FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Press ban
Press ban
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Reform cancel it's own councillors right to free speech ... what a bunch of 🤡👞👞" You couldn't make it up! | |||
"Reform cancel it's own councillors right to free speech ... what a bunch of 🤡👞👞 You couldn't make it up! " But they'll stop the boats, and if they don't then the press won't be able to tell you they haven't because they won't be allowed to | |||
| |||
"Did the media outlet lie?" Read the article and make up your own mind. 👍 | |||
"Did the media outlet lie? Read the article and make up your own mind. 👍" I read the article, hence the question. | |||
"Did the media outlet lie? Read the article and make up your own mind. 👍 I read the article, hence the question. " You've read the article, and you're asking other people for whether the reporter lied or not?? Have you answered that question for yourself and you're baiting others to argue with them if they disagree with your point of view? ? | |||
| |||
"Did the media outlet lie? Read the article and make up your own mind. 👍 I read the article, hence the question. You've read the article, and you're asking other people for whether the reporter lied or not?? Have you answered that question for yourself and you're baiting others to argue with them if they disagree with your point of view? ? " You started a thread about Nottingham council banning a media outlet, and their councillors from talking to them. I read the story and it boils down to one question, did the media outlet lie. It is a very simple question, do you have an answer? | |||
| |||
| |||
"Did the media outlet lie? Read the article and make up your own mind. 👍 I read the article, hence the question. You've read the article, and you're asking other people for whether the reporter lied or not?? Have you answered that question for yourself and you're baiting others to argue with them if they disagree with your point of view? ? You started a thread about Nottingham council banning a media outlet, and their councillors from talking to them. I read the story and it boils down to one question, did the media outlet lie. It is a very simple question, do you have an answer? " Don't be ridiculous, how would the OP possibly know if they lied or not. If they did does that justify banning all further contact ? | |||
Say - We are the party of free speech.
Do - Stop others from being able to discuss our strategies
Don't worry about things not making sense, a little hypocrisy is good to muddy the waters, which are already a faeces riven shit show | |||
"Do as I say, not as I do
Say - We are the party of free speech.
Do - Stop others from being able to discuss our strategies
Don't worry about things not making sense, a little hypocrisy is good to muddy the waters, which are already a faeces riven shit show "Strategies ha ha ha ha  | |||
"Did the media outlet lie? Read the article and make up your own mind. 👍 I read the article, hence the question. You've read the article, and you're asking other people for whether the reporter lied or not?? Have you answered that question for yourself and you're baiting others to argue with them if they disagree with your point of view? ? You started a thread about Nottingham council banning a media outlet, and their councillors from talking to them. I read the story and it boils down to one question, did the media outlet lie. It is a very simple question, do you have an answer? " It really doesn't boil down to that one question. If the paper published false information there are processes, legal and otherwise, to address and correct that. None of those processes involve preventing journalists from reporting on government business. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I think it is always a very poor look if you are trying to shut down criticism. It shows a distinct weakness in your argument. It undermined a lot of the cancel culture over the last decade and it is going to do the same for Reform moving forward." 
| |||
"Did the media outlet lie? Read the article and make up your own mind. 👍 I read the article, hence the question. You've read the article, and you're asking other people for whether the reporter lied or not?? Have you answered that question for yourself and you're baiting others to argue with them if they disagree with your point of view? ? You started a thread about Nottingham council banning a media outlet, and their councillors from talking to them. I read the story and it boils down to one question, did the media outlet lie. It is a very simple question, do you have an answer? It really doesn't boil down to that one question. If the paper published false information there are processes, legal and otherwise, to address and correct that. None of those processes involve preventing journalists from reporting on government business." There is a possibility that they did lie, but here is the problem… we moan about lazy journalism and lies all the time, if a councillor takes action against a media outlet that they accuse of lying, the councillor becomes the problem. The actual ban on reporting/ speaking to this media outlet does not cover important council business, which is not a total ban, If it was a total ban I would be agreeing with you. So my question is what’s the answer to this, accept the media lie and stop moaning about it or support action to encourage better reporting? Why issues are considered in a linear fashion is beyond me, I guess it allows posters to continually attack their target rather than discuss the issue in a more dynamic way. | |||
"Did the media outlet lie? Read the article and make up your own mind. 👍 I read the article, hence the question. You've read the article, and you're asking other people for whether the reporter lied or not?? Have you answered that question for yourself and you're baiting others to argue with them if they disagree with your point of view? ? You started a thread about Nottingham council banning a media outlet, and their councillors from talking to them. I read the story and it boils down to one question, did the media outlet lie. It is a very simple question, do you have an answer? It really doesn't boil down to that one question. If the paper published false information there are processes, legal and otherwise, to address and correct that. None of those processes involve preventing journalists from reporting on government business. There is a possibility that they did lie, but here is the problem… we moan about lazy journalism and lies all the time, if a councillor takes action against a media outlet that they accuse of lying, the councillor becomes the problem. The actual ban on reporting/ speaking to this media outlet does not cover important council business, which is not a total ban, If it was a total ban I would be agreeing with you. So my question is what’s the answer to this, accept the media lie and stop moaning about it or support action to encourage better reporting? Why issues are considered in a linear fashion is beyond me, I guess it allows posters to continually attack their target rather than discuss the issue in a more dynamic way." Why didn't you just say that the first time ? Anyway ,there are procedures for dealing with published lies which if applied would reduce media lies. Banning achieves nothing and to me indicates that it was the truth. | |||
"Did the media outlet lie? Read the article and make up your own mind. 👍 I read the article, hence the question. You've read the article, and you're asking other people for whether the reporter lied or not?? Have you answered that question for yourself and you're baiting others to argue with them if they disagree with your point of view? ? You started a thread about Nottingham council banning a media outlet, and their councillors from talking to them. I read the story and it boils down to one question, did the media outlet lie. It is a very simple question, do you have an answer? It really doesn't boil down to that one question. If the paper published false information there are processes, legal and otherwise, to address and correct that. None of those processes involve preventing journalists from reporting on government business. There is a possibility that they did lie, but here is the problem… we moan about lazy journalism and lies all the time, if a councillor takes action against a media outlet that they accuse of lying, the councillor becomes the problem. The actual ban on reporting/ speaking to this media outlet does not cover important council business, which is not a total ban, If it was a total ban I would be agreeing with you. So my question is what’s the answer to this, accept the media lie and stop moaning about it or support action to encourage better reporting? Why issues are considered in a linear fashion is beyond me, I guess it allows posters to continually attack their target rather than discuss the issue in a more dynamic way. Why didn't you just say that the first time ? Anyway ,there are procedures for dealing with published lies which if applied would reduce media lies. Banning achieves nothing and to me indicates that it was the truth." It was reported hearsay so would not be proven one way or the other, hence the question. If I want to ask a question, or approach a topic in particular way I will, because the amount of click bait threads being created at the moment is is preventing a decent discussion. | |||
" There is a possibility that they did lie, but here is the problem… we moan about lazy journalism and lies all the time, if a councillor takes action against a media outlet that they accuse of lying, the councillor becomes the problem. The actual ban on reporting/ speaking to this media outlet does not cover important council business, which is not a total ban, If it was a total ban I would be agreeing with you. So my question is what’s the answer to this, accept the media lie and stop moaning about it or support action to encourage better reporting? Why issues are considered in a linear fashion is beyond me, I guess it allows posters to continually attack their target rather than discuss the issue in a more dynamic way." Your post makes a couple of false assumptions: 1. Councillors are not at liberty to take normal steps against false reporting, e.g. a complaint or libel action. 2. The only two options available to Notts. Council were "do nothing" or "impose the described ban". Neither of those things are true. None of this means errors or lies in news reporting are acceptable or should go uncorrected. However in this specific case there is no evidence that there were errors or lies and it seems the ban is political. It would also appear that it is in fact a total ban (ChatGPT - "In what way have Notts Council banned the Post": What the Ban Includes Councillors (all 41 of them) are prohibited from speaking to the Nottingham Post, its online counterpart Nottinghamshire Live, and associated local democracy reporters. Press officers have been instructed to remove the outlet from media distribution lists, resulting in no access to press releases, event invites, or statements. Interview requests are being actively denied, except in emergency situations (e.g., flooding or a school incident). Essentially, the paper is being shut out of council communications and access to officials, drastically limiting its ability to report. | |||
| |||
"This will all be a big disappointment to the Nottingham Post’s 3,000 readers." "It's okay to gag unfriendly reporters if their circulation is modest" Tell us why you're not the fash, again? | |||
"This will all be a big disappointment to the Nottingham Post’s 3,000 readers. "It's okay to gag unfriendly reporters if their circulation is modest" Tell us why you're not the fash, again?" The population of Nottingham is 300,000. 95% of them probably have no idea the Nottingham Post even exists. I’m being quite generous with the 3,000 figure. That’s an old figure which was down 23% on the year before. | |||
"This will all be a big disappointment to the Nottingham Post’s 3,000 readers. "It's okay to gag unfriendly reporters if their circulation is modest" Tell us why you're not the fash, again? The population of Nottingham is 300,000. 95% of them probably have no idea the Nottingham Post even exists. I’m being quite generous with the 3,000 figure. That’s an old figure which was down 23% on the year before. " You're right, it's a bit less than 3k. Which in your view means the gag is fine, or do you disagree with it? | |||
"This will all be a big disappointment to the Nottingham Post’s 3,000 readers. "It's okay to gag unfriendly reporters if their circulation is modest" Tell us why you're not the fash, again? The population of Nottingham is 300,000. 95% of them probably have no idea the Nottingham Post even exists. I’m being quite generous with the 3,000 figure. That’s an old figure which was down 23% on the year before. You're right, it's a bit less than 3k. Which in your view means the gag is fine, or do you disagree with it?" I don’t have a view on it. I don’t live in Nottingham. I doubt whether people in Nottingham care either. We had two local papers in Birmingham some years ago, one of which disappeared. I’ve no idea whether the other one still exists. There is some sort of website which might be similar to the Nottingham one but it’s full of low grade click bait and adverts. If I were a Councillor who wanted to reach loads of people I’m doubtful I’d bother much with the legacy media. It’s just a waste of time. | |||
"This will all be a big disappointment to the Nottingham Post’s 3,000 readers. "It's okay to gag unfriendly reporters if their circulation is modest" Tell us why you're not the fash, again? The population of Nottingham is 300,000. 95% of them probably have no idea the Nottingham Post even exists. I’m being quite generous with the 3,000 figure. That’s an old figure which was down 23% on the year before. You're right, it's a bit less than 3k. Which in your view means the gag is fine, or do you disagree with it? I don’t have a view on it. I don’t live in Nottingham. I doubt whether people in Nottingham care either. We had two local papers in Birmingham some years ago, one of which disappeared. I’ve no idea whether the other one still exists. There is some sort of website which might be similar to the Nottingham one but it’s full of low grade click bait and adverts. If I were a Councillor who wanted to reach loads of people I’m doubtful I’d bother much with the legacy media. It’s just a waste of time." It surprises me that someone as apparently politically engaged as you doesn't give a shit about the government gagging the press. | |||
" There is a possibility that they did lie, but here is the problem… we moan about lazy journalism and lies all the time, if a councillor takes action against a media outlet that they accuse of lying, the councillor becomes the problem. The actual ban on reporting/ speaking to this media outlet does not cover important council business, which is not a total ban, If it was a total ban I would be agreeing with you. So my question is what’s the answer to this, accept the media lie and stop moaning about it or support action to encourage better reporting? Why issues are considered in a linear fashion is beyond me, I guess it allows posters to continually attack their target rather than discuss the issue in a more dynamic way. Your post makes a couple of false assumptions: 1. Councillors are not at liberty to take normal steps against false reporting, e.g. a complaint or libel action. 2. The only two options available to Notts. Council were "do nothing" or "impose the described ban". Neither of those things are true. None of this means errors or lies in news reporting are acceptable or should go uncorrected. However in this specific case there is no evidence that there were errors or lies and it seems the ban is political. It would also appear that it is in fact a total ban (ChatGPT - "In what way have Notts Council banned the Post": What the Ban Includes Councillors (all 41 of them) are prohibited from speaking to the Nottingham Post, its online counterpart Nottinghamshire Live, and associated local democracy reporters. Press officers have been instructed to remove the outlet from media distribution lists, resulting in no access to press releases, event invites, or statements. Interview requests are being actively denied, except in emergency situations (e.g., flooding or a school incident). Essentially, the paper is being shut out of council communications and access to officials, drastically limiting its ability to report." They are not being shut out of important council information though, that is still in place. You are correct they are not going to get an invite to council waffling sessions and are not going to get quotes from the councillors. That news I'm sure can be picked up elsewhere for those who are interested. I'm interested to see how this plays out, will the media outlet be more careful to report the facts going forward, or will they actually show evidence that they did in fact report the facts, which would be a monumental kick in the nuts to the leader of the council. | |||
| |||
" What the Ban Includes Councillors (all 41 of them) are prohibited from speaking to the Nottingham Post, its online counterpart Nottinghamshire Live, and associated local democracy reporters. Press officers have been instructed to remove the outlet from media distribution lists, resulting in no access to press releases, event invites, or statements. Interview requests are being actively denied, except in emergency situations (e.g., flooding or a school incident). Essentially, the paper is being shut out of council communications and access to officials, drastically limiting its ability to report. They are not being shut out of important council information though, that is still in place. You are correct they are not going to get an invite to council waffling sessions and are not going to get quotes from the councillors." How did you read the above and conclude that they're not being shut out of important council information? The only time they have access is in case of an emergency. Other papers meanwhile retain full access, in effect restricting the NP's market share. This is arguably an attempt to put an unfriendly publication out of business. "That news I'm sure can be picked up elsewhere for those who are interested. I'm interested to see how this plays out, will the media outlet be more careful to report the facts going forward, or will they actually show evidence that they did in fact report the facts, which would be a monumental kick in the nuts to the leader of the council. " As far as the information we have, the Nottingham Post have consistently been careful to report the facts. The leader is clearly unconcerned about any repercussions, I suspect because he expects freedom of the press to be one of the casualties of Reform's rise to power. | |||
" There is a possibility that they did lie, but here is the problem… we moan about lazy journalism and lies all the time, if a councillor takes action against a media outlet that they accuse of lying, the councillor becomes the problem. The actual ban on reporting/ speaking to this media outlet does not cover important council business, which is not a total ban, If it was a total ban I would be agreeing with you. So my question is what’s the answer to this, accept the media lie and stop moaning about it or support action to encourage better reporting? Why issues are considered in a linear fashion is beyond me, I guess it allows posters to continually attack their target rather than discuss the issue in a more dynamic way. Your post makes a couple of false assumptions: 1. Councillors are not at liberty to take normal steps against false reporting, e.g. a complaint or libel action. 2. The only two options available to Notts. Council were "do nothing" or "impose the described ban". Neither of those things are true. None of this means errors or lies in news reporting are acceptable or should go uncorrected. However in this specific case there is no evidence that there were errors or lies and it seems the ban is political. It would also appear that it is in fact a total ban (ChatGPT - "In what way have Notts Council banned the Post": What the Ban Includes Councillors (all 41 of them) are prohibited from speaking to the Nottingham Post, its online counterpart Nottinghamshire Live, and associated local democracy reporters. Press officers have been instructed to remove the outlet from media distribution lists, resulting in no access to press releases, event invites, or statements. Interview requests are being actively denied, except in emergency situations (e.g., flooding or a school incident). Essentially, the paper is being shut out of council communications and access to officials, drastically limiting its ability to report. They are not being shut out of important council information though, that is still in place. You are correct they are not going to get an invite to council waffling sessions and are not going to get quotes from the councillors. That news I'm sure can be picked up elsewhere for those who are interested. I'm interested to see how this plays out, will the media outlet be more careful to report the facts going forward, or will they actually show evidence that they did in fact report the facts, which would be a monumental kick in the nuts to the leader of the council. " can you quote the parts of the article in question that was published by the nottingham post/nottingham live, where you assert that they lied please? | |||
". If I want to ask a question, or approach a topic in particular way I will, because the amount of click bait threads being created at the moment is is preventing a decent discussion. " Who said you couldn't ? And yet here we are, discussing stuff | |||
" There is a possibility that they did lie, but here is the problem… we moan about lazy journalism and lies all the time, if a councillor takes action against a media outlet that they accuse of lying, the councillor becomes the problem. The actual ban on reporting/ speaking to this media outlet does not cover important council business, which is not a total ban, If it was a total ban I would be agreeing with you. So my question is what’s the answer to this, accept the media lie and stop moaning about it or support action to encourage better reporting? Why issues are considered in a linear fashion is beyond me, I guess it allows posters to continually attack their target rather than discuss the issue in a more dynamic way. Your post makes a couple of false assumptions: 1. Councillors are not at liberty to take normal steps against false reporting, e.g. a complaint or libel action. 2. The only two options available to Notts. Council were "do nothing" or "impose the described ban". Neither of those things are true. None of this means errors or lies in news reporting are acceptable or should go uncorrected. However in this specific case there is no evidence that there were errors or lies and it seems the ban is political. It would also appear that it is in fact a total ban (ChatGPT - "In what way have Notts Council banned the Post": What the Ban Includes Councillors (all 41 of them) are prohibited from speaking to the Nottingham Post, its online counterpart Nottinghamshire Live, and associated local democracy reporters. Press officers have been instructed to remove the outlet from media distribution lists, resulting in no access to press releases, event invites, or statements. Interview requests are being actively denied, except in emergency situations (e.g., flooding or a school incident). Essentially, the paper is being shut out of council communications and access to officials, drastically limiting its ability to report. They are not being shut out of important council information though, that is still in place. You are correct they are not going to get an invite to council waffling sessions and are not going to get quotes from the councillors. That news I'm sure can be picked up elsewhere for those who are interested. I'm interested to see how this plays out, will the media outlet be more careful to report the facts going forward, or will they actually show evidence that they did in fact report the facts, which would be a monumental kick in the nuts to the leader of the council. can you quote the parts of the article in question that was published by the nottingham post/nottingham live, where you assert that they lied please? " I didn't say they had lied, I asked did they, that is the accusation of the councillor and to justify his actions. | |||
" What the Ban Includes Councillors (all 41 of them) are prohibited from speaking to the Nottingham Post, its online counterpart Nottinghamshire Live, and associated local democracy reporters. Press officers have been instructed to remove the outlet from media distribution lists, resulting in no access to press releases, event invites, or statements. Interview requests are being actively denied, except in emergency situations (e.g., flooding or a school incident). Essentially, the paper is being shut out of council communications and access to officials, drastically limiting its ability to report. They are not being shut out of important council information though, that is still in place. You are correct they are not going to get an invite to council waffling sessions and are not going to get quotes from the councillors. How did you read the above and conclude that they're not being shut out of important council information? The only time they have access is in case of an emergency. Other papers meanwhile retain full access, in effect restricting the NP's market share. This is arguably an attempt to put an unfriendly publication out of business. That news I'm sure can be picked up elsewhere for those who are interested. I'm interested to see how this plays out, will the media outlet be more careful to report the facts going forward, or will they actually show evidence that they did in fact report the facts, which would be a monumental kick in the nuts to the leader of the council. As far as the information we have, the Nottingham Post have consistently been careful to report the facts. The leader is clearly unconcerned about any repercussions, I suspect because he expects freedom of the press to be one of the casualties of Reform's rise to power." The media outlet will still access all publicly held council meetings, and all important information. What will they actually be missing out on? | |||
" There is a possibility that they did lie, but here is the problem… we moan about lazy journalism and lies all the time, if a councillor takes action against a media outlet that they accuse of lying, the councillor becomes the problem. The actual ban on reporting/ speaking to this media outlet does not cover important council business, which is not a total ban, If it was a total ban I would be agreeing with you. So my question is what’s the answer to this, accept the media lie and stop moaning about it or support action to encourage better reporting? Why issues are considered in a linear fashion is beyond me, I guess it allows posters to continually attack their target rather than discuss the issue in a more dynamic way. Your post makes a couple of false assumptions: 1. Councillors are not at liberty to take normal steps against false reporting, e.g. a complaint or libel action. 2. The only two options available to Notts. Council were "do nothing" or "impose the described ban". Neither of those things are true. None of this means errors or lies in news reporting are acceptable or should go uncorrected. However in this specific case there is no evidence that there were errors or lies and it seems the ban is political. It would also appear that it is in fact a total ban (ChatGPT - "In what way have Notts Council banned the Post": What the Ban Includes Councillors (all 41 of them) are prohibited from speaking to the Nottingham Post, its online counterpart Nottinghamshire Live, and associated local democracy reporters. Press officers have been instructed to remove the outlet from media distribution lists, resulting in no access to press releases, event invites, or statements. Interview requests are being actively denied, except in emergency situations (e.g., flooding or a school incident). Essentially, the paper is being shut out of council communications and access to officials, drastically limiting its ability to report. They are not being shut out of important council information though, that is still in place. You are correct they are not going to get an invite to council waffling sessions and are not going to get quotes from the councillors. That news I'm sure can be picked up elsewhere for those who are interested. I'm interested to see how this plays out, will the media outlet be more careful to report the facts going forward, or will they actually show evidence that they did in fact report the facts, which would be a monumental kick in the nuts to the leader of the council. can you quote the parts of the article in question that was published by the nottingham post/nottingham live, where you assert that they lied please? I didn't say they had lied, I asked did they, that is the accusation of the councillor and to justify his actions." can you quote the specific statement where mick barton has accused the nottingham post/nottingham live of lying please? | |||
" The media outlet will still access all publicly held council meetings, and all important information. What will they actually be missing out on? " I listed the restrictions above. I don't see why you're trying to minimise it. | |||
" There is a possibility that they did lie, but here is the problem… we moan about lazy journalism and lies all the time, if a councillor takes action against a media outlet that they accuse of lying, the councillor becomes the problem. The actual ban on reporting/ speaking to this media outlet does not cover important council business, which is not a total ban, If it was a total ban I would be agreeing with you. So my question is what’s the answer to this, accept the media lie and stop moaning about it or support action to encourage better reporting? Why issues are considered in a linear fashion is beyond me, I guess it allows posters to continually attack their target rather than discuss the issue in a more dynamic way. Your post makes a couple of false assumptions: 1. Councillors are not at liberty to take normal steps against false reporting, e.g. a complaint or libel action. 2. The only two options available to Notts. Council were "do nothing" or "impose the described ban". Neither of those things are true. None of this means errors or lies in news reporting are acceptable or should go uncorrected. However in this specific case there is no evidence that there were errors or lies and it seems the ban is political. It would also appear that it is in fact a total ban (ChatGPT - "In what way have Notts Council banned the Post": What the Ban Includes Councillors (all 41 of them) are prohibited from speaking to the Nottingham Post, its online counterpart Nottinghamshire Live, and associated local democracy reporters. Press officers have been instructed to remove the outlet from media distribution lists, resulting in no access to press releases, event invites, or statements. Interview requests are being actively denied, except in emergency situations (e.g., flooding or a school incident). Essentially, the paper is being shut out of council communications and access to officials, drastically limiting its ability to report. They are not being shut out of important council information though, that is still in place. You are correct they are not going to get an invite to council waffling sessions and are not going to get quotes from the councillors. That news I'm sure can be picked up elsewhere for those who are interested. I'm interested to see how this plays out, will the media outlet be more careful to report the facts going forward, or will they actually show evidence that they did in fact report the facts, which would be a monumental kick in the nuts to the leader of the council. can you quote the parts of the article in question that was published by the nottingham post/nottingham live, where you assert that they lied please? I didn't say they had lied, I asked did they, that is the accusation of the councillor and to justify his actions. can you quote the specific statement where mick barton has accused the nottingham post/nottingham live of lying please?" They reported that two of his councillors claimed they would be suspended if they didn’t vote the way he wanted, that is a damning allegation. He has denied this ever happened. He clarified that he was voting to merge the councils and was not pressuring others into voting a certain way. He is calling their reporting consistent misrepresentation, I'm saying one side or the other is lying. Is that clearer? | |||
" The media outlet will still access all publicly held council meetings, and all important information. What will they actually be missing out on? I listed the restrictions above. I don't see why you're trying to minimise it." I'm not trying to minimise it, I'm just not blowing a fuse because a council leader and a local rag have had a falling out. Perspective is important.... As I said early on, if it was a blanket ban that would be a different thing. | |||
" There is a possibility that they did lie, but here is the problem… we moan about lazy journalism and lies all the time, if a councillor takes action against a media outlet that they accuse of lying, the councillor becomes the problem. The actual ban on reporting/ speaking to this media outlet does not cover important council business, which is not a total ban, If it was a total ban I would be agreeing with you. So my question is what’s the answer to this, accept the media lie and stop moaning about it or support action to encourage better reporting? Why issues are considered in a linear fashion is beyond me, I guess it allows posters to continually attack their target rather than discuss the issue in a more dynamic way. Your post makes a couple of false assumptions: 1. Councillors are not at liberty to take normal steps against false reporting, e.g. a complaint or libel action. 2. The only two options available to Notts. Council were "do nothing" or "impose the described ban". Neither of those things are true. None of this means errors or lies in news reporting are acceptable or should go uncorrected. However in this specific case there is no evidence that there were errors or lies and it seems the ban is political. It would also appear that it is in fact a total ban (ChatGPT - "In what way have Notts Council banned the Post": What the Ban Includes Councillors (all 41 of them) are prohibited from speaking to the Nottingham Post, its online counterpart Nottinghamshire Live, and associated local democracy reporters. Press officers have been instructed to remove the outlet from media distribution lists, resulting in no access to press releases, event invites, or statements. Interview requests are being actively denied, except in emergency situations (e.g., flooding or a school incident). Essentially, the paper is being shut out of council communications and access to officials, drastically limiting its ability to report. They are not being shut out of important council information though, that is still in place. You are correct they are not going to get an invite to council waffling sessions and are not going to get quotes from the councillors. That news I'm sure can be picked up elsewhere for those who are interested. I'm interested to see how this plays out, will the media outlet be more careful to report the facts going forward, or will they actually show evidence that they did in fact report the facts, which would be a monumental kick in the nuts to the leader of the council. can you quote the parts of the article in question that was published by the nottingham post/nottingham live, where you assert that they lied please? I didn't say they had lied, I asked did they, that is the accusation of the councillor and to justify his actions. can you quote the specific statement where mick barton has accused the nottingham post/nottingham live of lying please? They reported that two of his councillors claimed they would be suspended if they didn’t vote the way he wanted, that is a damning allegation. He has denied this ever happened. He clarified that he was voting to merge the councils and was not pressuring others into voting a certain way. He is calling their reporting consistent misrepresentation, I'm saying one side or the other is lying. Is that clearer? " no, you said he accused the publication of lying. can you quote where he has accused them of lying please? | |||
" I don't see why you're trying to minimise it. I'm not trying to minimise it, I'm just not blowing a fuse because a council leader and a local rag have had a falling out. Perspective is important.... As I said early on, if it was a blanket ban that would be a different thing. " You're literally minimising it. The leader of the County Council has substantially restricted a paper's access and banned all of the Councillors from speaking to that paper, because the paper published an article the leader found unflattering. That's not a "falling-out", that's a politician using their political power to restrict the freedom of journalists to report the news. It doesn't matter if it's a tiny paper and footling local issues, it's a direct and explicit violation of the principle of press freedom. And quibbling over the extent of the ban is irrelevant. It's a wide enough ban to be significant and damaging, both in and of itself and for the precedent it sets. | |||
 | |||
" There is a possibility that they did lie, but here is the problem… we moan about lazy journalism and lies all the time, if a councillor takes action against a media outlet that they accuse of lying, the councillor becomes the problem. The actual ban on reporting/ speaking to this media outlet does not cover important council business, which is not a total ban, If it was a total ban I would be agreeing with you. So my question is what’s the answer to this, accept the media lie and stop moaning about it or support action to encourage better reporting? Why issues are considered in a linear fashion is beyond me, I guess it allows posters to continually attack their target rather than discuss the issue in a more dynamic way. Your post makes a couple of false assumptions: 1. Councillors are not at liberty to take normal steps against false reporting, e.g. a complaint or libel action. 2. The only two options available to Notts. Council were "do nothing" or "impose the described ban". Neither of those things are true. None of this means errors or lies in news reporting are acceptable or should go uncorrected. However in this specific case there is no evidence that there were errors or lies and it seems the ban is political. It would also appear that it is in fact a total ban (ChatGPT - "In what way have Notts Council banned the Post": What the Ban Includes Councillors (all 41 of them) are prohibited from speaking to the Nottingham Post, its online counterpart Nottinghamshire Live, and associated local democracy reporters. Press officers have been instructed to remove the outlet from media distribution lists, resulting in no access to press releases, event invites, or statements. Interview requests are being actively denied, except in emergency situations (e.g., flooding or a school incident). Essentially, the paper is being shut out of council communications and access to officials, drastically limiting its ability to report. They are not being shut out of important council information though, that is still in place. You are correct they are not going to get an invite to council waffling sessions and are not going to get quotes from the councillors. That news I'm sure can be picked up elsewhere for those who are interested. I'm interested to see how this plays out, will the media outlet be more careful to report the facts going forward, or will they actually show evidence that they did in fact report the facts, which would be a monumental kick in the nuts to the leader of the council. can you quote the parts of the article in question that was published by the nottingham post/nottingham live, where you assert that they lied please? I didn't say they had lied, I asked did they, that is the accusation of the councillor and to justify his actions. can you quote the specific statement where mick barton has accused the nottingham post/nottingham live of lying please? They reported that two of his councillors claimed they would be suspended if they didn’t vote the way he wanted, that is a damning allegation. He has denied this ever happened. He clarified that he was voting to merge the councils and was not pressuring others into voting a certain way. He is calling their reporting consistent misrepresentation, I'm saying one side or the other is lying. Is that clearer? no, you said he accused the publication of lying. can you quote where he has accused them of lying please?" Have a day off | |||
" I don't see why you're trying to minimise it. I'm not trying to minimise it, I'm just not blowing a fuse because a council leader and a local rag have had a falling out. Perspective is important.... As I said early on, if it was a blanket ban that would be a different thing. You're literally minimising it. The leader of the County Council has substantially restricted a paper's access and banned all of the Councillors from speaking to that paper, because the paper published an article the leader found unflattering. That's not a "falling-out", that's a politician using their political power to restrict the freedom of journalists to report the news. It doesn't matter if it's a tiny paper and footling local issues, it's a direct and explicit violation of the principle of press freedom. And quibbling over the extent of the ban is irrelevant. It's a wide enough ban to be significant and damaging, both in and of itself and for the precedent it sets." I will wait a day or 2 when you and other leftists clamber to close down free speech, or complain about the media lying and manipulating the gullible. Yuo can't have it both ways.... Local councillor falls out with ,local rag, critcal information and public meetings still being open to them. | |||
" Have a day off" you clearly have nothing to back up your assertions then other than flippant remarks that attempt to deflect from that fact. | |||
" They reported that two of his councillors claimed they would be suspended if they didn’t vote the way he wanted, that is a damning allegation. He has denied this ever happened. He clarified that he was voting to merge the councils and was not pressuring others into voting a certain way. He is calling their reporting consistent misrepresentation, I'm saying one side or the other is lying. Is that clearer? " Except the news outlet reported that the councillors claimed they COULD be suspended, not that they WOULD be. Plus, it was reported that the leader of the council said he was "advising" his members to vote for the change. | |||
" They reported that two of his councillors claimed they would be suspended if they didn’t vote the way he wanted, that is a damning allegation. He has denied this ever happened. He clarified that he was voting to merge the councils and was not pressuring others into voting a certain way. He is calling their reporting consistent misrepresentation, I'm saying one side or the other is lying. Is that clearer? Except the news outlet reported that the councillors claimed they COULD be suspended, not that they WOULD be. Plus, it was reported that the leader of the council said he was "advising" his members to vote for the change. " Bless you for the correction Could not would. Got it | |||
" I will wait a day or 2 when you and other leftists clamber to close down free speech, or complain about the media lying and manipulating the gullible. Yuo can't have it both ways.... Local councillor falls out with ,local rag, critcal information and public meetings still being open to them. " I have never sought, nor will I ever seek, to curtail anyone's free speech. Believing in freedom of the press is not incompatible with pointing out its flaws, mistakes or sins. So you can strawman and try to play down the facts all you like, you're just tipping your hand. | |||
" Have a day off you clearly have nothing to back up your assertions then other than flippant remarks that attempt to deflect from that fact. " Do me a favour and show me where I said they were lying. | |||
" I will wait a day or 2 when you and other leftists clamber to close down free speech, or complain about the media lying and manipulating the gullible. Yuo can't have it both ways.... Local councillor falls out with ,local rag, critcal information and public meetings still being open to them. I have never sought, nor will I ever seek, to curtail anyone's free speech. Believing in freedom of the press is not incompatible with pointing out its flaws, mistakes or sins. So you can strawman and try to play down the facts all you like, you're just tipping your hand." Freedom of the press is not a free pass to write any old rubbish. We can't complain about the press and then complain when they get picked up over lazy or incorrect articles. | |||
" Freedom of the press is not a free pass to write any old rubbish. We can't complain about the press and then complain when they get picked up over lazy or incorrect articles. " Who's writing "any old rubbish", exactly? Again, there's no credible evidence the article was in any way wrong. And again, important distinction between "picked up" and "prevented from communicating with key government figures", a distinction I'm sure you'd be extremely quick and shrill to point out if it were a Labour official cutting off some right-wing news organ from normal press comms. | |||
" Freedom of the press is not a free pass to write any old rubbish. We can't complain about the press and then complain when they get picked up over lazy or incorrect articles. Who's writing "any old rubbish", exactly? Again, there's no credible evidence the article was in any way wrong. And again, important distinction between "picked up" and "prevented from communicating with key government figures", a distinction I'm sure you'd be extremely quick and shrill to point out if it were a Labour official cutting off some right-wing news organ from normal press comms." How many Labour Cabinet Ministers appear on GB News? | |||
" Freedom of the press is not a free pass to write any old rubbish. We can't complain about the press and then complain when they get picked up over lazy or incorrect articles. Who's writing "any old rubbish", exactly? Again, there's no credible evidence the article was in any way wrong. And again, important distinction between "picked up" and "prevented from communicating with key government figures", a distinction I'm sure you'd be extremely quick and shrill to point out if it were a Labour official cutting off some right-wing news organ from normal press comms. How many Labour Cabinet Ministers appear on GB News?" You tell me. | |||
" Have a day off you clearly have nothing to back up your assertions then other than flippant remarks that attempt to deflect from that fact. Do me a favour and show me where I said they were lying. " So you think they weren't lying and the ban is unjustified then | |||
" Have a day off you clearly have nothing to back up your assertions then other than flippant remarks that attempt to deflect from that fact. Do me a favour and show me where I said they were lying. " i haven't said that YOU said that the nottingham post was lying. you said barton had accused them of lying and i've asked to you to quote where he has made that accusation of them lying. you haven't demonstarted that or an answer to any other question that's been asked of you, instead you've opted to make flippant and ludicrous remarks. you've tied yourself in knots with your own hubris on this thread. | |||
" They reported that two of his councillors claimed they would be suspended if they didn’t vote the way he wanted, that is a damning allegation. He has denied this ever happened. He clarified that he was voting to merge the councils and was not pressuring others into voting a certain way. He is calling their reporting consistent misrepresentation, I'm saying one side or the other is lying. Is that clearer? Except the news outlet reported that the councillors claimed they COULD be suspended, not that they WOULD be. Plus, it was reported that the leader of the council said he was "advising" his members to vote for the change. Bless you for the correction Could not would. Got it "You don't want to be accused of false reporting, do you?! | |||
" Have a day off you clearly have nothing to back up your assertions then other than flippant remarks that attempt to deflect from that fact. Do me a favour and show me where I said they were lying. So you think they weren't lying and the ban is unjustified then " I asked if they were lying but the leftist echo chamber members starting banging their saucepans with wooden spoons... It is very difficult to listen to the clanging and pick out legitimate questions over the noise. To clarify, I do not know if the media outlet is lying, but if they are they need pulling up, if they are not then they need to prove this by exposing the leader of the council. It is all straight forward stuff... | |||
" They reported that two of his councillors claimed they would be suspended if they didn’t vote the way he wanted, that is a damning allegation. He has denied this ever happened. He clarified that he was voting to merge the councils and was not pressuring others into voting a certain way. He is calling their reporting consistent misrepresentation, I'm saying one side or the other is lying. Is that clearer? Except the news outlet reported that the councillors claimed they COULD be suspended, not that they WOULD be. Plus, it was reported that the leader of the council said he was "advising" his members to vote for the change. Bless you for the correction Could not would. Got it
You don't want to be accused of false reporting, do you?! "No, which is why I'm glad you are here | |||
" Have a day off you clearly have nothing to back up your assertions then other than flippant remarks that attempt to deflect from that fact. Do me a favour and show me where I said they were lying. i haven't said that YOU said that the nottingham post was lying. you said barton had accused them of lying and i've asked to you to quote where he has made that accusation of them lying. you haven't demonstarted that or an answer to any other question that's been asked of you, instead you've opted to make flippant and ludicrous remarks. you've tied yourself in knots with your own hubris on this thread. " Okay now I understand the semantics... I represented his word of misrepresentation, with the word lying. You can split hairs on that point all day long, but I'm not going to, you are smart enough to know what is meant. | |||
" Have a day off you clearly have nothing to back up your assertions then other than flippant remarks that attempt to deflect from that fact. Do me a favour and show me where I said they were lying. i haven't said that YOU said that the nottingham post was lying. you said barton had accused them of lying and i've asked to you to quote where he has made that accusation of them lying. you haven't demonstarted that or an answer to any other question that's been asked of you, instead you've opted to make flippant and ludicrous remarks. you've tied yourself in knots with your own hubris on this thread. Okay now I understand the semantics... I represented his word of misrepresentation, with the word lying. You can split hairs on that point all day long, but I'm not going to, you are smart enough to know what is meant." no semantics on my part, just irrefutable facts. if you can't grasp facts then expect to deal with the mauling you've recieved from various people on this thread. | |||
" Have a day off you clearly have nothing to back up your assertions then other than flippant remarks that attempt to deflect from that fact. Do me a favour and show me where I said they were lying. i haven't said that YOU said that the nottingham post was lying. you said barton had accused them of lying and i've asked to you to quote where he has made that accusation of them lying. you haven't demonstarted that or an answer to any other question that's been asked of you, instead you've opted to make flippant and ludicrous remarks. you've tied yourself in knots with your own hubris on this thread. Okay now I understand the semantics... I represented his word of misrepresentation, with the word lying. You can split hairs on that point all day long, but I'm not going to, you are smart enough to know what is meant. no semantics on my part, just irrefutable facts. if you can't grasp facts then expect to deal with the mauling you've recieved from various people on this thread. " You've got to feel sorry for the guy, apparently when he hears informed people explaining the facts it sounds like banging on saucepans with wooden spoons. | |||
| |||
" Have a day off you clearly have nothing to back up your assertions then other than flippant remarks that attempt to deflect from that fact. Do me a favour and show me where I said they were lying. i haven't said that YOU said that the nottingham post was lying. you said barton had accused them of lying and i've asked to you to quote where he has made that accusation of them lying. you haven't demonstarted that or an answer to any other question that's been asked of you, instead you've opted to make flippant and ludicrous remarks. you've tied yourself in knots with your own hubris on this thread. Okay now I understand the semantics... I represented his word of misrepresentation, with the word lying. You can split hairs on that point all day long, but I'm not going to, you are smart enough to know what is meant. no semantics on my part, just irrefutable facts. if you can't grasp facts then expect to deal with the mauling you've recieved from various people on this thread. " If this is your idea of a “mauling” then I think we’ve got very different standards.. All I see is a lot of noise over semantics while the main point still stands. Misrepresentation or lying, the effect is the same people were misled by one of the parties involved. | |||
". If this is your idea of a “mauling” then I think we’ve got very different standards.. All I see is a lot of noise over semantics while the main point still stands. Misrepresentation or lying, the effect is the same people were misled by one of the parties involved. " You seem fixated on this issue of whether the NP material was inaccurate. There is currently no credible suggestion that any of the material the NP published is questionable, other than in vague comments by the council leader. But even if there were some evidence that the paper was inaccurate, misrepresentative or dishonest, banning the paper and its connected publications from access to fully report on the business of government is both far from the only recourse available to the leader, and an explicit violation of the principles of freedom of the press and government accountability. That is the point. | |||
". If this is your idea of a “mauling” then I think we’ve got very different standards.. All I see is a lot of noise over semantics while the main point still stands. Misrepresentation or lying, the effect is the same people were misled by one of the parties involved. You seem fixated on this issue of whether the NP material was inaccurate. There is currently no credible suggestion that any of the material the NP published is questionable, other than in vague comments by the council leader. But even if there were some evidence that the paper was inaccurate, misrepresentative or dishonest, banning the paper and its connected publications from access to fully report on the business of government is both far from the only recourse available to the leader, and an explicit violation of the principles of freedom of the press and government accountability. That is the point."
They're big on talk of freedom of expression but the opposite in their actions. Are they trying to show us that they're not trustworthy, in the slightest! | |||
". If this is your idea of a “mauling” then I think we’ve got very different standards.. All I see is a lot of noise over semantics while the main point still stands. Misrepresentation or lying, the effect is the same people were misled by one of the parties involved. You seem fixated on this issue of whether the NP material was inaccurate. There is currently no credible suggestion that any of the material the NP published is questionable, other than in vague comments by the council leader. But even if there were some evidence that the paper was inaccurate, misrepresentative or dishonest, banning the paper and its connected publications from access to fully report on the business of government is both far from the only recourse available to the leader, and an explicit violation of the principles of freedom of the press and government accountability. That is the point." You are arguing against me, take a step back. You are potentially gold plating dishonesty because they are media, and there seems to be an assumption that journalists are squeaky clean, when we know they are far from that. The outlet can still report on council business it is always in the public domain. If they did not misrepresent they can easily out that right, and if they have they deserve to be be challenged. | |||
". If this is your idea of a “mauling” then I think we’ve got very different standards.. All I see is a lot of noise over semantics while the main point still stands. Misrepresentation or lying, the effect is the same people were misled by one of the parties involved. You seem fixated on this issue of whether the NP material was inaccurate. There is currently no credible suggestion that any of the material the NP published is questionable, other than in vague comments by the council leader. But even if there were some evidence that the paper was inaccurate, misrepresentative or dishonest, banning the paper and its connected publications from access to fully report on the business of government is both far from the only recourse available to the leader, and an explicit violation of the principles of freedom of the press and government accountability. That is the point.
They're big on talk of freedom of expression but the opposite in their actions. Are they trying to show us that they're not trustworthy, in the slightest!"You are simply attacking Reform, which was the threads intention. | |||
". If this is your idea of a “mauling” then I think we’ve got very different standards.. All I see is a lot of noise over semantics while the main point still stands. Misrepresentation or lying, the effect is the same people were misled by one of the parties involved. You seem fixated on this issue of whether the NP material was inaccurate. There is currently no credible suggestion that any of the material the NP published is questionable, other than in vague comments by the council leader. But even if there were some evidence that the paper was inaccurate, misrepresentative or dishonest, banning the paper and its connected publications from access to fully report on the business of government is both far from the only recourse available to the leader, and an explicit violation of the principles of freedom of the press and government accountability. That is the point.
They're big on talk of freedom of expression but the opposite in their actions. Are they trying to show us that they're not trustworthy, in the slightest!
You are simply attacking Reform, which was the threads intention. "Was it? | |||
". You are arguing against me, take a step back. You are potentially gold plating dishonesty because they are media, and there seems to be an assumption that journalists are squeaky clean, when we know they are far from that. The outlet can still report on council business it is always in the public domain. If they did not misrepresent they can easily out that right, and if they have they deserve to be be challenged. " You're clearly determined to cling to the idea that the paper lied, deserved to be sanctioned and haven't really been banned at all. But as I keep telling you, there's no suggestion they lied, had they lied there are proper ways of dealing with it without imposing a ban, and there is now a meaningful, material difference between this paper's access and the access of all the other media who all the councillors haven't been instructed to stop speaking to (among other restrictions). Is it because it's a Reform Council leader that you can't bring yourself to find fault with his position, or is it because you just don't believe in freedom of the press? | |||
| |||
"There is now a petition of over 20,000 signatures to reverse the ban. A spokesperson for Reform said it was a local matter. Labour now asking for clarity from Reform. " Cue the headbangers claiming that every last one of those 20k signatures was bought and paid for by a shadowy cabal of Globalist leftists. | |||
| |||
"Oh, my, NL have published more, now indicating a testy relationship with the wider press as well as NL. " and it's excellent journalism | |||
| |||
| |||
"Reform are not behaving in a sinister way here - it's not restricting the freedom of the press, so much as the freedom of their own councillors. Reform come across as inexperienced and out of their depth - like a bunch of teenagers thrust into an adult job, without the resilience to handle criticism (aka snowflakes). They've clearly not considered the wider optics of this media boycott, which is why they might fail to gain a major victory in a general election. People might want to protest vote, but this kind of cack-handedness will be capitalised upon by more mature parties. Alternatively, the party might learn from these mistakes and improve their messaging and image projection." I can see where you are coming from, in relation to silencing the reform members, however the blanket that the NL or LDR cannot attend any council briefings, unless it is an emergency situation is a ban on reporting. | |||
"Reform are not behaving in a sinister way here - it's not restricting the freedom of the press, so much as the freedom of their own councillors. Reform come across as inexperienced and out of their depth - like a bunch of teenagers thrust into an adult job, without the resilience to handle criticism (aka snowflakes). They've clearly not considered the wider optics of this media boycott, which is why they might fail to gain a major victory in a general election. People might want to protest vote, but this kind of cack-handedness will be capitalised upon by more mature parties. Alternatively, the party might learn from these mistakes and improve their messaging and image projection." Possible but I'd guess unlikely as these guys also tend to be stubborn about this stuff. It's the same kind of peevishness about the necessity to manage public image that cost Corbyn so much goodwill beyond his die-hard base. Reform don't strike me as the kind of party who have it in them to manage the inevitable climb-down from this issue with poise or grace. Mick Barton especially isn't a professional politician, he's a hard-faced miner-turned-businessman whose ego, if it can be shaken by an unflattering article, is not going to tolerate being made to relax his position or to walk back such strong statements. | |||
