"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
GB wrote:

On 15/11/2017 17:39, Robin wrote:
On 15/11/2017 13:13, GB wrote:
On 15/11/2017 12:22, Robin wrote:
On 15/11/2017 11:45, GB wrote:
On 15/11/2017 11:37, Robin wrote:

snip
"Cressida Dick, the Met commissioner and Britain's most senior
police officer, also called for calm when covering terrorist
attacks.

"You must inform but not glorify and provide the platform this evil
craves," she said. "You must investigate but not in a dangerous way
which disrupts the extensive efforts of the police and security
services. You must comment but not in a way that creates excessive
fear and multiplies the terror.""

snip

And you have quoted the Commissioner out of context. You omitted the
preceding sentence in which she introduces what follows as her view
of what the media already do:

"I know for you that reporting on terrorism is a fine line, a
balancing act. You must inform ..."


I honestly can't see why that is significant.

Sorry, only just spotted this.

I may have misread it but in the quote from Harry's link the
Commissioner appeared to be giving the media orders. ("You must...")
And possibly new orders.

Oh, I see. I didn't take it that way at all. Clearly, she's in no
position to instruct the meeja what to write. I'm sure they'd have been
up in arms if she had tried.
snip

I wondered why the London police chief and her political masters were
bothering to give the media lectures on the obvious; and indeed
telling them to do what they are already doing.

Then I realised that the point was to establish the *principle*
that ministers and police can instruct hte media how to report.

Oh bull****.

For this purpose it is obviously a good idea to start with facile
advice that can hardly be argued with, but next time when more
contentious instruction sare given then the preceden will have been set.

There is no legal precedent and the media is free to make
an obscene gesture in their general direction and carry on
regardless doing what they have always done.

If they want to be able to tell the media what
they can and can not do, they have to legislate.

They havent even managed to do that with the
stupid parasites that followed Bill and Harry around
when they were little kids, or the latest ones either.

On 15/11/2017 22:39, Steve Walker wrote:

but maybe we don't need to have weeks of
news filled with repetetive stories of the latest atrocity, followed up
for years after with intereviews with those affected, family, friends, etc.

or endless hours of speculation from the experts when the facts are not
known just after the event.


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Wednesday, 15 November 2017 23:39:17 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
GB wrote:

On 15/11/2017 17:39, Robin wrote:
On 15/11/2017 13:13, GB wrote:
On 15/11/2017 12:22, Robin wrote:
On 15/11/2017 11:45, GB wrote:
On 15/11/2017 11:37, Robin wrote:

snip
"Cressida Dick, the Met commissioner and Britain's most senior
police officer, also called for calm when covering terrorist attacks.

"You must inform but not glorify and provide the platform this evil
craves," she said. "You must investigate but not in a dangerous way
which disrupts the extensive efforts of the police and security
services. You must comment but not in a way that creates excessive
fear and multiplies the terror.""

snip

And you have quoted the Commissioner out of context. You omitted the
preceding sentence in which she introduces what follows as her view
of what the media already do:

"I know for you that reporting on terrorism is a fine line, a
balancing act. You must inform ..."


I honestly can't see why that is significant.

Sorry, only just spotted this.

I may have misread it but in the quote from Harry's link the
Commissioner appeared to be giving the media orders. ("You must...")
And possibly new orders.

Oh, I see. I didn't take it that way at all. Clearly, she's in no
position to instruct the meeja what to write. I'm sure they'd have been
up in arms if she had tried.
snip

I wondered why the London police chief and her political masters were
bothering to give the media lectures on the obvious; and indeed
telling them to do what they are already doing.


Then I realised that the point was to establish the *principle* that
ministers and police can instruct hte media how to report. For this
purpose it is obviously a good idea to start with facile advice that can
hardly be argued with, but next time when more contentious instruction
sare given then the preceden will have been set.



Exactly so. Thin edge of the wedge.

On Wednesday, 15 November 2017 23:39:18 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
GB wrote:

On 15/11/2017 12:31, Nightjar wrote:
On 15-Nov-17 12:17 PM, harry wrote:
....
And Jihadwatch always links to it's news source.

Which is how we know that they are making up things that are not part of
the original story.



The subject line has been made up. "Cressida Dick wants to suppress news
of terrorist attacks" - that's simply not what she said.

A shame that he did not write "Cressida Dick wants to control news
of terrorist attacks" because that would have been harder to deny.

Her utltimate intention is clear. Softly softly catchee monkey.

On 15-Nov-17 11:39 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
....
Then I realised that the point was to establish the *principle* that
ministers and police can instruct hte media how to report. ....

The principle of the government telling the media what hey don't want
them to report has long been established by the D Notice / DA Notice /
DSMA Notice system. However, even that is merely advisory.


--
--

Colin Bignell

In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
I wondered why the London police chief and her political masters were
bothering to give the media lectures on the obvious; and indeed
telling them to do what they are already doing.

Because a press conference is cheaper than addressing - and doing
something about - the problem.

--
*Why do we say something is out of whack? What is a whack? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 15/11/2017 23:39, Roger Hayter wrote:

Oh, I see. I didn't take it that way at all. Clearly, she's in no
position to instruct the meeja what to write. I'm sure they'd have been
up in arms if she had tried.
snip

I wondered why the London police chief and her political masters were
bothering to give the media lectures on the obvious; and indeed
telling them to do what they are already doing.


Then I realised that the point was to establish the *principle* that
ministers and police can instruct hte media how to report. For this
purpose it is obviously a good idea to start with facile advice that can
hardly be argued with, but next time when more contentious instruction
sare given then the preceden will have been set.

I see nothing at all wrong with the police giving crime prevention
advice. Lock up your doors and windows. That sort of thing.

What Cressida Dick said was, at least in principle, exactly the same
sort of advice. If the media keep a check on their reporting of
terrorism, that in itself helps to protect the public.

It's perfectly reasonable for her to make that point. The only
criticisms I can see are that a) it's pretty obvious, and b) the media
probably won't take any notice.

On Wednesday, 15 November 2017 12:22:14 UTC, Brian Gaff wrote:
Actually I heard an interview with her the other day and she said that fear
of crime is often worse than the reality of it happening to you, and so she
urged the media to stop hyping up isolated attacks of any kind acid and
knife and terrorist incidents, as in the main the UK is a very safe place to
be out.
That is what I heard a perfectly reasonable message about the reality
against the hype some news organisations seem to indulge in.

Brian

She doesn't want us worrying about her failings.

Nightjar wrote:

On 15-Nov-17 11:39 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
...
Then I realised that the point was to establish the *principle* that
ministers and police can instruct hte media how to report. ....

The principle of the government telling the media what hey don't want
them to report has long been established by the D Notice / DA Notice /
DSMA Notice system. However, even that is merely advisory.

And was always explained as a need to keep a specific fact "secret" for
security reasons. Not that this was ever very credible. The intention
seems to be to extend it to more general political recommendations.

--

Roger Hayter

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
I wondered why the London police chief and her political masters were
bothering to give the media lectures on the obvious; and indeed
telling them to do what they are already doing.

Because a press conference is cheaper than addressing - and doing
something about - the problem.

It isnt even possible to do something about that problem.

Even the old D notice approach wouldn’t work anymore
now that there will always be someone with a phone and
camera at any atrocity, broadcasting as it happens.