Stop Funding Hate: Campaign against media hate rhetoric (Daily Fail, Sun, Daily Express)

[TeamEponine]

Yesterday a campaign was launched called Stop Funding Hate. It aims to tackle the papers that spread fear and hate, and then profit from this. The idea is to persuade advertisers to remove their adverts, and consequently their funding, from these media outlets. Virgin Media is the first being targeted as Richard Branson has been openly critical of the media’s divisive strategies.

Facebook page with more information and a great video that can be shared: www.facebook.com/stopfundinghate

Petition on 38 degrees: you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/virgin-media-pull-your-sun-advertising

The hashtag #stopfundinghate is also being used on Twitter.

I am nothing to do with this campaign, so this isn’t self-promotion. I just feel strongly that the media are irresponsible and that they contribute to the creation of fear and hate in this country. This is the first thing that seems to allow me to do something proactive, so I thought I’d share it.

Apologies if this has been posted elsewhere, but I couldn't find anything! I also wasn't sure where to post it, so I hope this is the right place.

Creepily close to a pro-censorship campaign. Not a reader of any of these papers but still not interested, sorry.

Not interested either

I don't think it is pro-censorship, more anti-lies designed to profit from creating hate. But everyone is entitled to their own views and opinions.

I find the term 'hate' very unhelpful - it means whatever you want it to mean, which can mean anything you disagree with. I would be much more inclined to support a campaign that was specific about what it is against, in this case, I presume, mainly racism.

Like I said, I didn't design the campaign, and I am not saying that the implementation is perfect. But these papers have been shown to write total fiction on multiple occasions, typically aimed at immigrants.

I just know that I've read quite a few threads on MN which expressed similar frustrations about the media, so I thought I'd share it.

Companies can advertise where they like, people can boycott companies they dislike based on where they advertise.
Not sure how this petition helps as people who sign it do not read the Sun (I assume) so have no idea of its advertising content.

I disapprove of censorship and won't be signing. I don't buy any of the newspapers mentioned so have no idea of the companies who advertise in them. People who do read them are hardly likely to boycott the advertisers so not sure what this is trying to achieve.

Not going to sign it either. Much as I agree with the premise that hate-speech and fear mongering is rife among those papers I don't buy them anyway and anyone who does is not likely to give two hoots.

I've already signed OP. And while I disagree with censorship, I agree with you about the sentiment of these rags.

Who makes the decision on what 'hate' is?

Censorship.

It really is time for us to stand up against the lies fed to us daily through several newspapers. I find many of the headlines shocking. My children find them shocking, and can't understand why these things are printed. This campaign is not censorship. Advertisers are not allowed to feed us lies, so why should the media be allowed to use lies to manipulate the people?

The point of this campaign is to prevent lies. It has nothing to do with censorship. The Murdoch owned press print terrible lies every day fuelling misunderstandings and misconceptions about refugees and immigrants. This is not about political leanings or about pro or anti Europe this is about promoting clean, fair and honest journalism and asking companies to not fund or support this untruthful propaganda. By printing these lies (and they are lies, this has been evidenced on many occasions) this is misinforming the country and promoting an agenda of fear towards the most vulnerable in our society. Regardless of your politics the people of the UK deserve honest, trustworthy news stories and these publications are not providing that.

No, it's not censorship because they are not being influenced by government. This is consumer action, because many consumers are fed up of the vile, anti-migrant propaganda they peddle - they are printing things that would not be out of place in 1930s German propaganda paper Der Stürmer. And we all know where that led. No wonder we are seeing hate crime rates go through the roof.

Good idea.
It's definitely not censorship.
It's a desire to see the press act responsibly, to tell the truth, to not scapegoat groups of people, with spurious, lying, and deliberately emotional, stories. Censorship is when someone is not allowed to say something, not when people decide they don't want to pay for someone to say something...
I do not currently live in Britain but I do read the British press, daily. What often passes for 'news stories' in the UK would simply not be published in many countries in Europe. Press Standard in the UK seem to have fallen, and now cross a definite line.
I think this campaign is a chance for consumers, and advertisers, to say they do not want this tone anymore. It doesn't matter if you read these papers or not. I have signed for this reason. And, if the advertisers can justify their spend, I'd like to understand their reasons.
Many of the vilified are potential customers too....

This isn't anything to do with censorship, it's about getting these papers to stop with vile outright lies that only serve to create hate in our society. If you watch the video it's not about buying the papers, it's about stopping the papers getting advertising revenues until they stop printing lies. I can get behind tha!

Who makes the decision on what 'hate' is?

^^ This

Given the number of times the word's used on such sites as this for "anything disagreed with", the idea seems unwise at best

Examples of lies please?

Here are a few examples of distorted figures, blatant lies and propaganda that spring to mind:
tabloidcorrections.wordpress.com/2016/08/02/is-the-sun-trying-to-stir-up-racial-hatred-again/
indy100.independent.co.uk/article/daily-express-highlights-benefits-of-brexit-is-forced-to-retract-entire-article--bygEsaSHY8b
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/katie-hopkins-migrant-cockroaches-column-resembles-pro-genocide-propaganda-says-the-un-10201959.html
But specific examples don't show the full picture. These papers are printing distortions of the facts every day. They are forced to retract many outright lies of course, but it's always hidden in small print and long after the damage has been done. It makes me so sad that people's opinions are being formed by these papers.

There are more here:
www.facebook.com/Tabloid-Corrections-541468706020335/?fref=ts
And also rather a shocking read from last year:
indy100.independent.co.uk/article/what-happens-when-you-comment-on-daily-mail-articles-with-actual-nazi-propaganda--Zy4ccsnBEx

Nobody is banning any newspapers. They are telling brands they use that they feel uncomfortable with them being associated with newspapers that are encouraging civil unrest (have you seen the Daily Express headlines lately - it's astonishing they're being allowed to get away with it). To quote the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, these are “vicious verbal assault on migrants and asylum seekers in the UK tabloid press”, following “decades of sustained and unrestrained anti-foreigner abuse, misinformation and distortion.”

Only, newspapers tend to reflect the views of their readers, rather than the other way around.

So who is going to tell us what news we are allowed to have? Maybe a new government ministry that vets news stories and only those that are deemed 'nice' are allowed.

This is nothing to do with choosing which stories to publish or not publish. It is about wanting the newspapers to present factual information in a way that is not contrived to incite hatred towards particular groups.

They can publish whatever they want, as long as it is true and not designed to incite hatred and discrimination.

So who is going to tell us what news we are allowed to have? Maybe a new government ministry that vets news stories ...

Don't even go there - though I've no doubt a few would-be censors would absolutely love it as long as the censors took "their side"

Let's also not forget that major newspapers enjoy excellent legal advice, and pretty generally know exactly what they can get away with saying. Considering the sort of "exciting" headlines they use to increase sales, this perhaps explains why successful prosecutions are comparatively rare

In the meantime, if their use of free speech offends, just don't buy the paper, their advertisers' products or whatever else suits