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.

OP: "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 determine the news story is 'true, not inciting hatred and not discriminating"? Sounds pretty like censorship!

So, say, the Guardian couldn't incite hatred against bankers by blaming them for economic problems? Not sure I agree with this proposal.

YY to Needascarf.

Definitely NOT going to sign. All papers tell lies & "incite hatred towards particular groups". It all depends which side of the fence you sit...

I don't think it's censorship. They can carry on printing whatever they want but I can object to the companies who provide them funding through advertising to do so.

It's not censorship, but it is action intended to reduce the range of opinions expressed in newspapers. I think that's a bad thing - even encountering 'obviously' wrong opinions can help us take a new perspective on things and challenge our existing opinions.

Interesting that still nobody's commented on who would make the decisions as to how this "hate speech" would be defined ...

Puzzled It would be defined by the buyers of the advertisers products. You see an advert in a publication you deem to be 'hate speech' and you boycott that advertiser. If enough people agree with you, the advertiser will withdraw his business from the publication. If enough businesses withdraw, no publication.
That is how the News of the World ended.

You see an advert in a publication you deem to be 'hate speech' and you boycott that advertiser

Yes, that seems sensible - as you say, it's about the only realistic way of making a difference to what they choose to print

I thought, though, that some seemed in favour of preventing something they didn't like being published in the first place ... ?

The idea is that advertisers would put pressure on the publications over the type of thing they would be offended by.
Many people would like to censor the press.

I don't read any of these papers (other than the occasional sports story in the Sun) because they don't appeal to me, and I wouldn't care if they disappeared or declined, but even so, I'm not sure how we can define "hate" in this context. Expressing concerns about immigration isn't "hate" but there are those who'd designate it as such, for example. You run the risk of suppressing points of view other than those expressed by the Guardian, which would be unacceptable in a free society.

I thought, though, that some seemed in favour of preventing something they didn't like being published in the first place ... ?

Some might advocate this, but the campaign in question is all about people putting pressure on the advertisers. So no censorship, just make it clear when people feel something is objectionable.

Expressing concerns about immigration isn't "hate"

I entirely agree! I am pro EU and immigration, but I also see that there are issues around immigration in this country. These issues should be discussed openly, honestly, and without demonising people simply by virtue of where they were born.

Although it is interesting that the same people trying to use the power of business and capitalism to censor the press are, almost certainly, the same as those who complain about capitalism and how it perverts the media.

A very valid point, Carol ...

Surely the people who read those papers don't think its hate speech and so will still buy the products that are advertised in it. And if the people are still buying the products the advertisers will still advertise.

So is this campaign asking people who dont normally buy these papers to buy them so they can see whats advertised in it, so they know what not to buy?

No.

This campion is asking advertisers not to advertise in these 'news' papers.

The Express, The Sun, The Daily Mail having been incredibly irresponsible with their headlines recently.

It's not censorship to want accuracy in our newspapers. Particularly when they are calling for the government to ignore British laws. So very dangerous.

Who makes the decision on what 'hate' is?
Exactly... One person's "hate" is another's factual analysis.

The leftist press never deny and distort the facts, ever ???

Well obviously that would be Guardian and New Statesman readers Puzzledandpissedoff........ Duh!!!!!!!

So you don't like a front page detailing nine forrin lorry drivers on their phones isn't xenophobic at all?

Any paper that does this - The Guardian, The Times , The Telegraph - should be pulled up on it.

Funny that there seems to be a lethargy from many people about this stoking up of irrational hate and untruths. Mostly people who read The Express and The Mail perhaps? Who knows.

But we wouldn't want to make sweeping generalisations about anyone, would we? At all ever, would we?

This whole thing is no longer about left vs right. That's just so simplistic.

Don't think not don't like

Billionaire newspaper owners are entitled to push their political views in their papers, but not to push their hatred.
Not to demonise and intimidate any opposition like this:

"Traitors"
"Fifth columnist"
"Enemies of the People"
"should be punished"
"time to silence you"

Such headlines next to pictures of individuals who dare to disagree with the newspaper owner are dangerously irresponsible:

It's only a few months since the murder of Jo Cox.
Her accused murderer stated in court "Death to traitors, freedom for Britain.”

Hatred for the "other side" can soon escalate out of control & spread.
Remember in Northern Ireland that first it was just politicians on one side who were murder targets, then soon they were all in danger.
It would be just as bad if the Daily Mirror & Guardian published such intimidating headlines above a picture of Teresa May or Boris (but they choose ridicule instead, which is perfectly legitimate)

The USA has far stronger freedom of speech built into their Constitution, but a US judge famously set the limits:
"You are not entitled to shout 'FIRE' in a crowded cinema"

I don't care what views papers are expressing atm, just how they are expressed.

Context and back story is very important. No good just taking isolated examples and asking do you agree with this?

It cuts both ways this....The right leaning press are often moaning about the lefty rags and so on it goes....No to censorship...!!!!!!

Erm yes, isolated examples are very important actually.

Especially when there are many examples.

Ok, you're right and I'm wrong.

Examples of lies - how about Hillsborough for a start? No one is talking about limiting opinions. At the moment the papers decide what opinions they want people to have and then adapt the story to suit. Foot and Mouth outbreak was another occasion where utter garbage was allowed to be printed as the truth. Quality journalism is a rare beast. The fact that so many people don't understand the problem is a sign of how much we need this. I get that the truth can look a little different depending on your point of view, but that is absolutely not the same as printing stuff that categorically hasn't happened.