The original Peterloo campaign began as a reaction to the oddities spotted by users on the Guardian’s electronic version of its paper. More than inaccuracies in the content, a series of omissions of its editorials.
The name Peterloo was chosen by the campaign as it was the massacre of an anti-hunger, pro democracy rally in St Peters Square in Manchester, or rather the reaction to cavalry charges and sabres being used against unarmed men women and children, that led to changes in the journalistic landscape in the UK. At a time when less than 2% of the population could vote and legislation forced basic food stuff beyond the reach of average people – the establishment use of force to silence protest is eerily resonant with the current political situation in the UK, where 1% of the population has circumvented democracy.
Worse yet the media is standing by and letting this happen without comment. Either through choice by accepting commercial sponsorship to write articles, or by simply letting PR departments write their copy for them.
It’s time to end churnalism. It’s time to take back the media.
Peterloo - occupy the media!! 
OCCUPY THE MEDIA! I say AYE!
What are our media for if not to hold our politicians accountable? If not to expose the inequities of big business and those that have their snouts in the public trough?
Are they simply a PR machine? Does the media exist only to manufacture public consent for the laws, policies and ambitions of the powerful?
Why is it we get so many ‘opinion’ pieces from commentators and politicians but no hard questioning? I just know it in my bones that there are some fabulous journalists out there that would be ‘cracking their neck’ to get in the ring with a few of these powerful and influential policy makers and force them to justify their positions. Give them the chance!
Every time you see or read of a politician or corporate fat cat being interviewed the questions appear to be scripted so that it gives impression of a challenge but actually is only providing them with the opportunity and platform to spout their latest sound bite and spin. It’s not good enough!
I expect more from my newspapers and broadcasting media! Stop the ‘churnalism’ of spewing out the press releases of those wielding power and make them accountable for what they are doing!
PETERLOO! OCCUPY THE MEDIA!
Churnalism – I like that 😀
I typed a very long and interesting reply to you and it all disappeared when I tried to register……. can’t be bothered now – too late!
I have just seen and replied to another ‘below the line’ comment from the author of the ‘Egypt’s media must undergo it’s own revolution’…….it’s here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/05/egypt-media-revolution
Churnalism – good word, and one that if I recall correctly was coined by Nick Davies in his book Flat Earth News, so doubly appropriate
“A Fourth Estate, of Able Editors, springs up; increases and multiplies, irrepressible, incalculable.”
Thomas Carlyle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate
If the existing press wish to survive the Information revolution; they had better gird their loins. The old ways of informing the masses are GONE. There are now millions if not billions of citizen journalists out there with access to instant communications and encyclopedic knowledge. Trusted personal networks like twitter and facebook spread information faster than even the rolling television news cycle.
It is my belief that the only way that the ‘traditiomnal’ news media can survive in this new electronic medium is *added value*. The Guardian is to be commended for its investigative journalism and its online presence. We now have to make sure that the other quality newspapers raise their collective bars.
News Media no longer have a passive audience. Instead they need a croudsource of fellow travellers prepared to share, refine and perfect the Truth!
Nothing less will do.
A main concern I have about the Guardian is both the unquestioned repeating of press releases,the sloppy journalism that results in continued basic errors and the “tabloidesque/Government inspired usage of language.This is particularly evident in its coverage of “welfare reforms”.Even in an article questioning Government policy it employs the language(“clampdown”)feeding into the notion of widespread fraud and diversionary-the summary removal of contributary ESA of genuine recipients some terminally ill,the thrust of Government policy not questioned merely the method.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/nov/08/welfare-reforms-incapacity-benefit
Just so you know we’ll be putting up a page for each title over the coming days with a poll for each kind of concern – if we have enough concerned readers watching them they will be more careful and certainly the lack of challenges to the language used in reporting policy affecting the diabled is one of the Grauns faults
Thanks for reply.To be perfectly clear I have no problem with opinion and discussion.But such articles stifle and limit debate because it takes as read the “consensus”-allowing the BBC and “impartial” commentators like MR Humphrys to state that the introduction of ESA was to” flush out frauds” without recourse to actual fact, as an obvious example.It is not just that the language is highly offensive(handouts,welfare scroungers etc)-encourages the view that one should be ashamed to receive entitlements;propagates a certain stereotype(s) of receivers-all the better to garner support for “reform”;it is based on assumptions,”consensus” which I and others do not agree with and any debateframes it in a way that cannot be challenged because it has already been “accepted”
I think the readers editorial on the coded terms of antisemitism was enlightening for this very reason – they can pay closer attention to inferred and implied meanings, by saying this of course that they should continue to do so for antisemitism, but the tabloid propaganda of the dole scroungers is driving people in already desperate condition further into despiration.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/06/averting-accusations-of-antisemitism-guardian
Very interesting- I note the nay-sayers inculcate the view that objections to the language used is a symptom of oversensitvity and an attempt to stifle debate,I would argue that the language conveys “accepted” views which do exactly that.Of course all words meanings are contested.”Disability” conveys a certain meaning and image,note the Government/media repeated refrain-“genuinely/really disabled”.The intention is clear-it allows a Panorama programme to both feed off and add to a “commonsense” view of what it means(and does not mean)-the ability to undertake certain activities and merely not to look “disabled” is taken as unquestionably proof of fraudulence-it is the main reasoning used by “get the scroungers” brigade and their endless anecdotal proof of fraudulence.They are of course many others