Why do we allow lugenpresse to exist?

[Ravenblade]

In order to accept the whole picture you'd need to be absolutely unbiased and open-minded yet when I see critics of the Lügenpresse they usually counter what they perceive as lies with what they perceive as truth. At worst it's a lie for a lie, at best half-truth for half-truth. You are not ending up with a "neutral" version because certain audiences want their version. It's why tabloid press presents condensed facts in a hysterical way and why documentaries with following discussion rounds are pretty long-winded to the point of boring the average man. If you want to see the entire picture you have to accept the fact that you can't just read one source only, likewise you can't trust news which sound too much the way you like. With the media it's a bit like eating food, some tastes are easier served than others, some mouths fed quicker than others.

[nextormento]

It isn't "lying". That's the point. You are literally pushing to punish people for not agreeing with your own opinion.

Back in my day we used to assume the strongest interpretation of the argument we're presented with.
I'd go with the "intentionally deceptive" for the "lying" bit, and "not legislative" for the "consequences" bit.
For someone so frequently complaining about the strawmaning of your stances, one would think you'd show the same charity to others :/.

[Trump]

If you think that most of the press is "lying", you may want to take a few moments to consider that, just maybe, rather than some global conspiracy, the simplest answer may just be that your viewpoint is wrong.

ROFL!

"Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated".

[Endus]

Alright its deception. If that makes the world of difference to you...

This is still not correct.

You're doing exactly what you're projecting onto those reporters.

What do my opinions have to do with this? You keep wanting to make this about my beliefs why?

Because that's your argument, in a nutshell. Reporters say something you don't agree with, and you want them silenced for doing so. We've already clarified that you're not talking about actual lies, since that's covered by libel and slander laws, which you felt didn't do enough.

- - - Updated - - -

Back in my day we used to assume the strongest interpretation of the argument we're presented with.
I'd go with the "intentionally deceptive" for the "lying" bit, and "not legislative" for the "consequences" bit.
For someone so frequently complaining about the strawmaning of your stances, one would think you'd show the same charity to others :/.

I took pains early on to point out that libel and slander laws already cover actual falsehoods. Redtower continued to argue that this wasn't enough, and things that weren't libellous should be illegal, which means we're talking about opinions and viewpoints, not facts. Because if it were just about facts, libel and slander would cover it.

[Hif]

Isn't this a term the Nazi's used to describe the press?

[Endus]

Isn't this a term the Nazi's used to describe the press?

That's the origin, yes. Invented by the Nazis to describe anti-Nazi press groups.

[Deleted]

Isn't this a term the Nazi's used to describe the press?

Yes, right out of the mouth of the Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels. Why our right wing groups in germany are offended when we call them Nazis because of this is beyond me.

[Sama-81]

Either way, the fact that a lot of, if not basically all, mainstream media in many western countries today is heavily biased in one way or other, to the degree of not being able to portray objective news accurately or even choose to not report about news at all solely due to political stance (as in, they absolutely would have if 'things were reversed', gleefully so), is a very real issue and outright damaging to any functional democracy.

My own country, Sweden, being a very good example of that - the situation is far worse than in the US, for example, in the sense that there aren't media biased in opposite directions as much as all in the same one (which almost necessitates the use of 'alternative media', which opens up a whole new can of worms). It should be mentioned though, that the evening papers are the real issue in this example - sadly, most people by far reading newspapers turn to them, instead of the morning papers (mostly due to obvious up-to-date issues, I'd wager - and partly gossip), despite the utter crapfest that they are - both in quality and non-existing objectivity. It is a highly worrying situation indeed, not least for the future.

[Deleted]

I admit to knowing about it from my own experiences with the German press hiding and outright lying about refugees but it is a problem for countries around the globe. Why is it we allow news companies to lie about stories and twist events around in order to support certain political positions?

Should we not make this a serous offense? I understand the value of free speech but with the advent of small mobile recording devices it seems everyday that what people are told happens rarely lines up with what is happening.

Would we not be better served if fiction in the press is clearly labeled as such and trying to pass of fiction as a actual event or purposely misleading people was a punishable offense?

I admit I don't know how such a system would function perhaps a watch dog group or a independent group that would inspect complaints? I don't know what are your thoughts on it?

We entrusted the enforcement of laws to the government and the government likes those lies. It's really that simple.

[Forogil]

That's the origin, yes. Invented by the Nazis to describe anti-Nazi press groups.

That is factually incorrect.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%BCgenpresse

The nazis used the term, but so did the communists and others before them.

[Sama-81]

Yes, right out of the mouth of the Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels. Why our right wing groups in germany are offended when we call them Nazis because of this is beyond me.

With that line of reasoning, one ought to be able to refer to the government of Israel as nazis, without them getting offended, since they used the term 'lebensraum' after WWII - and still make use of the same principle it refered to, to boot. In all honestly, it's mostly a thinly, and badly, veiled way to find an excuse to get to use the worst insult one can come up with against a group/party one very much dislikes, and not a logical conclusion.

[Deleted]

This is still not correct.

You're doing exactly what you're projecting onto those reporters.



Because that's your argument, in a nutshell. Reporters say something you don't agree with, and you want them silenced for doing so. We've already clarified that you're not talking about actual lies, since that's covered by libel and slander laws, which you felt didn't do enough.

- - - Updated - - -



I took pains early on to point out that libel and slander laws already cover actual falsehoods. Redtower continued to argue that this wasn't enough, and things that weren't libellous should be illegal, which means we're talking about opinions and viewpoints, not facts. Because if it were just about facts, libel and slander would cover it.

I'm talking about them saying things then later proof usually in the form of a video comes out proving them to be liars.. this isn't a left or right issue. I didn't really think expecting standards in press would annoy you so much you would produce straw man after straw man. Slander covers people not events...

I don't know you can't use reason on a person who won't accept it. Maybe the world is just a better place with everything being framed one way or the other until we become so fractured sides stop believing each other completely.

I think have standards and independent watch dogs would be better.

[Endus]

I'm talking about them saying things then later proof usually in the form of a video comes out proving them to be liars..

Why do you leap to "liars", rather than just "wrong"?

Theorizing about something when there's a lack of evidence to confirm either way doesn't mean you were "lying" when new evidence comes to light.

[unbound]

I admit to knowing about it from my own experiences with the German press hiding and outright lying about refugees but it is a problem for countries around the globe. Why is it we allow news companies to lie about stories and twist events around in order to support certain political positions?

Should we not make this a serous offense? I understand the value of free speech but with the advent of small mobile recording devices it seems everyday that what people are told happens rarely lines up with what is happening.

Would we not be better served if fiction in the press is clearly labeled as such and trying to pass of fiction as a actual event or purposely misleading people was a punishable offense?

I admit I don't know how such a system would function perhaps a watch dog group or a independent group that would inspect complaints? I don't know what are your thoughts on it?

The primary problem is that the truth involves a lot more investment than any audience is willing to give it.

Are there refugees that are problems? Sure. Are they bigger problems than other groups of citizens? Generally, no. So are you really looking for the truth, or are you looking for a narrow view of the truth that fits what you want to see, or replicate what you've seen from your narrow point of view (that is true for all of us BTW)?

[Heladys]

So it's like a German version of "liberal media."

You mis-spelled "Fox News".

[Deleted]

Why do you leap to "liars", rather than just "wrong"?

Theorizing about something when there's a lack of evidence to confirm either way doesn't mean you were "lying" when new evidence comes to light.

Maybe I am just more jaded then you are. When some cries assault and then resigns from their job the day after a video comes out its hard for me to give the press the benefit of the doubt when the room was covered in cameras and wired for sound.

When the crime numbers are found to be fraudulent I want the press to investigate why not try to explain how it isn't so bad (granted this is opinion)

I am tired of close up photos of rallies consisting of a few dozen people at most to make them seem like hundreds or thousands where there.

I want the news written fairly... This is harder to explain unless you speak German but here when the left causes violence it is always described in a passive way. The violence simply occurred. Where when if a right wing group does it is always described as a active act.

Yes some of this is opinion not all of it is clear cut but I desire the news be as neutral as possible. I have no desire to have news networks in essence be government PR machines but rather just give me the facts on what happened during the day. I want a more honest news source and I think there should be a way for networks to be held accountable if they are not.

[Deleted]

The point is that it's a term with strong ties to Nazi propaganda, and which is predominantly used by right-wing nationalist groups today. Using the English translation isn't making the use of it "better".

Is it?
https://translate.google.com/transla...C3%BCgenpresse
Nope - Its a compound word from the 1850's - Its been used by communists and Catholics.

If you think that most of the press is "lying", you may want to take a few moments to consider that, just maybe, rather than some global conspiracy, the simplest answer may just be that your viewpoint is wrong.

You are aware that some of their charges, like the inaccurate reporting on migrant crime, Is in fact, part of 'good journalist ethics' - Its not even something they themselves deny - But do go on.

Edit: Also, since we're basically using the label to apply to "press who say things I don't like/disagree with", talking about whether we should "allow them to exist" is a pretty shocking attack on their freedom of speech.

I love it when you defend freedom of speech -

- - - Updated - - -

It isn't "lying". That's the point. You are literally pushing to punish people for not agreeing with your own opinion.

That is actually lying - well as soon as you say anything about it at least.

- - - Updated - - -

That's the origin, yes. Invented by the Nazis to describe anti-Nazi press groups.

Nope that's completely wrong.
Its dates back to the 1850's'

[Pangean]

That is factually incorrect.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%BCgenpresse

The nazis used the term, but so did the communists and others before them.

And who are currently big fans of using the term?

[Deleted]

And who are currently big fans of using the term?

people you like to pretend are Nazis?

[Acidbaron]

The more advertisement money is allowed in the more you see this, as it's more about catering towards an audience rather than informing. So things get twisted by all sides anyone who believes only the political side does it they disapprove with they are merely poorly informed and maybe even delusional honestly, surprised people still think only one side does it after all the shenanigans of the reporting on the immigration crisis in Europe.

Hence i'm glad that we have both a news station that is funded through taxes yet not government controlled and one that is completely privately owned. (There are more regional ones and also looking at purely the flemish news stations, not including the french ones), Quite happy about all of this since our news stations openly debunk statements from either political party or person if they are downright false or misleading, also confirm them if they are correct or create the right context around them.

If i look at news reporting abroad i'm quite happy my tax money is spend the way it is on the media here and find it to be a rather luxurious position. Sadly our news papers which are all privately owned have taken a turn for the worse but with all the news online, kinda makes me think printed media is on its way out.