Thursday 25 October 2018

Different views

When did you last talk to someone with different views than yours?
Three international journalists share their experience of interviewing people with views fundamentally opposed to their own
Interestingly, they journalists don't discuss how they handle the far-left or Islamists. They focus only on the far-right as having views "fundamentally opposed to their own". 

Anyhow, here's one of those three journalists (the BBC one) with his answer:


  1. Comical! They are so far up their own bias, they can't see how it looks to people who don't share their starting assumptions.

    And while we might all agree there are issues about how you frame the views of people who are promoting racism (and - news for you Stephen - they don't necessarily have to be people of European descent...there are plenty of racists in Japan, Korea, China and the Arab world)... is it really the job of a journalist (as opposed to a non-journalist) to decide that there are some people they might interview and others they won't as a matter of principle. Surely the whole idea of ethical journalism is you report on the world as it is, not as you wish it to be.

    Sackur now has a problem, by the way, as the BBC has reported the government is directing anti-muslim language against Uighurs...does that mean he is not going to interview any Chinese government officials in future?

    Also, is his poorly constructed sentence implying that he only won't interview people who use violent language related to those specific types of violent language? What about the violent language of Class War or even the SWP? What about the violent language of the ANC Youth Wing?

    At best Sackur is guilty of sloppy thinking or expression (not a great recommendation for a senior journalist) - at worst he is guilty of highly selective virtue signalling.

    Still at least he is happy to interview the leader of Sinn Fein:

    Sinn Fein have never used murderously violent language targetting population groups within the community have they?

  2. The metropolitan pseudo-liberals use "far-right" as a boo-word smear label against people who don't adhere to pseudo-liberal dogma eg open-borders.

    They use the term interchangeably with "nazi", "white supremacist"
    but now Sackur says there are
    #1 "people with far right views"

    and #2 people who "voice racist, anti-semitic, anti-muslim, violent language, whose views and ideas have crossed the line and are probably criminal in at least some societies."
    ... are merely a subset of "far-right"
    .. and it's that subset he wouldn't interview

    Of course we know a Muslim person could express most of the views in category #1 and Sackur would still give them an interview and an easy ride one at that.

    1. Indeed. The Far Right and Racist labels are used to neturalise opposition to the insane policies of the left-liberal-globalist alliance, namely:

      1. Continued mass immigration leading to huge population increases, stretched resources, low productivity, a housing crisis and social division.

      2. No borders policies, so that anyone can walk across your border and claim membership of your society - even if, as has often proved the case, they mean you ill.

      3. Abolition of free speech as being incompatible with multiculturalism and equal rights.

      4. Chasing the mirage of equality of outcome (of course globalist billionaires don't believe in this for one millisecond but it is useful wedge to be used to insert people who will follow pro-globalist policies into positions of power and it helps reduce some of the inevitable tensions arising from mass immigration). The anti-populist alliance hope this way to build an alliance of women, gays, poorer working class people or welfare dependents, Sharia followers, people of colour and other minorities that can put them in power and keep them there.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.