4 ms·

The UK is much authoritarian than people give it credit for. Official state media, convicting comedians for offensive jokes, laws restricting speech... But mos

The UK is much authoritarian than people give it credit for. Official state media, convicting comedians for offensive jokes, laws restricting speech... But most Brits will say all of the above is fine, even necessary. It's eerie how similar these conversations are to ones I've had with people from countries generally considered authoritarian in the west. The general conclusion I draw is that people will justify and put up with a fair amount of authoritarianism if they feel it targets the right people, or maintains the kind of society they want to live in. If you're a "good citizen" and it doesn't effect you it's hard to be principled if it's mainly targeting people you consider dregs. EDIT: changed "State run media" to "Official state media" per conversation below..

charlieyu1 4y ago
I am moving from Hong Kong to UK and I’d say most of these are not fine. Sadly it is probably the only route to escape Hong Kong that is accessible to most people here.
schrodinger 4y ago
As a US citizen I am completely on the side of freedom of press but I wish there was SOME means of holding Fox News accountable especially since they're an unregulated propaganda machine of the extremist republicans…
- cowtools 4y ago
  accountable for what specifically? or do you just want more rigorous reporting in general? TV is a dying medium, is it not? I'd say this problem of sensationalist TV news solves itself within a decade.
  - pjc50 4y ago
    TV is being replaced by even more sensationalist and less accountable youtubers.
  - shapefrog 4y ago
    > accountable for what specifically? For mis-selling entertainment, opinion and a poorly written soap opera as the "facts" or even "news".
- DocTomoe 4y ago
  And still, when I think 'low-quality and probably life-destroying yellow press', I do not think United States, I think United Kingdom. Fox News feels almost liberal compared to the likes of the Daily Mail or (shudder) the Express.
  - smcl 4y ago
    I dislike all of these organizations, but they're all peas in the same awful pod. Debating whether one is more liberal than another is like trying to figure out which of Himmler, Goering or Hitler was the least fascist. You might be able to get an answer but it doesn't mean anything given how terrible they all were.
jen20 4y ago
To be clear, despite efforts of BBC News since 2016 to demonstrate otherwise, the BBC is funded by the license fee, with the exception of the world service. It is not controlled by the state.
- LAC-Tech 4y ago
  You're right, "state-run" is perhaps a clumsy term to use, and doesn't quite capture the dynamics between the BBC and the government. "Official state media" is more correct
  - mellosouls 4y ago
    "Public service broadcaster" is even more correct. Your original comment had truth to it but bundling the BBC in undermined that, however you define it here.
    - LAC-Tech 4y ago
      What's the difference? Your term sounds like mine but dressed in less neutral, more positive language.
      - mellosouls 4y ago
        I don't think it's less neutral - your (non-standard) definition conveys the idea of government mouthpiece which supports your original comment but doesn't reflect the BBC's history or mission.
        LAC-Tech 4y ago
        Didn't intend to convey it was a mouth piece for the government. But it's definitely official, and definitely a state institution, even the tail wags the dog a lot more than say XinHua. "Public Service" is plainly a positive term though. It lends an air of altruism. Not particularly interested in what nomenclature is standard (according to who? 7 etc etc).
jahnu 4y ago
Even as official state media it doesn’t quite capture the complicated relationship between the BBC, it’s reporters, management, and the government. Take for example how it covered the Northern Ireland Troubles https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/oct/22/how-the-bbcs-journalists-fought-to-cover-the-northern-ireland-conflict https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/oct/22/how... I grew up watching BBC Northern Ireland and also the Irish equivalent of the BBC, RTE and witnessed at least two different versions of reality every evening. Many competing interests were involved and many on all sides were genuinely acting in good faith within their respective systems. As a point of contrast, I feel like US mainstream news is even more beholden to special interests, including that of the government, than either the BBC or RTE ever were. So being nominally free of state control doesn’t mean a whole lot in reality it seems to me.
pjc50 4y ago
Part of that is that the private media are actually more authoritarian than the state one. Remember the "enemies of the people" headline? For a while as a minister Boris Johnson was paid more by the Times than his ministerial salary. Johnson gave Lebedev a peerage for using his papers, the Evening Standard and the Independent, to promote him. One of the few papers still defending him in his half-resigned state is the Daily Mail. The press have very much been calling the shots until now.
flir 4y ago
> convicting comedians for offensive jokes If that's referring to the case I think it's referring to, I'm very ok with that. There's no such thing as ironic racism.
Lio 4y ago
I can remember foreign owned private media (The Sun) trying to frame a football match as an extension of World War II. I also remember when that same foreign owned newspaper boasted about manipulating the results of our elections. I mention "foreign owned" twice because I don't think those that don't have a stake in our country should have so much influence on how it is run and definitely shouldn't be trying to stir up non-existent trouble with our allies. Personally I'm OK with a public service broadcaster that's charged with being politically neutral.

charlieyu1 4y ago

I am moving from Hong Kong to UK and I’d say most of these are not fine. Sadly it is probably the only route to escape Hong Kong that is accessible to most people here.

schrodinger 4y ago

As a US citizen I am completely on the side of freedom of press but I wish there was SOME means of holding Fox News accountable especially since they're an unregulated propaganda machine of the extremist republicans…

cowtools 4y ago
accountable for what specifically? or do you just want more rigorous reporting in general? TV is a dying medium, is it not? I'd say this problem of sensationalist TV news solves itself within a decade.
- pjc50 4y ago
  TV is being replaced by even more sensationalist and less accountable youtubers.
- shapefrog 4y ago
  > accountable for what specifically? For mis-selling entertainment, opinion and a poorly written soap opera as the "facts" or even "news".
DocTomoe 4y ago
And still, when I think 'low-quality and probably life-destroying yellow press', I do not think United States, I think United Kingdom. Fox News feels almost liberal compared to the likes of the Daily Mail or (shudder) the Express.
- smcl 4y ago
  I dislike all of these organizations, but they're all peas in the same awful pod. Debating whether one is more liberal than another is like trying to figure out which of Himmler, Goering or Hitler was the least fascist. You might be able to get an answer but it doesn't mean anything given how terrible they all were.

jen20 4y ago

To be clear, despite efforts of BBC News since 2016 to demonstrate otherwise, the BBC is funded by the license fee, with the exception of the world service. It is not controlled by the state.

LAC-Tech 4y ago
You're right, "state-run" is perhaps a clumsy term to use, and doesn't quite capture the dynamics between the BBC and the government. "Official state media" is more correct
- mellosouls 4y ago
  "Public service broadcaster" is even more correct. Your original comment had truth to it but bundling the BBC in undermined that, however you define it here.
  - LAC-Tech 4y ago
    What's the difference? Your term sounds like mine but dressed in less neutral, more positive language.
    - mellosouls 4y ago
      I don't think it's less neutral - your (non-standard) definition conveys the idea of government mouthpiece which supports your original comment but doesn't reflect the BBC's history or mission.
      - LAC-Tech 4y ago
        Didn't intend to convey it was a mouth piece for the government. But it's definitely official, and definitely a state institution, even the tail wags the dog a lot more than say XinHua. "Public Service" is plainly a positive term though. It lends an air of altruism. Not particularly interested in what nomenclature is standard (according to who? 7 etc etc).

jahnu 4y ago

Even as official state media it doesn’t quite capture the complicated relationship between the BBC, it’s reporters, management, and the government. Take for example how it covered the Northern Ireland Troubles https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/oct/22/how-the-bbcs-journalists-fought-to-cover-the-northern-ireland-conflict https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/oct/22/how... I grew up watching BBC Northern Ireland and also the Irish equivalent of the BBC, RTE and witnessed at least two different versions of reality every evening. Many competing interests were involved and many on all sides were genuinely acting in good faith within their respective systems. As a point of contrast, I feel like US mainstream news is even more beholden to special interests, including that of the government, than either the BBC or RTE ever were. So being nominally free of state control doesn’t mean a whole lot in reality it seems to me.

pjc50 4y ago

Part of that is that the private media are actually more authoritarian than the state one. Remember the "enemies of the people" headline? For a while as a minister Boris Johnson was paid more by the Times than his ministerial salary. Johnson gave Lebedev a peerage for using his papers, the Evening Standard and the Independent, to promote him. One of the few papers still defending him in his half-resigned state is the Daily Mail. The press have very much been calling the shots until now.

flir 4y ago

> convicting comedians for offensive jokes If that's referring to the case I think it's referring to, I'm very ok with that. There's no such thing as ironic racism.

Lio 4y ago

I can remember foreign owned private media (The Sun) trying to frame a football match as an extension of World War II. I also remember when that same foreign owned newspaper boasted about manipulating the results of our elections. I mention "foreign owned" twice because I don't think those that don't have a stake in our country should have so much influence on how it is run and definitely shouldn't be trying to stir up non-existent trouble with our allies. Personally I'm OK with a public service broadcaster that's charged with being politically neutral.