That's one of the things free speech is for.

I saw this recently. It encapsulates my view of free speech (though I couldn't have expressed it so well):

It requires a very high degree of culture as well confidence in the powers of open debate to accept all legal speech with equanimity.

Free speech can be tough to deal with sometimes but being able to use it in all legal senses is a sign of a good society. We should value what we have.

Like I said, soon, it's only very rich people who can afford to take out lawsuits. How many would you count as enough to be worried about?

"How much tax should Facebook have paid?

Who knows? I don’t. All we know is that right now we have a tax system that lets it get away with paying very little tax and accounting standards that do not require that it properly explain why this is the case.

Blame the company and blame the accountants by all means. But really this is all about the politics of power, and our politicians are letting accountants and companies get away with this by deliberately letting them leave us in the dark. So it is Westminster that has to carry the blame. The real questions are, then, why are our politicians doing this, what is it they don’t want us to know, and why?"

For those who do not want/can't be bothered to read the article.
Which is in the Guardian, by the way.

Same for TV chains. Would anyone here care to support FoxNews for being unbiased and unprejudiced v. some groups of people??? Fortunately we do not have any tv chain like that in the UK

1 lawsuit every eighteen momths is miniscule.
1 lawsuit won every two years is even more miniscule.

That's interesting, granjura. Your students probably knew more than the British about their own newspapers
Some British perhaps, DJ, that may be your experience.
However most of us are not quite so willing to be lectured to on the vicissitudes of our own press and actually , may know something about the subject. Been there, done that. <sigh>

Why- they have to study the ownership of the papers and the type of articles, views and 'victims' - and therefore analyse both background and content, and bias. So I'd say they do, honestly.

I shall make it a duty to read the DM and the Sun (now, do you DM readers put the Sun in a different category, and why) everyday during the 2 weeks I shall be in UK- just to make sure it hasn't miraculously changed. If it has, I'll apologise on return, promise.

Janea, this is the link about Facebook.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/12/facebook-tax-politics-power

A warning; it's written by Richard Murphy, and some people do not like him because I do.

Doubtful, Djen.