Brits Grasping at Straws to Demonize Cannabis

[VerdantGreen]

its not about the government paying the press, its about the tabloid newspapers driving government policy and politicians trying to stay on the right side of them.

cannabis was upgraded due to the fascist press (and i do mean fascist) demonising cannabis as they demonise everything - immigrants, young people etc. when our prime minister was at a loss for something to do that made him look decisive, he chose to upgrade cannabis.

V.

 

[sallyforthDeleted member 75382]

What 'level' of surveillance?

We got cameras at train stations & city centres, thats it

And on every high street in city's, towns and villages. In all shops banks even fuckin schools. I could go on mate they are everywhere.

In Britain if you go out to work everyday you'll be on camera 360 times on 1 day.

I got done for parking in a disabled bay at a carpark. The evidence was ..... I was filmed !

 

[Open Eyes]

What is up with the statistic that cannabis use can lead to becoming scitzo in %1 of the users? 1 case in every 5000 users is reported so i highly doubt that the 1%they quote is valid. I think they are just trying to scare people.

 

[HempHut]

its not about the government paying the press, its about the tabloid newspapers driving government policy and politicians trying to stay on the right side of them.

cannabis was upgraded due to the fascist press (and i do mean fascist) demonising cannabis as they demonise everything - immigrants, young people etc. when our prime minister was at a loss for something to do that made him look decisive, he chose to upgrade cannabis.

V.

Indeed, but that's just one side of it:

I would also add that it's a tandem act between the press and the government, so when Brown had already decided to upgrade weed to class B we saw a slew of media propaganda on "super skunk", schizophrenia (the new reefer madness), etc.

It was no accident the media began banging the drum a year plus prior to Brown's decision -- those media outlets were either instructed or requested to publish stories with slants that would pave the way for the government's decision. I doubt payments were made, but minister's aid has contacts in print media, goes out for drinks with said contact, makes a few comments here or there and then we begin to see stories with specific slants favourable to upcoming policy announcements.

The tabloids can certainly drive policy, but the government also uses them to its ends as well -- it's not just a one way street.

 

[Skip]

Why do ppl have such a hard time believing that media outlets get PAID for what they print?

Happens every day, everywhere. They just don't tell you about it...

 

[Skip]

Yet the Brits seem to take it all in stride. *shrug*

One mustn't grumble!!!

 

[HempHut]

Why do ppl have such a hard time believing that media outlets get PAID for what they print?

Happens every day, everywhere. They just don't tell you about it...

I don't have a hard time believing it -- I just don't see it as particularly necessary in a lot of cases. A nod, nudge and a wink can often accomplish the government's ends without the need for something so crass as money.

Or you pay in peerages, lordships, etc.

 

[love?]

Why do ppl have such a hard time believing that media outlets get PAID for what they print?

Happens every day, everywhere. They just don't tell you about it...

There are various types of media outlets... but I guess the majority of them are advertisement funded.

At first it may seem that the product say an advertisement funded newspaper sells is the newspaper itself but that is wrong. Selling the paper is just supplemental income. They are really in the business of selling their readers to their advertisers. Advertisers are the customer, readers are the product.

The newspaper prints exactly what the advertiser wants! Anything else would quite simply be bad business. Now sure some newspapers may provide unbiased news (lol what an oxymoron) but that's only because their advertisers want them to print that because they believe it will increase the amount of readers (the amount of product they get).

There are a lot of industries with interest to keep cannabis illegal. Alcohol, medicine, tobacco... They are huge advertisers worldwide, DEA drug money is not even peanuts compared to all that.

 

[texsativa]

Why do ppl have such a hard time believing that media outlets get PAID for what they print?

Happens every day, everywhere. They just don't tell you about it...

I expect some of the media is paid off under table. Must be some because there is a bias not just in one outlet.

Tough break for the kid, sorry to hear about that. Probably did what he did because of the schizophrenia, with some of the negative symptoms associated with schizophrenia as well as not being able to turn off voices in your head making you depressed even more.

 

[HempHut]

There are various types of media outlets... but I guess the majority of them are advertisement funded.

At first it may seem that the product say an advertisement funded newspaper sells is the newspaper itself but that is wrong. Selling the paper is just supplemental income. They are really in the business of selling their readers to their advertisers. Advertisers are the customer, readers are the product.

The newspaper prints exactly what the advertiser wants! Anything else would quite simply be bad business. Now sure some newspapers may provide unbiased news (lol what an oxymoron) but that's only because their advertisers want them to print that because they believe it will increase the amount of readers (the amount of product they get).

There are a lot of industries with interest to keep cannabis illegal. Alcohol, medicine, tobacco... They are huge advertisers worldwide, DEA drug money is not even peanuts compared to all that.

Pretty much, but not quite:

Media doesn't communicate what its advertisers want -- it communicates whatever will increase its readership/viewers. By increasing its readership/viewers (product count) it is control of the dynamic between itself and its customers (advertisers) -- in short, a media outlet with a lot of attention has the advertisers beating a path to its door -- it doesn't need to cater to the advertisers since they'll be lining up to buy that huge block of human attention no matter what the actual content of the message(s) may be.

Or to put it another way: a media outlet is catering to its customers (advertisers) when it does something to increase its product count (viewers/readers).

 

[love?]

Pretty much, but not quite:

Media doesn't communicate what its advertisers want -- it communicates whatever will increase its readership/viewers. By increasing its readership/viewers (product count) it is control of the dynamic between itself and its customers (advertisers) -- in short, a media outlet with a lot of attention has the advertisers beating a path to its door -- it doesn't need to cater to the advertisers since they'll be lining up to buy that huge block of human attention no matter what the actual content of the message(s) may be.

Or to put it another way: a media outlet is catering to its customers (advertisers) when it does something to increase its product count (viewers/readers).

Competition between media outlets (for advertiser money) can sometimes be really fierce. And in many cases it has only got more fierce in recent years because of technological progress and change in the economical climate. If an advertiser starts complaining about pro-pot articles what will the outlet do...

But you raise a good point about (imo fortunately only some) outlets publishing whatever will get the most attention. These anti-pot propaganda news items often get posted on pot sites and even some music sites etc... Then all these pro-pot people flock over to check it out and complain. Because of this the site sees a huge rise in viewer numbers so they publish more anti-pot crap. Maybe we should not include the URL in cases like this, just the name of the original publication.

 

[HempHut]

Competition between media outlets (for advertiser money) can sometimes be really fierce. And in many cases it has only got more fierce in recent years because of technological progress and change in the economical climate. If an advertiser starts complaining about pro-pot articles what will the outlet do...

But you raise a good point about (imo fortunately only some) outlets publishing whatever will get the most attention. These anti-pot propaganda news items often get posted on pot sites and even some music sites etc... Then all these pro-pot people flock over to check it out and complain. Because of this the site sees a huge rise in viewer numbers so they publish more anti-pot crap. Maybe we should not include the URL in cases like this, just the name of the original publication.

Yes, if that advertiser can get similar exposure with another media outlet it might switch. But the first media outlet will likely have another advertiser waiting to fill the dropped spot. In this way we can see how the illusion of an ideology or conscience can be preserved for the advertiser who is so inclined. However, remove that more palatable option for the complaining advertiser and see how deeply his conscience or ideology really goes.

Interesting notion on referrals. It's a bit of a catch-22 in that we don't want to let propaganda stand unchallenged, but at the same time we don't want to reward the peddlers of propaganda with hits. Since, as you say, it only encourages the publishing or more propaganda. I'm really not sure what the answer on that one should be.

 

[love?]

But the first media outlet will likely have another advertiser waiting to fill the dropped spot.

This is where we disagree.

Seriously. Many media outlets are begging for ads. And many types of media don't really have slots. If a newspaper gets more ads they'll just add more pages. And even in cases where the slot is filled so to speak if you have a working business relationship with a partner you don't want to lose that even if another party would be interested too and might be willing to pay the same.

Also cannabis dealers don't advertise in mainstream media so the paper isn't pissing off another advertiser by being anti-pot. They should start..

 

[HempHut]

This is where we disagree.

Seriously. Many media outlets are begging for ads. And many types of media don't really have slots. If a newspaper gets more ads they'll just add more pages. And even in cases where the slot is filled so to speak if you have a working business relationship with a partner you don't want to lose that even if another party would be interested too and might be willing to pay the same.

Also cannabis dealers don't advertise in mainstream media so the paper isn't pissing off another advertiser by being anti-pot. They should start..

Keep in mind my comments have been from the point of view of a media outlet that has that large audience already and thus has a position of power. That's certainly not always going to be the case and you quite rightly point out that the power dynamic then shifts in favour of the advertiser(s).

I really just wanted to point out that a media outlet isn't necessarily the mouthpiece of its advertisers (your comment that media prints exactly what its advertisers want). Media's primary objective is to be noticed as widely as possible (to accumulate as many pairs of eyes and ears, so to speak, as possible). If it can do that, then the customers will beat a path to its door with little regard for "content". However, if it can't do that, is less successful doing that or market variances/innovations erode its ability to do that, then it may need to pay more heed to its customers peripheral wants as you describe.

 

[love?]

Yeah that was poorly worded on my part.

 

[Skip]

Some good points there. So some big advertisers that don't like pot, say Big PHarma for example will tell a media outlet that if they run a certain anti-marijuana story, they will buy a big ad in their paper/tv show/internet site, whatever. That's all it takes.

But that's not likely to be the story in the UK, because the UK gov't has been consolidating power over the media since the run up to the Iraq war, when the gov't was flabbergasted at the million people who took to the streets cause the BBC and Guardian were both saying the war in Iraq was unnecessary and that the UK gov't was fabricating evidence against Iraq.

But the BBC and changed their tune after the gov't replaced their board of directories with gov't shills. There were some very powerful orders issued at that point that are probably still in effect, allowing the British gov't to dictate what could be said and what couldn't. Just like in the USA under Bush. Those orders are usually kept secret.

In wartime gov't can take on extra powers over the media. And we are STILL in wartime, so the gov't still can order the media what to publish and what to hold back...

 

[Chronic777]

And on every high street in city's, towns and villages. In all shops banks even fuckin schools. I could go on mate they are everywhere.

In Britain if you go out to work everyday you'll be on camera 360 times on 1 day.

I got done for parking in a disabled bay at a carpark. The evidence was ..... I was filmed !

Are you disabled?

Some good points there. So some big advertisers that don't like pot, say Big PHarma for example will tell a media outlet that if they run a certain anti-marijuana story, they will buy a big ad in their paper/tv show/internet site, whatever. That's all it takes.

But that's not likely to be the story in the UK, because the UK gov't has been consolidating power over the media since the run up to the Iraq war, when the gov't was flabbergasted at the million people who took to the streets cause the BBC and Guardian were both saying the war in Iraq was unnecessary and that the UK gov't was fabricating evidence against Iraq.

But the BBC and changed their tune after the gov't replaced their board of directories with gov't shills. There were some very powerful orders issued at that point that are probably still in effect, allowing the British gov't to dictate what could be said and what couldn't. Just like in the USA under Bush. Those orders are usually kept secret.

In wartime gov't can take on extra powers over the media. And we are STILL in wartime, so the gov't still can order the media what to publish and what to hold back...

Thats fucked up, funny how when we used to go to war they used to ask us to grow as much hemp as possible!

 

[dreadvik]

It ain't all the people ya know Sadly tho there is a culture of trusting authority here and a lazyness to learn things for your yourself making it easy to miss direct quite a few This also happens with most marketing of IT products IMO.

If we could cull the stupid and the greedy we'd have half a chance of winning this fight.

 

[dreadvik]

its not about the government paying the press, its about the tabloid newspapers driving government policy and politicians trying to stay on the right side of them.

cannabis was upgraded due to the fascist press (and i do mean fascist) demonising cannabis as they demonise everything - immigrants, young people etc. when our prime minister was at a loss for something to do that made him look decisive, he chose to upgrade cannabis.

V.

Couldn't agree more on this one. Sadly these tabloids are what most of our "Can't be fucked to learn anything myself and would rather be spoonfed form an in accurate source" population reads, so the majority support the views instead of contesting them.

Some of you looking to see how bad this problem is should just check the comments on the posts on the sun or daily mail website!

 

[Hydrosun]

It ain't all the people ya know Sadly tho there is a culture of trusting authority here and a lazyness to learn things for your yourself making it easy to miss direct quite a few This also happens with most marketing of IT products IMO.

If we could cull the stupid and the greedy we'd have half a chance of winning this fight.

If you culled the stupid you'd be all the way there. If you culled the greedy (i.e. PRODUCERS) you would starve to death.

Perhaps cull no-one as complete freedom would mean the stupid and mooching NON-Producers would starve to death.

That doesn't mean my infirmed grandmother or elderly parent of a friend would starve, because I would help provide for them. You guys look out for yours and I'll look out for mine. Is that what "Greedy" means? If so sigh me up.

Peace,