Should telling lies be illegal?

[J Newman]

I have a theory that the world would be a better place if lying and
distortion of facts would be made illegal and taboo. If children were
brought up to eschew even small lies and culture as a whole avoids lying
- what would society look like? Dystopian with a Ministry of Truth? Or
something better?


Reasoning:
==========
The vast majority of human-made catastrophes—whether wars, terrorism,
extremism, fraud, or other crises—are fundamentally rooted in porkies or
deliberate distortions of truth. These lies often serve as catalysts,
justifications, or amplifiers for destructive events. Here are a few
examples across categories:

War
False pretexts: Many wars have been initiated based on fabricated or
exaggerated claims. For example:
The Iraq War (2003) was justified by claims of weapons of mass
destruction (WMDs) that were later proven false.
Propaganda: Leaders and governments have often used propaganda to
manipulate public opinion, masking aggression as self-defense or moral duty.


Terrorism
Ideological lies: Extremist groups often propagate lies or distort
religious, ideological, or cultural beliefs to recruit followers and
justify violence.
For example, groups like ISIS have misinterpreted and manipulated
religious texts to rationalize terror.
False flag operations: Instances where groups stage attacks to frame
others, creating justifications for violence or repression.


Extremism
Misinformation: Extremist movements often thrive on conspiracy theories
and distorted narratives.
The rise of Nazism in Germany was fueled by anti-Semitic lies, such as
the baseless claim that Jews were responsible for Germany's defeat in
World War I.



Fraud
Deception by design: Financial frauds and scandals, like the Bernie
Madoff Ponzi scheme, rely on lies to sustain themselves until collapse.
Corporate disasters like Enron's collapse were the result of systemic
deceit about financial health.

[Jeff Gaines]

Post by J Newman
I have a theory that the world would be a better place if lying and
distortion of facts would be made illegal and taboo. If children were
brought up to eschew even small lies and culture as a whole avoids lying -
what would society look like? Dystopian with a Ministry of Truth? Or
something better?

But what about Father Christmas?

[John Levine]

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by J Newman
I have a theory that the world would be a better place if lying and
distortion of facts would be made illegal and taboo. If children were
brought up to eschew even small lies and culture as a whole avoids lying -
what would society look like? Dystopian with a Ministry of Truth? Or
something better?

But what about Father Christmas?

No, darling, that dress does not make you look fat.

[Theo]

Post by John Levine

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by J Newman
I have a theory that the world would be a better place if lying and
distortion of facts would be made illegal and taboo. If children were
brought up to eschew even small lies and culture as a whole avoids lying -
what would society look like? Dystopian with a Ministry of Truth? Or
something better?

But what about Father Christmas?

No, darling, that dress does not make you look fat.

Every statement should be backed up with supporting evidence [citation-needed]

Theo

[Jeff Gaines]

Post by Theo

Post by John Levine

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by J Newman
I have a theory that the world would be a better place if lying and
distortion of facts would be made illegal and taboo. If children were
brought up to eschew even small lies and culture as a whole avoids lying -
what would society look like? Dystopian with a Ministry of Truth? Or
something better?

But what about Father Christmas?

No, darling, that dress does not make you look fat.

Every statement should be backed up with supporting evidence
[citation-needed]
Theo

Are you saying I look fat in this?

[Theo]

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Theo

Post by John Levine

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by J Newman
I have a theory that the world would be a better place if lying and
distortion of facts would be made illegal and taboo. If children were
brought up to eschew even small lies and culture as a whole avoids lying -
what would society look like? Dystopian with a Ministry of Truth? Or
something better?

But what about Father Christmas?

No, darling, that dress does not make you look fat.

Every statement should be backed up with supporting evidence
[citation-needed]

Are you saying I look fat in this?

Of course not dear. [weasel-words][dubious]

[Roland Perry]

Post by Theo

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Theo

Post by John Levine
No, darling, that dress does not make you look fat.

Every statement should be backed up with supporting evidence
[citation-needed]

Are you saying I look fat in this?

Of course not dear. [weasel-words][dubious]

I thought the QA was more like:

"Does this dress make me look fat"?
"No, it's your huge belly which makes you look fat".

[GB]

Post by John Levine

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by J Newman
I have a theory that the world would be a better place if lying and
distortion of facts would be made illegal and taboo. If children were
brought up to eschew even small lies and culture as a whole avoids lying -
what would society look like? Dystopian with a Ministry of Truth? Or
something better?

But what about Father Christmas?

No, darling, that dress does not make you look fat.

Indeed. I don't think we could function in normal society if we only
spoke the truth.

[jon]

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by J Newman
I have a theory that the world would be a better place if lying and
distortion of facts would be made illegal and taboo. If children were
brought up to eschew even small lies and culture as a whole avoids lying -
what would society look like? Dystopian with a Ministry of Truth? Or
something better?

But what about Father Christmas?

......and God.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by J Newman
I have a theory that the world would be a better place if lying and
distortion of facts would be made illegal and taboo. If children were
brought up to eschew even small lies and culture as a whole avoids lying
- what would society look like? Dystopian with a Ministry of Truth? Or
something better?
==========
The vast majority of human-made catastrophes—whether wars, terrorism,
extremism, fraud, or other crises—are fundamentally rooted in porkies or
deliberate distortions of truth. These lies often serve as catalysts,
justifications, or amplifiers for destructive events. Here are a few
War
False pretexts: Many wars have been initiated based on fabricated or
The Iraq War (2003) was justified by claims of weapons of mass
destruction (WMDs) that were later proven false.
Propaganda: Leaders and governments have often used propaganda to
manipulate public opinion, masking aggression as self-defense or moral duty.
Terrorism
Ideological lies: Extremist groups often propagate lies or distort
religious, ideological, or cultural beliefs to recruit followers and
justify violence.
For example, groups like ISIS have misinterpreted and manipulated
religious texts to rationalize terror.
False flag operations: Instances where groups stage attacks to frame
others, creating justifications for violence or repression.
Extremism
Misinformation: Extremist movements often thrive on conspiracy theories
and distorted narratives.
The rise of Nazism in Germany was fueled by anti-Semitic lies, such as
the baseless claim that Jews were responsible for Germany's defeat in
World War I.
Fraud
Deception by design: Financial frauds and scandals, like the Bernie
Madoff Ponzi scheme, rely on lies to sustain themselves until collapse.
Corporate disasters like Enron's collapse were the result of systemic
deceit about financial health.

All true to an extent. But if you think that any but the very simplest
question has a single true answer I suspect you are mistaken.

And "taboo" is fair enough, but the police force to police lies being illegal
could tend to be somewhat oppressive.

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 03:15:34 +0800, J Newman

Post by J Newman
I have a theory that the world would be a better place if lying and
distortion of facts would be made illegal and taboo. If children were
brought up to eschew even small lies and culture as a whole avoids lying
- what would society look like? Dystopian with a Ministry of Truth? Or
something better?

Your first problem would be defining lies and distortion. To keep in
tune with the time of year, is telling children about Santa Claus a
lie and a distortion?

Post by J Newman
==========
The vast majority of human-made catastrophes—whether wars, terrorism,
extremism, fraud, or other crises—are fundamentally rooted in porkies or
deliberate distortions of truth. These lies often serve as catalysts,
justifications, or amplifiers for destructive events. Here are a few
War
False pretexts: Many wars have been initiated based on fabricated or
The Iraq War (2003) was justified by claims of weapons of mass
destruction (WMDs) that were later proven false.
Propaganda: Leaders and governments have often used propaganda to
manipulate public opinion, masking aggression as self-defense or moral duty.
Terrorism
Ideological lies: Extremist groups often propagate lies or distort
religious, ideological, or cultural beliefs to recruit followers and
justify violence.
For example, groups like ISIS have misinterpreted and manipulated
religious texts to rationalize terror.
False flag operations: Instances where groups stage attacks to frame
others, creating justifications for violence or repression.
Extremism
Misinformation: Extremist movements often thrive on conspiracy theories
and distorted narratives.
The rise of Nazism in Germany was fueled by anti-Semitic lies, such as
the baseless claim that Jews were responsible for Germany's defeat in
World War I.
Fraud
Deception by design: Financial frauds and scandals, like the Bernie
Madoff Ponzi scheme, rely on lies to sustain themselves until collapse.
Corporate disasters like Enron's collapse were the result of systemic
deceit about financial health.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by J Newman
I have a theory that the world would be a better place if lying and
distortion of facts would be made illegal and taboo. If children were
brought up to eschew even small lies and culture as a whole avoids lying
- what would society look like? Dystopian with a Ministry of Truth? Or
something better?
==========
The vast majority of human-made catastrophes—whether wars, terrorism,
extremism, fraud, or other crises—are fundamentally rooted in porkies or
deliberate distortions of truth. These lies often serve as catalysts,
justifications, or amplifiers for destructive events. Here are a few
War False pretexts: Many wars have been initiated based on fabricated or
The Iraq War (2003) was justified by claims of weapons of mass
destruction (WMDs) that were later proven false.
Propaganda: Leaders and governments have often used propaganda to
manipulate public opinion, masking aggression as self-defense or moral duty.
Terrorism Ideological lies: Extremist groups often propagate lies or
distort religious, ideological, or cultural beliefs to recruit followers
and justify violence.
For example, groups like ISIS have misinterpreted and manipulated
religious texts to rationalize terror.
False flag operations: Instances where groups stage attacks to frame
others, creating justifications for violence or repression.
Extremism Misinformation: Extremist movements often thrive on conspiracy
theories and distorted narratives.
The rise of Nazism in Germany was fueled by anti-Semitic lies, such as
the baseless claim that Jews were responsible for Germany's defeat in
World War I.
Fraud Deception by design: Financial frauds and scandals, like the
Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme, rely on lies to sustain themselves until
collapse. Corporate disasters like Enron's collapse were the result of
systemic deceit about financial health.

One mans lie is another mans interpretation of the facts.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by J Newman
I have a theory that the world would be a better place if lying and
distortion of facts would be made illegal and taboo. If children were
brought up to eschew even small lies and culture as a whole avoids lying
- what would society look like? Dystopian with a Ministry of Truth? Or
something better?

Clearly worse. Are you aware of any country that has even managed
to do the bare minimum of making it illegal to tell outright lies
in mass-circulation newspapers or television, without that being
a blatant tool to silence anti-government criticism?

[miked]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by J Newman
I have a theory that the world would be a better place if lying and
distortion of facts would be made illegal and taboo. If children were
brought up to eschew even small lies and culture as a whole avoids lying
- what would society look like? Dystopian with a Ministry of Truth? Or
something better?

I thought if you tell lies in a court of law, it is perjury and it is
illegal.
I'm sure on many occasions if people or institutions tell lies publicly
they are prosecuted. But someone has to disclose the lie first and prove
it is a lie.

Post by Jon Ribbens
Clearly worse. Are you aware of any country that has even managed
to do the bare minimum of making it illegal to tell outright lies
in mass-circulation newspapers or television, without that being
a blatant tool to silence anti-government criticism?

yes it shouldnt be up to a govt to decide what is a lie.

What if everyone in society told lies all the time? How would society
function?
In countries like Russia, China, Iran many citizens disbelieve what
their govts say, but the rulers dont mind as long as they are too afraid
to say so, or so scared that they distrust everyone else, like under
Assad.

mike

[Pancho]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by J Newman
I have a theory that the world would be a better place if lying and
distortion of facts would be made illegal and taboo. If children were
brought up to eschew even small lies and culture as a whole avoids lying
- what would society look like? Dystopian with a Ministry of Truth? Or
something better?

Clearly worse. Are you aware of any country that has even managed
to do the bare minimum of making it illegal to tell outright lies
in mass-circulation newspapers or television, without that being
a blatant tool to silence anti-government criticism?

The problem with the MSM is not so much that they tell outright lies, it
is more that they distort the truth. They do this by: biased reporting,
loaded language, over reporting stories supporting their bias, and
burying stories that contradict their bias.

Burying is done by hiding stories in pages that are hard to get to, or
that are only prominent for a short period. In effect stories that you
don't stumble across by chance, but that you can find with a specific
Google search. Thus the publications disingenuously claim they did
report the story fairly, and use the search availability as proof.

Social media and non mainstream publication do tell outright lies, but
they also expose the stories that the MSM try to hide.

I think the trick is to let social media bring stories to our attention,
and then search the MSM for confirmation of their veracity.

[JNugent]

Post by Pancho

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by J Newman
I have a theory that the world would be a better place if lying and
distortion of facts would be made illegal and taboo. If children were
brought up to eschew even small lies and culture as a whole avoids lying
- what would society look like? Dystopian with a Ministry of Truth? Or
something better?

Clearly worse. Are you aware of any country that has even managed
to do the bare minimum of making it illegal to tell outright lies
in mass-circulation newspapers or television, without that being
a blatant tool to silence anti-government criticism?

The problem with the MSM is not so much that they tell outright lies, it
is more that they distort the truth. They do this by: biased reporting,
loaded language, over reporting stories supporting their bias, and
burying  stories that contradict their bias.

Yes. That's The Guardian all over, all day long.

[billy bookcase]

Post by JNugent

The problem with the MSM is not so much that they tell outright lies, it is more that
they distort the truth. They do this by: biased reporting, loaded language, over
reporting stories supporting their bias, and burying stories that contradict their
bias.

Yes. That's The Guardian all over, all day long.

Whereas your own news outlet of choice reports on every single piece
of news happening* anywhere in the world 24 hrs. a day 365 days a year.
And not only reports on it, but employs at least two or three fact checkers
on the spot to verify the source.

Which because its all on the internet nowadays we all get to read for free

It's a wonder you find any time to do anything else !



bb

* Everything from the Middle East to Local Councillors on the take.
Sorry, did I say "news" ? (Joke)

[JNugent]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

The problem with the MSM is not so much that they tell outright lies, it is more that
they distort the truth. They do this by: biased reporting, loaded language, over
reporting stories supporting their bias, and burying stories that contradict their
bias.

Yes. That's The Guardian all over, all day long.

Whereas your own news outlet of choice reports on every single piece
of news happening* anywhere in the world 24 hrs. a day 365 days a year.
And not only reports on it, but employs at least two or three fact checkers
on the spot to verify the source.
Which because its all on the internet nowadays we all get to read for free
It's a wonder you find any time to do anything else !
* Everything from the Middle East to Local Councillors on the take.
Sorry, did I say "news" ? (Joke)

If you are saying that not everything that happens absolutely anywhere
and everywhere around the world is necessarily relevant news for the
UK's readers, I don't disagree.

But the Guardian...

Honestly, just look at today's "front page" on the online version...

<https://www.theguardian.com/uk>

And if you can face it, a look at their "Opinion" page(s).

[billy bookcase]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

The problem with the MSM is not so much that they tell outright lies, it is more that
they distort the truth. They do this by: biased reporting, loaded language, over
reporting stories supporting their bias, and burying stories that contradict their
bias.

Yes. That's The Guardian all over, all day long.

Whereas your own news outlet of choice reports on every single piece
of news happening* anywhere in the world 24 hrs. a day 365 days a year.
And not only reports on it, but employs at least two or three fact checkers
on the spot to verify the source.
Which because its all on the internet nowadays we all get to read for free
It's a wonder you find any time to do anything else !
* Everything from the Middle East to Local Councillors on the take.
Sorry, did I say "news" ? (Joke)

If you are saying that not everything that happens absolutely anywhere and everywhere
around the world is necessarily relevant news for the UK's readers, I don't disagree.
But the Guardian...

But why would you want to waste your time reading news sources, with
which you so clearly disagree ?

"The Manchester Guardian" was after all. founded in 1821, and I can't imagine
it was never on sale in Liverpool, either before or after the name change,

So when are you suggesting the change came about ?

( For me it was when Rushbridger decided to hire Julie Burchill to write a
Saturday Column, sending up his own readers. Not that they didn't need
sending up; but expecting them to pay for the privilege so as to
fund Ms Burchill's self confessed habit, was a step too far IMO )


bb

[JNugent]

[ ... ]

Post by billy bookcase

If you are saying that not everything that happens absolutely anywhere and everywhere
around the world is necessarily relevant news for the UK's readers, I don't disagree.
But the Guardian...

But why would you want to waste your time reading news sources, with
which you so clearly disagree ?

Eh?

What would be the point of reading only news sources with whom one is in
agreement?

Post by billy bookcase
"The Manchester Guardian" was after all. founded in 1821, and I can't imagine
it was never on sale in Liverpool, either before or after the name change,
So when are you suggesting the change came about ?

I don't recall when that was. I can triangulate it to somewhere in the
mid C20, as I remember a lecturer referring to it (c. 1968) as the
Manchester Guardian, from his own experience as a reader. H'd have been
about 45 - 50.

Post by billy bookcase
( For me it was when Rushbridger decided to hire Julie Burchill to write a
Saturday Column, sending up his own readers. Not that they didn't need
sending up; but expecting them to pay for the privilege so as to
fund Ms Burchill's self confessed habit, was a step too far IMO )

It isn't the only journal to do that. Mind you, it does carry on the
tradition even now. Owen Jones becauses incandescent at the thought of
bien-pensant chatterati criticism and denigration of the working class.
It's one of very few things where I find myself in some measure of
sympathy with him.

[billy bookcase]

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by billy bookcase

If you are saying that not everything that happens absolutely anywhere and everywhere
around the world is necessarily relevant news for the UK's readers, I don't disagree.
But the Guardian...

But why would you want to waste your time reading news sources, with
which you so clearly disagree ?

Eh?
What would be the point of reading only news sources with whom one is in agreement?

Well let's just say that Alfred Harmsworth, Lord Beaverbook, and latterly Rupert
Murdoch took the opposite view; and became very rich as a result.

The last thing anyone needs while downing their cornflakes in the morning,
is having their fundamental assumptions and prejudices called into question.

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase
"The Manchester Guardian" was after all. founded in 1821, and I can't imagine
it was never on sale in Liverpool, either before or after the name change,
So when are you suggesting the change came about ?

I don't recall when that was. I can triangulate it to somewhere in the mid C20, as I
remember a lecturer referring to it (c. 1968) as the Manchester Guardian, from his own
experience as a reader. H'd have been about 45 - 50.

The point I was making was that during the whole of your lifetime, after "The Daily
Telegraph" and "The Times" "The [Manchester]Guardian" was the third highest selling
broadsheet newspaper in the UK. As must surely have been evident from news-stands,
racks outside newsagents, station bookstalls etc.etc.if nowhere else,

Whereas you only seem to have become aware of its existence in the past few weeks
or so

snip

Post by JNugent
Owen Jones bec[omes]incandescent at the thought of bien-pensant chatterati criticism
and denigration of the working class. It's one of very few things where I find myself
in some measure of sympathy with him.

Although sadly he's unlikely to ever know,



bb

[JNugent]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by billy bookcase

If you are saying that not everything that happens absolutely anywhere and everywhere
around the world is necessarily relevant news for the UK's readers, I don't disagree.
But the Guardian...

But why would you want to waste your time reading news sources, with
which you so clearly disagree ?

Eh?
What would be the point of reading only news sources with whom one is in agreement?

Well let's just say that Alfred Harmsworth, Lord Beaverbook, and latterly Rupert
Murdoch took the opposite view; and became very rich as a result.

Did they?

But when did they try to ban the (Manchester) Guardian, the Daily Mirror
and the Daily Sketch?

I have never heard of that.

Post by billy bookcase
The last thing anyone needs while downing their cornflakes in the morning,
is having their fundamental assumptions and prejudices called into question.

The Guardian is not capable of doing that to me, I assure you!

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase
"The Manchester Guardian" was after all. founded in 1821, and I can't imagine
it was never on sale in Liverpool, either before or after the name change,
So when are you suggesting the change came about ?

I don't recall when that was. I can triangulate it to somewhere in the mid C20, as I
remember a lecturer referring to it (c. 1968) as the Manchester Guardian, from his own
experience as a reader. H'd have been about 45 - 50.

The point I was making was that during the whole of your lifetime, after "The Daily
Telegraph" and "The Times" "The [Manchester]Guardian" was the third highest selling
broadsheet newspaper in the UK. As must surely have been evident from news-stands,
racks outside newsagents, station bookstalls etc.etc.if nowhere else,

That's a statistic without much significance, since the Daily Mirror,
until about the mid-1960s, was the top-selling daily. Of course, it was
eventually overtaken and eclipsed by The Sun, but between the two of
those, they must have outsold all the "quality" broadsheets. And the
Guardian.

Post by billy bookcase
Whereas you only seem to have become aware of its existence in the past few weeks
or so

Are you really claiming that I had never heard of the Guardian /
Manchester Guardian until the "past few weeks", even though I told you I
can remember someone mentioning the name change to me in about 1968?

Post by billy bookcase
snip

Post by JNugent
Owen Jones bec[omes]incandescent at the thought of bien-pensant chatterati criticism
and denigration of the working class. It's one of very few things where I find myself
in some measure of sympathy with him.

Although sadly he's unlikely to ever know,

Most people are right on at least one or two things. Jones is no exception.

[billy bookcase]

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by billy bookcase

If you are saying that not everything that happens absolutely anywhere and
everywhere
around the world is necessarily relevant news for the UK's readers, I don't
disagree.
But the Guardian...

But why would you want to waste your time reading news sources, with
which you so clearly disagree ?

Eh?
What would be the point of reading only news sources with whom one is in agreement?

Well let's just say that Alfred Harmsworth, Lord Beaverbook, and latterly Rupert
Murdoch took the opposite view; and became very rich as a result.

Did they?

Yes.

< gross snippage>


bb

[Pamela]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by Pancho
The problem with the MSM is not so much that they tell outright
biased reporting, loaded language, over reporting stories
supporting their bias, and burying stories that contradict their
bias.

Yes. That's The Guardian all over, all day long.

Whereas your own news outlet of choice reports on every single piece
of news happening* anywhere in the world 24 hrs. a day 365 days a
year. And not only reports on it, but employs at least two or three
fact checkers on the spot to verify the source.
Which because its all on the internet nowadays we all get to read for free
It's a wonder you find any time to do anything else !
* Everything from the Middle East to Local Councillors on the take.
Sorry, did I say "news" ? (Joke)

If you are saying that not everything that happens absolutely
anywhere and everywhere around the world is necessarily relevant news
for the UK's readers, I don't disagree.
But the Guardian...

But why would you want to waste your time reading news sources, with
which you so clearly disagree ?
"The Manchester Guardian" was after all. founded in 1821, and I can't
imagine it was never on sale in Liverpool, either before or after the
name change,
So when are you suggesting the change came about ?
( For me it was when Rushbridger decided to hire Julie Burchill to
write a Saturday Column, sending up his own readers. Not that they
didn't need sending up; but expecting them to pay for the privilege so
as to fund Ms Burchill's self confessed habit, was a step too far IMO
)
bb

Any mention of Rusbridger at the Guardian brings to mind Piers Morgan's
interview of him some years ago, which displayed the hypocrisy behind
Rusbridger's own worthy socialist image.

[billy bookcase]

Post by Pamela
Any mention of Rusbridger at the Guardian brings to mind Piers Morgan's
interview of him some years ago, which displayed the hypocrisy behind
Rusbridger's own worthy socialist image.

The [Manchester]Guardian always was, and is, a Liberal newspaper
which values personal liberty, i.e the rights of the individual
including the right to private property, along with private
enterprise, pluralism the existence of numerous influential groups
within society and a limited role for the State.

Principles which I'd. imagine Rusbridger would be broadly in agreement
with.

This shouldn't be confused with socialism, which in theory at
least values equality above all else; even if this is at the
expense of individual liberty and private property; ideally
achieved through taxation administered by an all encompassing
State apparatus.

Which I would imagine Rusbridger wouldn't be in favour of.


bb

[JNugent]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Pamela
Any mention of Rusbridger at the Guardian brings to mind Piers Morgan's
interview of him some years ago, which displayed the hypocrisy behind
Rusbridger's own worthy socialist image.

The [Manchester]Guardian always was, and is, a Liberal newspaper
which values personal liberty, i.e the rights of the individual
including the right to private property, along with private
enterprise, pluralism the existence of numerous influential groups
within society and a limited role for the State.
Principles which I'd. imagine Rusbridger would be broadly in agreement
with.
This shouldn't be confused with socialism, which in theory at
least values equality above all else; even if this is at the
expense of individual liberty and private property; ideally
achieved through taxation administered by an all encompassing
State apparatus.
Which I would imagine Rusbridger wouldn't be in favour of.

He was certainly not in favour of it for The Guardian.

[billy bookcase]

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Pamela
Any mention of Rusbridger at the Guardian brings to mind Piers Morgan's
interview of him some years ago, which displayed the hypocrisy behind
Rusbridger's own worthy socialist image.

The [Manchester]Guardian always was, and is, a Liberal newspaper
which values personal liberty, i.e the rights of the individual
including the right to private property, along with private
enterprise, pluralism the existence of numerous influential groups
within society and a limited role for the State.
Principles which I'd. imagine Rusbridger would be broadly in agreement
with.
This shouldn't be confused with socialism, which in theory at
least values equality above all else; even if this is at the
expense of individual liberty and private property; ideally
achieved through taxation administered by an all encompassing
State apparatus.
Which I would imagine Rusbridger wouldn't be in favour of.

He was certainly not in favour of it for The Guardian.

So who ever claimed that he should have been ?


bb

[Roger Hayter]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Pamela
Any mention of Rusbridger at the Guardian brings to mind Piers Morgan's
interview of him some years ago, which displayed the hypocrisy behind
Rusbridger's own worthy socialist image.

The [Manchester]Guardian always was, and is, a Liberal newspaper
which values personal liberty, i.e the rights of the individual
including the right to private property, along with private
enterprise, pluralism the existence of numerous influential groups
within society and a limited role for the State.
Principles which I'd. imagine Rusbridger would be broadly in agreement
with.
This shouldn't be confused with socialism, which in theory at
least values equality above all else; even if this is at the
expense of individual liberty and private property; ideally
achieved through taxation administered by an all encompassing
State apparatus.
Which I would imagine Rusbridger wouldn't be in favour of.

He was certainly not in favour of it for The Guardian.

So who ever claimed that he should have been ?
bb

Certain parties seem fond of claiming that the Guardian is "left-wing" or
"socialist", despite this being patently untrue. These seem to be parties who
regard any political or social opinion they don't like as being "left wing",
even the climate campaigners who are clearly not remotely left wing.

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Roger Hayter
Certain parties seem fond of claiming that the Guardian is "left-wing" or
"socialist", despite this being patently untrue. These seem to be parties who
regard any political or social opinion they don't like as being "left wing",
even the climate campaigners who are clearly not remotely left wing.

I think it's fair to say that the Guardian's position is broadly
left-of-centre. I wouldn't call it socialist, though.

Mark

[JNugent]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Pamela
Any mention of Rusbridger at the Guardian brings to mind Piers Morgan's
interview of him some years ago, which displayed the hypocrisy behind
Rusbridger's own worthy socialist image.

The [Manchester]Guardian always was, and is, a Liberal newspaper
which values personal liberty, i.e the rights of the individual
including the right to private property, along with private
enterprise, pluralism the existence of numerous influential groups
within society and a limited role for the State.
Principles which I'd. imagine Rusbridger would be broadly in agreement
with.
This shouldn't be confused with socialism, which in theory at
least values equality above all else; even if this is at the
expense of individual liberty and private property; ideally
achieved through taxation administered by an all encompassing
State apparatus.
Which I would imagine Rusbridger wouldn't be in favour of.

He was certainly not in favour of it for The Guardian.

So who ever claimed that he should have been ?

His publication seems to be broadly in support of that approach where
ordinary pleb taxpayers are concerned, innit?

[billy bookcase]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Pamela
Any mention of Rusbridger at the Guardian brings to mind Piers Morgan's
interview of him some years ago, which displayed the hypocrisy behind
Rusbridger's own worthy socialist image.

The [Manchester]Guardian always was, and is, a Liberal newspaper
which values personal liberty, i.e the rights of the individual
including the right to private property, along with private
enterprise, pluralism the existence of numerous influential groups
within society and a limited role for the State.
Principles which I'd. imagine Rusbridger would be broadly in agreement
with.
This shouldn't be confused with socialism, which in theory at
least values equality above all else; even if this is at the
expense of individual liberty and private property; ideally
achieved through taxation administered by an all encompassing
State apparatus.
Which I would imagine Rusbridger wouldn't be in favour of.

He was certainly not in favour of it for The Guardian.

So who ever claimed that he should have been ?

His publication seems to be broadly in support of that approach where ordinary pleb
taxpayers are concerned, innit?

By "his publication" I assume you're referring to "the Guardian" of which Rushbridger
was editor between 1995 and 2015 and not "Prospect Magazine" of which he's
been editor since 2021 ?

Owen Jones, whose thoughts on *ordinary pleb taxpayers* you are no doubt
channeling above, has in fact wriiten two very intersting books. "Chavs" about
the marginalistion of the traditional working class and "The Establishment"
This introduces the concept of "The Overton Window" - And how in the
the specific UK context, ideas which were previously the preserve of a tiny
minority of knuckle dragging right wing dribbling retrards and Loonies
such as Jimmy Goldsmith,* ideas such as Brexit for instance gradually became
mainstream and even acceptable (among some peope, at least ).



bb


*Sir James Goldsmith 1933 1997

[JNugent]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Pamela
Any mention of Rusbridger at the Guardian brings to mind Piers Morgan's
interview of him some years ago, which displayed the hypocrisy behind
Rusbridger's own worthy socialist image.

The [Manchester]Guardian always was, and is, a Liberal newspaper
which values personal liberty, i.e the rights of the individual
including the right to private property, along with private
enterprise, pluralism the existence of numerous influential groups
within society and a limited role for the State.
Principles which I'd. imagine Rusbridger would be broadly in agreement
with.
This shouldn't be confused with socialism, which in theory at
least values equality above all else; even if this is at the
expense of individual liberty and private property; ideally
achieved through taxation administered by an all encompassing
State apparatus.
Which I would imagine Rusbridger wouldn't be in favour of.

He was certainly not in favour of it for The Guardian.

So who ever claimed that he should have been ?

His publication seems to be broadly in support of that approach where ordinary pleb
taxpayers are concerned, innit?

By "his publication" I assume you're referring to "the Guardian" of which Rushbridger
was editor between 1995 and 2015 and not "Prospect Magazine" of which he's
been editor since 2021 ?

Yes, the Graun. Rusbridger is indelibly associated with that. Not so
with "Prospect Magazine" (whatever thay may be).

Post by billy bookcase
Owen Jones, whose thoughts on *ordinary pleb taxpayers* you are no doubt
channeling above, has in fact wriiten two very intersting books. "Chavs" about
the marginalistion of the traditional working class and "The Establishment"
This introduces the concept of "The Overton Window" - And how in the
the specific UK context, ideas which were previously the preserve of a tiny
minority of knuckle dragging right wing dribbling retrards and Loonies
such as Jimmy Goldsmith,* ideas such as Brexit for instance gradually became
mainstream and even acceptable (among some peope, at least ).

No-one can be wrong all the time, not even Owen Jones (though he gives
it an exceedingly good run for the money).

I find myself in some sympathy with his views on the demonisation of the
British working classes.>

Post by billy bookcase
*Sir James Goldsmith 1933 1997

I was well aware of the person being referenced. Never could understand
his approach.

[billy bookcase]

Post by billy bookcase
*Sir James Goldsmith 1933 1997

I was well aware of the person being referenced. Never could understand his approach.

The comment was potentially defamatory; Goldsmith was notably litigious;
it is not entirely inconcievable that he might not still be alive at the
age of 91; and this is a public forum open to all.


bb

[RJH]

Post by JNugent

Post by Pancho

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by J Newman
I have a theory that the world would be a better place if lying and
distortion of facts would be made illegal and taboo. If children were
brought up to eschew even small lies and culture as a whole avoids lying
- what would society look like? Dystopian with a Ministry of Truth? Or
something better?

Clearly worse. Are you aware of any country that has even managed
to do the bare minimum of making it illegal to tell outright lies
in mass-circulation newspapers or television, without that being
a blatant tool to silence anti-government criticism?

The problem with the MSM is not so much that they tell outright lies, it
is more that they distort the truth. They do this by: biased reporting,
loaded language, over reporting stories supporting their bias, and
burying stories that contradict their bias.

Yes. That's The Guardian all over, all day long.

All news media, IME. I just pick the ones that best suit my prejudices. And
for a sanity check, on occasion dip into those that don't.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by RJH

Post by JNugent

Post by Pancho

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by J Newman
I have a theory that the world would be a better place if lying and
distortion of facts would be made illegal and taboo. If children were
brought up to eschew even small lies and culture as a whole avoids lying
- what would society look like? Dystopian with a Ministry of Truth? Or
something better?

Clearly worse. Are you aware of any country that has even managed
to do the bare minimum of making it illegal to tell outright lies
in mass-circulation newspapers or television, without that being
a blatant tool to silence anti-government criticism?

The problem with the MSM is not so much that they tell outright lies, it
is more that they distort the truth. They do this by: biased reporting,
loaded language, over reporting stories supporting their bias, and
burying stories that contradict their bias.

Yes. That's The Guardian all over, all day long.

All news media, IME. I just pick the ones that best suit my prejudices. And
for a sanity check, on occasion dip into those that don't.

You're "both-sidesing" a bit too had there. All news media is biased,
but some outright lies (e.g. the Mail), and some is just completely
disconnected from reality (e.g. the Express).