Following on from my recent posting regarding the government's views on us becoming vegans I now see that the RSPB have dropped the word "****" as a means of describing a male bird in case it causes offence. What will be the new name for a cockeral? Also the Boy Scout movement have dismantled an out door chapel built pre second world war incase it offends other religions. I always thought that the oath of a Scout?Guide was to serve God and the monarch. It is up to the individual which God he/she serves.
Political Correctness Gone Crazy
- Thread starter colin(bridgend)
- Start date
Don't get me started on this one Colin it drives me mad PC has gone to far and I dont mean this magazine.
hi all
has political correctness gone too far?????.
well probably yes it has but as a gentleman getting on a bit I still remember the good old days when there wasn't any at all, you know when every day was like an episode of life on mars.
where men were men and all femails were fair game, a time when you could call a spade a spade not a digging impliment and robertsons had a gollywog on every jar.
life was great you could say and do any thing to anybody and no one took offence, unless of course you were,
black
femail
over weight
disabled
or had a funny name like two of my old work mates, ivor dick and sandy ****,(genuine not made up) good old days I think not, go backwards, no way, maybee PC has gone a bit astray from its original purpose but turn the clock back.
FORGET IT
colin
has political correctness gone too far?????.
well probably yes it has but as a gentleman getting on a bit I still remember the good old days when there wasn't any at all, you know when every day was like an episode of life on mars.
where men were men and all femails were fair game, a time when you could call a spade a spade not a digging impliment and robertsons had a gollywog on every jar.
life was great you could say and do any thing to anybody and no one took offence, unless of course you were,
black
femail
over weight
disabled
or had a funny name like two of my old work mates, ivor dick and sandy ****,(genuine not made up) good old days I think not, go backwards, no way, maybee PC has gone a bit astray from its original purpose but turn the clock back.
FORGET IT
colin
A chap was cautioned recently because he had a golly on the front of his car and some one complained to the police. It took two officers to remove it without his permisson and to caution him. What an utter waste of police resources.
The real problem is that such a very high proportion of these stories are, at best, willful misreporting by the tabloid press.
The RSPB one, for instance. The truth is that they installed some auto-monitoring software for their forum, which checked all words against a dictionary, and replaced with **** anything it had listed as potentially dodgy. It then referred it to a person for a more intelligent response.
In birding terms, there are many coomon names that, in a different context, would be offensive; these words are homonyms - spelt the same, but having different meanings.
Having realised what was happening, the RSPB promptly edited the dictionary to make more sensible decisions.
So, nothing politically correct there, just a quickly corrected software glitch. But was that reported in the tabloids? No, it is more interesting to stir up an argument, regardless of the facts.
No, you can't believe what is printed in black and white. The papers are interested in sales, not truth.
Personally, I would require them to print corrections in such cases, and in a MORE prominent position than the original article. And if that means a huge front page headline saying "Daily Gibberer knowingly printed a lie", then that is fine by me.
The RSPB one, for instance. The truth is that they installed some auto-monitoring software for their forum, which checked all words against a dictionary, and replaced with **** anything it had listed as potentially dodgy. It then referred it to a person for a more intelligent response.
In birding terms, there are many coomon names that, in a different context, would be offensive; these words are homonyms - spelt the same, but having different meanings.
Having realised what was happening, the RSPB promptly edited the dictionary to make more sensible decisions.
So, nothing politically correct there, just a quickly corrected software glitch. But was that reported in the tabloids? No, it is more interesting to stir up an argument, regardless of the facts.
No, you can't believe what is printed in black and white. The papers are interested in sales, not truth.
Personally, I would require them to print corrections in such cases, and in a MORE prominent position than the original article. And if that means a huge front page headline saying "Daily Gibberer knowingly printed a lie", then that is fine by me.
Oldfogey you have posted a deap and profound answer and I would agree with your comments regarding the tabloids and media reporting. However what I do not understand is that without the tabloids and the media where would we get our information regaring the events of the world. The next question then is do we believe these reports or take them as further tittle tattle? There is unfortunately no answer as each have their own opinion regarding the reported events. Two daily papers could cover the same event but end up with a competly different report. Do we all go for the Telegraph and its so called independant reporting or the Daily Sport with its fictitional reporting?
Frankly, there is nobody you can completely trust.
The tabloids are strictly comics - read them for sports, gossip and page 3. None of these am I prepared to waste time and money on.
The Mail and Express pretend to by more serious, but are both so driven by a viewpoint that I have seen stuff in there that I know, because I was involved in events (even if only as an observer), are heavily distorted and misleading.
The broadsheet newspapers (including those in tabloid format) are better. The Telegraph and Independant both have a "party line" and tailor the news to fit it. So does the Times, but it has a wider range of views from it's columnists.
TV news is too shallow; even documentaries are rarely satisfying.
Radio has similar problems, though the lack of pictures sometimes seem to make them more thoughtful.
News magazines, such as the Economist, tend to be quite strong on the editorial line, but if you watch out for this they offer some of the more detailed analysis available.
The Internet is a wonderful source for information, provided you treat it with the utmost caution.
I think what it all boils down to is get your information from as many sources as possible, bear in mind what hidden agenda your source may have, and cross check everything. If you have even the slightest doubt about a story (eg from discrepancies between sources) google it, and look at lots of different reports - after all most of the worlds news media are accessible to you now, so that report on TV about an event in Australia may look quite different if you check in an Aussie or USA paper, for instance.
The tabloids are strictly comics - read them for sports, gossip and page 3. None of these am I prepared to waste time and money on.
The Mail and Express pretend to by more serious, but are both so driven by a viewpoint that I have seen stuff in there that I know, because I was involved in events (even if only as an observer), are heavily distorted and misleading.
The broadsheet newspapers (including those in tabloid format) are better. The Telegraph and Independant both have a "party line" and tailor the news to fit it. So does the Times, but it has a wider range of views from it's columnists.
TV news is too shallow; even documentaries are rarely satisfying.
Radio has similar problems, though the lack of pictures sometimes seem to make them more thoughtful.
News magazines, such as the Economist, tend to be quite strong on the editorial line, but if you watch out for this they offer some of the more detailed analysis available.
The Internet is a wonderful source for information, provided you treat it with the utmost caution.
I think what it all boils down to is get your information from as many sources as possible, bear in mind what hidden agenda your source may have, and cross check everything. If you have even the slightest doubt about a story (eg from discrepancies between sources) google it, and look at lots of different reports - after all most of the worlds news media are accessible to you now, so that report on TV about an event in Australia may look quite different if you check in an Aussie or USA paper, for instance.
Oldfogey from your postings I think I will now only be reading Private Eye - they often get it right judging by the number of court cases they have against them and ultimately win. Ian Hislop may be the only true editor around at the moment.
Hello everyone after reading this thread I am glad I've not bought a newspaper since I got married in 1990 seems nothing has changed. The media like to create gossip.
At work yesterday a collegue bought the sunday times after just a couple of minutes he complained about there only being 4 pages of sport and laughing he said he prefered to read the sport and not told the truth this paper contained.
At work yesterday a collegue bought the sunday times after just a couple of minutes he complained about there only being 4 pages of sport and laughing he said he prefered to read the sport and not told the truth this paper contained.
Facebook
Twitter