Media Bias

[Cunt]

Do you know the objectives of that agreement?

Do you remember what the 17th was?

Go back to how the compact isn't binding, or something. Move those goalposts. I'm just saying that your government (if they signed) just agreed to that goal.

OBJECTIVE 17: Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public
discourse to shape perceptions of migration
33. We commit to eliminate all forms of discrimination, condemn and counter expressions, acts and
manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, violence, xenophobia and related intolerance
against all migrants in conformity with international human rights law. We further commit to
promote an open and evidence-based public discourse on migration and migrants in partnership
with all parts of society, that generates a more realistic, humane and constructive perception in
this regard. We also commit to protect freedom of expression in accordance with international
law, recognizing that an open and free debate contributes to a comprehensive understanding
of all aspects of migration.
To realize this commitment, we will draw from the following actions:
a) Enact, implement or maintain legislation that penalizes hate crimes and aggravated hate
crimes targeting migrants, and train law enforcement and other public officials to identify,
prevent and respond to such crimes and other acts of violence that target migrants, as well
as to provide medical, legal and psychosocial assistance for victims
b) Empower migrants and communities to denounce any acts of incitement to violence
directed towards migrants by informing them of available mechanisms for redress, and
ensure that those who actively participate in the commission of a hate crime targeting
migrants are held accountable, in accordance with national legislation, while upholding
international human rights law, in particular the right to freedom of expression
c) Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internetbased information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on
migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and
advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets
that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of
discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media
25
d) Establish mechanisms to prevent, detect and respond to racial, ethnic and religious profiling
of migrants by public authorities, as well as systematic instances of intolerance,
xenophobia, racism and all other multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination in
partnership with National Human Rights Institutions, including by tracking and publishing
trends analyses, and ensuring access to effective complaint and redress mechanisms
e) Provide migrants, especially migrant women, with access to national and regional
complaint and redress mechanisms with a view to promoting accountability and addressing
governmental actions related to discriminatory acts and manifestations carried out against
migrants and their families
f) Promote awareness-raising campaigns targeted at communities of origin, transit and
destination in order to inform public perceptions regarding the positive contributions of safe,
orderly and regular migration, based on evidence and facts, and to end racism, xenophobia
and stigmatization against all migrants
g) Engage migrants, political, religious and community leaders, as well as educators and
service providers to detect and prevent incidences of intolerance, racism, xenophobia, and
other forms of discrimination against migrants and diasporas and support activities in local
communities to promote mutual respect, including in the context of electoral campaigns

'in full respect for freedom of the media'.

Are you sure there won't be some changes to how the BBC reports, based on the fact that their main funder just signed a promise to stop funding anything which has been deemed to 'promote intolerance, etc...'?

It sure looks difficult to talk about in that environment. Are you allowed to draw Mohommad? Or will you be burned at the stake for hatespeech?

[Hermit]

Are you sure there won't be some changes to how the BBC reports, based on the fact that their main funder just signed a promise to stop funding anything which has been deemed to 'promote intolerance, etc...'?

Oh, the irony. Nothing wrong with intolerance all of a sudden? You and Coito Two have been arguing in favour of unlimited tolerance for yonks. All of a sudden it is wrong to withdraw funding from those who promote intolerance. Excellent flip.

[Cunt]

Are you sure there won't be some changes to how the BBC reports, based on the fact that their main funder just signed a promise to stop funding anything which has been deemed to 'promote intolerance, etc...'?

Oh, the irony. Nothing wrong with intolerance all of a sudden? You and Coito Two have been arguing in favour of unlimited tolerance for yonks. All of a sudden it is wrong to withdraw funding from those who promote intolerance. Excellent flip.

Your incoherence is as welcome as ever, Hermit.

Has anyone really been far even as to use even go want to do look more like?

[Hermit]

Your incoherence is as welcome as ever

For example:

Has anyone really been far even as to use even go want to do look more like?

[JimC]

[JimC]

Back to my current obsession, government vs private enterprise. Of course, there are many examples of mixtures, some of which seem to work well. Governments (federal, state or local) may have ownership and control of roads, for example. However, to build a new freeway, or simply to maintain a stretch of road, it is common for government to employ a road building company, hopefully by putting out tenders.

[Svartalf]

tenders? what's that? here, we have a procedure called "public markets" where the state or region or municipality issues a set of guidelines about what it wants done and how, and private enterprises bid for that market, the lowest bidder being traditionally the one to get the market, though, recently, a flurry of too low bids having led to services that were not up to snuff has led to a tightening of the specifications for the various jobs, and it has happened that a bidder that was not the lowest has been chosen, if there is evidence that it is more able than lower bidders to do the job right.

[pErvinalia]

That's a tender.

[JimC]

tenders? what's that? here, we have a procedure called "public markets" where the state or region or municipality issues a set of guidelines about what it wants done and how, and private enterprises bid for that market, the lowest bidder being traditionally the one to get the market, though, recently, a flurry of too low bids having led to services that were not up to snuff has led to a tightening of the specifications for the various jobs, and it has happened that a bidder that was not the lowest has been chosen, if there is evidence that it is more able than lower bidders to do the job right.

We in Oz use the term "tender" for exactly that process, Svarty. It needs careful governance, or corruption can set in (government officials getting bribes to accept less than ideal tenders, for example). However, if managed properly, it provides a useful amount of competition, hopefully allowing governments to get more bang for their buck...

So, getting back to the original impetus for my posts, I'm certainly not a socialist in the pure sense, and I don't think Bernie Sanders is either, for all 42's dire forebodings about the thin end of the commie wedge...

[Cunt]

Joe Rogan posted an interview today with Tim Pool.

Of course, none of you will likely bother, though the subject was heavily centred around media bias.

[Scot Dutchy]

Best in government hands (with hopefully some mechanisms in place to ensure efficiency, which can be an issue)

* all transport infrastructure, all rail services, ports etc.
* electricity and gas providers, with all the infrastructure involved
* education and health (with the possibility of private alternatives)
* defence and law enforcement (obvious, except to libertarian weirdos...)
* banks and financial institutions such as insurance (except a stock exchange, of course). This one is controversial. Perhaps a large, government owned major bank, whose emphasis (unlike current Oz banks) is ethical behaviour and optimising customer service; maybe you could allow private banks or insurance firms as competitors (if the state bank got it right, most would choose to go with it...)

This, of course, is in an ideal world - getting from here to there would be a minefield...

We have in force here very strict inspectorates. All infrastructure is government owned. The services that use it are not. All energy is privatised with an extremely powerful inspectorate which is also true of health which is basically privatised but the health inspectorate is the most powerful. Education here has gone the other way from many private organisations to all government owned. Financial organisations are so heavily controlled after 2008 they might as well be stated owned and one major bank still is.

It is control that is important not who that owns them. The worst option is self regulation which never works.

[Scot Dutchy]

Here in the EU any contract being offered above a certain price (it depends on the sector) must be open to all companies within the EU.

[Rum]

My last job was exactly that. It was called ‘commisioning’ and it involved, in my case, measuring the need for a service, in my case education and social care, getting tenders in, setting up ways of measuring how they would meet the objectives we set and then reviewing it. At the time the rules required we did this with pretty much every initiative, which meant buying in people from charities, the voluntary sector and so on.

Was my favourite job ever and I was sad to leave it when I retired.

[Hermit]

Joe Rogan posted an interview today with Tim Pool.

Of course, none of you will likely bother

O dear. There goes another one.

[rainbow]

This has nothing to do with communism. Since when does "communism = government?"

State ownership of the infrastructure.

You are in favour of this now?