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.

Oh but Tropezienne, I am always open to discussion and debate.

I wouldn't ever want to try and shut anyone down.

Unless they were espousing dreadful things of course, like xenophobia or downright nonsense like trying to bypass British sovereign law.

Who on earth would espouse those views anyway?

Similar arguments can be made against the left leaning, so called 'quality' press, that they omit, lie and hide the truth for political reasons. There are plenty of examples of this.

We cant keep calling for censorship over what we see or dont see. And who is to decide anyway?

It would also mean that you might have to proof read each paper before placing advertising spend. How practical is this?

It is a minefield. Most advertisers are purely interested in cluster demographics in terms of likely spend.

Personally I see media bias in pretty much all the papers.

Many of the papers would (left wing included) cease to exist without advertising spend.

We need to be more robust about our critical thinking and what we choose to believe. If you have that then you can decide for yourself and also check a number of sources. I guess most people can use google these days.

Similar arguments can be made against the left leaning, so called 'quality' press, that they omit, lie and hide the truth for political reasons. There are plenty of examples of this

Yes this ^. Its a dreadful mistake to think left papers are above board, they are not.

Tropezienne
Similar arguments can be made against the left leaning, so called 'quality' press, that they omit, lie and hide the truth for political reasons. There are plenty of examples of this.

^ Totally agree.

RortyCrankle: "I disapprove of censorship and won't be signing."

So you don't understand the difference between censorship and withdrawing advertising?

Let me explain. Censorship is when people or publications are banned from publishing certain things, such as criticism of the state, and that is backed up by sanctions, such as fines or imprisonment.

Withdrawing advertising is...well, withdrawing advertising. Companies have the ability to choose where they place their adverts, and many choose not to advertise in places that don't chime with their values. This petition is nudging them in the right direction.

Does help? Any other simple concepts you're having difficulty with that I could explain to you?

Exactly hackmum . As for this shout of xenophobia at anyone or any media outlet that dares to raise certain subject area, however clumsily they might be doing it? Don't forget Labour MP Anne Cryer was branded a xenophobe when she raised concerns over the Muslim rape/torture gangs operating in her constituency of Keighley and Rotherham years ago. She contacted the Guardian who said next to nothing despite all of their crusading journo's and pull-out- sections devoted to 'Society' and 'Women'. It was actually (the much hated by the left) Times who put on the pressure on this.

There are no goodies and baddies here. I say no to censorship and if Facebook and anyone else with a political agenda, left or right, want my signature for it, they will have to want.

I meant: exactly sportinguista". in regard to - Personally I see political bias in pretty much all the papers*.

Many of my clients have a wide ranging advertising spend and it would be a nightmare as they could place their advertising spend (often done many months ahead) then a paper they could think was 'safe' runs a totally obnoxious piece out of the blue. But since they are not privy to the editorial team etc beforehand they cannot know.

Perhaps there are better ways of putting pressure on papers we think push the limits of what should be allowed in a free press. We do have to remember that if the press is to remain free in both directions both left and right we need to keep in mind that we may not like all opinions and views and that in turn others may not like our opinions and views.

Dearie me Rorty. You love to abuse other posters, don't you?

Censorship? How silly.

It is practically impossible to get clear, factual, unbiased, unexaggerated, calm news in this country.

The tabloid press, in particular, are filtering information on a daily basis in a way that is spiteful, irresponsible and ultimately damaging to us all.

The influence they have is HUGE and overwhelmingly negative.

Pah! I am such a ranty pants.

Similar arguments can be made against the left leaning, so called 'quality' press, that they omit, lie and hide the truth for political reasons. There are plenty of examples of this.

Is there any evidence to back this up? (e.g. similar number of corrections published/complaints upheld etc.)

Even if it were true, the right-wing tabloids have a much larger circulation, so the effects of their lies, hate campaigns etc. will be greater.

Also, surely it's relevant that the Mail, Sun etc. consistently target the most vulnerable in society - immigrants, refugees, people on benefits etc. Bit different from the Guardian attacking bankers, surely.

'Left leaning' and 'quality press' are far from perfect, I agree.

Tabloids are in a different league though.

I wonder why we put up with it?

I'm not saying that the alternative is to muzzle them, God - far from it.

Could the alternative not be a vigorous, vocal, truthful and unbiased press?

The Guardian omit, misrepresent stuff and spin stories to fit their political bias all the time. I've already mentioned Rotherham and their silence about that. As evidence of omission.

For misrepresentation: I recall in April there was a ICM poll asking questions to Muslims in Britain. The Guardian ran this poll under the headline: “Most British Muslims feel strong sense of belonging.” Later that day they changed it, under pressure, to reflect the results on homosexuality. This poll revealed that 4 in ten of Britain’s Muslims want homosexuality made illegal, and 40% British Muslims think that wives should always obey their husbands, and never refuse sex etc, the national average is 5%. Most media outlets reported this as was, but the Guardian put their own spin on it by trying to say: there's no cultural divide in this country. A view that many do not share.

I accept political bias in all media outlets. Like politicians, they have an agenda that suits them. The Guardian is obviously pro - multiculturalism, immigration, the environment, the role of the state, the EU etc.That's fine, they're entitled to what standpoint they want and to irritate the 'other side' with it. But that other side will have theirs also. As for the effects of their lies, hate campaigns etc. will be greater. I don't know about that, a huge number of people rely on the BBC for their news and they ignored this poll entirely.

I'd love to see the press as a whole become more responsible and turn the news media into being real news rather than rags looking to sell their own grandmother (or the stability of the country) for profit. But I'm not sure that this is the best way to go about it. I'll call in if I get any better ideas. Perhaps support the BBC more?

News is biased because we are biased. They just implement it differently. Tabloids are crass about theirs and the broadsheets / BBC might appear balanced but also mislead.
I dont think its humanly possible to have a truly 100% balanced, fair, impassioned analysis of all news stories all of the time. I really don't. Perhaps eradicating all bias from a story can drain it of its lifeblood anyway. Biases can stir up passions that can really animate a story. We love to be manipulated after all, it's just a question of how much manipulation can you stand?

Were pack animals anyway. And there's “pack journalism.” / “group think.” or the “master narrative”. The journalist picks facts that boosts a master narrative that he/she and their publication generally favours and ignores all the other facts. I think we need to know how to manage bias and not expect it to disappear.

News is biased because we are biased.

This campaign isn't about media bias or balance, it's about opposing hate speech.

Nobody expects newspapers to be "truly 100% balanced".
However, we should demand that they don't publish columns calling refugees cockroaches.

Policing 'hate speech' will bring us very close to censorship. I feel very uncomfortable about this.

There is already legislation designed to prevent lies in the press, known as defamation law.

And Mugdock only owns one of the newspapers cited in the OP.

*Murdoch

There is already legislation designed to prevent lies in the press, known as defamation law.

Defamation law only applies to individuals, it doesn't protect groups (e.g. migrants, the disabled etc.)

In any case, this isn't about a law, it's about consumers gently suggesting to companies and retailers that advertise in tabloids that associating their products with hate speech and dehumanizing rhetoric isn't the best way to cultivate a positive brand image. It's not much different from boycotting the products of a firm whose business practices you don't agree with.

I care about free speech too, that's why I think that laws against hate speech aren't always the best solution; it's for civil society to enforce these norms by calling out hate speech.

It's not about a call for censorship. It's about a call for responsible journalism.

Has always been thus really. Used to say the same sorts of things about us (Irish). And other groups. We've all been played very nicely against each other until, economically and demographically, they got us all where they wanted and now they want us to turn on the immigrants they've tried to replace us with.

Lego:

@StopFundingHate We have finished the agreement with The Daily Mail and are not planning any future promotional activity with the newspaper

Erm..why do you accept political bias in media outlets?

This campaign isn't about political bias anyway. It's about not tolerating hate and equally about pushing for responsible journalism.

I respect my neighbour's right to free speech. Actually I would take to the streets to defend it. But that doesn't mean I would accept him screaming abuse at me and my children, or spreading lies about us.