So, what's happening in Turkey?

[Tahuti]

Press freedom is a tricky thing, but you do need it if you ever hope to create any kind of lasting liberal democracy (note the emphasis on lasting). It's not like unfree press doesn't put out sensationalist stories; bread and circuses, and all that.

That's an illusion: You need to be able to talk to politicians or vote them away if you want to have a serious shot at influencing them. If we were to take news media at face value without exception, we would actually be a lot less liberal and democratic. That is because news media encourange to think in terms of things we cannot directly perceive. Very few actually have encountered illegal immigrants, let alone have negative experiences with them, though most people view them as negative due to the sensationalist news coverage of news media in general.

To safeguard political rights, one needs to know the big picture. News media prevent us from forming that by turning is into drones by giving us a false perception. To fit this into the Turkish theme of our thread: Would the two Turkish factions of Kemalists and Islamists as sizable without news media? Probably not. Again, I'm not arguing for unfree press, but for taking news media less at face value and base political views on personal experiences instead of vague rumours.

Press freedom is a hugely important part of freedom of expression. It's essentially the freedom to express in an organised fashion. Freedom of expression sans press freedom is kinda like workplace protections without organised labour. (I understand you are not calling for press freedom to be abolished, but I don't think it's overrated like you said)

Actualy, I'm willing to say the opposite and claim that the press form people into a mold that does not question anything. Newspapers are the quintessential Daily Me avant la lettre. For instance, plenty of racist and anti-national sentiment is perputuated by newspapers, even though very few people who have racist sentiments often never seriously encountered people belonging to such groups in real life.

 

[Wrymouth3]

Italy, Turkey or both?

1. The president is a huge fan of having some certain Bunga Bunga parties abroad.

2. Places of religious worship are viewed as worse than the 9th circle of hell itself.

3. The entire treasury is based on how well a certain football club in the respective top leagues does.

 

[Tahuti]

Italy, Turkey or both?

1. The president is a huge fan of having some certain Bunga Bunga parties abroad.

2. Places of religious worship are viewed as worse than the 9th circle of hell itself.

3. The entire treasury is based on how well a certain football club in the respective top leagues does.

1. Italy
2. Turkey
3. Both

 

[Tee Kay]

If we were to take news media at face value without exception, we would actually be a lot less liberal and democratic.

That's why we (or at least, most people in a position to influence policymakers and/or the masses, but not themselves directly involved in the running of the country) don't?

Competing sources of media help with that too. They're not all uniformly sensationalist.

To safeguard political rights, one needs to know the big picture. News media prevent us from forming that by turning is into drones by giving us a false perception.

It makes you uninformed, perhaps, but it doesn't endanger political rights unless taken to an extreme (eg one media outlet utterly dominating over all others). Again, competing media, competing ideologies.

To fit this into the Turkish theme of our thread: Would the two Turkish factions of Kemalists and Islamists as sizable without news media? Probably not.

You're right, political movements can't grow without the news media. Precisely why the free press is such a danger to authoritarians. Media is all about organisation; organised distribution of viewpoints, and the organisation (consciously or unconsciously) of people subscribing to those viewpoints. Not necessarily a bad thing; could be, but not necessarily.

Again, I'm not arguing for unfree press, but for taking news media less at face value and base political views on personal experiences instead of vague rumours.

Critical thinking is a skill that everyone should develop. You need it whether you consume populist media or not. You could argue with some justification that most people don't have adequately developed critical thinking skills and therefore can't be trusted with a free press. But the consequence of an unfree press, controlled either by the state or a select few private individuals, is abuse of power.

Basing political views on personal experiences can be just as dangerous. You talked about the importance of looking at the big picture earlier, but most of us can't form a big picture view of the world from personal experiences alone simply because we have a limited range of personal experiences.

We need networks and media to inform us of experiences of others outside our own daily lives. In this organised media is in fact a step up from vague rumours since at least some of the stories are fact-checked.

Actualy, I'm willing to say the opposite and claim that the press form people into a mold that does not question anything.

Then wouldn't that problem be worse without a free press?

 

[Tahuti]

Competing sources of media help with that too. They're not all uniformly sensationalist.

It's hard to be a relevant voice in news media and not be sensationalist. Even so-called "quality newspapers" are not free of sensationalism, given how certain political conflicts and disasters get more attention then other events with significantly higher human costs, or similar events closer to home.

It makes you uninformed, perhaps, but it doesn't endanger political rights unless taken to an extreme (eg one media outlet utterly dominating over all others). Again, competing media, competing ideologies.

The same fallacy is made when people argue for capitalism and free markets: Competition saves us all! Yet, this is not what make free markets good: What make free markets good is that people have the option of making the right choice, despite it also means they can choose the wrong option and people frequently do so. The same applies to freedom of expression.

You're right, political movements can't grow without the news media. Precisely why the free press is such a danger to authoritarians. Media is all about organisation; organised distribution of viewpoints, and the organisation (consciously or unconsciously) of people subscribing to those viewpoints. Not necessarily a bad thing; could be, but not necessarily.

Political movements can grow through word-of-mouth when immediately necessary, as in before the French revolution. After the revolution is concluded in either way, the movements disperse, as they should. Except when we have news media, in which case anachronistic political grouping will be perpetuated by the media. People are now divided into crisp political groupings that otherwise wouldn't exist and these are made in the pursuit of profits and political gain.

Also note that press freedom is somehow very limitedly correlated to democracy and overall liberalism: Italy and Israel (definitely my favorite country to talk about) for instance have some of the worst press freedom rankings in the 1st world, yet have roughly the same political liberties as several of the best ranking countries in press freedom. Likewise, Turkey has jailed far more journalists than North Korea, but I don't think anyone with a sane mind would say that North Korea is a more free place than Turkey.

Basing political views on personal experiences can be just as dangerous. You talked about the importance of looking at the big picture earlier, but most of us can't form a big picture view of the world from personal experiences alone simply because we have a limited range of personal experiences.

We need networks and media to inform us of experiences of others outside our own daily lives. In this organised media is in fact a step up from vague rumours since at least some of the stories are fact-checked.

Basing political views on personal experiences can only go awry when we are seduced by the same thing that make news media inherently bad: Focus insensitivity. Hell, even a thread about it has been opened on the OT! Just one negative story, experience etc. tends to dull our view of reality, despite all the past events that we are unaware of passing.

Yet, personal experiences alone give a better vision of the big picture than the news, which is superficial and usually comes with topics such as "Turkish guy shoots German guy" which can easily lead innocent but unwitty victims into believing that Turkish people have an innate hatred for Germans. If you witnessed the actual shooting, you'd probably be hardly interested in the ethnicities of either the perpetrator or the victim.

The other ingredient in understanding the big picture will be intense immersion on the subject, by carefully reading and interpreting the historical context of the subject, like you certainly have. Only dedicated sources on history will be able to give the knowledge required and not newspapers.

Then wouldn't that problem be worse without a free press?

Certainly, but I think the point is also that it is a general mentality problem. If people were to take actions and storylines depicted in entertainment media like video games or movies at face value under every circumstance, a lot of people would be inspired to go on shooting sprees. That only a few people do this has to do with the fact people are properly trained in how to properly process entertainment, ethically speaking.

Strangely, there are relatively few people who want to ban newspapers compared to people who want to ban entertainment media, even though I consider it much more reasonable to call for a ban on newspapers than on entertainment media. Like I said, freedom of expression is much more important than freedom of the press, which is only a very small subset of the latter. Freedom of the press is to freedom of expression what freedom of offering tarot services is to free enterprise.

 

[r16]

2. Places of religious worship are viewed as worse than the 9th circle of hell itself.

haven't read Dante or something , don't have the exact idea what could have been inferred . Yet ı would think ı am a better Muslim than -say- 99% of all CFC members , simply by being a Muslim .

as for news , a Civilian court has decided to give up looking for the responsible in a bombing attack on smugglers two years back , a safe conduct provided to the seperatists gone terribly wrong . Much "laudation" given to the office of the chief of goverment generals in he has decided to point out the Congregation brought Democracy to the country with foul moves after the PM pointed out the same . Even Voice of Russia remarks that an primary motive for the transformation of the country has been re-arranged : The arrested officers -half of them innocent- were long identified as hostages to be released with a general amnesty to include the dear seperatist leader ; the wide-spread calls for an actually fair trial , instead of kangoroo courting is supposed to have this eventuality removed .

the issue is unexplainable in many ways , the goverment generals have been uneasy with reported comments asking whether it takes an arrest warrant to be called an hero . Well , unavoidable ; one finds it impossible to avoid the conclusion if the goverment generals had been anything bad for the Islamist Conspiracy they too would have been arrested . Still, the arrested -as repeated a thousand times- include real criminals , enemies of this country . Can not provide 100% justice , not even %100 justice . When Turkey is in war , a possibility which sadly looks like anything but "whether" , all the flag ranks will be surplus to command requirements . The question they might be more interested in answer more convincingly should be the one ...

"Grandpa, why didn't you resign?"

 

[Tee Kay]

Political movements can grow through word-of-mouth when immediately necessary, as in before the French revolution. After the revolution is concluded in either way, the movements disperse, as they should.

More like the movements tried to kill each other and then coopted by a dictator who lead the country into fifteen years of war.

People are now divided into crisp political groupings that otherwise wouldn't exist and these are made in the pursuit of profits and political gain.

Hence the need for a free and varied press to challenge people's assumptions!

Also note that press freedom is somehow very limitedly correlated to democracy and overall liberalism: Italy and Israel (definitely my favorite country to talk about) for instance have some of the worst press freedom rankings in the 1st world, yet have roughly the same political liberties as several of the best ranking countries in press freedom.

Apples and oranges. You made a very specific claim followed by a very generalised one. Or to put it in another way; Italy has roughly the same press freedom as, say, Norway. Roughly. Compared to, say, Zimbabwe.

Likewise, Turkey has jailed far more journalists than North Korea, but I don't think anyone with a sane mind would say that North Korea is a more free place than Turkey.

In the DPRK all media is tightly controlled directly by the state; they have less need to jail journalists.

Look! There are more journalists in China than in Canada! See? Press freedom doesn't matter! That's the quality of argument you've been making.

Yet, personal experiences alone give a better vision of the big picture than the news, which is superficial and usually comes with topics such as "Turkish guy shoots German guy" which can easily lead innocent but unwitty victims into believing that Turkish people have an innate hatred for Germans. If you witnessed the actual shooting, you'd probably be hardly interested in the ethnicities of either the perpetrator or the victim.

I don't get it. You're disputing the mental capability of people in that they're easily led by the media, but you think they have enough mental capability to magically understand the big picture of any issue just from very limited personal experiences.

The other ingredient in understanding the big picture will be intense immersion on the subject, by carefully reading and interpreting the historical context of the subject, like you certainly have. Only dedicated sources on history will be able to give the knowledge required and not newspapers.

So what, because few people have the time to immerse in a subject, bugger any attempt to explain difficult concepts to the masses?

Freedom of the press is to freedom of expression what freedom of offering tarot services is to free enterprise.

Freedom of expression is meaningless if people can't hear you.

Look, you are obviously a very cynical and bitter person when it comes to the subject of the media and particularly newspapers. It's a natural reaction for any liberal, thinking, compassionate person who've ever read the Herald Sun. But for every ten Andrew Bolts there is a good journalist, and for every twenty Murdochs there are two good informative publications. Press freedom means having the corrupt media barons as well as quality press, and considering the alternatives are hearsay of dubious reliability from my neighbours, or being force-fed latest exploits of the Great Leader, I'd take the trade-off.

 

[Tahuti]

Hence the need for a free and varied press to challenge people's assumptions!

That happens rarely and is more likely to happen thanks to a good book on political philosophy and/or history than the news. Like I said earlier, news brings what people want to hear, not what people should hear. Those that read the Daily Telegraph will never switch to the Guardian and vice versa, so there you are stuck in a perpetual bubble, thinking that the people of the other side are total morons.

Apples and oranges. You made a very specific claim followed by a very generalised one. Or to put it in another way; Italy has roughly the same press freedom as, say, Norway. Roughly. Compared to, say, Zimbabwe.

In the DPRK all media is tightly controlled directly by the state; they have less need to jail journalists.

Actually, Italy is ranked similarly to several dictatorships according to reporters without borders and in fact closer to Zimbabwe than to Norway. Better yet, the same report concludes that India and Mexico have a repressed press, even though Freedom House and Polity IV considers these countries to be liberal democracies!

I don't get it. You're disputing the mental capability of people in that they're easily led by the media, but you think they have enough mental capability to magically understand the big picture of any issue just from very limited personal experiences.

Being misinformed will make you less aware of the situation than when you aren't informed at all and thus have no illusion of being informed. There is however simply no way to spin any real life situation. If people are trained to take news not at face value, this wouldn't be a problem, though I doubt anyone would still read the news if that were the case.

So what, because few people have the time to immerse in a subject, bugger any attempt to explain difficult concepts to the masses?

Perhaps that's a lesser evil.

Freedom of expression is meaningless if people can't hear you.

Look, you are obviously a very cynical and bitter person when it comes to the subject of the media and particularly newspapers. It's a natural reaction for any liberal, thinking, compassionate person who've ever read the Herald Sun. But for every ten Andrew Bolts there is a good journalist, and for every twenty Murdochs there are two good informative publications. Press freedom means having the corrupt media barons as well as quality press, and considering the alternatives are hearsay of dubious reliability from my neighbours, or being force-fed latest exploits of the Great Leader, I'd take the trade-off.

The problem is that "quality press" has many of the problems as the populist press. They simply spin stories to make them appealing to intellectuals, by employing political correctness, expensive writing style as if it were a scientific publication and with an overt focus on external issues. But it still brings many of the same problems found in populist news media and arguably inherent to new media as a whole: Telling people the kind of stories they want to hear. This is the bad guy, this is the good guy. It doesn't matter whether the bad guys are immigrants, Russians, Chinese, rich, poor, Israelis or Arabs or the good guys are white, intellectual, poor, middle class, sophisticated whatever: News media arguably cannot exist without making terrible stereotypes that are presented to be taken at face value.

 

[Tee Kay]

That happens rarely

Without a free press that happens never.

and is more likely to happen thanks to a good book on political philosophy and/or history than the news.

Ability to disseminate literature comes under freedom of the press. Publishers are media companies you know.

Actually, Italy is ranked similarly to several dictatorships according to reporters without borders and in fact closer to Zimbabwe than to Norway

.

That's what I get for not checking.

This one?

Italy is 57th. About the same as Hungary, and just below Japan.

Better yet, the same report concludes that India and Mexico have a repressed press, even though Freedom House and Polity IV considers these countries to be liberal democracies!

Those are two of the countries that regularly top the list of "countries where journalists were murdered this year", due to circumstances peculiar to them (the Drug War in Mexico, rebels and assorted corrupt crap in India).

Being misinformed will make you less aware of the situation than when you aren't informed at all and thus have no illusion of being informed.

Personal experiences can give you the illusion of being informed too. Show people who only grew up around crime or people who've had a traumatic experience with crimes statistics that say crime is down or such-and-such approach to crime is working and be prepared to be disputed.

Perhaps that's a lesser evil.

Yes, a slightly better educated/responsible/connected populace is worse than an ignorant populace. What?

But it still brings many of the same problems found in populist news media and arguably inherent to new media as a whole: Telling people the kind of stories they want to hear. This is the bad guy, this is the good guy.

For better or worse that's a feature of human society as a whole. The problems you attribute to the proliferation of press freedom: the sensationalism, the banality, the us vs them attitude: they are problems that become acute whenever humans are able to communicate with each other more efficiently. It's just that we collectively decided that the benefits of being able to exchange lots of ideas (more or less) freely with each other outweigh the side effects, because having an oligarchy restrict what you can or cannot say sucks.

Basically this is a matter of a little bit of good being better than none at all.

 

[Tahuti]

Ability to disseminate literature comes under freedom of the press. Publishers are media companies you know.

I know, hence, I am singaling out news media, not media as a whole.

Those are two of the countries that regularly top the list of "countries where journalists were murdered this year", due to circumstances peculiar to them (the Drug War in Mexico, rebels and assorted corrupt crap in India).

As callous as it may sound, it kind of illustrates my point that a journalistic apparatus is not as indispensible to democracy as is oft claimed.

Likewise, Weimar Germany and pretty much any democracy that turned into a dictatorship proves that free news media doesn't prevent dictatorship.

Personal experiences can give you the illusion of being informed too. Show people who only grew up around crime or people who've had a traumatic experience with crimes statistics that say crime is down or such-and-such approach to crime is working and be prepared to be disputed.

I've acknowledged it earlier citing focus insensivity. One big traumatic event may make a bigger impression than everyday life.

For better or worse that's a feature of human society as a whole. The problems you attribute to the proliferation of press freedom: the sensationalism, the banality, the us vs them attitude: they are problems that become acute whenever humans are able to communicate with each other more efficiently. It's just that we collectively decided that the benefits of being able to exchange lots of ideas (more or less) freely with each other outweigh the side effects, because having an oligarchy restrict what you can or cannot say sucks.

Basically this is a matter of a little bit of good being better than none at all.

I'm probably repeating myself here again, but my point is that owing to such banality, bile that is omnipresent, news media that are taken at face value may actually be more conducive to authoritarianism instead of a force against it. In the 1930s, mainstream Right-wing newspapers like the Daily Telegraph, De Telegraaf and Aftenposten were sympathetic to the Nazi regime. Likewise, many mainstream Left-Wing newspapers like the Guardian are very inappropriately deferent towards third world dictatorships. All a result of the anchoring of superficial political loyalties, comparable to the attitude of Football Hooligans, except that it involves something more important than a Football match.

 

[Tee Kay]

Likewise, Weimar Germany and pretty much any democracy that turned into a dictatorship proves that free news media doesn't prevent dictatorship.

You're right, it doesn't. But what was one of the NSDAP's (or any other authoritarian regime's) first acts when they came to power? Restrict the media. It is the most powerful thing that can challenge their authority.

I'm probably repeating myself here again, but my point is that owing to such banality, bile that is omnipresent, news media that are taken at face value may actually be more conducive to authoritarianism instead of a force against it.

I don't doubt that. But your argument was against a free press being an essential part of freedom of expression. But it is a free press that guards against authoritarianism by helping varied sources of news thrive. It doesn't prevent some (or most, if you want to be cynical) from being radicalised and/or misinformed but the danger of too much power being concentrated in the hands of an oligarchy is lessened.

 

[Tahuti]

You're right, it doesn't. But what was one of the NSDAP's (or any other authoritarian regime's) first acts when they came to power? Restrict the media. It is the most powerful thing that can challenge their authority.

I doubt that. You do not need surpressed news media to politically survive as dictator, it merely serves to augment your currently existing power. What you need to politically survive is to be in control over those capable of fighting.

I don't doubt that. But your argument was against a free press being an essential part of freedom of expression. But it is a free press that guards against authoritarianism by helping varied sources of news thrive. It doesn't prevent some (or most, if you want to be cynical) from being radicalised and/or misinformed but the danger of too much power being concentrated in the hands of an oligarchy is lessened.

Journalists tend to seek predictable ideological perspectives from which to report from, partially due to a sense of groupthink. If people take such opinions - which are essentially just repeated over and over again in the same predictable vision - as-is, it is bound to reduce diversity of political opinions, not increase or even sustain it. We are unable to think for ourselves, and let others do it for us.

 

[r16]

mistake on my part , it has been the military investigators who cleared the Military from intentional willful mistakes in bombing smugglers even if going to a large extent to name the chief of the goverment generals as the place where the ball stops ; he would retire a few years later anyhow . The declaration and the impact on the social media came on the day a former Goverment Minister arrived in Izmir for an election campaign : Naturally this was the time for the 3rd wave of investigations . This time aiming at a guy the ex-Minister knows , they married sisters .

and as a clarification flag ranks are supposed to mean anybody at that level in any service .

 

[Tee Kay]

I doubt that. You do not need surpressed news media to politically survive as dictator, it merely serves to augment your currently existing power. What you need to politically survive is to be in control over those capable of fighting.

... such as the media!

Dictatorially-controlled media essentially is the same as suppressed media when it comes to press freedom can't you see that?

If people take such opinions as-is

But not everyone does that. Many people have developed critical thinking and restricting the flow of information denies what helps them to thrive.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm probably repeating myself here again, but my point is that owing to such banality, bile that is omnipresent, news media that are taken at face value may actually be more conducive to authoritarianism instead of a force against it. In the 1930s, mainstream Right-wing newspapers like the Daily Telegraph, De Telegraaf and Aftenposten were sympathetic to the Nazi regime.

But you can hardly the same thing about Vorwärts or Die rote Fahne, can you? And evidently the Nazis viewed the ability of socialists and communists to publicise their views as a threat, or they wouldn't have suppressed the publications and persecuted their staff.

 

[Tahuti]

But you can hardly the same thing about Vorwärts or Die rote Fahne, can you? And evidently the Nazis viewed the ability of socialists and communists to publicise their views as a threat, or they wouldn't have suppressed the publications and persecuted their staff.

Yet the Nazis were able to gain power in spite of such papers' existence, and it was only after their rise to power that these were banned. Besides, do not underestimate the ability of groupthink: The Daily Worker (A Stalinist newspaper in Britian) was pro-Nazi during the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

Pretty much all news in Europe and North America today is made in the image of the AP or Reuters, go figure.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yet the Nazis were able to gain power in spite of such papers' existence, and it was only after their rise to power that these were banned.

Yes, but what does that prove, in and of itself? The Nazis also came to power despite the existence of anti-Nazis paramilitary groups, but you'd be hard pressed to argue that paramilitaries are of no political consequence. It cannot be argued that because X happened despite Y, Y has no bearing on X, only that Y was not sufficient to prevent X. I might slip on ice despite wearing solid boots, but that hardly implies that it's of no consequence whether I wear solid boots or six-inch stiletto heels, y'know?

Besides, do not underestimate the ability of groupthink: The Daily Worker (A Stalinist newspaper in Britian) was pro-Nazi during the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

Well, that's not really true. The paper announced its opposition to "imperialist war", but it was never "pro-Nazi", any more than it had been in the Third Period. (As if that would ever have flown with its resolutely anti-fascist readership, who despite their temporary hostility to the war, were quite happy to see the British government take Mosley & Pals off the streets on their behalf.) The CPGB's manoeuvrings were craven, no doubt, but they were more complex than that.

And while the point is taken that partisan newspapers will tend to put political opportunity above journalistic integrity, that doesn't really have any bearing on the question of whether a meaningful opposition press is possible. Especially given that, in this instance, the CPGB's softness on Nazi Germany was a product of its hostility to the British establishment, that is, its function as an opposition press.

 

[bhsup]

Meanwhile in Turkey...



Police purge in Turkey spreads to regions

Police chiefs in at least 15 of Turkey's 81 provinces have been dismissed as the government struggles to contain a corruption scandal.

The chief of police in the capital Ankara was among those removed from his post, a day after 350 of his officers were reassigned or sacked.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has accused the police of seeking to undermine his government.

Relatives of some of his ministers were arrested last month for corruption.

A crackdown on the police force in Istanbul, the biggest city, followed.

It was not immediately clear on what grounds the police chiefs in Ankara, Izmir and other parts of the country had been removed on Tuesday night.

In another development, the ruling party submitted a bill to parliament that would give the government more say over the appointment of judges and prosecutors.

 

[Tahuti]

Yes, but what does that prove, in and of itself? The Nazis also came to power despite the existence of anti-Nazis paramilitary groups, but you'd be hard pressed to argue that paramilitaries are of no political consequence. It cannot be argued that because X happened despite Y, Y has no bearing on X, only that Y was not sufficient to prevent X. I might slip on ice despite wearing solid boots, but that hardly implies that it's of no consequence whether I wear solid boots or six-inch stiletto heels, y'know?

You inadvertently hit the nail there: It were the paramilitaries - among other things - that were instrumental in bringing the Nazis to power.

 

[Traitorfish]

That's hardly sufficient explanation, though, because Nazi paramilitaries were always outnumbered by Communist, Social Democrat and rival far-right paramilitaries. Certainly it doesn't allow us to dismiss the anti-Nazi press as an irrelevance.