End of Freedom of Speech or a blow for Journalistic integrity?

Integrity is not bought. Correct. But you said the rest of us but again the point I make is that we are not paid to be because we are not in their position which holds power over opinion. Is a brick layer paid to be? or a Electrician?

We're not talking about the Iraq invasion. The point I made was his speech where he made fun of the reason we invaded Iraq was not blown up in which it should have been.
Where have I said that the Syrian government have not violated human rights? Please point it out.

 

No, what I'm saying is that there are honest and dishonest people in the world, and what profession you have makes no difference to your integrity.

So, because you don't like the way some journalists reported on a couple of issues, no journalists have integrity, how stupid.

 

You judge the company by the work the employees do don't you, Why should this case be any different?

Nice of you to point out where I said the Syrian government has not violated human rights.

Shouldn't try be the clever d1ck all the time.

 

An profession is not the same thing as a company.

I did no such thing.

 

True. But I am talking about Australian main stream (Daily Telegraph,Courier Mail,Sunday Mail,The Australian,Herald Sun,Sunday Telegraph and the Sunday Mail) which is owned by one corporation.

That's why I pointed it to in case you forgot.

 

I find it offensive that you call me stupid even though you have shown to be misleading in this thread.

 

So you want to retract your statement that journalist and integrity should not be used in the same sentence?

You were going on about unfair bias against the Syrian government. If you're saying that they violated human rights, then that's fine.

 

Why would I? The papers I mention are owned by a single corporation. An integral corporation does not mislead or present bias arguments.

If you cannot comprehend that's fine I will tell you, I was stating that they are giving us one side of the story; which forms a bias opinion.

I find it hilarious that you are trying to defend integrity despite lying in a previous post.

 

So it's just the Gaddafi regime you claim hasn't violated human rights, and the Syrian government has just been unfairly criticized by journalists, but apparently not the criticism that says they have violated human rights. Okay then.

This is what you said:

And then in the same paragraph that you claim that Gaddafi hasn't violated human rights, you defend the Syrian government against "bias" from people saying that they are abusing human rights.

But hey, if you're saying that the Syrian government are abusing human rights, then I accept that and I apologise and retract my earlier statement to the contrary.

 

I never said Gaddafi was good I said the fact he was represented as the leader of Libya was incorrect. And if he abused Human Rights why was he going to be award a "UN Human Rights" award, It does not add up. This fact was not presented in the media.

If you're too stupid to comprehend what is being said then that's fine and I understand. But what I think you are really doing is twisting words because you are wrong. I will say that again,Wrong.
If you can pin point where I said the Syrian Government is not abusing human rights, do so. Because what I said is the News is presenting a one sided / bias argument to the public without presenting all sides of the conflict, They are not getting the Governments side nor are they presenting the fact that the UN Peacekeepers are unsure what happened.

It is very sad to see a desperate move like this but it is expected from a liar.


I might point out the Journalist and Integrity comment I said, You said earlier

So if some journalists don't have integrity and repeatedly print their opinion/views that would mean the media company has no integrity. Therefore that would mean the journalist with integrity in fact has none as someone with integrity does not work for a company that is not, Unless motivated, Which in this case is money therefore greed is the motivator here and someone who is blind or quiet for money has no integrity.

 

What do you mean it was "not presented in the media"? It was presented in the media, presumably that's how you know about it in the first place. And the reason that he wasn't awarded for his human rights record is that his regime started massacring its own citizens, pretty obvious, no conspiracy.

What you said was that all journalists have no integrity and that all of the alleged human rights abuses reported from the opposition and civilians were a misrepresentation of events. I hope you don't actually expect the Syrian government to publicly admit to human rights abuses. No, you didn't outright say that the Syrian government hasn't violated human rights, I didn't say that you had. It was my opinion that it was your opinion. I may have been mistaken, and I'm still waiting for you to actually refute it instead of dancing around the issue, throwing a silly tantrum, and accusing me of being a "liar".

And yes they are reporting the governments side, you are just spouting nonsense.

What the hell are you even talking about? Do you stand by your original comment or not? This is just more nonsense.

 

He started "massacring" or better put "defending his state" after his soldiers were attacked by refugees,who attacked Libyans and stole weapons, that came from Egypt.

I was referring to Australian journalism. And as you can see from my link below there is another misrepresentation of events. Sucks to be wrong! but what really ticks me off is you calling me a liar.

You were mistaken so I think an apology is in order. You also quote

Again look at my link to see again you are indeed wrong.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/pr...ds-dead-in-syria/story-fnejo58q-1226426314275
Like this fresh one,Misleading title "Assad given a 'licence to kill'" Well if a license to kill means attacking after being attacked I would like a license also.

Yet you go to a foreign site;Let see one with credibility on this issue..I'll try Al Jazeera.
"“An army convoy was on its way to the region of Hama when it was attacked by the FSA,” he said. “The army staged a counter-attack with the support of [pro-regime] reinforcements from [nearby] Alawite villages. The FSA resisted for an hour before it was defeated,” AFP quoted the man named Jaafar."

I see none of that in the link I posted.

Nonsense? I'm using your own argument against you,which is right. How can someone with "integrity" work for a Corporation that does not have any? They would have to be motivated by something else other then ethics.You fail to put that together.

Despite the Leveson inquiry, How can a journalist with "integrity" work for such a ethic less company, You would have to argue that their ethics change country to country which is absurd.

 

"Hundreds of soldiers backed by helicopter gunships attacked Khirbet Ghazaleh in the province of Daraa - the cradle of a 16-month uprising - amid heavy gunfire, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said."

"Elsewhere, a pregnant woman was among 28 people killed across the country, the Observatory said"

"The Observatory was more cautious, saying "several dozen rebel fighters were among those killed," adding that only around 40 of the dead had been identified, while 30 were burned and 18 were "summarily executed"."

Wow, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is another opposition group yet this article does not divulge that information, Do you think that is misleading Ziggy?
"The SOHR which is often cited by mainstream media is run out of a two-bedroom terraced home in Coventry, UK"

 

You say you were referring to Australian Journalism, and apparently specifically News Ltd, so not even Australian journalism now either, and international media corporation all over the world. That does not in any way square with you blanket statement: "Journalism and integrity should never be used in the same sentence". DO YOU STAND BY THIS STATEMENT OR NOT? It's not a difficult question.

Now you are defending Gaddafi's human rights record, can't say I'm surprised.

You claim that there is "clear bias" against the Syrian govt, but what bias? Human rights watch, and the UN, and everyone except apparently you, is fully aware of the clear human rights violations by the Syrian government, and their constant denial that they are doing anything wrong.

I'm still waiting for you to admit that Assad and the Syrian govt have carried out appalling abuses of human rights. All you're doing in this post is yet again defending the regime against crticism by picking out ONE line from ONE news report.

So the Al Jazeera report spoke to one guy, an ACTIVIST, who says that the army convoy was attacked, and both of the reports say that a bunch of other people say that rebels were shelled by the army FIRST and the village was attacked.

There is no frickin bias there, they just spoke to different people. And I might add, the Daily Tele article quotes a spokesman for the military, the very thing you accuse them of NOT doing and therefore being biased.

They also clearly said:

Another thing you accuse them of NOT doing and therefore being biased.

And the "license to kill" thing relates to a comment by the UN bloke, bit sensationalist but then daily tele headlines are.

 

Before I respond to the latest, are you going to provide a link to the Al Jazeera article? Or are you just going to present ONE SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT?

 

I stand by what I said about Australian mainstream media.
Despite the Leveson inquiry, How can a journalist with "integrity" work for such a ethic less company, You would have to argue that their ethics change country to country which is absurd.

Nice misleading statement again.You stated something which was incorrect which asks why are you again misleading in your response.

He can't have a “license to kill” if he is defending himself. So why not include the quote? Because it suggests self defense and I cannot find anything in the link to suggest that. Can you.?

Whatever the UN investigation find them guilty of I will agree. I have never said they did not abuse human rights I clearly stated they are been misrepresented in the media, And I am correct.

Correct, But why was this not reported in the Telegraph link? Without the quote that supports the Rebels more than the Government. License to kill? It was self defense, but again I ask why did they not put that quote in that supports it was.

If it wasn't bias, they would represent the Government with better statements. They did not.

The quote in that link does not specifically point out “Assad”, He lashes out at the Assad regime but we could interpt that was “Angry at Assad for the attack because it could mean bad retaliation”.Misrepresented.


Let me ask you,Who has more gain out of this. Assad knows he can destroy the FSA,Everyone else knows this, so what would be the best way to defeat Assad? By getting the World on side of the FSA, and it is a good time as a UN meeting is just around the corner.

 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-assads-genocide/story-e6frg6so-1226425717128

 

I know man contributes to climate change, i just at this point am not sure if we are just delaying the next ice age or what, needs more investigation imo

 

You didn't say anything about Australian mainstream media, you said: "Journalism and integrity should never be used in the same sentence". What you DIDN'T say was "The Australian branch of News Ltd and integrity should never be used in the same sentence".

Meh, if you keep peddling the line that he was just "defending himself", I will keep calling BS.

Take it up with the UN official. You cannot PROVE he was "defending himself", he certainly wasn't actually defending his immediate self as he quite obviously wasn't there. What makes you think they GOT the quote at all? What makes you think it's accurate?

So you are correct, because you say you are correct. No, I'm sorry, that doesn't cut it.

Suddenly all news sources are supposed to quote the exact same people? No. Self defense? LOL! What EVIDENCE do you have of that? The word of ONE so-called Activist who was apparently there to see it happen, according to him. What kind of delusional world do you live in? You have decided that the Syrian army killed an estimated 150 people in "self defense" because ONE random person in ONE article said something that vaguely suggested that? Dear oh dear...

LOL! So, representing the Syrian regime, with the spokesman for the Syrian military, isn't acceptable for you because it doesn't favour the goverment enough? Hillarious.

The phrase "licence to kill" was CLEARLY used by the UN official in regards to the Assad regime and the ongoing massacres. The context of the headline was right under it with the full quote, and the full quote was in the article as well. "Given" is a bit misleading, more like "has".

Oh wow, your fascinating insight that just happens to be the same line pedaled by the Syrian regime, how unsurprising. Have any EVIDENCE to back up your claim?

And Al Jazeera have cited the Observatory numerous times in many articles, and they do not say it's an "opposition group", but they do say it's "UK-based". Doesn't stop tele readers spending 10 seconds googling them as you apparently did.

 

My quote was obviously referring to the OP and the OP is refering to Australian journalism therefore it is only logical to think I am referring to Australian as that is the topic being discussed here., You're taking it out of context because you have nothing else to cling on to.

Why are you getting technical because you know that is not what I mean. Is it because you have nothing to say so you are trying to resort to trolling;”Take it up with the UN official.”

It has been reported by several medias in different countries therefore it has base, If you think its not accurate please provide proof or else accept it and say “You are right..again” LOL

You have mislead several times, Can't trust a liar.

Quotes been reported in the Australian and by the Syrian news paper have also supported this claim. “Most of those killed were believed to be Free Syrian Army fighters,”

It does not give the full story. They were attacked and responded. Highlight in the article where it states that. You can't. LOL

“Has” a license to kill? I suppose you can support these claims or again have posted another misleading comment.

FSA have been fighting and losing. They don't start a chance against the army and its technology. So it's only logical that intervention is the sole key to success.

What else do you suggest I do to research them? Please do tell.
So you think its ok if group called “United Syria Peace Council” which was in fact a Pro-Assad was quoted in the paper with out any clarification of who they are, Are you lost in your own little word. You have nothing to go on. Just apologise so we can move on.

 

"Journalism" is not interchangeable with "News Ltd", and it never will be, no matter the context. It's you who apparently cannot admit that you either misspoke or changed your mind.

It has been reported that some random activist said that the army was attacked, so that makes it true and accurate? And everyone that makes contrary claims are wrong, because YOU say they are. Amazing.

Pathetic.

That doesn't support your claim that the army was defending itself.

And you latch onto ONE random activist guy, and state that HE gives the "full story", ridiculous.

It's more accurate to what the UN official said, I assume you have actually read the article. But that was probably giving you too much credit.

So they're killing themselves on mass? Is that your hypothesis?

Nothing wrong with googling them, and if even you can manage it, I'm sure anyone else who reads the article can also manage the few seconds it takes to do a google search.

I just think it's completely hilarious that a group doesn't have a full background in a Tele article and that's a scandal of bias, and yet Al Jazeera doesn't say that it's an opposition group when it quotes the group in numerous articles, and that's a good source of unbiased news. You are completely inconsistent.

You have a clear bias in FAVOUR of Gaddafi and the Syrian regime, just admit it, and then we can move on. Apparently you just trawl through articles looking for anything to confirm your ridiculous bias that the Syrian regime is a victim.

Any background on the random "Activist" who claims that the army was attacked? Let me guess... No. But THAT doesn't matter because he supports YOUR bias.

I'm really getting bored with this nonsense. You read these two articles, and others, none of which support YOUR claim that the army was in the right and acted in "self defence", and you pick out ONE unconfirmed witness, from the many that give contrary accounts, because he supports your bias that the regime is a victim. Ridiculous.

 

I have not misspoken or changed my mind, If you can point where I have said that go ahead. The media outlets I highlighted happened to be owned by News Ltd. And you want to get technical, If you work for a Company which has recently been exposed for its ethics, Where is the “integrity” in that?

Last night an activist with the “anti-regime” , This random??? LOL. I'm not saying their wrong the fact of the matter it was a “civilian” massacre and now it turns out it is not.

Yes you are.

Seeing as earlier reports were “Civilian” massacre which turned out to be wrong, And the activist who made the statement is “anti-regime”. You're still trying to argue about this subject? If you wish to discredit me. Post links or just apologise and lets be done.

Can you not get it through to your head? It was “Civilians” massacred but it was Rebels who were killed.

“Rebel leader Abu Mohamad, whose fighters are based near the village, said more than 200 people were slaughtered.”
WRONG.

Seeing as your trying to play clever knob here, I assume you have evidence of this License?
“I call upon all member states to take collective and decisive action to immediately and fully stop the tragedy unfolding in Syria. Inaction becomes a licence for further massacres,” he said.

The full quote, I see no direct comments toward Assad. Again the article is misrepresenting.

Only a certain group conducts itself in this manner, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-four-in-syrian-town-of-muhrada-7944145.html

Why should they have to google to find out that they are Rebel supporters?? Obviously they need to because they can't trust the paper sources.

So in other words you think it is OK to publish uninformed and misleading opinions..How is that not suppose to be bias?

Again the misleading comments, It's staggering, do you always make things up? Where have I said the regime is innoncent or Gaddafi was a good person; I have asked this several times so either shut up or show me where I said this.

Yea hes “anti” Assad.

 

You know what's really funny?

When I asked for the Al Jazeera article, you linked me to THE AUSTRALIAN.

The irony is immense. I guess this means you owe me an apology. News Ltd Paper, the national paper as well, reporting EVERYTHING that you that you said only a News Corporation with "integrity" would print.

I still have no idea how you can positively claim with authority that the Syrian army acted in "self defense", based entirely on the testimony of one Activist. Especially when you started your rantings by comdemning the medias reporting of Activists.

Other Activists don't support his version of events, other villagers don't, the Syrian army doesn't, the UN hasn't confirmed anything, and no one knows the true body count yet. And yet apparently this Activist is what you base your entire "it was self defense" theory on.

You complain that the initial reports were misleading, and now your latching onto still unconfirmed reports because they apparently sit well with your bias.

Let's just see how many dead there are.

Frankly there's a pretty good chance that no one will ever figure out just exactly WTF happened. One thing is for sure, NO ONE has clean hands, least of all your precious Assad regime.

And:

Way to cut me off mid sentence and completely misrepresent what I said, "can't trust a liar" like you. You apparently cannot apply your own standards of what you consider "bias" across all media equally. In other words, you're biased. Or are you going to condemn Al Jazeera as having no integrity for doing exactly what you criticised the Tele for doing? No... that would require too much integrity and logical consistency, dam.

Oh, is it wrong? Is it really? Is Abu Mohamad not a "Rebel leader"? Are his fighters not based "near the village"? Or did he not say that "more than 200 people were slaughtered." Think carefully, but don't hurt yourself.

I never said that you said that Gaddafi was a "good person" or that the Syrian regime is "innocent", way to be "misleading" and "misrepresent", just like that (*)(*)(*)(*)ed News Ltd paper, The Australian.

Hmmm... yup, I think that's about it.

 

You have stated the obvious here,Are you some sort of genius?
It still represents what I said and shows the Daily Telegraph article to be grossly misleading.I Lost the link unforunately.

Then why was the Daily telegraph so misleading and twisting what was being said? Daily Telegraph is owned by News Ltd.

What does he have to gain by saying what he said? Nothing. But if he had of said the opposite he would have a lot more gain.

 

Fortunately, We can all see what has happened here. Frankly, I would wonder why your opponent can not see, How they have got it wrong.

Really Ziggy, I don't think you are going to get any sense here.