should "newspapers" be region locked ? (to some extent)

its become apparent, from reading the British online press, that these news outlets are receiving vast amounts of traffic and crucially from this topics pov comment from overseas visitors.

this may seem like a trifling issue but public policy direction is pretty much formed in "the zeitgeist" and these media outlets with their readers comments and responsive and/or pandering editorial lines are, for better or worse seen as exemplars and touchstones in that respect.

that is kinda one of the key functions of "the press".

this was fine when the comment and povs seen in British newspapers where limited by geography and traditional distribution methods to those of British people and thus truly reflected those who should be listen to in that situation but nowadays with the internet it seems to me a problem arises when you have multiple nations who share a common language but little else politically one of whom in particular is far, far larger numerically and is far more politically bent towards one "side" of the political spectrum.

i find the fact that opinions of people from other countries are taken as being representative of the views within another deeply troubling (and that's without even touching on the likes of US political & religious organisation coming over here to deliberately try and influence OUR internal domestic politics).

so it occurs to me that at perhaps limiting commenting by country IP to some extent may be something to look at so that a far more accurate portrayal of the opinions of those directly involved and effected is what is delivered back into the democratic process.

otherwise the traditional role of national newspapers in national politics risks becoming infected and skewered towards views which are not actually an accurate reflection of the political situation within their nation state of origin and instead we run the risk of falling prey to cultural hegemony where the biggest and loudest on the world stage, via the internet, set the tone of political debate for everyone with whom they happen to share the use of the same language.

the daily mail, it being both a touchstone for the UK tory party and also "the most visited newspaper website on the internet" due to "breaking America", is a notable case in point.

thoughts ?

The same thing you see as a disadvantage is a great advantage to some countries, the internet has done wonders for spreading democracy more than any policy made to combat fascism or communism. And at the same time it allows for a spread of ideas, you see it as making your country more conservative in the short run but if your ideals are correct the free exchange of though allowed by the press and the internet will eventually tilt to the "correct" policy. I mean if every country in the world tended to ultra capitalism would it really be maintained? I'd say no, the policy would ultimately fail and people would look for alternatives.

But I guess the main problem with that theory is thinking there is a right or wrong answer. As long as the wrong answer is catastrophically wrong will change be needed?

... Anyways trust in democracy to get where you need to go and trust in the people even if in the short term it causes problem the long term will justify the correct answer.

Sleekit:
its become apparent, from reading the British online press, that these news outlets are receiving vast amounts of traffic and crucially from this topics pov comment from overseas visitors.

this may seem like a trifling issue but public policy direction is pretty much formed in "the zeitgeist" and these media outlets with their readers comments and responsive and/or pandering editorial lines are, for better or worse seen as exemplars and touchstones in that respect.

that is kinda one of the key functions of "the press".

this was fine when the comment and povs seen in British newspapers where limited by geography and traditional distribution methods to those of British people and thus truly reflected those who should be listen to in that situation but nowadays with the internet it seems to me a problem arises when you have multiple nations who share a common language but little else politically one of whom in particular is far, far larger numerically and is far more politically bent towards one "side" of the political spectrum.

i find the fact that opinions of people from other countries are taken as being representative of the views within another deeply troubling (and that's without even touching on the likes of US political & religious organisation coming over here to deliberately try and influence OUR internal domestic politics).

so it occurs to me that at perhaps limiting commenting by country IP to some extent may be something to look at so that a far more accurate portrayal of the opinions of those directly involved and effected is what is delivered back into the democratic process.

otherwise the traditional role of national newspapers in national politics risks becoming infected and skewered towards views which are not actually an accurate reflection of the political situation within their nation state of origin and instead we run the risk of falling prey to cultural hegemony where the biggest and loudest on the world stage, via the internet, set the tone of political debate for everyone with whom they happen to share the use of the same language.

the daily mail, it being both a touchstone for the UK tory party and also "the most visited newspaper website on the internet" due to "breaking America", is a notable case in point.

thoughts ?

Torn between making a serious post and a lol Daily Fail post, I will try and do both at the same time. Its worrying if people are taking articles in the Daily Mail as any kind of valid viewpoint, whatever their political stance. As papers go its truly terrible its like the Fox News of British publishing. A funny if slightly irrelevant example is the amount of things they have listed as causing cancer.

But generally news spreading around can only be a good thing, sure it might influence someones opinion but if someone really allows their opinions to be clouded by media was it of any value anyway? In other ways the spreading of opinions via the media is like any sort of cultural spread. People read or watch the media from other cultures and see things they like or things they hate, if enough people like something it can change a nation and thats not a bad thing. Its not a good thing either but it really depends on whats spreading.

If a fascist news letter got popular and spread that would be a bad thing, if a publication about equality spread that would be a good thing.

i appreciate the need for the free reporting of news stories and i'm not talking about restricting what papers report on or what is published for the perusal of the ether but rather the relationships between the readers direct engagement with a paper, a papers editorial line and its political stance on the domestic political stage.

"the press" are supposed to play a role within a given democracy by representing the views of their readership to those in power.

if modern profit driven internet publications are "supranational" they aren't actually carrying out that function.

instead they are presenting a homogenised viewpoint which is ultimately going to come to reflect the largest number of readers.

in the case of many supposedly "British newspapers" nowadays this means vast numbers of Americans and others from other English speaking nations.

that would be fine and well if they set out to represent themselves as "global media outlets" and they were not held up as representing "the British press" within British public life and Britain's political landscape...but they don't...and i cannot see how the editorial lines that grow symbiotically alongside a readership can remain simultaneously representative of single nations views while at the same time being reflective of vast numbers of people who are not from there.

dmase says "trust in democracy" well here's the thing: democracies have physical limits.
they pretty much don't work as a concept without them.
the internet doesn't.

Sleekit:
i cannot see how the editorial lines that grow symbiotically alongside a readership can remain simultaneously representative of single nations views while at the same time being reflective of vast numbers of people who are not from there.

This is thing though, if the tone or political viewpoint from a particular publication is resonating enough for people in other countries to use them to support their views it is obviously reflective of them. It is not going to be reflective of everyone, the same is true of media within a nation because they don't reflect the views of everyone either.

J Tyran:

Sleekit:
its become apparent, from reading the British online press, that these news outlets are receiving vast amounts of traffic and crucially from this topics pov comment from overseas visitors.

this may seem like a trifling issue but public policy direction is pretty much formed in "the zeitgeist" and these media outlets with their readers comments and responsive and/or pandering editorial lines are, for better or worse seen as exemplars and touchstones in that respect.

that is kinda one of the key functions of "the press".

this was fine when the comment and povs seen in British newspapers where limited by geography and traditional distribution methods to those of British people and thus truly reflected those who should be listen to in that situation but nowadays with the internet it seems to me a problem arises when you have multiple nations who share a common language but little else politically one of whom in particular is far, far larger numerically and is far more politically bent towards one "side" of the political spectrum.

i find the fact that opinions of people from other countries are taken as being representative of the views within another deeply troubling (and that's without even touching on the likes of US political & religious organisation coming over here to deliberately try and influence OUR internal domestic politics).

so it occurs to me that at perhaps limiting commenting by country IP to some extent may be something to look at so that a far more accurate portrayal of the opinions of those directly involved and effected is what is delivered back into the democratic process.

otherwise the traditional role of national newspapers in national politics risks becoming infected and skewered towards views which are not actually an accurate reflection of the political situation within their nation state of origin and instead we run the risk of falling prey to cultural hegemony where the biggest and loudest on the world stage, via the internet, set the tone of political debate for everyone with whom they happen to share the use of the same language.

the daily mail, it being both a touchstone for the UK tory party and also "the most visited newspaper website on the internet" due to "breaking America", is a notable case in point.

thoughts ?

Torn between making a serious post and a lol Daily Fail post, I will try and do both at the same time. Its worrying if people are taking articles in the Daily Mail as any kind of valid viewpoint, whatever their political stance. As papers go its truly terrible its like the Fox News of British publishing. A funny if slightly irrelevant example is the amount of things they have listed as causing cancer.

Methinks this is the song you're after.

Da Orky Man:
Methinks this is the song you're after.

The Daily Mail is good for a laugh, sad thing is I don't think its intended to be like that.

So, you're a Brit raising a discussion on an American gaming news site's forum on whether news sites should be region locked?

And no, censorship, that's a bad censorship!

Capcha: "live. love. internet."

that's not what i'm suggesting Imperator.

what im suggesting is that there is perhaps a case for my countries press to actually endeavours to filter out and reflect the views of its native readership as it supposed to do within the democratic process rather than being at the mercy of "globalisation" and purely economic aspirations.

for example if there is a story on a failure of some sort in a UK NHS hospital the views that should be heard the loudest in terms of readers comments should be from the people who might actually live in the country, potentially visit that hospital and have an informed option on the NHS and its place in British public life.

nothing about "Obamacare" or "death panels" or "Communism" or "Nazis" tyvm.

that's someone else's shit and it bares no relevance to public policy debate in the UK.

(extreme examples but hopefully you get the point)

that could be facilitated by a simple country specific IP filter on country specific topics.

if there is an international news story then there is no need for an IP filter on comments although i would prefer a tabbed "international" or "US" edition that did not share article feedback and editorial staff (as is already done on some news sites that do not claim to be part of "the British press").

there is, as i have tried to point out, a symbiotic two way relationship between the long term editorial slant of a paper and the opinions of its readership.

simply put if the majority of the readership of newspaper is not British then its not "a British newspaper" in the sense that its not fulfilling the traditional role of one within our democracy and yet, at the same time, it will still shape public opinion and public policy.

imo that's a problem Americans will never face mostly because we can't swamp your "free" press with our posts and opinions in the same way you can ours.

if we could you'd probably be rightfully pissed off because "it's none of your business" etc (just look at the crap piers morgan has stirred up all on his lonesome...at least partly because he doesn't fit into the USs gun control debate because he's simply not an American.).

i don't want British public opinion and British public policy shaped via American public discourse.

on any subject.

that is simply wrong.

we are not America or Americans.

public policy debate and considerations are different in different states.

that's how it should be.

there should be no pressure for homogenised global politics either in outlook, debate or implementation.

those that are held up as our press and our politicians should only really be responsive to us.

in terms of the wider picture the cards on the table are very unlikely to have fallen into completely flawless hands as they tumbled first time out the box onto the table of the global internets "wild west" saloon.

While I can see the point, how important are comments on online newspaper articles in determining policy in the UK?

Now, certainly hordes of foreigners bringing their own disputes would be annoying, especially when they do so because of political reasons in their own country, but I'm not sure it's that much of a threat.

Would listing the nationality of comments, and maybe an optional filter to ignore the countries you didn't want to listen to help?

Sleekit:
that's not what i'm suggesting Imperator.

what im suggesting is that there is perhaps a case for my countries press to actually endeavours to filter out and reflect the views of its native readership as it supposed to do within the democratic process rather than being at the mercy of "globalisation" and purely economic aspirations.

for example if there is a story on a failure of some sort in a UK NHS hospital the views that should be heard the loudest in terms of readers comments should be from the people who might actually live in the country, potentially visit that hospital and have an informed option on the NHS and its place in British public life.
...

If you're suggesting that the government mandate such a thing, that's censorship of the free press.

If you're merely suggesting that they voluntary adopt such a policy, fine by me. I don't care about that any more than will they.

there is, as i have tried to point out, a symbiotic two way relationship between the long term editorial slant of a paper and the opinions of its readership.

simply put if the majority of the readership of newspaper is not British then its not "a British newspaper" in the sense that its not fulfilling the traditional role of one within our democracy and yet, at the same time, it will still shape public opinion and public policy.

So?

A view on something doesn't suddenly become irrelevant because it comes from outside one's own border. It's quite healthy to be presented with a plurality of different world views, as it gives people more to choose from. If UK citizens end up wanting to adopt US policies, that's perfectly fine; That you don't like it is irrelevant.

...
imo that's a problem Americans will never face mostly because we can't swamp your "free" press with our posts and opinions in the same way you can ours.
...

I'm not American, but Danish: You know, that culture numerous left-leaning British pseudointellectuals think they're currently in love with, because they've seen a female cop in a sweater on TV.

...
i don't want British public opinion and British public policy shaped via American public discourse.

on any subject.

that is simply wrong.

we are not America or Americans.

public policy debate and considerations are different in different states.

that's how it should be.

there should be no pressure for homogenised global politics either in outlook or implementation.

those that are held up as our papers and our politicians should only really be responsive to us.

in terms of the wider picture the cards on the table are very unlikely to have fallen into completely flawless hands as they tumbled first time out the box onto the table of the global internets "wild west" saloon.

If an idea is not chosen by people, it should not be forced upon them (including by hiding the alternatives). If a so-called "British" world view doesn't appeal to people - because they're seen something better - it should be replaced. You might not like the discourse of US policy; but seeking to deny others knowledge of them, preventing them from making an informed choice from as many world views as can be presented to them, is simply oppression.

It's quite... healthy... to get views on stuff like "Public health care" not merely from one's own culture/system, but also from others who've done different things, prioritized differently, or does not value it as much. Hence each individual voter will be able to see both strengths and weaknesses of it more clearly, or choose to work/vote towards something else entirely.

But then I won't be able to read the stupidity on fox news. Seriously, that's an essential part of my daily routine, right after reading the the funny strips.

But in all seriousness, that wouldn't be a good idea, mainly for the nations that don't have accurate newspaper, or ones that have intentionally misleading newspapers. It also makes it quite hard to know the ins and outs of what's going on in other countries, for things like research.

@Imperator_DK

right...

if i want to hear how America does and wants to do its healthcare i can go to a thousand US focused websites or reports of it in our newspapers and read it there.

but why the hell should my nation have none focused on it own ?

you think that's unlikely ? i'm a scot. it already exists in the Scottish press which is dying a death due to the fact that it's wholly owned and wholly presents political discussion sent up from England for our passive consumption...which we then ignore.

the only saving grace is that "the Scottish press" does not play the same political role on the Scottish political stage as "the British press" does on the British political stage...but that is to our democratic detriment.

plurality is fine. more than fine. desirable.

infestation by foreign voices to the point in some cases its in danger of drowning out native voices simply because we share a language with others in this world is not.

i very much doubt you would like it if in your national newspapers only every 10th comment was actually Danish and yet still your government and political system still looked to those papers as exemplars of Danish public opinion.

that i don't like it AS A UK citizen is not "irrelevant". this is my country and that's just insulting (and as it happens completely ignorant of my and my wider families level of engagement within the political process here).

internal national public discourse is not normally on "world views" rather it's more often than not on the specific minutia of a subject at hand as is the majority of domestic politics but when i talk of "conservatives" in a UK newspaper i want to talk about the UK torys, when i talk of "liberals" i wish to talk about the UK liberal party, and when talk of "republicans" what i mean is people who want to scrap the British monarchy. i do not want to be engaging in a discussion where all these words mean different f'ing things because the people populating the pages of that UK newspaper predominately come from somewhere else.

we are not all the same and we do not share the same homogenised global culture and your derisory comment about "left-leaning British pseudointellectuals think they're currently in love with, because they've seen a female cop in a sweater on TV." is part of your own expression of that: its a statement that is directly aimed at people you are scornful of because you see then as incorrectly thinking they know your nation due to an extremely limited exposure to it in their own media.

or to put it another way your own prejudices betray your own lack of internal consistency at least partially in relation to the matter at hand.

TKretts3:
But in all seriousness, that wouldn't be a good idea, mainly for the nations that don't have accurate newspaper, or ones that have intentionally misleading newspapers. It also makes it quite hard to know the ins and outs of what's going on in other countries, for things like research.

you don't have to be able to make comments to read them.

the only thing i have suggested as an idea is that comments on domestic issues are limited by IP to the native country directly concerned in story.

this is actually less constrictive than what exists in relation to existing media sites like Hulu, iPlayer & to a certain extent youtube and the only thing it prevents is people from other nations entering into discussion on domestic policy issues that fundamentally don't concern them in any way.

that would mean that any such news outlet would still be globally accessible and readable but when it comes time for the politicians to measure the opinions of the nation via the press as per the presses tradition function in a democracy the views expressed on all sides of any argument would actually be those of their own electorate.

Sleekit:
...
i very much doubt you would like it if in your national newspapers only every 10th comment was actually Danish and yet still your government and political system still looked to those papers as exemplars of Danish public opinion.

Well, that's the core of the problem, isn't it? Having populist politicians who take their opinions from various tabloids, rather than having any visions of their own, and consult actual experts on how to best realize them. If your politicians all take their views from the comments sections of online newspapers, then you're already utterly fucked, whether the commentators are British or not.

And they should at least have the indecency to base their opinions off something like 4chan's random board. Now that'd be a campaign to behold. "Touhou blow-up dolls for everyone except newlabourfags!"

that i don't like it AS A UK citizen is not "irrelevant". this is my country and that's just insulting (and as it happens completely ignorant of my and my wider families level of engagement within the political process here).

It is irrelevant for the inalienable right of the media to allow commentary from whomever and wherever it choose, without any government censorship.

internal national public discourse is not normally on "world views" rather it's more often than not on the specific minutia of a subject at hand as is the majority of domestic politics but when i talk of "conservatives" in a UK newspaper i want to talk about the UK torys, when i talk of "liberals" i wish to talk about the UK liberal party, and when talk of "republicans" what i mean is people who want to scrap the British monarchy. i do not want to be engaging in a discussion where all these words mean different f'ing things because the people populating the pages of that UK newspaper predominately come from somewhere else.

Then educate them on what those terms mean in a UK context, rather than exclude them from the debate. Or ignore them. Or stick to debating in local analogue media, instead of on the globalization internet. You don't get to take the rights of others away merely because they inconvenience you.

we are not all the same and we do not share the same homogenised global culture and your derisory comment about "left-leaning British pseudointellectuals think they're currently in love with, because they've seen a female cop in a sweater on TV." is part of your own expression of that: its a statement that is directly aimed at people you are scornful of because you see then as incorrectly thinking they know your nation due to an extremely limited exposure to it in their own media.
...

Despise them as I might - for their political leanings and hypocrisy, not ignorance of my insignificant nation - I'd never seek to exclude them from any debate anywhere on the internet (or IRL). Which is perfectly consistent with my general stance of not wanting to exclude anyone from anywhere from any debate (nor ban any statement that isn't direct accessory to action).

Imperator_DK:

So?

A view on something doesn't suddenly become irrelevant because it comes from outside one's own border. It's quite healthy to be presented with a plurality of different world views, as it gives people more to choose from. If UK citizens end up wanting to adopt US policies, that's perfectly fine; That you don't like it is irrelevant.

Completely missing the point mate.

He's not arguing that exposure to other points of view is bad, he's arguing that a minority viewpoint in this country is using comment and support from outwith this country to present a false image to those in power and those who don't pay much attention to this sort of thing, that they are actually a massive majority, and as such are having a disproportionate effect on public policy.

The Tories, our "right wing" mainstream party, wasn't even capable of taking a majority in the last election despite a situation custom-made for them to exploit and which they did exploit; they are only in power today because of a coalition with a party which ran on left and left-of-centre manifesto pledges which it then threw out the window. Yet, this current government claims to be representing UK public opinion, and to have a mandate from the British people, because it can point to the editorial sections of the British press and say "they agree with us, and they represent the opinions of their readers". But if vast numbers of those readers, who are informing the editorials, -which are serving as justification for public policy- consist substantially of people who are not members of the British public, the entire chain of reasoning collapses, and the mandate of the mainstream-right to govern in the manner they have been vanishes like the illusion it is.

Sleekit:

that would be fine and well if they set out to represent themselves as "global media outlets" and they were not held up as representing "the British press" within British public life and Britain's political landscape...but they don't...and i cannot see how the editorial lines that grow symbiotically alongside a readership can remain simultaneously representative of single nations views while at the same time being reflective of vast numbers of people who are not from there.

Thats the thing. News outlets should report news, not represent views of certain groups. Thats what makes them news and not just some random opinions.
There is no such thing as a "single nation view". there are only a view that the largest group of a sigle nation agrees with. News outlets should be reporting news and leaving opinios to those who read it, regardless of their nationality.
shoving people into nations of "this is brittish, this is german, this is french" is problematic on itself, but thats a different topic.

infestation by foreign voices to the point in some cases its in danger of drowning out native voices simply because we share a language with others in this world is not.

foreign voices are no less important.

i very much doubt you would like it if in your national newspapers only every 10th comment was actually Danish and yet still your government and political system still looked to those papers as exemplars of Danish public opinion.

if my local newspapers would have comments from the rest of the world maybe the comment section would stop consisting of 100% pure feces. (i mean seriously they debate there how to hang our prime minister, on a news article about black holes). id love to have opinions on ANY news article from all over the world.

that i don't like it AS A UK citizen is not "irrelevant". this is my country and that's just insulting (and as it happens completely ignorant of my and my wider families level of engagement within the political process here).

it is irrelevant. it only becomes relevant if there is a proposition law that abolishes free speech.

internal national public discourse is not normally on "world views" rather it's more often than not on the specific minutia of a subject at hand as is the majority of domestic politics but when i talk of "conservatives" in a UK newspaper i want to talk about the UK torys, when i talk of "liberals" i wish to talk about the UK liberal party, and when talk of "republicans" what i mean is people who want to scrap the British monarchy. i do not want to be engaging in a discussion where all these words mean different f'ing things because the people populating the pages of that UK newspaper predominately come from somewhere else.

granted, you should be able to do so in appropriate articles. It falls onto the readers to comment on-topic. However baning outside commenters is not a solution against off-topic comments.

we are not all the same and we do not share the same homogenised global culture and your derisory comment about "left-leaning British pseudointellectuals think they're currently in love with, because they've seen a female cop in a sweater on TV." is part of your own expression of that: its a statement that is directly aimed at people you are scornful of because you see then as incorrectly thinking they know your nation due to an extremely limited exposure to it in their own media.

Yes, we share different cultures, and it is to our benefit that we can SHARE them in comments of news articles. you are the one who is scornful due to seeing those people as incorrectly thinking.

He's not arguing that exposure to other points of view is bad, he's arguing that a minority viewpoint in this country is using comment and support from outwith this country to present a false image to those in power and those who don't pay much attention to this sort of thing, that they are actually a massive majority, and as such are having a disproportionate effect on public policy.

actually, everything you just said is wrong.

Magichead:
...
He's not arguing that exposure to other points of view is bad, he's arguing that a minority viewpoint in this country is using comment and support from outwith this country to present a false image to those in power and those who don't pay much attention to this sort of thing, that they are actually a massive majority, and as such are having a disproportionate effect on public policy.
...

And your politicians:

A): In spite of presumably employing top media advisers can't see through such tactic.

B): Seriously allow internet comments on news sites to influence their decision-making.

Yep, utterly fucked indeed.

I really view this as more of a " propaganda issue".To me, it is no different than those infomercials that have "customer endorsement" even if they paid actors to say things nice about them. The issue should be one of teaching people to spot the " wolf in sheeps clothing" and be able to think things for themselves rather than one of trying to " limit exposure" to irritating outside points of view. The problem is allowing tabloid type media to control policy in the first place. If the people are not wise enough to see through this propaganda, the focus should be on educating the public before you can change what happens on the political stage.

If the people can't spot popaganda when they see it, there lies your poblem moreso than what the politians are doing with it. If everyone sees it for what it is, they will not use it as a tool anymore.

"outside voices " are not your problem here.

I've never heard of any UK government decisions based on online forum responses, well outside of draconic punishment for a few white guys who said things that offend the Holy Political Correctness of course, so I don't think that this is really an issue.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked