Ask British indie Bands to boycott MySpace

[magneze]

In any case, I find it really quite annoying (not to mention pretty bad fucking manners) that I made a post pointing out the limitations of a particular form of action and the only response I've had is people wibbling at me about my phrasing.

Your point appeared to be "it's only a niche, why bother doing anything". Which seemed rather defeatist, especially considering the size of the "niche" that is supported. Bad manners, my arse, some people were simply arguing with you ... or don't you like that?

 

[RHOQ]

How will those competitors be any better though?

Competitors won't also be broadcasting Fox News to an audience that can decide American election and generally supports a harmful approach to the world. Disregard this point if you don't have any politics, or discount the effect that a "narrowcast" news channel can have on leading the opinion of its audience.

 

[bluestreak]

myspace will be gone in a few years. it's the internet, nothing lasts long that doesn't have tangible use or is impervious to fashion. murdoch's handed over all that money for nothing more than marketing information and the chance to advertise to people. it wasn't a good buy really. too many adverts and people will jump ship, most will move on when they get bored anyway, and a lot of people won't answer too many personale question when signing up to a site. it's not worth worrying about.

 

[RHOQ]

Getting bands to add a "Rupert Murdoch's a twat" button to their myspace pages would be more effective. myspace is too usefull to bands to get enough of them to biycott it to make a difference IMO.

Sites like these are only has good as the content that users produce for it. If the top 100 bands migrate to another site, the quality of tracks/ bands left behind won't be as good, the site becomes less popular. Besides MySpace doesn't appear to be a place for music fans. I've punched up searches for techno music and got europop tracks in the top ten. Check out sites like Tagworld and Last.fm, see if they're better to use, and got a chance of growing.

Kudos is give to those who start/ lead something, not those who follow the crowd. That should also be true for the most talented Independent music artists.

 

[RHOQ]

myspace will be gone in a few years. it's the internet, nothing lasts long that doesn't have tangible use or is impervious to fashion. murdoch's handed over all that money for nothing more than marketing information and the chance to advertise to people. it wasn't a good buy really. too many adverts and people will jump ship, most will move on when they get bored anyway, and a lot of people won't answer too many personale question when signing up to a site. it's not worth worrying about.

I share your analysis but not your complacency. My guess is they got some clever guys working on how to turn the information processed through the site in to dollars. And kids are more prone to marketing, and there always new generations coming through. No, some trends you have to set to bring about the chnage you want. I'm not saying kids will listen to me. By they are more likely to take their cue from the bands they listen to.

 

[smokedout]

Fox wouldn't exist if there wasn't a market for the kind of "news" it shows. Which isn't even to say that everybody who watches Fox News is a homophobe/nationalist/religious zealot, but even if you were to somehow force NewsCorp to shut down, another company would just take it's niche in the market.
Reply With Quote

couldnt agree more, no action should ever be made against any company, government or even individual because if it wasnt them doing it it'd only be someone else

quite possibly the most reactionary paragrapgh ive ever read in bloom

 

[Azrael23]

Myspace is an amazing way to spy on people.

 

[In Bloom]

Your point appeared to be "it's only a niche, why bother doing anything". Which seemed rather defeatist, especially considering the size of the "niche" that is supported. Bad manners, my arse, some people were simply arguing with you ... or don't you like that?

So are you trying to tell me that you're a halfwit or that you don't bother to read people's posts properly?

In any case, I'll rephrase for the hard of thinking. If you were somehow able to put Fox out of business, another business would simply start selling to the same people. Nothing would change whatsoever.

 

[In Bloom]

couldnt agree more, no action should ever be made against any company, government or even individual because if it wasnt them doing it it'd only be someone else

Yep, that's exactly what I said, isn't it?

Consumer boycotts don't work with things like this. The kind of people who will take part in a boycott against Fox obviously aren't the kind of people who would watch Fox in the first place, what difference does it make?

In any case, nobody has demonstrated how Fox News is any worse than CNN. Other than the usual "They're right wing, which is weally, weally howwible!"

 

[laptop]

In any case, nobody has demonstrated how Fox News is any worse than CNN.

That's not quite the case, is it? Within the framework of journalistic ethics, the testimony of former Fox producers and editors in, for example, the TV docco Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism is clear proof that Fox is a propaganda/marketing machine with nothing to do with said ethics.

Though said ethics are not perfect, they are relevant.

 

[Azrael23]

All mainstream media is a war on journalism.

 

[In Bloom]

That's not quite the case, is it? Within the framework of journalistic ethics, the testimony of former Fox producers and editors in, for example, the TV docco Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism is clear proof that Fox is a propaganda/marketing machine with nothing to do with said ethics.

Though said ethics are not perfect, they are relevant.

Well, since no fucker believes what they see on Fox News anyway (except the liberals who swallow their "Voice of America" bullshit), it's not that important.

And I couldn't give a fuck for "journalistic ethics" neither.

 

[laptop]

Well, since no fucker believes what they see on Fox News anyway

And you are going to establish this how?

And I couldn't give a fuck for "journalistic ethics" neither.

Clearly not.

See what I did there?

Trouble is...

Let's list the decision procedures available to someone who wants to attempt to describe what has, in fact, happened:

• Scientific inquiry
• Legal inquiry (adversarial or inquisitorial)
• Journalistic inquiry under a code of ethics

Big gap in credibility here​

• "Marxian dialectics" - (Post-structuralist... flavours... down to Stalinist)
• The Revealed Truth of religion

Any more?

The only one that you c an apply to your postings is something like a journalistic code. How would any of the others apply?

If you reject that we must conclude that you apply no procedure whatsoever to determine whether those postings are telling anything resembling the truth

BTW, the NUJ is soliciting revisions to its code... the question of when and whether actual journalism lives up to it is of course entirely separate from this.

 

[In Bloom]

And you are going to establish this how?

I can only do that by looking at my own experience, which tells me that most people are far more sceptical and critical of what they see in the media than those running it give them credit for.

Let's list the decision procedures available to someone who wants to attempt to describe what has, in fact, happened:

True objectivity is impossible. "What has, in fact, happened" is only meaningful when you accept that your understanding of events is always subjective. So-called "journalistic ethics" only serve to give a fig leaf of "objectivity" to the ideological positions of the journalists and the structures which they operate in.

 

[laptop]

I can only do that by looking at my own experience, which tells me that most people are far more sceptical and critical of what they see in the media than those running it give them credit for.

And you are going to establish that this is more than a statement of how In Bloom "feels", how?

True objectivity is impossible.

Hence my use of the phrase "decision procedure" and emphasis of the word attempt.

There is a difference between a report which uses - or attempts to use - such a procedure, and one which merely parrots Mr Murdoch's religious convictions. Isn't there?

 

[In Bloom]

And you are going to establish that this is more than a statement of how In Bloom "feels", how?

It's no less verifiable than your apparent belief that everybody (except you and a select few others, of course) is a media driven sheep who believes everything that they read. In the absence of any accurate studies on the subject, I can only go with my own experience.

Hence my use of the phrase "decision procedure" and emphasis of the word attempt.

There is a difference between a report which uses - or attempts to use - such a procedure, and one which merely parrots Mr Murdoch's religious convictions. Isn't there?

Even if somebody honestly attempts to tell "what really happened" it's always filtered through their own perceptions of the event. Particularly if they're providing some kind of analysis. Whatever bullshit "code of ethics" you use, the mainstream media is always going to reflect the interests and beliefs of the people running it.

 

[laptop]

It's no less verifiable than your apparent belief that everybody (except you and a select few others, of course) is a media driven sheep who believes everything that they read.

Where the fuck do you get that from? I merely asked how you would establish that:

Well, since no fucker believes what they see on Fox News anyway

...in which you state that "no fucker" believes anything they see (on Fox)... are you having a particularly bad binary day? Or have you recently been upset by the phenomenon that is ludicrously called "sports journalism"?

In the absence of any accurate studies on the subject, I can only go with my own experience.

I believe there are some relevant attidude surveys from, for example, the Pew Centre. Bulletin board ethics - which as I said are not a million miles from journalistic ethics - say you take a peek to see what they say before making such blanket assertions. (I don't have to, I'm doing philosophy on the assertion here )

Even if somebody honestly attempts to tell "what really happened" it's always filtered through their own perceptions of the event. Particularly if they're providing some kind of analysis. Whatever bullshit "code of ethics" you use, the mainstream media is always going to reflect the interests and beliefs of the people running it.

But it will reflect those interests in different ways and to different extents, depending on how or whether the "bullshit code" is applied, won't it?

In other words, returning to your original assertion, there is a difference between Fox and CNN, isn't there?

You do see where your insistance on binary arguments is going, with respect to notions of "truth", don't you?

 

[In Bloom]

Where the fuck do you get that from? I merely asked how you would establish that:



...in which you state that "no fucker" believes anything they see (on Fox)... are you having a particularly bad binary day? Or have you recently been upset by the phenomenon that is ludicrously called "sports journalism"?

Can you semantics monkeys just fuck off and get a fucking life? You knew exactly what I meant, for Christ sake.

I believe there are some relevant attidude surveys from, for example, the Pew Centre. Bulletin board ethics - which as I said are not a million miles from journalistic ethics - say you take a peek to see what they say before making such blanket assertions. (I don't have to, I'm doing philosophy on the assertion here )

Could that be any woolier?

But it will reflect those interests in different ways and to different extents, depending on how or whether the "bullshit code" is applied, won't it?

In other words, returning to your original assertion, there is a difference between Fox and CNN, isn't there?

I didn't say they were the same, I said that ultimately, one doesn't actually have any more of a negative impact than the other.

You do see where your insistance on binary arguments is going, with respect to notions of "truth", don't you?

Do enlighten me, I'm sure you know what I think much better than I do