The truth will be told

[The Truth]

The few links that work from your list are specifically about journalists being detained. I would imagine having a device confiscated is the least of their worries. I knew viewing your post would be a colossal waste of time. I will be more disciplined in future. If you bothered to understand my actual posts you would see that I am actually partially agreeing with you. Confiscation of devices does happen and I can see it getting more common. You're too self involved to realise when somebody is actually concurring slightly with you.

You really are a nonsense of a man.

Oh right, so you're purely focusing on the links which aren't working then? So typically you nibble.
What's your views on the 4 links which do work? they are not just specifically about journalist being detained. Are you still sticking to your assumption that it's uncommon for this to happen to journalists? Protests about the matter doesn't exactly make it sound uncommon does it?

P.S A nonsense man!? What other labels can you think for me in that amazing brain of yours?

 

[Nibble]

Oh right, so your purely focusing on the links which aren't working? So typically you nibble.
What's your views on the 4 links which do work? Are you still sticking to your assumption ?

P.S A nonsense man!? You're the judge!

Just not sure what you would like me to report regarding a link I can't access. As stated before, the links that do work are about detention not confiscation. My views on those, while not actually pertaining directly to the subject you raised in the same post those were sited (did you read them? If so you cannot have understood them) are that it comes as no surprise to myself or, I would proffer, anyone that reads the news that this is happening to journalists. It has and will continue to happen across the globe. Always initially more alarming when it happens in one's home country of course but if it can happen in one country it can happen in another.

That's the most comprehensive answer I can give you given the rather poor links you have provided.


That's also the most I'm prepared to indulge your cacophony of half understood assumptions. Goodnight.

 

[The Truth]

Just not sure what you would like me to report regarding a link I can't access. As stated before, the links that do work are about detention not confiscation. My views on those, while not actually pertaining directly to the subject you raised in the same post those were sited (did you read them? If so you cannot have understood them) are that it comes as no surprise to myself or, I would proffer, anyone that reads the news that this is happening to journalists. It has and will continue to happen across the globe. Always initially more alarming when it happens in one's home country of course but if it can happen in one country it can happen in another.



That's also the most I'm prepared to indulge your cacophony of half understood assumptions. Goodnight.

Here's one of the links which didn't work:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/jan/11/press-freedom-nigeria
that's 5 links all on the subject of journalists and unlawful restrictions.

You still aren't making much sense of how it's so uncommon when it's so spoken about? The links are only proving your assumption wrong.

 

[BadFish]

Here's 2 of the links which didn't work:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/jan/11/press-freedom-nigeria
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/a3e35152-08...-truth-will-be-told/page4#axzz2lhxIY58EThat's

 

[pastafarian]

Ignorance is a funny thing!

 

[beorhthelm]

Yeah, really uncommon....

I win my case.

what you win your case that its not uncommon for journalists to have items confiscated by citing a couple of references to people in foreign lands being detained? its a nice switch of play, but those hand full of case from across the whole world still dont constitute "not uncommon" in my book. i'd say "not unheard of". in summary you have come up with nothing to support you arguement and changed tack and still lost. again.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

As an outside looking into this thread, I have no idea what The Truth thinks or his agenda or anything, it is quite possibly batshit or may all be true, but he has argued his case rather well and left a lot of people resorting to insults.

On the debate at hand, I am merely reminded of the large number of journalists who apparently witnessed the aftermath of the slaughter of retreating Iraqi troops at the end of the first Gulf War and didn't report it at the time, to give an example of the BBC and other media with frontline journalists not telling us the whole truth.

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

Some things are censored. Some things are not. Some things which are censored get exposed. Some things do not. Not everything is censored. Not everything is a giant conspiracy, where our government are trying to control us all with mind rays and aircraft fumes.

The thing is Mr Truth, if you posted a thread saying "I think X - What do you think?" and then perhaps listened to other people's point of view, had a little debate and even took on board what other on here say (shock horror), you'd be surprised at how many people agree with you. But you don't. Your threads start with a statement as if fact, then you TELL us why we're all wrong. It makes you look silly, which is a shame.

 

[The Truth]

Some things are censored. Some things are not. Some things which are censored get exposed. Some things do not. Not everything is censored. Not everything is a giant conspiracy, where our government are trying to control us all with mind rays and aircraft fumes.

The thing is Mr Truth, if you posted a thread saying "I think X - What do you think?" and then perhaps listened to other people's point of view, had a little debate and even took on board what other on here say (shock horror), you'd be surprised at how many people agree with you. But you don't. Your threads start with a statement as if fact, then you TELL us why we're all wrong. It makes you look silly, which is a shame.

The pot calling the kettle black, wouldn't you think?

 

[sten_super]

After a decent write-up from Kalimantan Gull above, you've come off the ignore list. And, to be fair, you've made a decent fist of a debate here, with evidence and everything.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is though. Mainstream media (a bit of a catch-all for any news source you don't like) isn't trustworthy because there are some restrictions on press freedoms in a number of countries (much of which was, ironically enough, reported on the BBC, FT, Guardian, etc)?

My view is that you're using the wrong evidence to make your case. That's probably because if what you suppose (excessive government intervention in media, to the point of them not reporting things) was taking place then, intuitively, there wouldn't be any evidence. You're left trying to prove a negative, which is very difficult.

I agree that there are frequent restrictions on media in several countries. However I don't believe (on the whole) that's the case in the UK - the furore about David Miranda, and the request for the Guardian to destroy those drives with the Snowden data on, is decent evidence that (in those examples) the Guardian and the BBC felt confident enough to report things which are potentially embarrassing to the government or security services. There are definitely things that journalists know that they don't report, for a variety of reasons I'd imagine (off the top of my head; maintaining sources, not 'news-worthy', officially embargoed, illegal interception methods), but I don't thing, on the whole, the government is frequently intervening to tell journalists and editors what to publish and what not to publish. I think that you can, if you read a few 'mainstream media' sources (I'd never advocate sticking to a single one, as you are too likely to be exposed to a political slant) get a decent view of most world events.

 

[jgmcdee]

I beg your pardon, I can see words jumbled up and formed to look like sentences and all I asked of you was to translate and summarise the messagae. How is that sounding bitter and rotten

And I have never mentioned anything about a tinfoil hat in any of my posts

Except that one, of course.

 

[The Truth]

http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2013/09/17/solidarity-protests-for-jailed-journalist-in-sinai/

http://www.ifj.org/en/articles/protest-against-life-sentences-given-to-turkish-journalists-2

http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/11/1...-widespread-crackdown-video/pali-journalists/

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/...ended-jail-terms-for-protest-related-charges/

 

[Nibble]

I disagree he's made a decent fist of it. He started off by saying it is not uncommon for journalists to have their laptops confiscated which was then "backed up" by a few links, most of which don't work, reporting a few people being DETAINED. Not having laptops confiscated and not all journalists. It has nothing to do with his argument whatsoever. Also he quoted quite a few sources from MAINSTREAM MEDIA whom he claims not to trust at all thus proving he will use any source, whether he believes in it or not, if he thinks it will back up his argument. It didn't. Not one link to evidence he provided actually proved his point or referred to journalists having their laptops confiscated. Which is why one cannot debate with him.


If anyone thinks he has argued his case well you really haven't read this properly. I actually came the closest I ever have to agreeing with him and he still resorts to childish points while ignoring the actual content of the posts directed at him.

Christ, he's dim.

Please regard post this as commentary rather than any forwarding contribution to this ridiculous thread.

 

[The Truth]

I disagree he's made a decent fist of it. He started off by saying it is not uncommon for journalists to have their laptops confiscated which was then "backed up" by a few links, most of which don't work, reporting a few people being DETAINED. Not having laptops confiscated and not all journalists. It has nothing to do with his argument whatsoever. Also he quoted quite a few sources from MAINSTREAM MEDIA whom he claims not to trust at all thus proving he will use any source, whether he believes in it or not, if he thinks it will back up his argument. It didn't. Not one link to evidence he provided actually proved his point or referred to journalists having their laptops confiscated. Which is why one cannot debate with him.


If anyone thinks he has argued his case well you really haven't read this properly. I actually came the closest I ever have to agreeing with him and he still resorts to childish points while ignoring the actual content of the posts directed at him.

Christ, he's dim.

Please regard post this as commentary rather than any forwarding contribution to this ridiculous thread.

Sorry for being personal but are you becoming obsessed with me Nibble? That's a lot of words considering all you've typed is an analysis of me. Nothing to do with the journal debate. Just me.

 

[Nibble]

Sorry for being personal but are you becoming obsessed with me Nibble? That's a lot of words considering all you've typed is an analysis of me. Nothing to do with the journal debate. Just me.

No. You amuse me. I like being amused.

 

[The Truth]

No. You amuse me. I like being amused.

A few days ago you said I was on your ignore list. Make your mind up.

 

[Nibble]

A few days ago you said I was on your ignore list. Make your mind up.

You still are. You are quite obsessed with who has you on ignore aren't you. Love me, hate me just don't ignore me...

 

[The Truth]

You still are. You are quite obsessed with who has you on ignore aren't you. Love me, hate me just don't ignore me...

The irony is, you admittedly can't ignore me!

 

[jgmcdee]

Not wishing to interrupt the traditional binfest, but having had a quick read through the original link and some of the other items mentioned here and abstracting away some of the names I ended up with sentences like:

"Person decides not to act on information they have because they consider it not in their own long-term interest"

"Someone did something naughty in their past and would rather it didn't come to light now"

"Man might have got jiggy with woman"

which, forgive the presumption, could probably all be applied to everyone reading this thread.

So did I get any of this wrong, or is it just the fact that "man" could be changed to "important/famous/powerful man" that is meant to be the exciting bit?

 

[The Truth]

Not wishing to interrupt the traditional binfest, but having had a quick read through the original link and some of the other items mentioned here and abstracting away some of the names I ended up with sentences like:

"Person decides not to act on information they have because they consider it not in their own long-term interest"

"Someone did something naughty in their past and would rather it didn't come to light now"

"Man might have got jiggy with woman"

which, forgive the presumption, could probably all be applied to everyone reading this thread.

So did I get any of this wrong, or is it just the fact that "man" could be changed to "important/famous/powerful man" that is meant to be the exciting bit?

Sorry, I'm a bit lost. What's the original link you mentioned and could you repost it please?
It's not very clear what you're typing, any chance of elaborating a bit more?