4 ms·

Actually this shows the opposite. The mainstream media is unwilling to engage in discussion with someone who is anti-immigration (unless that person is is an I

Actually this shows the opposite. The mainstream media is unwilling to engage in discussion with someone who is anti-immigration (unless that person is is an Israeli politician). Instead they do cheap tricks to humiliate the speaker without addressing their actual arguments. The mainstream media, like all people, has the accusation of "racism" hanging over their heads so they are unable to speak freely on topics like immigration (see [0] for a deconstruction of the concept of racism). I know that the mainstream media in the UK, for example, publish some controversial materials on immigration and culture. But these are always from the perspective of "we're doing immigration wrong". All the mainstream right is allowed to say is that immigrants need to assimilate better. And they are only really allowed to say this about Muslims. They can't say it about Africans outside the context of Islam. And they can't say that assimilation is impossible, or that immigration is not worth the effort. I don't believe that the Russian press in general is more free than the Western press, but the person you are referring to is correct in that the Russian press is able to say things about immigration that the Western press can't. [0] http://beyondtheright.blogspot.com/2014/12/why-i-am-not-anti-racist.html http://beyondtheright.blogspot.com/2014/12/why-i-am-not-anti...

guard-of-terra 12y ago
In Russia immigration is a hot topic too, and internal Russian press is virtually not allowed to express opinions about limiting immigration just as well.
bayesianhorse 12y ago
Unwilling to engage? You seem to watch the wrong shows... I've seen tons of interviews with people advocating immigration control. Some where even quite friendly. There is a problem you don't seem to have noticed: The AFD Party does not only advocate tighter immigration control, but it also wants to hold offices. So if the news media document the utter failure of this party to even conduct their basic business without minor and major scandals, it saves us from voting some complete idiot into office. And where they got into office they continue to disappoint. Some just quit the party, others don't do any constructive work, some collaborate with the extreme right (and then they say they didn't). The media has an obligation to inform the public about the quality of politicians. That the AFD mostly fields ridiculously incompetent or inadequate candidates is not the media's fault.
- deepyearning 12y ago
  >Unwilling to engage? You seem to watch the wrong shows... I've seen tons of interviews with people advocating immigration control. Some where even quite friendly. As I said, the mainstream only allows a very narrow discourse on immigration, which Pegida don't seem to fall under. You characterize this act as a fair way to expose the incompetence of would be politicians. I disagree. It's actually highly unfair, and I think any unbiased person can see that. Why did they pretend to be from RT instead of just asking Pegida their opinions about RT? I don't think Pegida would have given a different answer in either case. The real reason was to make Pegida look stupid. "Look, they can't even tell a real reporter from a fake one". Whatever you think about Pegida's views on freedom of the press and RT, they should be judged on their merits and not in the context of a stupid stunt. As to what Pegida said, as I said before, I disagree but I see where they are coming from. They have a justified view that the Western press is not free when it comes to some issues. That they lack knowledge of RT and are uncritical of RT, is a minor issue.
  - bayesianhorse 12y ago
    Actually, journalists from serious media tried that. With very little success. Most participants refuse interviews, and there is a video where masked participants forcibly carry away an interviewee. In other videos journalists are hit, their cameras damaged, and all the time they are shouting hate at the journalists. The "narrow" discussion of immigration is more due to the limited options which have any reasonable chance of getting public support. As we've seen, the majority disagrees with Pegida. Only a fringe portion of the German public wants to break the constitution to tighten immigration. And those who try to fall somewhere in between current policy and breaking the constitution, often don't understand the topic worth a damn. If a journalist has even a modest understanding of the topic he will have the greatest difficulty of entertaining opinions and solutions which are based on factual errors.
    - deepyearning 12y ago
      Do you have any links regarding what you said about the impossibility of interviewing Pegida. From googling, I found the following interviews with Pegida members by RTL, at what appeared to be a peaceful protest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bl0KPaLPL7g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bl0KPaLPL7g and by Phoenix at another apparently peaceful demonstration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp2HKPQpfdg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp2HKPQpfdg >And those who try to fall somewhere in between current policy and breaking the constitution, often don't understand the topic worth a damn. If a journalist has even a modest understanding of the topic he will have the greatest difficulty of entertaining opinions and solutions which are based on factual errors. Well that's a very subjective matter. I see a lot of junk "knowledge" touted by pro immigration groups on this topic. For example, in most European countries immigrants commit more crimes. But there is a lot of obfuscation on this topic, and it's easy to get a smart sounding person to obfuscate the fact that the conditional probability of someone committing a crime given that they are an immigrant (see [0] for an example). [0] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-26/davidsonrefugee/2732220 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-26/davidsonrefugee/273222...
pluma 12y ago
To be fair, PEGIDA is intentionally offensive. In Germany "patriotism" is still a touchy subject although we seem to be becoming less uncomfortable with the concept. This is a process that takes time, but there has been a clear progression over the recent decades, especially thanks to our economical endurance and, of course, football. Likewise, "islamisation" is an overloaded term. Taken literally it just means an increasing cultural dominance of Islam. In practice, for many it's primarily a racial issue dating back to the "Gastarbeiter" fallacy several decades ago -- in fact, quite a few of the (mostly elderly) "concerned citizens" willing to explain their motivation name the uncontrolled influx of Turkish people. There are at least three factors at play here: asylum seekers, actual first generation immigrants and "unassimilated" n-th generation immigrants. The asylum seekers are mostly legitimate. Some of them would love to return to their country (but can't due to war / ethnic tensions), some of them would love to stay and become German citizens. Neither of them is generally allowed to seek employment and both of them continually face the risk of getting deported at a moment's notice. Both of them are portrayed as "parasites" by right-wing groups as well as some vocal members and sub-groups of PEGIDA. They also aren't exclusively or even predominantly Arabic muslisms (most are neither), contrary to what anti-asylum groups would have you believe. The first-generation immigrants generally come to Europe because they want to live and work here. They are frequently well-educated and interested in adopting the local language and culture. Unsurprisingly that doesn't mean they want to abandon their heritage completely. Contrary to public opinion, they generally don't "bring their unfit family over who claim social benefits without ever having paid into the system". There are immigrants who abuse social benefits, but there are far more non-immigrants who do the same. Additionally, immigrants face discrimination when seeking employment or trying to establish a business; frequently any credentials are dismissed entirely, too, so they are nearly always classified as "uneducated" regardless of their actual background. The n-th generation immigrants sometimes cause problems, frequently they do not. There is arguably a large number of adolescent or young adult criminals who are at odds with social norms (e.g. being misogynists and prone to violence). But the underlying issues are actually more complex than that. When Germany first tried to raise immigration we did it because we needed a large number of mostly unskilled workers and Germans weren't willing to take the jobs for various reasons (my opinion on this matter is irrelevant). For economical reasons, many of the immigrants came from Turkey and the Middle East. They largely saw this as a chance to improve their situation and that of their family. However we considered them not immigrants but "Gastarbeiter" (guest workers). The implication was that they were invited temporarily and expected to leave eventually. Because we only considered them "guests" (who eventually outstayed their welcome), we didn't come up with any plans to make sure they would integrate into society, learn the language and take our values to heart. Somehow this still worked out, generally speaking. For some, however, it didn't work out. The first-generation immigrants would often be working low-income jobs, barely enough to sustain their family here while sending money to their relatives back "home". Like most people who have undergone hardships, they would often spoil their children (especially boys, if their culture was already strictly patriarchal). Their children, however, would face discrimination outside their "kind": to the other kids they'd just be immigrants, not "real" Germans. At the same time, when visiting their relatives, they would find that their "home country" would be entirely alien to them, they'd be foreigners in both places, nowhere at home. Add in the common other factors for youth criminality and you end up where we are today. Sure, that's a gross oversimplification and the criminal "immigrant" youth of today is often not just in their second generation but in their third or forth, but the basic sequence of events is frequently no different. But even disregarding the "why", what are we supposed to do with n-th generation "immigrants" we don't like? It's naive to believe that deportation is even remotely possible or sensible. They're Germans, not just "guests". They've often lived in Germany all their live and at best spent a few vacations in their "home" country. They're our problem and it is cowardly to pretend they're not. But rehabilitation is of course a far more boring and unappealing answer than deportation. Yes, Islamism is a problem. We need to watch certain Muslim sects very closely. Yes, youth crime is a problem. We need to take better care of our youth and protect them from becoming criminals. But PEGIDA is no more of an answer than "Hooligans against Salafists". It's strengthening the true parasites: nationalist right-wing groups. We don't need fearmongering and chest-thumping, we need intelligent solutions. And as long as we don't have those solutions, we need to find them. /rant

guard-of-terra 12y ago

In Russia immigration is a hot topic too, and internal Russian press is virtually not allowed to express opinions about limiting immigration just as well.

bayesianhorse 12y ago

Unwilling to engage? You seem to watch the wrong shows... I've seen tons of interviews with people advocating immigration control. Some where even quite friendly. There is a problem you don't seem to have noticed: The AFD Party does not only advocate tighter immigration control, but it also wants to hold offices. So if the news media document the utter failure of this party to even conduct their basic business without minor and major scandals, it saves us from voting some complete idiot into office. And where they got into office they continue to disappoint. Some just quit the party, others don't do any constructive work, some collaborate with the extreme right (and then they say they didn't). The media has an obligation to inform the public about the quality of politicians. That the AFD mostly fields ridiculously incompetent or inadequate candidates is not the media's fault.

deepyearning 12y ago
>Unwilling to engage? You seem to watch the wrong shows... I've seen tons of interviews with people advocating immigration control. Some where even quite friendly. As I said, the mainstream only allows a very narrow discourse on immigration, which Pegida don't seem to fall under. You characterize this act as a fair way to expose the incompetence of would be politicians. I disagree. It's actually highly unfair, and I think any unbiased person can see that. Why did they pretend to be from RT instead of just asking Pegida their opinions about RT? I don't think Pegida would have given a different answer in either case. The real reason was to make Pegida look stupid. "Look, they can't even tell a real reporter from a fake one". Whatever you think about Pegida's views on freedom of the press and RT, they should be judged on their merits and not in the context of a stupid stunt. As to what Pegida said, as I said before, I disagree but I see where they are coming from. They have a justified view that the Western press is not free when it comes to some issues. That they lack knowledge of RT and are uncritical of RT, is a minor issue.
- bayesianhorse 12y ago
  Actually, journalists from serious media tried that. With very little success. Most participants refuse interviews, and there is a video where masked participants forcibly carry away an interviewee. In other videos journalists are hit, their cameras damaged, and all the time they are shouting hate at the journalists. The "narrow" discussion of immigration is more due to the limited options which have any reasonable chance of getting public support. As we've seen, the majority disagrees with Pegida. Only a fringe portion of the German public wants to break the constitution to tighten immigration. And those who try to fall somewhere in between current policy and breaking the constitution, often don't understand the topic worth a damn. If a journalist has even a modest understanding of the topic he will have the greatest difficulty of entertaining opinions and solutions which are based on factual errors.
  - deepyearning 12y ago
    Do you have any links regarding what you said about the impossibility of interviewing Pegida. From googling, I found the following interviews with Pegida members by RTL, at what appeared to be a peaceful protest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bl0KPaLPL7g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bl0KPaLPL7g and by Phoenix at another apparently peaceful demonstration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp2HKPQpfdg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp2HKPQpfdg >And those who try to fall somewhere in between current policy and breaking the constitution, often don't understand the topic worth a damn. If a journalist has even a modest understanding of the topic he will have the greatest difficulty of entertaining opinions and solutions which are based on factual errors. Well that's a very subjective matter. I see a lot of junk "knowledge" touted by pro immigration groups on this topic. For example, in most European countries immigrants commit more crimes. But there is a lot of obfuscation on this topic, and it's easy to get a smart sounding person to obfuscate the fact that the conditional probability of someone committing a crime given that they are an immigrant (see [0] for an example). [0] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-26/davidsonrefugee/2732220 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-26/davidsonrefugee/273222...

pluma 12y ago

To be fair, PEGIDA is intentionally offensive. In Germany "patriotism" is still a touchy subject although we seem to be becoming less uncomfortable with the concept. This is a process that takes time, but there has been a clear progression over the recent decades, especially thanks to our economical endurance and, of course, football. Likewise, "islamisation" is an overloaded term. Taken literally it just means an increasing cultural dominance of Islam. In practice, for many it's primarily a racial issue dating back to the "Gastarbeiter" fallacy several decades ago -- in fact, quite a few of the (mostly elderly) "concerned citizens" willing to explain their motivation name the uncontrolled influx of Turkish people. There are at least three factors at play here: asylum seekers, actual first generation immigrants and "unassimilated" n-th generation immigrants. The asylum seekers are mostly legitimate. Some of them would love to return to their country (but can't due to war / ethnic tensions), some of them would love to stay and become German citizens. Neither of them is generally allowed to seek employment and both of them continually face the risk of getting deported at a moment's notice. Both of them are portrayed as "parasites" by right-wing groups as well as some vocal members and sub-groups of PEGIDA. They also aren't exclusively or even predominantly Arabic muslisms (most are neither), contrary to what anti-asylum groups would have you believe. The first-generation immigrants generally come to Europe because they want to live and work here. They are frequently well-educated and interested in adopting the local language and culture. Unsurprisingly that doesn't mean they want to abandon their heritage completely. Contrary to public opinion, they generally don't "bring their unfit family over who claim social benefits without ever having paid into the system". There are immigrants who abuse social benefits, but there are far more non-immigrants who do the same. Additionally, immigrants face discrimination when seeking employment or trying to establish a business; frequently any credentials are dismissed entirely, too, so they are nearly always classified as "uneducated" regardless of their actual background. The n-th generation immigrants sometimes cause problems, frequently they do not. There is arguably a large number of adolescent or young adult criminals who are at odds with social norms (e.g. being misogynists and prone to violence). But the underlying issues are actually more complex than that. When Germany first tried to raise immigration we did it because we needed a large number of mostly unskilled workers and Germans weren't willing to take the jobs for various reasons (my opinion on this matter is irrelevant). For economical reasons, many of the immigrants came from Turkey and the Middle East. They largely saw this as a chance to improve their situation and that of their family. However we considered them not immigrants but "Gastarbeiter" (guest workers). The implication was that they were invited temporarily and expected to leave eventually. Because we only considered them "guests" (who eventually outstayed their welcome), we didn't come up with any plans to make sure they would integrate into society, learn the language and take our values to heart. Somehow this still worked out, generally speaking. For some, however, it didn't work out. The first-generation immigrants would often be working low-income jobs, barely enough to sustain their family here while sending money to their relatives back "home". Like most people who have undergone hardships, they would often spoil their children (especially boys, if their culture was already strictly patriarchal). Their children, however, would face discrimination outside their "kind": to the other kids they'd just be immigrants, not "real" Germans. At the same time, when visiting their relatives, they would find that their "home country" would be entirely alien to them, they'd be foreigners in both places, nowhere at home. Add in the common other factors for youth criminality and you end up where we are today. Sure, that's a gross oversimplification and the criminal "immigrant" youth of today is often not just in their second generation but in their third or forth, but the basic sequence of events is frequently no different. But even disregarding the "why", what are we supposed to do with n-th generation "immigrants" we don't like? It's naive to believe that deportation is even remotely possible or sensible. They're Germans, not just "guests". They've often lived in Germany all their live and at best spent a few vacations in their "home" country. They're our problem and it is cowardly to pretend they're not. But rehabilitation is of course a far more boring and unappealing answer than deportation. Yes, Islamism is a problem. We need to watch certain Muslim sects very closely. Yes, youth crime is a problem. We need to take better care of our youth and protect them from becoming criminals. But PEGIDA is no more of an answer than "Hooligans against Salafists". It's strengthening the true parasites: nationalist right-wing groups. We don't need fearmongering and chest-thumping, we need intelligent solutions. And as long as we don't have those solutions, we need to find them. /rant