ARGUS COMMENT: Journalism is not a crime, but journalists are not above the law

South Wales Argus: ARGUS COMMENT: Journalism is not a crime, but journalists are not above the law ARGUS COMMENT: Journalism is not a crime, but journalists are not above the law

THERE is a certain irony in the phone hacking trial ending on the day journalists around the world protested over the jailing of colleagues in Egypt.

'Journalism is not a crime' has become the phrase most used by those supporting the three al-Jazeera journalists jailed for 'spreading false news'.

Indeed it is not. But that does not mean journalists are above the law.

A British jury proved that yesterday when it found former News Of The World editor Andy Coulson guilty of phone hacking at the end of a 138-day trial and a police investigation that cost £30 million.

Phone hacking is illegal. A jury has decided Coulson was guilty of it and he is therefore a criminal and will pay the price for his crime, most likely with a jail sentence.

Whether the al-Jazeera trio are guilty of what most people would think to be a crime is another matter.

There is global outrage at their treatment and their imminent appeal must be heard properly and fairly.

Reporting what someone somewhere does not want the general public to know is the basis of journalism across the world.

On some occasions, laws have to be broken to expose the truth. That is how the scandal of MPs' expenses was revealed.

Hacking into phones to create stories or report tittle-tattle is not journalism. But it is a crime.

Comments (30)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:37am Wed 25 Jun 14

KarloMarko says...

Rebekah Wade was one of the highest paid editors/ececs of the entire British press. She left Murdoch with a pay off of £10.8 million. And she claims, and was believed it seems, that she knew nothing of the industrial scale hacking and bribes carried out by her papers and on her watch. Remind us again then what her vast salary and bonuses were exactly for? Bankers Pt 2.
Rebekah Wade was one of the highest paid editors/ececs of the entire British press. She left Murdoch with a pay off of £10.8 million. And she claims, and was believed it seems, that she knew nothing of the industrial scale hacking and bribes carried out by her papers and on her watch. Remind us again then what her vast salary and bonuses were exactly for? Bankers Pt 2. KarloMarko
  • Score: 7

10:12am Wed 25 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

KarloMarko wrote:
Rebekah Wade was one of the highest paid editors/ececs of the entire British press. She left Murdoch with a pay off of £10.8 million. And she claims, and was believed it seems, that she knew nothing of the industrial scale hacking and bribes carried out by her papers and on her watch. Remind us again then what her vast salary and bonuses were exactly for? Bankers Pt 2.
Didn't have to wait for the Stalinist version. So it would be OK to tap phones if you were on minimum wage?
Phone hacking has been criminal a good while. The creatures who stole and are still stealing our money for their "expenses"and don't want exposure said that that's not good enough. We want state supervision of the press i.e. we'll make sure we don't get caught again. I assume the Stalinists thoroughly approve. Over to you Mr Marks.
PS thanks to a wise jury. No one deserved to have to sit through 8 months of this, frankly low priority, tosh. Course if the State hadn't taken a scattergun approach and got the indictment correct in the first place. Oh, sorry, can't expect competence from the State , can we, just avarice.
[quote][p][bold]KarloMarko[/bold] wrote: Rebekah Wade was one of the highest paid editors/ececs of the entire British press. She left Murdoch with a pay off of £10.8 million. And she claims, and was believed it seems, that she knew nothing of the industrial scale hacking and bribes carried out by her papers and on her watch. Remind us again then what her vast salary and bonuses were exactly for? Bankers Pt 2.[/p][/quote]Didn't have to wait for the Stalinist version. So it would be OK to tap phones if you were on minimum wage? Phone hacking has been criminal a good while. The creatures who stole and are still stealing our money for their "expenses"and don't want exposure said that that's not good enough. We want state supervision of the press i.e. we'll make sure we don't get caught again. I assume the Stalinists thoroughly approve. Over to you Mr Marks. PS thanks to a wise jury. No one deserved to have to sit through 8 months of this, frankly low priority, tosh. Course if the State hadn't taken a scattergun approach and got the indictment correct in the first place. Oh, sorry, can't expect competence from the State , can we, just avarice. Dai Rear
  • Score: 2

10:40am Wed 25 Jun 14

KarloMarko says...

Me, I want a PCC controlled by Lord Dacre and the Barclay brothers....well, it worked SO well. As for Rebekah, my ONLY surprise is that the trial judge didn't call her "fragrant" a la Mary Archer. Despite the stench. Still, Murdoch is now about to be shredded in the American courts for damages. Its an ill wind....
Me, I want a PCC controlled by Lord Dacre and the Barclay brothers....well, it worked SO well. As for Rebekah, my ONLY surprise is that the trial judge didn't call her "fragrant" a la Mary Archer. Despite the stench. Still, Murdoch is now about to be shredded in the American courts for damages. Its an ill wind.... KarloMarko
  • Score: 4

11:07am Wed 25 Jun 14

twangstring says...

Speaking of legality and morals for that matter, what happened to that 77 year old ex teacher who was named and shamed in the swa a few weeks ago? was he found guilty? Or did he just have his life ruined by malicious woman and a sensationalist newspaper? As someone who has worked with children for many years, I would really like to know.
Speaking of legality and morals for that matter, what happened to that 77 year old ex teacher who was named and shamed in the swa a few weeks ago? was he found guilty? Or did he just have his life ruined by malicious woman and a sensationalist newspaper? As someone who has worked with children for many years, I would really like to know. twangstring
  • Score: 2

12:15pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

"Still, Murdoch is now about to be shredded in the American courts for damages. Its an ill wind"
Oh indeed, the millions of us whose pensions are part invested in BP will applaud the impartiality of the US courts and indeed the President of that country-"BRITISH Petroleum", (grimace & spit)-over the oil spill disaster. But methinks Mr Marx that you have no qualms, with your public sector pension.
"Still, Murdoch is now about to be shredded in the American courts for damages. Its an ill wind" Oh indeed, the millions of us whose pensions are part invested in BP will applaud the impartiality of the US courts and indeed the President of that country-"BRITISH Petroleum", (grimace & spit)-over the oil spill disaster. But methinks Mr Marx that you have no qualms, with your public sector pension. Dai Rear
  • Score: -2

12:37pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Katie Re-Registered says...

"On some occasions, laws have to be broken to expose the truth."

However, throughout the history of humankind no-one has yet defined anything absolute on what truth is and therefore it's as well to remember that truth remains an entirely subjective concept.
"On some occasions, laws have to be broken to expose the truth." However, throughout the history of humankind no-one has yet defined anything absolute on what truth is and therefore it's as well to remember that truth remains an entirely subjective concept. Katie Re-Registered
  • Score: 2

12:48pm Wed 25 Jun 14

KarloMarko says...

Murdoch's blood now "officially", via Coulson's conviction, red staining the water...big white US stockholder sharks are coming to rip and tear. Aint going to be pretty but hell, I'm selling tickets . Rejoice! Capitalism eats itself. Again.
Murdoch's blood now "officially", via Coulson's conviction, red staining the water...big white US stockholder sharks are coming to rip and tear. Aint going to be pretty but hell, I'm selling tickets . Rejoice! Capitalism eats itself. Again. KarloMarko
  • Score: 1

1:05pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Kevin Ward - Editor says...

twangstring
What an odd comment.
We didn't 'name and shame' anyone. We covered a court case, as all parts of the media do, and we reported the evidence factually.
One of the tenets of our courts system is that justice should be seen to be done - and it was. The defendant was found not guilty and we reported that in full.
If your concern is the naming of the defendant then you should turn your fire on the law-makers and lobby them to change the law. We just abide by it.
twangstring What an odd comment. We didn't 'name and shame' anyone. We covered a court case, as all parts of the media do, and we reported the evidence factually. One of the tenets of our courts system is that justice should be seen to be done - and it was. The defendant was found not guilty and we reported that in full. If your concern is the naming of the defendant then you should turn your fire on the law-makers and lobby them to change the law. We just abide by it. Kevin Ward - Editor
  • Score: 2

1:42pm Wed 25 Jun 14

twangstring says...

Kevin I didn't see the report where he was found not guilty. I'm sorry if I misjudged you. The fact is though that was identified in the press before any judgement was made. I find this a really scary event. He has been punished by that alone and he was innocent. I'm sure this is a matter for wider debate but if he was named then why wasn't she? I'm sure you are just following the law on this but its plain wrong.
Kevin I didn't see the report where he was found not guilty. I'm sorry if I misjudged you. The fact is though that was identified in the press before any judgement was made. I find this a really scary event. He has been punished by that alone and he was innocent. I'm sure this is a matter for wider debate but if he was named then why wasn't she? I'm sure you are just following the law on this but its plain wrong. twangstring
  • Score: 1

1:57pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Kevin Ward - Editor says...

The law is that defendants in such cases can be named but alleged victims are entitled to lifelong anonymity under the Sexual Offences Act.
We published the acquittal in full in print, including on our front page, and online.
The law is that defendants in such cases can be named but alleged victims are entitled to lifelong anonymity under the Sexual Offences Act. We published the acquittal in full in print, including on our front page, and online. Kevin Ward - Editor
  • Score: 1

3:08pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

KarloMarko wrote:
Murdoch's blood now "officially", via Coulson's conviction, red staining the water...big white US stockholder sharks are coming to rip and tear. Aint going to be pretty but hell, I'm selling tickets . Rejoice! Capitalism eats itself. Again.
Well it's "capitalism" that puts food in your belly and allows you to play with your PC all day, so-enjoy. No doubt you'll let us know when you think of a better way of conducting our affairs than personal choice.
[quote][p][bold]KarloMarko[/bold] wrote: Murdoch's blood now "officially", via Coulson's conviction, red staining the water...big white US stockholder sharks are coming to rip and tear. Aint going to be pretty but hell, I'm selling tickets . Rejoice! Capitalism eats itself. Again.[/p][/quote]Well it's "capitalism" that puts food in your belly and allows you to play with your PC all day, so-enjoy. No doubt you'll let us know when you think of a better way of conducting our affairs than personal choice. Dai Rear
  • Score: 0

3:40pm Wed 25 Jun 14

gingertom says...

Rebecca television website I don't think that has anything to do with Mrs brookes but still a good site.
Rebecca television website I don't think that has anything to do with Mrs brookes but still a good site. gingertom
  • Score: 2

8:22pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Katie Re-Registered says...

"On some occasions, laws have to be broken to expose the truth. That is how the scandal of MPs' expenses was revealed."

Hmmm...as (theoretically, at least) we live in a democracy in which the majority of people decide what the law I think it's a bit arrogant if a group of people decide to appoint themselves as the champions of the people without their consent and then believe that they have the right to take the law into their own hands and break it. The 'saviours of the people' argument is the typical sort of excuse that military juntas use when they seize power from failing democratically elected governments in coup d'états. Why should a minority of mostly privileged people (i.e. journalists) feed the majority of us their version of 'the truth' anyway? Just because they work for a handful of media barons why should they assume that their version of the truth is superior to the ordinary person in the street who might bear witness to events and document this over the internet? And after all, journalists lay such confident claim to providing us with the absolute truth but what, for example, of those who insist that a transgender woman is a "bloke in a dress" - as happened in one instance a few month's ago when one of the South Wales Argus journalists was describing Conchita Wurst. A five second google of the internet would have revealed that Conchita Wurst identifies as gender neutral (i.e. neither female nor male) - so the SWA's assertion that she was male was wilful misreporting for biased political ends. In other words an example of blatant propaganda.
"On some occasions, laws have to be broken to expose the truth. That is how the scandal of MPs' expenses was revealed." Hmmm...as (theoretically, at least) we live in a democracy in which the majority of people decide what the law I think it's a bit arrogant if a group of people decide to appoint themselves as the champions of the people without their consent and then believe that they have the right to take the law into their own hands and break it. The 'saviours of the people' argument is the typical sort of excuse that military juntas use when they seize power from failing democratically elected governments in coup d'états. Why should a minority of mostly privileged people (i.e. journalists) feed the majority of us their version of 'the truth' anyway? Just because they work for a handful of media barons why should they assume that their version of the truth is superior to the ordinary person in the street who might bear witness to events and document this over the internet? And after all, journalists lay such confident claim to providing us with the absolute truth but what, for example, of those who insist that a transgender woman is a "bloke in a dress" - as happened in one instance a few month's ago when one of the South Wales Argus journalists was describing Conchita Wurst. A five second google of the internet would have revealed that Conchita Wurst identifies as gender neutral (i.e. neither female nor male) - so the SWA's assertion that she was male was wilful misreporting for biased political ends. In other words an example of blatant propaganda. Katie Re-Registered
  • Score: -2

10:06pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Kevin Ward - Editor says...

'Wilful misreporting for biased political ends'.
Dearie me. It was a joke in a light-hearted TV review of the Eurovision Song Contest.
'Wilful misreporting for biased political ends'. Dearie me. It was a joke in a light-hearted TV review of the Eurovision Song Contest. Kevin Ward - Editor
  • Score: -3

4:21am Thu 26 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

Strictly speaking the singer is a sausage but 1000 out of 100 for stretching an argument to the point where it can be said to best resemble the skin of a sausage.
If I am an elderly person but "identify as" a lamp standard, does a journalist who describes me as an elderly person do so because s/he is paid enormous sums by a villainous press baron?
Your best titter to date.
Strictly speaking the singer is a sausage but 1000 out of 100 for stretching an argument to the point where it can be said to best resemble the skin of a sausage. If I am an elderly person but "identify as" a lamp standard, does a journalist who describes me as an elderly person do so because s/he is paid enormous sums by a villainous press baron? Your best titter to date. Dai Rear
  • Score: 2

6:45am Thu 26 Jun 14

Katie Re-Registered says...

Kevin Ward - Editor wrote:
'Wilful misreporting for biased political ends'.
Dearie me. It was a joke in a light-hearted TV review of the Eurovision Song Contest.
The classic "only a bit of harmless fun" defence - yet post-Bernard Manning would anyone dare try that on to an equal extent with other minority groups? Seemed more like an attempt to erase the existence of transgender people through dismissing us as inauthentic and in-valid though - however masked with humour such an ostensibly 'throw away' comment such as "bloke in a dress" might at first seem. Not really that different from how state-approved comedians in Putin's Russia reacted to being defeated at Eurovision.
[quote][p][bold]Kevin Ward - Editor[/bold] wrote: 'Wilful misreporting for biased political ends'. Dearie me. It was a joke in a light-hearted TV review of the Eurovision Song Contest.[/p][/quote]The classic "only a bit of harmless fun" defence - yet post-Bernard Manning would anyone dare try that on to an equal extent with other minority groups? Seemed more like an attempt to erase the existence of transgender people through dismissing us as inauthentic and in-valid though - however masked with humour such an ostensibly 'throw away' comment such as "bloke in a dress" might at first seem. Not really that different from how state-approved comedians in Putin's Russia reacted to being defeated at Eurovision. Katie Re-Registered
  • Score: -2

7:29am Thu 26 Jun 14

Kevin Ward - Editor says...

Katie
Considering your original comment about truth, it's interesting that your insistence on describing Conchita Wurst as a 'transgender woman' is as far from the truth as you can get.
Tom Neuwirth describes himself as a gay man who has developed a 'drag persona' as Conchita Wurst. No different to Paul O'Grady and his alter ego Lily Savage.
Therefore, 'bloke in a dress' might be simplistic but it is nevertheless accurate.
Katie Considering your original comment about truth, it's interesting that your insistence on describing Conchita Wurst as a 'transgender woman' is as far from the truth as you can get. Tom Neuwirth describes himself as a gay man who has developed a 'drag persona' as Conchita Wurst. No different to Paul O'Grady and his alter ego Lily Savage. Therefore, 'bloke in a dress' might be simplistic but it is nevertheless accurate. Kevin Ward - Editor
  • Score: 2

8:03am Thu 26 Jun 14

Katie Re-Registered says...

Kevin Ward - Editor wrote:
Katie
Considering your original comment about truth, it's interesting that your insistence on describing Conchita Wurst as a 'transgender woman' is as far from the truth as you can get.
Tom Neuwirth describes himself as a gay man who has developed a 'drag persona' as Conchita Wurst. No different to Paul O'Grady and his alter ego Lily Savage.
Therefore, 'bloke in a dress' might be simplistic but it is nevertheless accurate.
Fair enough Kevin, I've just checked the Wiki entry for Conchita Wurst and it does say that. Although when I checked the same Wiki entry at the time that the Argus article described Conchita Wurst as "a bloke in a dress" the entry stated that Tom Neuwirth identified hirself as gender neutral.

Btw...I'm sorry if I came across as a bit abrupt in my last comment. I do appreciate your approach of listening to and debating with your readers. After the cynical actions of the 'Chipping Norton Set' have done so much to damage journalism's reputation, it's refreshing to find someone who is genuinely commited to journalism and brave, enlightened and imaginative enough to engage with others - which, I feel, is the most productive way forward.
[quote][p][bold]Kevin Ward - Editor[/bold] wrote: Katie Considering your original comment about truth, it's interesting that your insistence on describing Conchita Wurst as a 'transgender woman' is as far from the truth as you can get. Tom Neuwirth describes himself as a gay man who has developed a 'drag persona' as Conchita Wurst. No different to Paul O'Grady and his alter ego Lily Savage. Therefore, 'bloke in a dress' might be simplistic but it is nevertheless accurate.[/p][/quote]Fair enough Kevin, I've just checked the Wiki entry for Conchita Wurst and it does say that. Although when I checked the same Wiki entry at the time that the Argus article described Conchita Wurst as "a bloke in a dress" the entry stated that Tom Neuwirth identified hirself as gender neutral. Btw...I'm sorry if I came across as a bit abrupt in my last comment. I do appreciate your approach of listening to and debating with your readers. After the cynical actions of the 'Chipping Norton Set' have done so much to damage journalism's reputation, it's refreshing to find someone who is genuinely commited to journalism and brave, enlightened and imaginative enough to engage with others - which, I feel, is the most productive way forward. Katie Re-Registered
  • Score: 2

8:54am Thu 26 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

Katie, what was "cynical"? It was gossip and it sold papers. It was against the law, but not a particularly important law. The Press in Britain can be rather nasty, as you know, and it's nothing whatsoever to do with rural Oxfordshire. But would you rather an anodyne Press?
In France they'd say it doesn't matter that the Home Secretary is doing stuff with a palpably mad foreign woman or the DPP driving round London at night propositioning street walkers. In the United Kingdom they'd say it reflects poor judgement and cannot be compartmentalised. Poor judgement on the part of Hugh Grant to organise public ****, some would say, though arguably less relevant than the legislator or criminal justice apparatchik.
As to all the stuff about etymology ("gender") and left politics ("minority groups")- of marginal interest to anyone save yourself and the Editor, I'd say. Certainly le Canard Enchainee is unlikely to reprint it.
In the hope of drawing the editor in, may I say Kevin that your current photo makes you look rather like Dr Marvin Monroe? Have you thought of a better one?
Katie, what was "cynical"? It was gossip and it sold papers. It was against the law, but not a particularly important law. The Press in Britain can be rather nasty, as you know, and it's nothing whatsoever to do with rural Oxfordshire. But would you rather an anodyne Press? In France they'd say it doesn't matter that the Home Secretary is doing stuff with a palpably mad foreign woman or the DPP driving round London at night propositioning street walkers. In the United Kingdom they'd say it reflects poor judgement and cannot be compartmentalised. Poor judgement on the part of Hugh Grant to organise public ****, some would say, though arguably less relevant than the legislator or criminal justice apparatchik. As to all the stuff about etymology ("gender") and left politics ("minority groups")- of marginal interest to anyone save yourself and the Editor, I'd say. Certainly le Canard Enchainee is unlikely to reprint it. In the hope of drawing the editor in, may I say Kevin that your current photo makes you look rather like Dr Marvin Monroe? Have you thought of a better one? Dai Rear
  • Score: 0

9:35am Thu 26 Jun 14

Kevin Ward - Editor says...

Dai
How very dare you. I've always thought of myself more as Bleeding Gums Murphy.
Dai How very dare you. I've always thought of myself more as Bleeding Gums Murphy. Kevin Ward - Editor
  • Score: 1

1:02pm Thu 26 Jun 14

Katie Re-Registered says...

Dai Rear wrote:
Katie, what was "cynical"? It was gossip and it sold papers. It was against the law, but not a particularly important law. The Press in Britain can be rather nasty, as you know, and it's nothing whatsoever to do with rural Oxfordshire. But would you rather an anodyne Press?
In France they'd say it doesn't matter that the Home Secretary is doing stuff with a palpably mad foreign woman or the DPP driving round London at night propositioning street walkers. In the United Kingdom they'd say it reflects poor judgement and cannot be compartmentalised. Poor judgement on the part of Hugh Grant to organise public ****, some would say, though arguably less relevant than the legislator or criminal justice apparatchik.
As to all the stuff about etymology ("gender") and left politics ("minority groups")- of marginal interest to anyone save yourself and the Editor, I'd say. Certainly le Canard Enchainee is unlikely to reprint it.
In the hope of drawing the editor in, may I say Kevin that your current photo makes you look rather like Dr Marvin Monroe? Have you thought of a better one?
Well, I believe in press freedom, but not press freedom without responsibility. When newspapers hound people they don't only pick on celebrities with the money, means and influence to defend themselves but also us 'ordinary' folk too - worse still - in the pursuit of making capital through attempted populism - often those belonging to powerless minorities that are already marginalised, too. It's like singling out the isolated bullied kids at school and trying to gain popularity by pouring even more fuel on the fire. And let's not forget that some people that the press has singled out have actually ended up killing themselves or even being murdered by self-styled vigilantes as a direct result of the way the press has portrayed them.

As for gender being of marginal interest (or significance) to all but a minority of people - I'd definitely take issue with this claim. Gender is actually the elephant in the room. Gender is the system that every single living thing on this planet is made subject to - and society protects such an arguably aritificial concept with such paranoic jealousy that it insists on according even forms of language and inanimate objects with a gender classification.

I continue to find it incredible that since being gendered is such an inescapable act perpetrated by society upon each and every individual that there aren't more people who take a step outside of the gender boxes they are assigned to consider for a moment just why they should comply to a set of characteristics that may limit their horizons and may be alien to their own personal, individal nature altogether.

Gender isn't just a thing that impacts upon trans people and feminists. Perhaps no better evidence to its effectiveness as a brainwashing tool might be that the majority of people don't seem to question it, and the whole range of sexist rules and irrational stereotypes that go with it. After all, propaganda becomes ineffective as soon as the receiver realises that it is propaganda. The most effective propaganda is that which manages to convince its receiver/s that it is The Truth. Didn't the old Soviet newspaper call itself Pravda (i.e. "Truth" in Russian), for example...?
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: Katie, what was "cynical"? It was gossip and it sold papers. It was against the law, but not a particularly important law. The Press in Britain can be rather nasty, as you know, and it's nothing whatsoever to do with rural Oxfordshire. But would you rather an anodyne Press? In France they'd say it doesn't matter that the Home Secretary is doing stuff with a palpably mad foreign woman or the DPP driving round London at night propositioning street walkers. In the United Kingdom they'd say it reflects poor judgement and cannot be compartmentalised. Poor judgement on the part of Hugh Grant to organise public ****, some would say, though arguably less relevant than the legislator or criminal justice apparatchik. As to all the stuff about etymology ("gender") and left politics ("minority groups")- of marginal interest to anyone save yourself and the Editor, I'd say. Certainly le Canard Enchainee is unlikely to reprint it. In the hope of drawing the editor in, may I say Kevin that your current photo makes you look rather like Dr Marvin Monroe? Have you thought of a better one?[/p][/quote]Well, I believe in press freedom, but not press freedom without responsibility. When newspapers hound people they don't only pick on celebrities with the money, means and influence to defend themselves but also us 'ordinary' folk too - worse still - in the pursuit of making capital through attempted populism - often those belonging to powerless minorities that are already marginalised, too. It's like singling out the isolated bullied kids at school and trying to gain popularity by pouring even more fuel on the fire. And let's not forget that some people that the press has singled out have actually ended up killing themselves or even being murdered by self-styled vigilantes as a direct result of the way the press has portrayed them. As for gender being of marginal interest (or significance) to all but a minority of people - I'd definitely take issue with this claim. Gender is actually the elephant in the room. Gender is the system that every single living thing on this planet is made subject to - and society protects such an arguably aritificial concept with such paranoic jealousy that it insists on according even forms of language and inanimate objects with a gender classification. I continue to find it incredible that since being gendered is such an inescapable act perpetrated by society upon each and every individual that there aren't more people who take a step outside of the gender boxes they are assigned to consider for a moment just why they should comply to a set of characteristics that may limit their horizons and may be alien to their own personal, individal nature altogether. Gender isn't just a thing that impacts upon trans people and feminists. Perhaps no better evidence to its effectiveness as a brainwashing tool might be that the majority of people don't seem to question it, and the whole range of sexist rules and irrational stereotypes that go with it. After all, propaganda becomes ineffective as soon as the receiver realises that it is propaganda. The most effective propaganda is that which manages to convince its receiver/s that it is The Truth. Didn't the old Soviet newspaper call itself Pravda (i.e. "Truth" in Russian), for example...? Katie Re-Registered
  • Score: -2

2:20pm Thu 26 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

In German a little girl is neuter. A house in Spanish is female. I could continue but you get my point. That is the "gender" of those words. That's what "gender" is, an etymological term. "Trans" is Latin for, broadly speaking, "across". That's what it means. It doesn't mean anything else. I know you are trying to employ it to describe people who have been mutilated or taken hormones. They are people who have been mutilated or taken hormones: no more, no less.Please feel free to phantasise as much as you will. I would only suggest that if you turned your fantasies in another direction you might end up writing books to create greater human happiness and yes, even money for yourself.
In German a little girl is neuter. A house in Spanish is female. I could continue but you get my point. That is the "gender" of those words. That's what "gender" is, an etymological term. "Trans" is Latin for, broadly speaking, "across". That's what it means. It doesn't mean anything else. I know you are trying to employ it to describe people who have been mutilated or taken hormones. They are people who have been mutilated or taken hormones: no more, no less.Please feel free to phantasise as much as you will. I would only suggest that if you turned your fantasies in another direction you might end up writing books to create greater human happiness and yes, even money for yourself. Dai Rear
  • Score: 2

2:32pm Thu 26 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

"And let's not forget that some people that the press has singled out have actually ended up killing themselves or even being murdered by self-styled vigilantes as a direct result of the way the press has portrayed them."
Interesting territory. More social psychology than the press I think. You're talking about groups of underclass, Paulsgrove, Brislington, who turn on what they perceive as outsiders to the group. I don't know what academics have come up with about the phenomenon but by and large the press reports incidents and the mob mentality within people with no aspirations does the rest. May have always happened, don't you think? No one took much notice of what happened to the 12 to a room people by the Taff in Merthyr in the past, just to put it in perspective.
"And let's not forget that some people that the press has singled out have actually ended up killing themselves or even being murdered by self-styled vigilantes as a direct result of the way the press has portrayed them." Interesting territory. More social psychology than the press I think. You're talking about groups of underclass, Paulsgrove, Brislington, who turn on what they perceive as outsiders to the group. I don't know what academics have come up with about the phenomenon but by and large the press reports incidents and the mob mentality within people with no aspirations does the rest. May have always happened, don't you think? No one took much notice of what happened to the 12 to a room people by the Taff in Merthyr in the past, just to put it in perspective. Dai Rear
  • Score: 0

4:44am Fri 27 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

Kevin-strangely enough not on this item but on a random selection of the rest if you click on "email me" etc. above the comment box you will then get "you have successfully unsubscribed etc.." It seems to have happened in the last 24 hours.
Kevin-strangely enough not on this item but on a random selection of the rest if you click on "email me" etc. above the comment box you will then get "you have successfully unsubscribed etc.." It seems to have happened in the last 24 hours. Dai Rear
  • Score: 0

10:08pm Sun 29 Jun 14

Katie Re-Registered says...

Kevin Ward - Editor wrote:
'Wilful misreporting for biased political ends'.
Dearie me. It was a joke in a light-hearted TV review of the Eurovision Song Contest.
Then one might suppose that blaming the failure of the exclusively heterosexist, gender normative cissexual England football team on transgender people from Thailand was also not biased, Kevin? I rest my case!
[quote][p][bold]Kevin Ward - Editor[/bold] wrote: 'Wilful misreporting for biased political ends'. Dearie me. It was a joke in a light-hearted TV review of the Eurovision Song Contest.[/p][/quote]Then one might suppose that blaming the failure of the exclusively heterosexist, gender normative cissexual England football team on transgender people from Thailand was also not biased, Kevin? I rest my case! Katie Re-Registered
  • Score: -1

10:09pm Sun 29 Jun 14

Katie Re-Registered says...

Katie Re-Registered wrote:
Kevin Ward - Editor wrote:
'Wilful misreporting for biased political ends'.
Dearie me. It was a joke in a light-hearted TV review of the Eurovision Song Contest.
Then one might suppose that blaming the failure of the exclusively heterosexist, gender normative cissexual England football team on transgender people from Thailand was also not biased, Kevin? I rest my case!
Ps. anything else that you English want to blame us on losing - like this year's Wimbledon, for instance...? LOL:)!
[quote][p][bold]Katie Re-Registered[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kevin Ward - Editor[/bold] wrote: 'Wilful misreporting for biased political ends'. Dearie me. It was a joke in a light-hearted TV review of the Eurovision Song Contest.[/p][/quote]Then one might suppose that blaming the failure of the exclusively heterosexist, gender normative cissexual England football team on transgender people from Thailand was also not biased, Kevin? I rest my case![/p][/quote]Ps. anything else that you English want to blame us on losing - like this year's Wimbledon, for instance...? LOL:)! Katie Re-Registered
  • Score: -1

2:36am Mon 30 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

"Then one might suppose that blaming the failure of the exclusively heterosexist, gender normative cissexual England football team on transgender people from Thailand was also not biased, Kevin? I rest my case"
I've no idea what this is supposed to mean anymore than anyone else but I've got a feeling that it's jargon from stuff which is currently "taught" at college under the unappealing heading of "gender studies" Worth 9K a year? Got a strong feeling that the 2 or 3 youngsters who subscribe to it each year are from the indigent class and thus not at risk of throwing away their own 9K-though of course we are.
"Then one might suppose that blaming the failure of the exclusively heterosexist, gender normative cissexual England football team on transgender people from Thailand was also not biased, Kevin? I rest my case" I've no idea what this is supposed to mean anymore than anyone else but I've got a feeling that it's jargon from stuff which is currently "taught" at college under the unappealing heading of "gender studies" Worth 9K a year? Got a strong feeling that the 2 or 3 youngsters who subscribe to it each year are from the indigent class and thus not at risk of throwing away their own 9K-though of course we are. Dai Rear
  • Score: 1

3:13pm Mon 30 Jun 14

Kevin Ward - Editor says...

Katie Re-Registered wrote:
Kevin Ward - Editor wrote:
'Wilful misreporting for biased political ends'.
Dearie me. It was a joke in a light-hearted TV review of the Eurovision Song Contest.
Then one might suppose that blaming the failure of the exclusively heterosexist, gender normative cissexual England football team on transgender people from Thailand was also not biased, Kevin? I rest my case!
I'm afraid I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about Katie. No doubt you'll enlighten me.
[quote][p][bold]Katie Re-Registered[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kevin Ward - Editor[/bold] wrote: 'Wilful misreporting for biased political ends'. Dearie me. It was a joke in a light-hearted TV review of the Eurovision Song Contest.[/p][/quote]Then one might suppose that blaming the failure of the exclusively heterosexist, gender normative cissexual England football team on transgender people from Thailand was also not biased, Kevin? I rest my case![/p][/quote]I'm afraid I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about Katie. No doubt you'll enlighten me. Kevin Ward - Editor
  • Score: 1

4:35pm Mon 30 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

Kevin Ward - Editor wrote:
Katie Re-Registered wrote:
Kevin Ward - Editor wrote:
'Wilful misreporting for biased political ends'.
Dearie me. It was a joke in a light-hearted TV review of the Eurovision Song Contest.
Then one might suppose that blaming the failure of the exclusively heterosexist, gender normative cissexual England football team on transgender people from Thailand was also not biased, Kevin? I rest my case!
I'm afraid I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about Katie. No doubt you'll enlighten me.
Well I'm glad I'm not alone Kevin. Are the website proprietors getting anywhere with the fact that one can't sign in anymore for an email when a comment is added?
[quote][p][bold]Kevin Ward - Editor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Katie Re-Registered[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kevin Ward - Editor[/bold] wrote: 'Wilful misreporting for biased political ends'. Dearie me. It was a joke in a light-hearted TV review of the Eurovision Song Contest.[/p][/quote]Then one might suppose that blaming the failure of the exclusively heterosexist, gender normative cissexual England football team on transgender people from Thailand was also not biased, Kevin? I rest my case![/p][/quote]I'm afraid I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about Katie. No doubt you'll enlighten me.[/p][/quote]Well I'm glad I'm not alone Kevin. Are the website proprietors getting anywhere with the fact that one can't sign in anymore for an email when a comment is added? Dai Rear
  • Score: 1

7:41am Tue 1 Jul 14

Kevin Ward - Editor says...

Apologies Dai, this issue had slipped my mind.
I'll raise it today and get back to you.
Apologies Dai, this issue had slipped my mind. I'll raise it today and get back to you. Kevin Ward - Editor
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree