Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
OH WHAT A SURPRISE
Overly making a false claim and even if people spend the time debating/disproving it the claim itself was never actually more than a nonsensical distraction from the reality of the sitation.
I'm still not really quite sure where the media reporting this wrongly becomes deliberate fabrication though. Lack of knowledge of how thermal imaging cameras work, for sure, but I'm not convinced that proves any kind of conspiracy.
and what are you even on about 'lack of knowledge'
Whereas it's equally plausible the Telegraph fucked up and hired a thermal camera and used it to film in the mistaken belief it would show the tents as occupied if people were in them.
Or because nobody in history has ever been so keen to press forward a story that they neglect to test out a hypothesis that might make the story invalid?
a paper not bothering to find out what they are trying to do will actually work, and a paper knowing what they are trying to do doesnt work and doing it anyway because it makes a good story that fits in with their stance both seem plausible to me, could be a genuine mistake but I wouldnt be surprised at all if it wasnt
I just think, as I explain below, I think it's more in the protesters interests to stick to the proven fact that the info was wrong rather than speculating on it being deliberate and potentially alienate people as a result.
Would they have printed a photo showing a person in every tent if it worked like that and they turned out to all be occupied at night?
If the tents had been occupied there wouldn't have been a story and they wouldn't have printed it.
is SPECULATION? :)
Im pretty certain that it is hardly worse to suggest that the paper fabricated it, without bothering to be sure......in fact would it ever be possible to find out whether the paper did it deliberately or if it was a mistake? ...no, it will never be possible to make certain.....therefore you are giving the benefit of the doubt and cementimental is not.
PS if someone wants to make a story and then gets some technology to prove it even though the technological means is not correct then surely this is still 'Fabricating a story'
PS a final thing.....YES I would expect that a national newspaper would have the technical expertise to know the limitations of thermal imagery and tents, because journalism is a PROFESSION and I would have thought that the EDITOR takes responsibility of the content (especially of contentious stories) and checks with various areas of expertise within his paper......or do you imagine that they do not consult with their lawyers?
Here we have the EDITOR who is the working manager of a bunch of professionals, who is responsible for their content and its consequences..........I suspect that pictures and images are part of newspapers daily business.......do you not think that someone at a major newspaper is not involved in verifying pictures authenticity? or involved in being aware of the latest technology or developments........I think you are asking a bunch of musical nerds to go.....yeah well id never have guessed that, and saying the same would apply to a multimillion pound org full of profesisonals........sorry....i think cementimental's interpretation seems more plausible......unless we go with your possibility and marry that to gross unprofessionalism and stupid ignorance of their own trade on their behalf
but if they do, then they must take flak for it if it is proved that by cutting the corner they appear to be less than professional and knowledgable snd trusted.....it goes with the territory, if you want to be called a professional then you should expect to be held to high standards, if they made a judgement call and cut corners but that turns out to be wrong, then they should expect to get more criticism than others.......it is also others perogative to assume that professionals DO NOT cut corners.
And the swirling myths of seedy agenda to deliberately make up lies to discredit opponents can simply mask the level of incompetence that takes place.
and applies to many accusations of conspiracy whereever......and I am sure that a lot of 'bungling' (or honest mistakes that would not be forgiven so easily from outsiders) within the civil service, have been covered up and instead recieved accusations of 'sinisterness' whereas it was really just covering their ass from blame....so yeah....but people are always gonna do this, so the people who are meant to be professional have a duty to ensure that there is no cause (or as little as possible) given, for people to leap to the wrong conclusions
theyve been wronged by stories that have attempted to smear them, at the very least the papers were lax in checking their facts at worst they deliberately ignored the facts, if some of the protests decide to fight back by making the later suggestion I dont think that many will think bad of them most would probably think 'yeah thats plausible id probably think the same if I were them', sticking to proven facts would be letting a big injustice slide, media is so important in public opinion debates like this so when they do stuff like this they need discrediting
As would I.
I'm not sure that would generally be the case for your average person in the street though.
I dunno, think they might not think the stories were fabricated themselves but think they might be able to atleast understand why those affected might think otherwise, and if they dont understand they probably werent ever gonna supportive anyway, dont think it would actually make anyones opinion anyworse, but might make some more sympathetic, and british people are pretty cynical even towards the papers they buy every day, think if there is possibility of wrong doing the average joe suspects dishonesty. Either way I think deliberately fabricating a story or not checking the facts when putting together a story that attempts to undermine a cause are nearly as bad when it comes to newspaper irresponsibility, dont think people really need to separate the two out to be critical of how papers have handled it
It's figurative speech.
Unfortunately the fact I'm the same means this could go on all night.
between not checking they validity of what they are doing and deliberately misleading people, when it comes to stories that tarnish people theyre both pretty bad
I can only work with the material I'm given. I'm feeding off scraps with your posts.
Pretty much my point in a nutshell.
LOL CONSPIRACY THEORIES LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING
Everyone who ever argues with you has an obvious and predictable agenda and you know exactly what they're thinking and why they act. You know me so well from a few internet posts it's unnerving.
I just don't like the use of the word "fabricate" in the video links. As you say, the truth is as soon as there's any notion of any claim of conspiracy people switch off or get distracted from the main argument.
The key point here is the Telegraph and the police were completely wrong. Whether there was an agenda for being wrong isn't provable and just distracts from the story so I wish they'd just stuck to the proven facts on the video link.
picture = 1000 words etc
tho i wouldn't put it that way either but i knew it would annoy DIS so yea
At the very least be consistent in your arguments.
to smear anyone who points out obvious lies or media bias
absolutely not why you want to use the word here and you know it
But, aside from that, it's excellent. Keep up the good work.
so you're double-wrong
You just put it forward.
you just want to use the word 'theory' for the same reasons you want to use the word 'conspiracy'. Be my guest; you might even stick them together if it will make you feel better.
and because we're journalists and thus totally removed from current events and don't really read the papers or that sort of thing we sincerely believed that the legitimacy of these protests revolves entirely on a Record Breakers style stunt whereby all protestors must be in TENTS at all time so we thought THE NATION MUST KNOW THIS SHOCKING NEWS AT ONCE!"
They'd been inaccurately tipped off that the tents were empty.
You appear to be replying with a random non-sequitur.
and it wasn't a non-sequitur, it was sarcasm
Possibly, actually no... There's only proof the Telegraph (and possibly the Police helicopter before that) couldn't tell if they were empty. Might be wrong though.
you've forgotten that it's utterly irrelevant to the reasons for the protests whether or not people are in a tent at any given time.
It is however relevant to a discussion of whether people were in the tents or not.
most things are relevant to themselves tho at least
but it's the protesters who decided to respond to the claims by debating whether or not people were in the tents rather than pointing out it's irrelevance. Instead of posting this video they could have composed the following the letter:
Dear the Telegraph,
What's your fucking point Spaceboys?
Instead they decided to respond on the issue of whether or not people were in the tents so therefore it's them, rather than me, who have decided to pursue an irrelevant point and brought us to here. And it's you continually pursuing irrelevant points that means this discussion still continues...
The Telegraph is a company
the protesters are some misc people doing a thing for somewhat related different reasonsa
I'm two in tents for you.
but either way, lolsome.
actually all the people i know that do these things are the upper end of middle class.
I mean, it doesn't make their concerns any less legitimate. But they can stop saying that they're classless and speaking on behalf of the 99% or whatever when they're clearly a subgroup belonging to specific social circumstances.
That's my lazy antagonistic insight for the day. Cheers.
SALT OF THE EARTH
the amount of money people earn, you can't just opt out of being a part of it because you don't wanna be seen to be in agreement with middle class white dreadlock kids or whatever
it stuck with me ^_^
1 PER TENT
(0.1 PER TENT ACCORDING TO THE MEDIA)
and then all say in unison "we are the 99 per tent"
(and when i say pins, i mean pegs)
Plus: Cementimental for DiS poster of the year!
but the fact Cementimental and CG are musical collaborators is a triumph for the power of...idk, creative synergy or trolling, you decide
I'm pretty sure that someone on here mentioned that a few DiSers knew the person who made the story up, and if it's who I think it is, they have form.
As I say, if it’s they were talking about the person I think that they were talking about, then they have a history of making up evidence to fit a pre-determined story, and then getting it into the laziest parts of the right-wing press.
is she a recruitment consultant?
maybe that's not hwat its about - its a little too small to read
It's right up there with the Gramscian Theory of Hegemony for concepts that sound interesting when you read about them but, the more you think and read about them, the more apparent it is that they're complete and utter bollocks.
AND HOW IT DISPROVES MY TOTALLY IMAGINARY CONFUSED IDEA OF YOUR AIMS
Kent Brockman: [Voicing over a frontal shot of the Simpsons' home, during a news broadcast] Of course, there's no way to see into the Simpson home without some kind of infrared heat-sensitive camera. So let's turn it on!
[Shot suddenly changes to an xray-like image of the house, with two distinct orange heat sources. One is the entire Simpson family, including Homer, sitting on the couch, the other is a turkey-shaped silhouette rotating in the oven]
Kent Brockman: Now, this technology is new to me, but I'm pretty sure that's Homer Simpson in the oven, rotating slowly.
[Camera zooms in for a clear shot of the turkey]
Kent Brockman: His body temperature has risen to over 400 degrees - he's literally stewing in his own juices.
for any potential consequences of the stories they print, and being in the business of verifying facts and images, and havling lots of dosh, and having lots of expertise, and being into 'gettring images and having lots of expensive cameras producing their images, you would have thought that if anyone would know about latest camera technology and what it can do/show....you would think major 'serious' newspapers would know.....but some people think they should only have to know as much as the users on a music website about latest camera imaging
I mean I'm not discussing what people "should" have to know about and nobody should really be printing stories without fact-checking but it's constantly been shown in both psychological studies and anecdotal evidence that people tend to
a) be a lot less through in fact-checking when the 'fact' in question is one that reinforces existing beliefs.
b) tend to take the simplest route possible to achieve their goals and not create work for themselves that they deem unnecessary.
So, whatever you might believe would happen in an ideal world, why do you actually think in a practical real-world situation a journalist pushed for time and with a deadline to meet would do a load of extra work on finding out precisely how a camera works when they've been told they can just point and click to get their expected outcome?
If it is, one would assume that those responsible have broken numerous codes of conduct, to the extent that no other profession would tolerate.
Arguably a profession is something you need specialist training to do. Training for journalists is fairly circumventable so debatably it's not really a profession. Certainly not one with rigorous standards anyway...
Is it not just that they have latest training but also thaty they have 'professiona; integrity'
Not in the same way as say, a Doctor, a Lawyer or an Architect is – with a professional or regulatory body upholding codes of conduct, protecting the title, regulating entry/qualifications.
'a proffessional' and journalism is considered to be one of them
Walk into a bank and ask about mortgages aimed at professionals, and then tell 'em your profession is 'journalist'.
Then get laughed out of the building.
(Then tell 'em a tale about pot's and kettles.)
there are others which have smaller lists but journalists are on that too
If they recieved photos of cameron murdering someone then before publishing it they would surely go through a phase of verifying that the images were not falsified or incorrect somehow? they wouldnt just go by what they knew either....they would ask around, to find out off their technical advisers whether there is any new method of image editing to make the images seem realer...they would ask about the LAtest techniques that were available.....they WOULD NOT just see if its been 'photoshopped'
similarly HERE they are using thermal imaging.......thermal imaging being a relatively exotic (though not very) technique, you would have thought that they would have some technical advice that could be consulted......but nah publish and be damned........ok, so they did publish......and now they are being damned.......it was their call, they could have checked, they didnt, they cannot dictate what people now accuse them of, they have lost that initiative, they had their chance to check (they also had the resource and ability to check) they didnt, no one can prove pone way or another if this was deliberate or not, do people can assume the worst...it WAs within the newspapers hands to prevent this, but they didnt.....will the papers reveal WHY they chose not to verify? I would be happier if they did, but I doubt if they will
Im not arguing that, Im not even arguing whether the tents were empty or not, I am arguing from the premise that the counter argument is true to an extent, because the argument that I am persuing with the guywithnousername, did not contain this as a possibility, we are arguing a point further down the line.
there are no rules
The idea that they would even consider it a 'mistake' if what they printed isn't literally factually true is hilarious
they don't care, they got their message across and will have no problems however many people debunk it on youtbe
It's as nonsensical to argue about whether it's 'deliberate' as it is to argue about how many people there were in the tents...
I agree they're nonsensical subjects but it's the protesters who decided to try to demonstrate there were people in the tents in response to the story and to claim the newspaper story was deliberate so they can't really complain that those discussions are taking place.
I am. But then again i started it so not sure why :-S
It is up to the EDITOR to publish or not, the editor has resources and advisors that (one would imagine) are to hand before publishing.
Now what exactly was the HURRY for this storey? Why wouldnt a sensible editor have said 'hmmm this doesnt have to go out today, it can wait till we check'
The Editor perhaps has resources and advisors but again is still going to do the minimum amount of work they deem necessary to obtain a desired result. Given they assumed the police's report of the tents being empty to be true, and the footage obtained by the journalists' backed this up, and it backed up their existing assumptions, I suspect they may have taken these two combined pieces of apparent evidence at face value and not checked further.
You heard me.
They could easily have chosen A N Other photo.
Most of their peers went with the euro story or the earthquake rescue:
They chose to stick their necks out.
My point anyway is that they stuck their necks out with a story that, as far as the editor would have been concerned, had come from the police, was backed up by a police helicopter camera and backed up again by the journalists' own investigation. So I don't think it's all that surprising the editor assumed it to be true rather than referring it for further scrutiny.
what on earth makes you think it would have crossed anyone involved's mind to 'scrutinise' claims that they have themselves sat down and decided to publish for no other reason that to make the protestors look bad/weak?
Have you read a single thing I've posted on the thread?
Is there a confederacy out there that you could get to line up against me?
I AM GOING TO STAY RIGHT HERE UNTIL THE WORLD LEARNS A THING OR TWO ABOUT THEM BASTARD CAPITALISTS *
*actually, I'll be going home every other night because my wife works late and I have to look after the kids. Steve can stay here every third night because he has a job to go to. and it's November soon, I'm not complaining that it's cold or anything but my knee's been .. ...
it's probably best not to set your stall out under a definite, no compromises banner if you're not sure you can carry your task completely. hence we are here arguing about who was sleeping where, and that's a valid discussion point in news rather than what the message is.
probably why they didn't do that tbh
and then undermined it with an imagined monologue
to the confirmation that Occupy is some sort world record endurance attempt at urban camping.
that is how it's seen by the man in the street, given that occupying a space generally involves staying there and opponents can easily portray it as endurance test, and then if the occupiers fail to stay continuously, they can be mocked for it, even if they never said that's what they were up to, and then we are here debating a minor point rather than any of the major ones
dont make things up.
so they did. :(
Are you Loo-ouise,
Are you Louise frikkin' Mensch?
Are you Loo-ooo-ouise frik-kin' Mensssch?
but that would involve being beaten and arrested more so yeahhh tents and stuff
I think you've resorted TARPAULIN my leg.
a bunch of people have stated their rigid, unwilling to change opinions
and at the end of it all, no opinions have changed!
world collapses in shock
I now have an even lower opinion of DiS forum posters re: anything remotely political
And even more so that they're (I think) doing it a non-ironic/intentional trolling manner.
tho i admit half of it is purely for my own amusement and may contain references to other threads/internets that you may not be familiar with
also C_G doesn't have an underscore
I understand all your posts. They're about as far from rocket science as it's possible for someone to be.
That's so cute!
It's pointless and I've work to do so I'm out of here.
It's been fun, kind of.
I regard it as an admission of defeat.
What do I win?
'the point of debate is to get your interlocutor to change their mind' view of debate.
to tell everyone what you think? bit...arrogant that, isn't it?
I don't really think about it in terms of 'the point', but more its possible effects. E.g., there's always more people involved in a debate than the two debaters (presuming there are only two). An argument can be as much for the people who are following it as for the people who are conducting it.
Also, I'm not a big believer in the myth of reasoned discussion — still less in the idea that such discussion sees the true and the good prevail. Public debate is little more than a rhetorical battle, and the more divided the opponents the less point of 'open-mindedness'. If you're engaging someone whose views are so wildly different from your own, the point (if there has to be a point other than pleasure or exercise) might be better understood as testing rhetorical forms (undermining those you find odious, while testing out your own for their effectiveness), with the goal of making your position look good and your opponent's look bad.
when there's fast paced bickering underway
I'm still envious of cementimental's quick wit, though.
are you Michael Gove?
not even a chuckle?
to the YouGov poll of people's opinions before and after reading this thread.
a lethal combination
And to be honest, I'm still really enjoying the pun in the title.
3.57pm: The City of London Corporation has joined St Paul's Cathedral in suspending its legal action against the Occupy London protesters.
A spokeswoman for the Corporation just confirmed to me that the authority has "pressed the pause button" on legal action against the demonstrators.
Would've been a 12, but gets a point knocked off for unnecessary use of garish pattern and colour.
Gonna be in a lot of peoples' years end lists.
Definite contender for tent of the year.
That's still going?
WE MAY NEVER KNOWWWWWWW