http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=541116

By Terry Kirby Chief Reporter



15 July 2004

Leading figures in the British National Party are shown in a new BBC documentary admitting violence and racism towards Asians and delivering speeches inciting racial hatred.

Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, is filmed telling a party meeting in Keighley in West Yorkshire, where there had been a series of sex attacks, that the Koran allows Muslims to take non-Muslim women by force. Mr Griffin, who admits during his speech that it is against the law, urges members to "do something for the BNP because otherwise they will do someone in your family".

John Tyndall, the party's founder, accuses the Conservative leader Michael Howard of being "this interloper, this immigrant or son of immigrants" and saying that all Africa has given to the world is "voodoo, cannibalism and Aids".

The film, The Secret Agent, to be shown on BBC1 tonight, follows a BBC undercover reporter, Jason Gwynne, who posed as a BNP sympathiser in West Yorkshire during the run-up to the local authority and European elections in June. He was helped by Andy Sykes, a BNP member who says that he turned against the party after being asked to commit acts of violence. The BBC said last night that both were now under protection for their own security.

Stewart Williams, a BNP candidate in the local elections, is filmed saying: "All I want to do is shoot Pakis." David Midgley, also a council candidate, tells Mr Gwynne that he spent three weeks putting dog excrement through the letter box of an Asian restaurant, while Mark Collett, another candidate, calls asylum-seekers "cockroaches".

Another BNP activist, Steve Barkham, boasts of attacking an Asian man during the riots in Bradford three years ago. He said that he was never arrested because the man picked out the wrong person in a police identity parade.

The BNP were shown the documentary yesterday morning. In a statement on its website, the party accused the "institutionally anti-white and Islamophile BBC" of using paid agents provocateurs to create "smears and hatchet jobs".

The programme makers have said that it was important to reveal the true nature of the party at a time when it was seeking respectability and electoral success.

Phil Edwards, the BNP spokesman, said it was "quite disreputable" for the BBC to "eavesdrop" on private conversations. He added: "People say things they don't mean. But obviously if people did do these things or hold these views we would expel them." He said Mr Tyndall was "proscribed" by the party, but could not be stopped from speaking at meetings and that Mr Collett was "a fool" to make the comment about cockroaches. Asked about Mr Griffin's comments, Mr Edwards said: "I can't see anything wrong with what he said."

Mr Griffin later said that Mr Midgley and Mr Barkham would be expelled, while Mr Williams will face an internal disciplinary tribunal. Mr Griffin also accused the BBC of selectively editing his speech and said he believed that Mr Midgley had been working for the programme makers.

West Yorkshire Police are expected to examine the film to establish whether any of the comments made could lead to a prosecution.

Britain is lost. She is doomed.

John Tyndall, the party's founder, accuses the Conservative leader Michael Howard of being "this interloper, this immigrant or son of immigrants" and saying that all Africa has given to the world is "voodoo, cannibalism and Aids".

What a scandalously racist remark, everyone knows Africa has given us lots of cool circusanimals too.

How about showing some real guts and infiltrating an Islamist/terrorist organization vowing to cleanse Britain of Whites and non-Muslims? Traitorous anti-White liberals are signing their own death warrants, but do they know it? Of course, by their actions they're also doing the same thing to the entire British population and that's why they should to be neutralized and silenced, i.e., treated in the way traitors have customarily been treated in all places and at all times.

I just watched the documentary, really showed the BNP for what it is, just closet fascists. Few remarks about their beliefs in democracy will be enough to make them die a slow that.

Good luck getting the middle class lads!

Democracy is a joke.

Fascism is a joke.

Define "Fascism".

Define "Fascism".

Why dont you define democracy for me afterwords.

I will present my understanding of fascism since the Phora has its own unique brand seperate from the rest of the world.

The fascism described here places aesthetics above economics. Culture especially European culture is to be the most important or highest aim of civilisation. The herd does not know what is good for them so an elite must rule them since they along understand the interests of their own respective societies. This includes keeping their societies pure or at least segregated from others in order to keep their culture intact.

This I hope is a good definition of the Fascism upheld by Phora members.

>>>Why dont you define democracy for me afterwords.

I will take a shot. Democracy is rule by the cultureless scum of society, mere individuals defined by an ideology, the third estate (the bourgeoisie and the mob), which in previous eras had been dominated by the priesthood and nobility. Fascists replace the demos with the ethnos, a stronger and more powerful type of community with a much higher degree of connectedness between its members.

>>>I will present my understanding of fascism since the Phora has its own unique brand seperate from the rest of the world.

You are wrong. My understanding of fascism (as I have shown, over and over again) is taken directly from contemporary scholarship on the subject. The Marxist account of fascism, on the contrary, has been discredited for decades.

>>>The fascism described here places aesthetics above economics.

Absolutely, in fascist nations, the economy is reorganised to further political and aesthetic ends. Exchange in fascist societies is symbolic, as was the case in premodern societies, inseparable from culturally mediated roles. This way of thinking in purely economic terms and assuming individuals to be rationally calculating automatons is foreign to all of history prior to European modernity. The Pyramids did not serve any economic purpose whatsoever.

>>>European culture is to be the most important or highest aim of civilisation.

Yes, the success of great individual lives and the construction of great works of art is what matters in fascist societies. Whereas Marxism starts with the worker and his labour. Fascists start with the artist (the form-giver) and his creativity. Fascists overcome class conflict by integrating the populace into the narrative of the nation.

>>>The herd does not know what is good for them so an elite must rule them since they along understand the interests of their own respective societies.

That's correct. Fascists do not assume that individuals are atomised, independent, disconnected, and rationally calculating units with only a voluntary connection to their associates. The community is prior to the individual for fascists. Indeed, the community creates the individual by imparting culture to him, which is the only way the individual can construct his own identity. So the identity of the individual is dependent upon his neighbours. And what's more, culture is not the product of the masses, but of a small cultivated elite. So in order to uplift the masses, under fascism, one must first uplift the upper classes. The goal is to rise to higher and higher levels, not to drag those down at the top and those up from the bottom to mediocrity.

>>>This includes keeping their societies pure or at least segregated from others in order to keep their culture intact.

As I noted in the other thread, fascists look at the world quite differently from liberals. Identity is not something inherent (or essential), for fascists, but something relational. We can only get a good picture of ourselves by examining who we are not. In other words, culture depends upon some type of separateness and if great culture is to be created then separateness must be cultivated. And finally, art itself is a type of violence, as art involves giving a form to raw material, moulding it and shaping it in accordance with one's will.

I just watched the documentary, really showed the BNP for what it is, just closet fascists. Few remarks about their beliefs in democracy will be enough to make them die a slow that.

Good luck getting the middle class lads!

What makes the BNP Fascist, Geist? Have they called for the abolishing of the British parliamentary system and the installation of a fascist or fascist-type regime in Great Britain?

I don't see what makes a change in immigrationpolicy by 'closing borders' so anti-democratic, as you see it, and pro-fascist. Try immigrating in Japan. You'll fail. Are they fascists? (your definition of fascism)

That's a reply to geist, I forgot to quote him.

The BNP is not a fascist party. That the BNP would even be considered fascist just goes to show how far the political spectrum has shifted in the last several decades. The BNP is probably milder today than the mainstream parties were just a generation or so ago. It would have simply been inconceivable at the turn of the twentieth century that Britain would let itself be transformed into a third world colony.

The BNP is not a fascist party. That the BNP would even be considered fascist just goes to show how far the political spectrum has shifted in the last several decades. The BNP is probably milder today than the mainstream parties were just a generation or so ago. It would have simply been inconceivable at the turn of the twentieth century that Britain would let itself be transformed into a third world colony.

Proto-fascist so. I am not exactly pointing out their policies as fascist here, this is evident in quite a few countries.

I am referring to the comment of a BNP member that democracy is a joke in the documentary we are talking about, if any of you have actually seen it...

I am referring to the comment of a BNP member that democracy is a joke in the documentary we are talking about, if any of you have actually seen it...
Everyone who does not like democracy is not necessarily a fascist, Geist. There are plenty of leftists who are not all that fond of 'democracy' as it exists in Britain either.

Proto-fascist so. I am not exactly pointing out their policies as fascist here, this is evident in quite a few countries.
The BNP strikes me as a populist party. All sorts of people support the different parties. I still have not seen anything from the BNP that would suggest to me that it is anything but a populist/conservative protest party.

Sorry, Geist, I inadvertenly deleted your post but all of your comments are addressed below.

Their aims fit the criteria mentioned in my account of fascism there.

You have selected just a few questionable aspects of fascism but even if the BNP truly favoured the adoption of the said aspects as official policy and party platform (something you have yet to establish or demonstrate), it still would not mean in any tangible way that the BNP wishes to set up a fascist regime in the UK. A tall order indeed.

The Social Democrats in Europe often enthusiastically use Marxist rhetoric on all sorts of issues; however, it would be foolish and ignorant to accuse them of wanting to institute a Marxist-Leninist dictatorship of the proletariat.

Also in the documentary members are clearly seen dismissing democracy as bull****.

Who are these alleged "members"? How do we know that they were not agents provocateurs? Right-wing parties and movements in Europe are notorious for being heavily infiltrated by agents and informants. Nevertheless, let us say that these were genuine members. So what? Did they speak on behalf of the Party? What did they mean anyways? Again, how do you know that they want to abolish the British parliamentary system (a prerequisite to the birth of a fascist state in the UK)? Perhaps they are only unhappy with the present state of democracy in Britain and would like to bring salutary changes that would actually save British democracy from imploding?

Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 9/11 dismisses American democracy as bull**** (see the Presidential election in 2000), is he a fascist?

Now Braun, I don't want to have to argue something as obvious as this especially with a nazi,

Name-calling adds nothing to your estimation of the BNP as a fascist or proto(?)-fascist party because they appear to oppose Britain becoming a Third World snake pit. (Do you know what "proto" means?)

but do you honestly expect anybody to belief [sic] a party like the BNP does not have fascist sympathies or goals.

I do not know. What I do know, however, is that you have not made your case at all. Where have they expressed "fascistic sympathies"? Cite concrete utterances by actual policy-makers and leaders (important caveat: quoting a swaggering working class slob who might have made some comments over a beer in a grimy pub does not count), or quote from their literature in support of your thesis. State their fascistic goals, for example.

In fact to achieve their aims it would be necessary for them to be fascists.

Again, give "their aims"? Do they plan to ban political parties? What?

Try 'closing the borders' in a liberal democracy.

Are you saying that "'closing the borders' in a liberal democracy" is impossible? What if a majority of Britons voted in a democratic national referendum to do just that? Explain.

Everyone who does not like democracy is not necessarily a fascist, Geist. There are plenty of leftists who are not all that fond of 'democracy' as it exists in Britain either.

All very true, anyway the so called leftists who dont support democracy tend to be of the Stalinist variety. We all know how successful that was.

Coming from the opposite end of the leftist spectrum I have the same problem with them as with fascists and like some members of this forum make no disctinction between them and the nazis.

The BNP strikes me as a populist party. All sorts of people support the different parties. I still have not seen anything from the BNP that would suggest to me that it is anything but a populist/conservative protest party.

The parties support comes from White nationalists, far right groups etc. The type of people who have always supported fascism. Obviously it is a good vehicle to express their views through a seemingly respectful party.

The core membership however is made up thus far of far right wing thinkers. I agree that over time they will move closer to becoming a conservative, populist party and most likely dump the elements that will hinder the parties development.

Sorry, Geist, I inadvertenly deleted your post but all of your comments are addressed below.


Censorship! :D j/k


You have selected just a few questionable aspects of fascism but even if the BNP truly favoured the adoption of the said aspects as official policy and party platform (something you have yet to establish or demonstrate), it still would not mean in any tangible way that the BNP wishes to set up a fascist regime in the UK. A tall order indeed.

I am simply pointing out that the BNP support tends to come from far right wingers who would obviously like to see the establishment of a fascist state.

It is not a fascist party in that it is not possible to have a fascist party that can be popular in modern Britian.



Who are these alleged "members"? How do we know that they were not agents provocateurs?

They were long term members, most have been expelled now. You should watch the documentary, it would spare me typing all this out.

So what? Did they speak on behalf of the Party? What did they mean anyways? Again, how do you know that they want to abolish the British parliamentary system (a prerequisite to the birth of a fascist state in the UK)? Perhaps they are only unhappy with the present state of democracy in Britain and would like to bring salutary changes that would actually save British democracy from imploding?


Why did he join the party?

By the way this is a fallacious argument, you are just loading questions.


Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 9/11 dismisses American democracy as bull**** (see the Presidential election in 2000), is he a fascist?

You need to see the context in which it is stated in the film, by a BNP candidate whilst the counting of votes is going on before his eyes.


Name-calling adds nothing to your estimation of the BNP as a fascist or proto(?)-fascist party because they appear to oppose Britain becoming a Third World snake pit. (Do you know what "proto" means?)

I have no idea why proto is in there, disregard. I hadnt expected the post to be of such interest to be honest. In Ireland and Britian it is generally not worth arguing about the BNP, I have never had to do so anyway.


I do not know. What I do know, however, is that you have not made your case at all. Where have they expressed "fascistic sympathies"? Cite concrete utterances by actual policy-makers and leaders (important caveat: quoting a swaggering working class slob who might have made some comments over a beer in a grimy pub does not count), or quote from their literature in support of your thesis. State their fascistic goals, for example.

I had no intention of proving they were fascists. It was merely the reaction of a Marxist towards a far right party. The same reaction of you toward anything you dislike as Jewish scum etc. I had intention of proving the BNP were fascist, certainly not to a textbook definition and they almost certainly dont fit the definition of the Phora's idea of fascism.

So if you like, I give up, if indeed I had ever started a debate,

Are you saying that "'closing the borders' in a liberal democracy" is impossible? What if a majority of Britons voted in a democratic national referendum to do just that? Explain.

I state this because its just not going to happen. I dont know where you live but its as likely as Hitler rising again.

Now dont get all pedantic on me.

I had no intention of proving they were fascists. It was merely the reaction of a Marxist towards a far right party.

Just what I thought. "Fascist" has been rendered meaningless when used this way.

I state this because its just not going to happen.
Gee, what a compelling argument. "It'll never happen!" Just like 9/11 never could have happened. Just like a Hitler never could have come to power -- the first time.

Get real. Societies evolve. Mores change. It is perfectly possible, even probable, that 'liberal democracy' is not the end of history as some have naïvely asserted. Why should anyone believe that fascism is not possible in the future? Just because some self-important Internet twit says so? Please.


Now dont get all pedantic on me.
Better a pedant than a fool.

I never said there could never be a fascist state, just that in a liberal democracy a close the borders campaign would never work.

Although you all seem to like to read what you will into everything I say.

I never said there could never be a fascist state, just that in a liberal democracy a close the borders campaign would never work.

Absurd. Pim Fortuyn was quite popular in a "liberal democracy" with his anti-multicultural, anti-mass immigration campaign. He raised a very important question - can liberal democracy survive with a mass immigration of people who do not value liberal democracy? His conclusion was "No", and many in that "liberal democracy" agreed with him.

Yeah quite a popular guy as we all know...

What makes you believe immigrants dont value liberal democracy?

Saw the doc. as well as their leader trying to do damage control on "Newsnight" , he boxed clever but in the end was fighting a losing battle.
The BNP members shown came across as thick as planks , interested only in beer , slogans , punch ups and dreaming about killing asians.
This is not the first time the BNP has been caught this way and it probably won't be the last.
Thing is if the far right is as daft as this , is it not time the far left was looked at as well ?

This so-called documentary was simply a hit job on the BNP as anyone familiar with research methods can clearly see. If anything, it thoroughly exposes the BBC for what it is, that being, a propaganda organ for liberalism as opposed to a news organisation. The BBC is motivated by a political agenda. There is little difference between the BBC and PRAVDA. The BBC intentionally gave a distorted picture of the BNP by picking out a few unrepresentative nutjobs (people that can be found in ANY party whatsoever) and portraying them as the lifeblood of the BNP. One cannot logically draw any inference whatsoever from unrepresentative samples. That is like suggesting that the Republican Party in the U.S. is in league with the Ku Klux Klan simply because there are KKK members who vote for George W. Bush.

Saw the doc. as well as their leader trying to do damage control on "Newsnight" , he boxed clever but in the end was fighting a losing battle.
The BNP members shown came across as thick as planks , interested only in beer , slogans , punch ups and dreaming about killing asians.
This is not the first time the BNP has been caught this way and it probably won't be the last.
Thing is if the far right is as daft as this , is it not time the far left was looked at as well ?
I just watched the documentary.. what a joke. Those slow motion scenes with the ambient music and the dramatic reply from the barrister that somesuch comments could be seen as "stirring up racial hatred". Anyway, the whole thing consisted of the hooliganry of some 5 guys, what does that prove?

Nick Griffin handled the interview well, although he seemed nervous. The interviewer was a jerk. But it was all common sense, the guys featured in the doc had been kicked out, Griffin doesn't respect the laws about inciting racial hatred, etc. All in all nothing but a smear job.

if anyone wants to watch this, use bittorrent to download the doc here (http://www.uknova.com/download.php/704/The%20Secret%20Agent%20-%20BNP%20-%20VCD.mpg.torrent) and the interview here (http://www.uknova.com/download.php/740/Newsnight%20-%20Nick%20Griffin%20Interview.avi.torrent)

Substitute the word 'racist' with 'paedophilia', and the moral outrage is almost equivalent.

No doubt Fade they went out to prove that the BNP is not as pure as the driven snow.
Unfortunately for BNP if their people didn't venture the comments made they could not be quoted , they did say them and as a result the leader expelled several members.
Yes , I did wonder about the other people who stood for and were elected for the party who he said were honest decent people , they may well be.

The BNP and NF will continue to attract people who are racist and who do shout on about shooting non whites , idiots in short.

The bomb placed in a " Gay Bar" in Soho some 3 years ago as far as I can recall the person who placed it had some conections with extreme right wing politics.
Some of these guys don't actually live in the real world.

Yeah quite a popular guy as we all know...

He was quite popular, but was murdered by a leftist lunatic who's brain was probably not at top shape due to his veganism.

What makes you believe immigrants dont value liberal democracy?

The issue is not "immigrants", the issue is mass immigration from certain cultures. When the political system values both liberalism and mass immigration/multiculturalism, the result is a mass immigration of people from cultures that are vigorously opposed to Western liberal society (such as Muslims). Basically, it's suicidal. The more intelligent approach would be to only accept immigrants from compatible backgrounds and to value assimilation over multiculturalism. As of now, the UK lets in people who openly want to destroy the UK, and then claims they have "human rights" (which the radical migrant does not even believe in), and therefore cannot just be booted out. It's preposterous.

The day will perhaps come were people like Cerberus and Geist will have to look at their kids growing up in a multiracial cesspool and curse themselves for the legacy they are leaving to their offsprings.

Instead of stressing over "fascists" and "nazis", they'll be trying to convince a large, voting Muslim demographic why they should be more "tolerant" of non-Islamic people and lifestyles.

The day will perhaps come were people like Cerberus and Geist will have to look at their kids growing up in a multiracial cesspool and curse themselves for the legacy they are leaving to their offsprings.

What gives you the idea that they would mind? They are part of the "cesspool".


He said Mr Tyndall was "proscribed" by the party,

This is outragous! Thats one reason I don't like Mr. Griffin!

And you will all be spreading the great word the Aryan faith on the Phora as usual, changing the world eh Dr. Brandt, one post at a time.

Default
This so-called documentary was simply a hit job on the BNP as anyone familiar with research methods can clearly see. If anything, it thoroughly exposes the BBC for what it is, that being, a propaganda organ for liberalism as opposed to a news organisation. The BBC is motivated by a political agenda. There is little difference between the BBC and PRAVDA. The BBC intentionally gave a distorted picture of the BNP by picking out a few unrepresentative nutjobs (people that can be found in ANY party whatsoever) and portraying them as the lifeblood of the BNP. One cannot logically draw any inference whatsoever from unrepresentative samples.

Fade, some of the 'nutjobs' were quite literally representatives - they were those running for council seats on BNP tickets, i.e. they were to represent the BNP in elections and potentially in local government. If you have details of Labour, Lib Dem, or Tory candidates shoving dog**** through letter boxes and saying they wish to kill non-criminal citizens, then by all means, provide them. If you do not have evidence of the established parties' candidates exhibiting....aberrant behaviour, on what grounds do you base your claim that such individuals can be found in "ANY party whatsoever?"



That is like suggesting that the Republican Party in the U.S. is in league with the Ku Klux Klan simply because there are KKK members who vote for George W. Bush.
No, it'd be like saying the Republicans are in league with the KKK because Republican candidates burn crosses and Republican activists conduct lynchings. :|

To be totally honest I do have concerns about illegal imigration into the UK , and equally I do have concerns about BNP and similar outfits.
I meet asians ( Doctors / Nurses ) on a day to day basis and find no problems with them , many are excellent individuals , no problem.
Likewise having lived in N.I. I worked with all sections of society there and had friends both nationalist and unionist , my children went to an intergerated school and still keep in touch with friends there.
I just can't identify with BNP policies and their racist agenda , the apology given by their leader , it must have stuck in his throat , but he had to do it , they have a lot to lose.

I agree with Eana , Muslims living in any Western Society must be tolerant and abide by the laws of the society they choose to live in. ( believe me I don't get stressed out over "Nazis" etc ).
Present labour goverment in the UK , they need to have a decent policy regarding illegal imigrants.

Will BNP be here to stay , I doubt it , its highly unlikely that they will ever get more than one or two members elected to parliment.

>>>Fade, some of the 'nutjobs' were quite literally representatives - they were those running for council seats on BNP tickets, i.e. they were to represent the BNP in elections and potentially in local government.

I emphatically deny that the individuals selected to be part of this documentary are by any means statistically representative of the BNP. Far from it. These individuals were selected out (as opposed to other individuals) and presented to the public precisely because it was not the goal of the documentary to give a fair and accurate representation of the BNP, but to do it damage.

>>>If you have details of Labour, Lib Dem, or Tory candidates shoving dog**** through letter boxes and saying they wish to kill non-criminal citizens, then by all means, provide them.

Heidegger once pointed out that what is left unsaid is often much more significant than what is said. We hear about the girl in France who 'might have been Jewish' who was attacked by anti-Semites all across the world. We don't hear about the girl who simply had her throat slit by such people though. I do not assume for a second that the mainstream British media operates independently of the political context in which it is immersed. The news is filtered through a political medium which selects out what stories are to be presented as opposed to others and in what manner such stories are to be presented. So I am more than sure there have been such similiar incidents, although I would argue that they are much less likely to be reported. Also, I am not a British citizen. I could locate such stories about Democrats or Republicans in the U.S. however.

>>>If you do not have evidence of the established parties' candidates exhibiting...

My argument is actually that the stories presented to the media are filtered through such a medium, so it is entirely unsurprising that we would hear story after story about the BNP yet such incidents often go unreported when they happen to individuals who are part of more 'mainstream' political parties. My argument does not assume that stories about other parties would be similarly reported in such a manner.

>>>aberrant behaviour, on what grounds do you base your claim that such individuals can be found in "ANY party whatsoever?"

The grounds of presence as opposed to absence. There is an another side of what is presented in the media, that being, what is absent.

>>>No, it'd be like saying the Republicans are in league with the KKK because Republican candidates burn crosses and Republican activists conduct lynchings

Democratic candidates used to burn crosses all the time. Senator Byrd was actually a member of the KKK in the U.S. for quite some time. Yet the U.S. media never refers to 'former Ku Klux Klansman Senator Byrd'. Its always 'former Ku Klux Klansman David Duke'.

I emphatically deny that the individuals selected to be part of this documentary are by any means statistically representative of the BNP. Far from it. These individuals were selected out (as opposed to other individuals) and presented to the public precisely because it was not the goal of the documentary to give a fair and accurate representation of the BNP, but to do it damage.
Unless you have a representative sample of BNP members to which we can compare these people, it would seem that we have no grounds for saying whether or not any particular individuals can be considered representative. That said, it's equally true that Griffin and the others of the party's leadership are surely not statistically representative of the party as a whole; rather, they are a hand-picked elite. Similarly, one might expect that those people the party chooses to run for local government, to represent it in power, might be a cut above the rank and file. Given the behaviour exhibited, one must hope this is not the case (if it is, it says all too much about the nature of the ranks), although I see no firm reason to believe it to be so.



Heidegger once pointed out that what is left unsaid is often much more significant than what is said.
Ah, so it is the prevalence of invisible airborne pink elephants that is the real heart of the matter, then? I note, after all, that they are completely absent from the topics covered by the media.


We hear about the girl in France who 'might have been Jewish' who was attacked by anti-Semites all across the world. We don't hear about the girl who simply had her throat slit by such people though.
The mainstream press is always selective, and it is hard to tell which particular stories will receive widespread coverage, or how soon after the fact this will occur. That said, we do hear a lot about the goings-on in the banlieue. Ever heard of la tournante?

http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/2002/1202/crime/bellil.htm
http://www.met.police.uk/sapphire/press_articles/revolt.htm


So I am more than sure there have been such similiar incidents, although I would argue that they are much less likely to be reported.
So in other words, you're speculating. OK.


Also, I am not a British citizen. I could locate such stories about Democrats or Republicans in the U.S. however.
Access to the archives of the BBC and the Guardian is free, and I believe the same is true of the Telegraph and the Times with the caveat that one must register to acquire full access. The Telegraph of all papers would not shy from any opportunity to attack Labour or the Lib Dems.


Democratic candidates used to burn crosses all the time. Senator Byrd was actually a member of the KKK in the U.S. for quite some time. Yet the U.S. media never refers to 'former Ku Klux Klansman Senator Byrd'. Its always 'former Ku Klux Klansman David Duke'.
You'll have to forgive my ignorance: the KKK isn't one of my favourite topics of study. However, didn't Byrd, at least in theory, distance himself from the Klan and their beliefs, while Duke continues to advocate, ah, "European-American rights?"

>>>You'll have to forgive my ignorance: the KKK isn't one of my favourite topics of study.

That's surprising. Over at DiscussAnything, I usually hear Europeans bring up the Ku Klux Klan quite often.

>>>However, didn't Byrd, at least in theory, distance himself from the Klan and their beliefs, while Duke continues to advocate, ah, "European-American rights?"

David Duke left the Ku Klux Klan years ago and has distanced himself from that organisation and their beliefs. David Duke, however, is constantly referred to in the media as 'former Ku Klux Klansman David Duke' whereas Senator Byrd is simply referred to as Senator Byrd.

>>>Access to the archives of the BBC and the Guardian is free, and I believe the same is true of the Telegraph and the Times with the caveat that one must register to acquire full access. The Telegraph of all papers would not shy from any opportunity to attack Labour or the Lib Dems.

You seem to be missing my point. I have not assumed beforehand that such incidents would be reported and publicised in the mainstream press, as I have argued that such stories are filtered through a political medium, at least not to the extent to which the British press tries to paint the BNP as a group of thugs and criminals. My argument is actually about trying to understand why some views or topics or stories are presented as opposed to others which are noticeably absent.

>>>So in other words, you're speculating. OK.

No. It appears we are operating on two different assumptions. You seem to be assuming (and correct me if I am wrong) that what is present in the media reflects that which is, whereas I am interested in the relationship between presence and absence, specifically, the relationship between the way in which some stories are presented in the media (as opposed to being left absent) and the values of reporters and/or the organisations they work for.

What is presented in the media does not reflect for me what is actually going on in the world. Instead, I see the media as being highly selective. The stories that are presented are highly constructed, whereas other subjects and topics are concealed from public view. What the media does not say can tell us quite a lot about what the media does say.

>>>Ah, so it is the prevalence of invisible airborne pink elephants that is the real heart of the matter, then?

This thread has absolutely nothing to do with 'invisible airborne pink elephants', actually. Instead, I am inquiring into why some views and stories are presented in the media (or presented in some different way) as opposed to others which unreported or treated differently.

>>>I note, after all, that they are completely absent from the topics covered by the media.

Here is a good example of what I am talking about:

For Ex-Klansman David Duke, No Room at the Inn in Virginia

By SEAMUS McGRAW
FORWARD CORRESPONDENT

Jay Patel didn't pay much attention to the beleaguered looking blonde-haired man in the overcoat who shuffled through the lobby of the Quality Inn last Saturday night. The Indian immigrant, who had come to the United States during the mid-1980s to build a better life for his family, had better things to do that night than stare at the customers. He had a motel to manage. The cozy little budget inn on the outskirts of Ashland, Va., might not be the Sheraton, but it was clean and comfortable, and as the manager, it was up to Patel to keep it that way. . .

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.02.28/news3.html

Senate marks Byrd's 17,000th vote

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/01/senate.byrd/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A new milestone was reached Thursday in the U.S. Senate, when Sen. Robert Byrd -- already the record holder for casting the most ballots in the Senate -- voted for the 17,000th time.
Although the 86-year-old staunch West Virginia Democrat has ruffled Republican feathers with unbending opposition to many of the Bush administration's top initiatives, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle gave him a standing ovation and paused to hear his reflections.

>>>The mainstream press is always selective, and it is hard to tell which particular stories will receive widespread coverage, or how soon after the fact this will occur.

Selection involves privileging some stories or topics over others which are deemed to be of less significance. This selection process often works on the basis of values and taboos which structure what news articles are presented to the public and in what manner, as opposed to those that are not.

>>>That said, we do hear a lot about the goings-on in the banlieue. Ever heard of la tournante?

Actually, when Jews are attacked in France, for some reason are another, it is much more likely to be widely reported in the international press, as the recent controversy about the fake hate crime demonstrates. On the other hand, if French men and women are simply murdered or raped, it is not deemed to be of as much significance. The French government and the international press does not react in the same way.

>>>Unless you have a representative sample of BNP members to which we can compare these people, it would seem that we have no grounds for saying whether or not any particular individuals can be considered representative.

I don't see how this follows, as it is quite obvious that the documentary was intentionally designed to present the BNP in a negative light. The methodology used here involves the arbitrary selection of BNP members who could be used to damage the BNP (which was the entire goal of the program), as opposed to an equally selective methodology which would have selected out more acceptable candidates. I have yet to see any discussion of the methodology used in the selection process of this documentary either. Are we to assume that no such methodology was followed, simply because it is not present?

>>>That said, it's equally true that Griffin and the others of the party's leadership are surely not statistically representative of the party as a whole; rather, they are a hand-picked elite.

Another documentary could have easily been made about the BNP that would have presented the party in just the opposite light. The documentary instead could have focused on the decent, upstanding, clean-cut people who represent the BNP in some areas. The public would have been presented with an entirely different image. But just like the above documentary, no inferences can be drawn from it precisely because of the use of such shoddy sampling. What is going on here is precisely analagous to all the threads we have had in the past where Zvaci has attempted to portray the Russians as mongrels and Prodigal Son has attempted to portray the Croatians as being heavily Mongoloid. Their values filter out what photographs they choose to present, as opposed to those they choose to leave absent.

>>>. Similarly, one might expect that those people the party chooses to run for local government, to represent it in power, might be a cut above the rank and file.

Do Trotskyites vote for the Labour Party on occasion? Yes or no?

>>>Given the behaviour exhibited, one must hope this is not the case (if it is, it says all too much about the nature of the ranks), although I see no firm reason to believe it to be so.

As I noted above, someone with a different political agenda could have made a documentary BNP by presenting to the public just the opposite image by using the same sort of selective sampling methods, one in which the BNP is portrayed as a patriotic party with good, decent, and upstanding members. It would simply have been necessary to record BNP members and council representatives acting in a positive manner, making tear-jerking speeches and so on, to the exclusion of the more ruffian lot which would be left absent in the documentary. The sole goal of such a documentary would be to present propaganda to the public by constructing stereotypes, in this case, a positive one. That is precisely what the BBC has done here. This documentary leaves behind traces of values in what it chose to present as opposed to what it chose to leave unsaid.

That's surprising. Over at DiscussAnything, I usually hear Europeans bring up the Ku Klux Klan quite often.
Well, good for them, I suppose. On this matter, I relish my ignorance. The search function reveals that I once posted an article talking about "fighting Islam's KKK" on DA, and have had nothing to say about them since.


David Duke left the Ku Klux Klan years ago and has distanced himself from that organisation and their beliefs. David Duke, however, is constantly referred to in the media as 'former Ku Klux Klansman David Duke' whereas Senator Byrd is simply referred to as Senator Byrd.
Byrd renounced racism/separatism in public whereas Duke remains a staunch advocate. That, as far as some are concerned, is the crucial difference.


You seem to be missing my point. I have not assumed beforehand that such incidents would be reported and publicised in the mainstream press, as I have argued that such stories are filtered through a political medium, at least not to the extent to which the British press tries to paint the BNP as a group of thugs and criminals. My argument is actually about trying to understand why some views or topics or stories are presented as opposed to others which are noticeably absent.
Fade, I simply don't buy it. A candidate for government at any level caught shovelling excrement through someone else's letterbox would be newsworthy, particularly in media outlets whose ethos and editorial line is generally opposed to the ideology of the candidate's party. Again, do you really believe that unashamedly partisan papers like the Telegraph (or, for that matter, the Guardian) would refrain from running stories about a Labour/Tory (delete as applicable) candidate caught in a similar situation? It's the sort of thing that sells papers, don't you know?

You say that they are absent from the papers: does it not occur to you that this may be the case simply because they have not happened?


You seem to be assuming (and correct me if I am wrong) that what is present in the media reflects that which is
Almost. I assume that what is in the papers represents a part of what was. Certainly, I do not expect any media outlet to be able to cover everything that happens or even everything that could be considered newsworthy. I do, however, generally accept that something widely reported to have happened in the media actually has happened. This clearly does not mean that something not reported has not happened, but without any reliable source telling me that it has happened or any personal experience that would suggest it has happened, I have no grounds on which to base any belief relating to its occurrence. It might or might not have happened, and without evidence one way or the other, I can say nothing.

Thus, in this particular instance, I am willing to accept that a BNP council candidate is a sh**-shoveller and that one of their "activists" is stupid enough to brag about assaulting people. You allege that all parties have members that do similar things, and while I do not deny that this is possible, I do not have any evidence suggesting this to be the case, and thus cannot possibly pass any judgement.



What is presented in the media does not reflect for me what is actually going on in the world. Instead, I see the media as being highly selective.
Intriguing. Let us take a look at the BBC's headlines for today, shall we?

20,000 jobs go in defence shake-up
'Designer baby' rules are relaxed
Black holes turned 'inside out'
Greece imposes Olympics arms ban
etc. etc.

Now, you say that the stories behind these headlines do not reflect what is actually going on. What, exactly, do you mean by that? I assume you do, in fact, accept that the MOD is cutting jobs in the armed forces, that the British Parliament has recently passed legislation allowing the creation of "designer babies," that Stephen Hawking has come up with some new ideas about black holes, and that the Greeks have said that athletes' bodyguards may not carry weapons during the Olympics. Given that these things actually have happened, how can you say that the media is not reflecting at least some of what is going on? If what you mean is that the media does not (and indeed, can not) reflect the totality of what is going on in the world, then I would, of course, agree with you. However, this does not mean that what is reported is inaccurate. And while you say that the media is selective (obviously, accepting that it does not report all newsworthy events, I must agree with you here), I fail to see how this necessarily implies that what is reported does not reflect what has happened.


The stories that are presented are highly constructed, whereas other subjects and topics are concealed from public view.
Well, of course the stories are "highly constructed." They don't drop onto us from the heavens, do they? And if a topic is "concealed from [our] view," how are we to know that its subject matter exists?


What the media does not say can tell us quite a lot about what the media does say.
OK. The media does not say anything about the aforementioned airborne pachyderms. What, precisely, does this say about what is reported on, for instance, Hawking's ideas about black holes?


Another documentary could have easily been made about the BNP that would have presented the party in just the opposite light. The documentary instead could have focused on the decent, upstanding, clean-cut people who represent the BNP in some areas.
Undoubtedly. The point, however, is that political parties are, generally, supposed to be represented by "upstanding, clean-cut" people, and the presence of such people is not remarkable. The presence of sh**-shovellers and thugs is remarkable, and thus they receive more comment.


Do Trotskyites vote for the Labour Party on occasion? Yes or no?
[We will work] To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service. - Clause IV of the Old Labour constitution.

:|


A lyric you may or may not appreciate: Do not listen to a word I say, just listen to what I can keep silent

>>>Well, good for them, I suppose. On this matter, I relish my ignorance.

I am surprised that you did not learn about the KKK in grade school. Most Europeans, if they know anything about America, usually point to the KKK or Disneyland. Well, that has been my experience.

>>>The search function reveals that I once posted an article talking about "fighting Islam's KKK" on DA, and have had nothing to say about them since.

Criminal has posted a bunch of articles about the KKK over at DiscussAnything. If I recall, oki used to talk about them quite often as well. I remember Zaphod participating in those debates every now and then.

>>>Byrd renounced racism/separatism in public whereas Duke remains a staunch advocate. That, as far as some are concerned, is the crucial difference.

I disagree. Byrd was never a racial separatist. The media could always call David Duke, former State Representative David Duke, but they usually choose to call him, former Ku Klux Klansman David Duke simply to malign him. There are several members of the Congressional Black Caucus today who were former members of the Black Panthers. I never here the media refer to former Black Panther Elijah Cummings, however, even though he is himself still a racial activist.

>>>Fade, I simply don't buy it.

Its very simple. You are operating on the assumption knowledge can be based on observation (e.g., empiricism). In other words, you privilege presence over absence and progress from this assumption. On the other hand, I would argue that human beings not only present themselves in certain ways in certain situations, but conceal certain things in certain situations, so if we base knowledge simply on what is made present under certain conditions, we are missing a large part of the story. I call this absence. Quite often, what is left absent by a thing tells us more about that thing than what is made present.

>>>A candidate for government at any level caught shovelling excrement through someone else's letterbox would be newsworthy, particularly in media outlets whose ethos and editorial line is generally opposed to the ideology of the candidate's party.

I disagree. In this case, we have a media organisation which didn't merely 'report the news', but one that constructed the news by purposely choosing to go undercover in order to dig up dirt about that organisation. They were operating already on a preconceived agenda, one that is heavily value-laden.

>>>I do, however, generally accept that something widely reported to have happened in the media actually has happened.

They shape the news they report to the public by filtering it through a medium of biases and prejudices. They select out what they choose to be significant from what they deem to be insigificant. More importantly, they decide, on some basis, which organisations to investigate and dig up dirt on and which organisations they choose to ignore. This is not a neutral, objective process, but one that is heavily value-laden. The picture that the public receives of the news, on any given day, is a highly distorted one. The Guardian and the NY Post report the news quite differently precisely because the news is filtered through the same medium, although it has a different composition (e.g., prejudices and attitudes).

>>>Again, do you really believe that unashamedly partisan papers like the Telegraph (or, for that matter, the Guardian) would refrain from running stories about a Labour/Tory (delete as applicable) candidate caught in a similar situation? It's the sort of thing that sells papers, don't you know?

I don't really see much of a difference between Labour and the Tories, to be honest. I don't see much of a difference in the way these news outlets treat the BNP, which is not regarded as a 'mainstream' party. For me, both of these parties are simply the 'Establishment'. But you are already making precisely my point. These media outlets have certain prejudices and biases and this influences how they report the news.

>>>You say that they are absent from the papers: does it not occur to you that this may be the case simply because they have not happened?

Maybe its because I simply do not make the assumption that such incidents do not happen simply because they are unreported. That would be illogical. Absence is not evidence of non-existence.

>>>Almost. I assume that what is in the papers represents a part of what was.

Reporting is not for me a transparent process. The news is not simply something that is reported. Instead, it is something that is constructed. There are all sorts of taboos within these organisations and biases that filter out which stories they choose to report.

>>>Certainly, I do not expect any media outlet to be able to cover everything that happens or even everything that could be considered newsworthy.

Back to our example. The BBC did not simply report a story that came to its attention, in this case. It purposely chose beforehand to go dig up dirt on the BNP and present a negative imagine of that party. The BBC sought out beforehand what it chose to report.

>>>I do, however, generally accept that something widely reported to have happened in the media actually has happened.

This brings me back to the same distinction that I made earlier. What is presented in the news is highly related to what is left absent in the news. So the news is not something that simply happens on any given day, but what some people, for some reason, have deemed to be significant and have thus presented.

>>>This clearly does not mean that something not reported has not happened, but without any reliable source telling me that it has happened or any personal experience that would suggest it has happened, I have no grounds on which to base any belief relating to its occurrence.

Absence is not proof of non-existence. I am sure you know this (you seemed to indicate that above). And once again, you are operating on the same epistemological assumption here, that reason/ground/presence should be privileged over absence. Quite often, as I said before, that which is left absent by a human being is of far more importance than what is presented. What is left absent is the mystery, which is why I consider it to be more interesting. A good example of this is government. Usually, what the government hides from the public is deemed by the government to be a greater significance than what it makes available.

>>>It might or might not have happened, and without evidence one way or the other, I can say nothing.

This statement simply reflects the point I made earlier, that you are operating on the assumption that presence should be privileged over absence and proceeding from this prejudice. In other words, you are missing out on and neglecting an entirely different sphere of experience on the basis of your methodology. The presupposition here is that in the absence of evidence that can be seen, or presented, one cannot make reliable judgements. Lets think this through for a second.

Lets suppose I come to the UK and walk past you at Cambridge University. You observe me walking past you. Now what does that tell you about me as a person? Nothing much, because in such a situation I would not reveal my racial views. Hence my point: everything that human beings make present has another side, what they choose to leave absent. Empiricism grossly misses out on this because the way in which humans present themselves is highly conditional. What is presented is highly related to the site they happen to be in at the moment. Being is not something that is simply at hand, something that is available.

Lets use another example, night. Night is the counterpart to day. However, during the night, what we can be seen, visually speaking, is quite limited. What is present to our senses during the day receeds even further into darkness, or absence. We rely to a greater degree upon the other senses, especially sound, and thus we would interpret our surroundings quite differently than we would during the day. 'Evidence' takes on an entirely different meaning.

>>>Thus, in this particular instance, I am willing to accept that a BNP council candidate is a sh**-shoveller and that one of their "activists" is stupid enough to brag about assaulting people.

The only reason we are even having this discussion is because a news agency chose, on the basis of a set of values, to make something present to the public that was previously absent. The point I am making here is that what was presented to the public by the BBC is structured by the prejudices of that organisation, as these prejudices filter out what the BBC chose to report as opposed to what they chose not to report. The entire decision to even investigate the BNP in the first place was a value judgement, as one course of action was deemed to be more significant than another.

>>>You allege that all parties have members that do similar things, and while I do not deny that this is possible, I do not have any evidence suggesting this to be the case, and thus cannot possibly pass any judgement.

And this just goes to further make my point: that you continue to privilege presence over absence and proceed from this assumption. You continue to operate on the assumption that 'reliable knowledge' can only be based on what presents itself or is presented by someone else. Yet I would argue this is not so, because what is made present by anyone is always highly conditional and related to their values.

>>>Intriguing. Let us take a look at the BBC's headlines for today, shall we?

Alright. Lets take a look. We have:

20,000 jobs go in defence shake-up
'Designer baby' rules are relaxed
Black holes turned 'inside out'
Greece imposes Olympics arms ban

Better yet. Lets check another news organisation so we can throw the stories the BBC is reporting into relief. From the NY Post:

Marines Kill 25 Iraqis in Ramadi Clashes
Video Shows 9/11 Hijackers' Security Check
9/11 Panel Blames 'Institutional Failings'
U.S. Says It Got Afghan From Vigilantes
U.S. Death Toll in Iraq Hits 900

Hmm. Notice anything different here?

>>>Now, you say that the stories behind these headlines do not reflect what is actually going on. What, exactly, do you mean by that?

My argument is that what is reported by news organisations does not reflect what is actually going on in the world, but instead, the prejudices of these news organisations, as they report what they deem to be significant whereas other things are left out. Different news organisations have different prejudices and this reflects how they A.) present the news and B.) choose to leave absent from their reporting. YOUR OWN examples illustrates that, as what the BBC is reporting this morning is somewhat different from what the NY Post is reporting.

>>>I assume you do, in fact, accept that the MOD is cutting jobs in the armed forces, that the British Parliament has recently passed legislation allowing the creation of "designer babies," that Stephen Hawking has come up with some new ideas about black holes, and that the Greeks have said that athletes' bodyguards may not carry weapons during the Olympics.

I am arguing that what the BBC has chosen to present in the news today is selective. What the BBC chooses to present in the news has another side: what the BBC does not choose to present in the news, what the BBC leaves absent. Thus, I would argue that what the BBC has chosen to present in the news, on any given day, does not reflect what is actually going on in the world. It is not a transparent process. Instead, what the BBC reports is highly related to what the BBC is, as an organisation, its taboos, its attitudes, and its prejudices.

>>>Given that these things actually have happened, how can you say that the media is not reflecting at least some of what is going on?

Very simple. The picture of the world that the BBC, or any news organisation for that matter, presents to the public does not reflect what is going on in the world, but instead, what these organisations deem to be significant. This is why the news is reported differently, from place to place, on any given day. What is reported in the news is structured by many factors, among them, A.) the site of the news organisation B.) prejudices C.) taboos D.) political ideology E.) the personal values of editors and reporters.

>>>If what you mean is that the media does not (and indeed, can not) reflect the totality of what is going on in the world, then I would, of course, agree with you.

That is the argument. What is presented by the media is not what is 'actually going on in the world'. Instead, it is a reconstruction or a representation of what is going on conditioned by the prejudices, attitudes, values, and perspective of reporters and editors. Events are reduced to texts. These texts are not literally what is going on.

>>>However, this does not mean that what is reported is inaccurate.

Sure it does. It means what is reported is not transparent. It is the difference between a man with poor vision walking around without glasses and with glasses. There is a fundamental distorting effect.

>>>And while you say that the media is selective (obviously, accepting that it does not report all newsworthy events, I must agree with you here), I fail to see how this necessarily implies that what is reported does not reflect what has happened.

Because you are confusing reflection with representation here. There is quite a difference, as I have explained more or less above. If reporting reflected what was going on, then everything that is going on that is present would be reproduced in some way. Instead, the news is actually represented, that is, even everything that is present is not reproduced. Only a very narrow picture of the world on any given day is given by news organisations and this picture is a highly distorted one conditions by the attitudes and prejudices of the news organisation.

>>>Well, of course the stories are "highly constructed."

Which is precisely why they do not reflect what is going on in the world.

>>>They don't drop onto us from the heavens, do they? And if a topic is "concealed from [our] view," how are we to know that its subject matter exists?

Once again, you are grounding knowledge in presence and proceeding from that assumption. The problem with this is that what is presented is always highly conditional so it is not as reliable as you make it out to be. I am sure that you present yourself quite differently, say, at a pub, than you would at your grandparent's house. Also, what is presented always has another side, that which is absent. Thus, I argue that reliable knowledge can never be based solely on presence, as all human beings, at any point in time, conceal certain things, which I call their 'darkness'.

>>>OK. The media does not say anything about the aforementioned airborne pachyderms. What, precisely, does this say about what is reported on, for instance, Hawking's ideas about black holes?

Don't associate absence with non-existence. The point I am making here is that different news organisations report certain stories or choose not to report them. Some news organisations have not reported Hawking's ideas about black holes. They simply left such information absent.

>>>Undoubtedly.

Then what are you disputing here? Lets suppose I choose to do a documentary on jonnyofthedead. Now lets suppose I go to DA and search all your posts and selectively pick out, simply because I do not like you, all the arguments where you made a fool out of yourself. Now lets suppose I made a television documentary about this and present to the public solely these posts. The public would get the impression that you are an idiot. But there is another side that was not reported in my documentary: what I chose to left absent because it did not further the stereotype that I wanted to construct about you.

>>>The point, however, is that political parties are, generally, supposed to be represented by "upstanding, clean-cut" people, and the presence of such people is not remarkable. The presence of sh**-shovellers and thugs is remarkable, and thus they receive more comment.

Yet the public was presented a documentary abotu the ****-shovellers and thugs in the BNP and NOT the fine and upstanding people that are within that organisation. Why did the BBC choose to present to the public a documentary about these people as opposed to others? Very simple: because the attitudes and prejudices of the BNP, as I have argued, structure how it reports the news and what it chooses to present as opposed to what it chooses to leave absent.

Its very simple. You are operating on the assumption knowledge can be based on observation (e.g., empiricism).
I think my job rather demands that sort of epistemological model. :|
If we cannot base knowledge on observation, how are we to know anything about the world?


In other words, you privilege presence over absence and progress from this assumption.
Yes and no; I am not sure that it is a question of privileging the one over the other so much as it's one of acknowledging the differences between them. Just so I can be sure of where we stand with respect to these terms, some definitions as I understand them:

Present: Something that exists or has occurred and for which we have evidence
Absent: Something that exists or has occurred and for which we have no evidence
Non-existent: Something that does not exist or has not occurred and for which we have no evidence
Illusory (not yet discussed, but necessary for completeness): Something that does not exist or has not occurred and for which we have (spurious) evidence.

Acceptable?

If so, we can define as 'real' the present and the absent, and as 'known' the present and the illusory. We can also talk of the hypothetical, which covers speculation on matters currently absent or non-existent. Now, assuming we wish to perceive as best we can that which is real and act on this basis to shape reality as suits our interests (whatever they may be), we can act only on the basis of the present and the illusory - the things we know. By definition, the absent is in the darkness. We may, on the basis of what we know, seek to uncover it, to make it present, but on the basis of our current knowledge, we have no way of differentiating between the absent and the non-existent. This is why one must privilege the present (and, to some extent, the illusory) over the absent - as far as our knowledge goes, the absent is equivalent to the non-existent.


Quite often, what is left absent by a thing tells us more about that thing than what is made present.
This is entirely possible, but it is absent. How, then, are we to know it or appreciate its import? As you yourself said, it is concealed from us. Unless we are wise to this concealment, in which case the thing can scarcely be described as being absent from our worldview, it is in the darkness and we must proceed in blithe ignorance.


I disagree. In this case, we have a media organisation which didn't merely 'report the news', but one that constructed the news by purposely choosing to go undercover in order to dig up dirt about that organisation. They were operating already on a preconceived agenda, one that is heavily value-laden.
Fade, news does not generally just drop into one's lap. One must go and seek it. One may do this by attending Parliament, by flying out to warzones, by speaking to people, by infiltrating selected organisations, or whatever. Again, the fact that news organisations have an agenda and values (who does not?) does not automatically discredit what they report. We cannot say person A is biased, therefore what he says is untrue. You are a racist and anti-Semite, a man with an agenda to lay the groundwork on which an aesthetic state may be built. Should everything you say then be discarded, o biased and agenda-driven one?


me: I do, however, generally accept that something widely reported to have happened in the media actually has happened.

They shape the news they report to the public by filtering it through a medium of biases and prejudices. They select out what they choose to be significant from what they deem to be insigificant. More importantly, they decide, on some basis, which organisations to investigate and dig up dirt on and which organisations they choose to ignore. This is not a neutral, objective process, but one that is heavily value-laden. The picture that the public receives of the news, on any given day, is a highly distorted one. The Guardian and the NY Post report the news quite differently precisely because the news is filtered through the same medium, although it has a different composition (e.g., prejudices and attitudes).
Again, we are arguing at cross purposes. I do not for one moment deny that different news services may have different perspectives and may thus prioritise things differently, that something of great interest to the Guardian may be of little note to the NY Post and vice-versa. This does not, however, address my point. If the Guardian says that things X, Y, and Z have happened, I am happy to believe them. Likewise, if the Post then chooses to report on events A, B, and C, I am equally content to believe that these things have also happened. If we say that on any given day there are a number of events that might be considered newsworthy (for convenience, let us call this the totality of the news) and that every media outlet will know about a subset of these events (one cannot, after all, presume omniscience on the part of newsmen), and of this known subset, will report a further subset to the general public. The totality of the news is thus filtered at least twice before reaching the public. This, I assume, is your argument (or a close relative thereof), and it is not one with which I take issue. Where we differ is that I do not assume that any news service claims to be reporting everything that is worth knowing. Equally, I do not see how reporting on, say, a trade union meeting necessarily distorts the news simply because it does not also cover, for instance, rainforest felling or murders in France. It is precisely what it purports to be - a report of a specific event. It does not attempt to cover anything else, and thus neither distorts nor clarifies anything else. The only way one could construe it as distortion is if one were to portray it as something it never set out to be - a representation of the totality of the news.



I don't really see much of a difference between Labour and the Tories, to be honest. I don't see much of a difference in the way these news outlets treat the BNP, which is not regarded as a 'mainstream' party. For me, both of these parties are simply the 'Establishment'. But you are already making precisely my point. These media outlets have certain prejudices and biases and this influences how they report the news.
You may not see any difference between the two, but how does this affect the values of the Telegraph or the Guardian? Many of these papers' commentators certainly consider there to be significant differences between the two and indeed, go on at some length about these differences. That being the case, I will repeat my question: do you think either of these papers would shy from reporting "bad" behaviour on the part of representatives of one party or the other?


Maybe its because I simply do not make the assumption that such incidents do not happen simply because they are unreported. That would be illogical. Absence is not evidence of non-existence.
Did I not quite specifically say that absence does not necessarily imply non-existence? However, this goes back to what I said earlier: while the absent is real, it is also, by definition, unknown, precisely as is the non-existent. And because it is unknown, we cannot differentiate it from the non-existent until we are able to make it present.


Reporting is not for me a transparent process. The news is not simply something that is reported. Instead, it is something that is constructed. There are all sorts of taboos within these organisations and biases that filter out which stories they choose to report.
See above. Selection does not imply mis-reporting of that which is selected.


Back to our example. The BBC did not simply report a story that came to its attention, in this case. It purposely chose beforehand to go dig up dirt on the BNP and present a negative imagine of that party. The BBC sought out beforehand what it chose to report.
Yes, indeed. The purpose of investigative journalism is to peer into the unknown, to make present that which is currently absent. The BBC presumably guessed that an investigation of the BNP would yield interesting material and duly investigated.


This statement simply reflects the point I made earlier, that you are operating on the assumption that presence should be privileged over absence and proceeding from this prejudice. In other words, you are missing out on and neglecting an entirely different sphere of experience on the basis of your methodology. The presupposition here is that in the absence of evidence that can be seen, or presented, one cannot make reliable judgements. Lets think this through for a second.
Fade, I do not neglect it. Indeed, the entire focus of my chosen discipline is the investigation of that which is unknown. I simply recognise the difference between that which I can know and that on which I can (currently) only speculate. On the basis of my speculation, I may conduct experiments to uncover new information and thereby make present that which was absent, but until this is done, all I have is what I know and what I can guess.


Lets suppose I come to the UK and walk past you at Cambridge University. You observe me walking past you. Now what does that tell you about me as a person? Nothing much, because in such a situation I would not reveal my racial views. Hence my point: everything that human beings make present has another side, what they choose to leave absent. Empiricism grossly misses out on this because the way in which humans present themselves is highly conditional. What is presented is highly related to the site they happen to be in at the moment. Being is not something that is simply at hand, something that is available.
You assume I ascribe significance to your racial views. How curious.
Further, I do not in any way consider your point proven. The empiricist holds that experience is the basis of knowledge. This is not true of all knowledge by any means, but it in no way precludes the possibility that one may expand one's knowledge by seeking new experiences. Indeed, it is positively encouraged in some quarters. However, I have a question for you: how should one deal with that which is absent? You walk past me, and I, ignorant of your views, simply walk right on by. Now, supposing I am the sort of person who would react were I aware of your views (I assure you that in real life, I would give you exactly the treatment I gave Le Pen when he was in town, i.e. I'd fail to give a single hoot, let alone two), on what basis could I react? How can the unknown constitute the basis for anything save an attempt to bring it into the light?


And this just goes to further make my point: that you continue to privilege presence over absence and proceed from this assumption. You continue to operate on the assumption that 'reliable knowledge' can only be based on what presents itself or is presented by someone else. Yet I would argue this is not so, because what is made present by anyone is always highly conditional and related to their values.
Yes and no. Reliable knowledge about the world can be obtained from that which others present, from that which presents itself, or from that which you take the time to uncover. If someone conceals something from me and I suspect this to be the case, I can always do my own sleuthing.


My argument is that what is reported by news organisations does not reflect what is actually going on in the world, but instead, the prejudices of these news organisations, as they report what they deem to be significant whereas other things are left out. Different news organisations have different prejudices and this reflects how they A.) present the news and B.) choose to leave absent from their reporting. YOUR OWN examples illustrates that, as what the BBC is reporting this morning is somewhat different from what the NY Post is reporting...What the BBC chooses to present in the news has another side: what the BBC does not choose to present in the news, what the BBC leaves absent. Thus, I would argue that what the BBC has chosen to present in the news, on any given day, does not reflect what is actually going on in the world...The picture of the world that the BBC, or any news organisation for that matter, presents to the public does not reflect what is going on in the world, but instead, what these organisations deem to be significant.
Yes, but it is not my argument that all news services must cover the same thing or that either covers the totality of the news. My point was that what they say is (generally) true, that it really is the case both that 900 U.S. servicemen have died in Iraq and that new ideas about black holes have been expounded. The fact that the Post talks about the U.S. death toll while the Beeb covers Hawking does not automatically mean that either report is unreliable. We are talking of reflection: let us then consider a mirror. I have one behind my desk, and if I look into it, I see my face with attendant stubble and the opposite wall of my room. I do not see my wardrobe, my shelves, my armchair, the goings-on in Alabama or on the moon or in the Andromeda galaxy. Clearly, my mirror does not reflect the totality of what is going on. Should I take this to mean that its reflection is unreliable, that I do not need to shave?


Because you are confusing reflection with representation here. There is quite a difference, as I have explained more or less above. If reporting reflected what was going on, then everything that is going on that is present would be reproduced in some way.
Fade, this is simply not true. As above, my mirror is a good reflector of visible light. It doesn't show everything that is going on, however; it can only reflect a very limited subset of the total. This does not mean that what is shown is inaccurate.


Incidentally, if you're in a title-changing mood, I'd like to request that mine become 'The Other'.

Nothing to say, Mr. Butcher?

I have already posted half my reply in my private forum. I am going to reply to this one and the other one (as well as another post I need to reply to) at the same time.

Bad form, I know, but....*bump*

The BNP is nothing... Now they're going aroung saying "we didn't mean it... we love all of God's creatures".
Britain's only saviour: November 9th Society

am surprised that you did not learn about the KKK in grade school. Most Europeans, if they know anything about America, usually point to the KKK or Disneyland. Well, that has been my experience.


The KKK is a joke and except for the 1920's( when it was more a nativist organization then anything... which is probably why it suceeded then) always has been. How is America most famous for this.