City University of London Students Vote to Ban Tabloid News.

[Forty Two]

They're right about these newspapers, though, which should mean something.

They aren't, though. These newspapers are certainly no worse than controversial leftist papers. Communists and such are allowed to publish, and they didn't vote to keep those publications off campus or to say there is no place for them on campus.

The Sun? It's just a tabloid newspaper, not a fascist screed. What's the problem with the sun that it is bannable?

Moaning about "bans" is preposterous, since nobody would ever be in a position to ban a legitimate newspaper in a free country.

Don't bet on it. Countries don't always remain free, and the effort is being made to chip away at what is legitimate speech and what isn't. They're talking about pro-Brexit speech as if it's hate speech and racism (which they think should be banned).

And, in responding to their argument or position - their position is that the newspapers should not be permitted on campus. Fuck them. Thought police are far less welcome, IMHO, than dopey tabloids.

You can hardly buy the S*n up here, ever since they printed that pack of lies about Liverpool fans, but it hasn't been banned; rather, retailers voluntarily do not stock it.

Irrelevant to the issue of whether students at a quality journalism school ought to be advocating the banning of newspapers.

[NineBerry]

Again talking about banning...

[Strontium Dog]

They aren't, though. These newspapers are certainly no worse than controversial leftist papers.

In content, perhaps, but the influence of a paper like The Daily Mail is orders of magnitude greater than something like The Morning Star.

It's like saying that the old communist down the street who wants to shoot all the class traitors is just as evil as someone like Hitler was. Well, he may well be, but he's nowhere near as dangerous, because he has nowhere near as much influence.

You can't compare something read by a few thousand people to something read by millions. The latter obviously poses much more of a threat.

[pErvinalia]

So, you claim for yourself the right to argue against something you don't like but think the student union shouldn't have the right to argue against what they don't like?

They have the right to argue against what they don't like, and I don't suggest they shouldn't have that right. My argument that they're idiots and their position on this issue is idiotic and wrong doesn't deny them any rights, nor does it constitute advocacy of a denial of their rights.

I strongly suspect, however, that if they had the power, they would outlaw what they consider to be hateful or divisive rhetoric. That's one of the reasons they're a pack of total cock-knockers and fuckwits.

Not that I think the UK tabloids add anything of benefit to anything, but I'm more or less in agreement with you here.

[Brian Peacock]

Show me a cynic and I'll show you a disappointed idealist. It's easy for those tired by their own experience of life to criticise the enthusiasm and idealism they see reflected in the views and actions of the young, knocking it for its apparent lack of sophistication or its failure to pragmatically take account of 'the real world', but really, to call these students a 'pack of total cock-knockers and fuckwits' it to ramp up generational conflict - it's just so, "How very dare you!". O, the OUTRAGE! Next we'll probably be treated to lamentations about how young people inherently lack discipline and a proper respect for their elders, and how we should bring back conscription and the birch.

[pErvinalia]

To be fair to them, I'm sure they know they are engaging in politics. Whether they would ban the tabloids if they had any real power is not a given. There's a big leap from fairly harmless political posturing to a 42 imagined freedum apocalypse.

It seems i've just totally repudiated my last post. Yeah? Well fuck youse! I can do what I want!

[Forty Two]

Again talking about banning...

When the students vote that there is "no place on campus" for the newspaper, they are talking about keeping the newspaper off campus. That's the same thing as being in favor of seeing it banned. They don't have the power to ban it, but it's clearly what they want, if they had their way.

[Forty Two]

They aren't, though. These newspapers are certainly no worse than controversial leftist papers.

In content, perhaps, but the influence of a paper like The Daily Mail is orders of magnitude greater than something like The Morning Star.

Is that because they're popular?

It's like saying that the old communist down the street who wants to shoot all the class traitors is just as evil as someone like Hitler was. Well, he may well be, but he's nowhere near as dangerous, because he has nowhere near as much influence.

This has nothing really to do with whether the communist or a fascist should be allowed to speak. Just because one is more popular or influential doesn't mean they should be restricted more. What if the communist was the more influential?

You can't compare something read by a few thousand people to something read by millions. The latter obviously poses much more of a threat.

What threat does either pose? Other than people reading opinions some other people don't like?

[Hermit]

You can't compare something read by a few thousand people to something read by millions. The latter obviously poses much more of a threat.

What threat does either pose? Other than people reading opinions some other people don't like?

People do not just read opinions published in newspapers. They form opinions of their own based on what they read.

[Svartalf]

basically, for every point they already agree with, they'll be swayed on 2 others...
so large distribution media are more influential, and dangerous in the case of yellow journalism, than confidential ones.

[Forty Two]

You can't compare something read by a few thousand people to something read by millions. The latter obviously poses much more of a threat.

What threat does either pose? Other than people reading opinions some other people don't like?

People do not just read opinions published in newspapers. They form opinions of their own based on what they read.

Oh, so people forming opinions based on what they choose to read is dangerous? Can't have the commoners reading what they want and forming their own opinions. They need to read the good, unbiased, correct stuff. You know. The stuff the Progressives agree with.

[Brian Peacock]

News outlets like the BBC or The Independent separate reporting the news from comment, analysis and opinion. The Daily Mail is all opinion (plus critiquing female celebrities on their fashion choices and body shape).

[NineBerry]

There's no place for miserable people on this planet.

[Hermit]

You can't compare something read by a few thousand people to something read by millions. The latter obviously poses much more of a threat.

What threat does either pose? Other than people reading opinions some other people don't like?

People do not just read opinions published in newspapers. They form opinions of their own based on what they read.

Oh, so people forming opinions based on what they choose to read is dangerous?

Oh look. Another man made entirely of straw.

You've become a bit of a two-trick pony, 42. Not much else coming from you besides strawmen and tu quoques lately.

[Jason]

The kiddies just want to engage in a little censorship... try it on for laughs, see if it works... maybe they can introduce it into society as a whole when they graduate and take up positions of real power. You're just a dirty cynic 42 - I'll bet you tried to same thing when you were a student and it failed. Now you just want to crush the aspirations of the newest class of authoritarians and cultural dictators under the weight of that self-same failure. Well I won't have it! Good on the kids for trying to bring us a new dystopia! It's their world to ruin and their freedoms to deny!