The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / UK, Ireland  % width posts: 137

Polish and Irish people are related?


southern 75 | 7,096
17 Jan 2011 #92
Where slavic women appear the local women start to blame since they decrease the value of the woman in the market.
milky 13 | 1,657
17 Jan 2011 #93
Very true....
southern 75 | 7,096
17 Jan 2011 #94
It is the case in Ireland too?Here the greek women refer to russian and polish ones as ho's,sluts non-stop.
Paulina 10 | 1,774
17 Jan 2011 #95
Here the greek women refer to russian and polish ones as ho's,sluts non-stop.

Can I quote you on that?
milky 13 | 1,657
17 Jan 2011 #96
Here the greek women refer to russian and polish ones as ho's,sluts non-stop.

ah well thats just good old jealousy. Thats why ugly women love blond jokes(or thats why ugly women invented blond jokes)
hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,377
17 Jan 2011 #97
Even if the issue is only something like FOI as you have suggested (it isn't), it still amounts to the same thing - if you don't have enough information you are running with a less complete version of "the story" (or maybe not running it at all) therefore, freedom of the press is curtailed.

And how do you know that it is not?

Here the greek women refer to russian and polish ones as ho's,sluts non-stop.
ah well thats just good old jealousy. Thats why ugly women love blond jokes(or thats why ugly women invented blond jokes)

Very true, and lets be honest they don't exactly match up do they

I have read he link you have provided and can only reiterate what I have previously said. for instance they say:

"The media reform that was confirmed by the Constitutional Court in September 2008 bans journalists from publishing articles that have not been checked and approved by people quoted in the article. Going beyond an automatic right to reply, the new law establishes “prior censorship”, leaving all editorial freedom at the mercy of the most arbitrary re-reading. This is in complete contradiction to European standards and likely to reduce the press to a pure propaganda role."

But I say this seems to me like quite a sensible law, although i can see how this troubles journalists who in Macmillan's words would like to have 'power without responsibility, the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages'.

As for this bit: "The legislative agenda for media sector reform was particularly heavy in 2008 with the political class determined to secure the allegiance of journalists and of the broadcast council. A section of the political class still refuses to break with practices left over from the Soviet era and has trouble adjusting to the independence of a press that is no longer wedded to the “nationalist imperative”.

Sounds to be a bit ill informed, I guess in other countries the politicians try not to cosy up to the Murdoch press and win it over, no they would never do that(:
Teffle 22 | 1,321
17 Jan 2011 #98
OK hague I guess we see it differently. Reporters sans frontieres obviously do too.

However:

This is in complete contradiction to European standards

Surely this alone is enough to raise eyebrows?
puella 4 | 172
18 Jan 2011 #99
The problem with Polish media is that they are non-politically objective. Some support one option while others support other option. In that case I agree with the rank of Teffle. But I wouldn't say that Polish media are censored (more than in other countries).

Also I don't think that church is a taboo in Poland. Proof: the recent scandal with the compensations for the properties of CC confiscated during communism.
hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,377
18 Jan 2011 #100
The problem with Polish media is that they are non-politically objective.

That is not not only a Polish problem(:
youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DGscoaUWW2M

I think that in Poland's case it is Rzeczpospolita readers who think that their country is run by another country(:
Teffle 22 | 1,321
18 Jan 2011 #101
But I wouldn't say that Polish media are censored (more than in other countries).

Really?

The media reform that was confirmed by the Constitutional Court in September 2008 bans journalists from publishing articles that have not been checked and approved by people quoted in the article. Going beyond an automatic right to reply, the new law establishes “prior censorship”

I would certainly call that a form of censorship.

So, I want to write an article about puella the politician that is accurate, but maybe doesn't show puella from a favourable perspective for whatever reason. So puella looks at it and says "no I don't approve" and therefore it can't be published - at least not as it is.

!?
puella 4 | 172
18 Jan 2011 #102
The media reform that was confirmed by the Constitutional Court in September 2008 bans journalists from publishing articles that have not been checked and approved by people quoted in the article

It's about misquoting and manipulation of somebody's words. Actually it's good right. I'm happy I can sue a paper if they manipulate with my words (misquoting it, editing it in manipulative manner or by using them in wrong context). IT'S NOT A CENSORSHIP! IT'S A RIGHT OF EVERY MAN AND WONAN to be sure that they words won't be manipulated. It's not aboyt censoring whole articles. You can write what you want. Just don't misquote others.

2 days ago I created a thread about ugly manipulation of German tv. Is this the kind of journalism you wish to exist freely?
hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,377
18 Jan 2011 #103
IT'S NOT A CENSORSHIP!

Exactly, surely everybody can see that!

So, I want to write an article about puella the politician that is accurate, but maybe doesn't show puella from a favourable perspective for whatever reason. So puella looks at it and says "no I don't approve" and therefore it can't be published - at least not as it is.

No, that would be perfectly legal, but if on the other hand you decided to take her words out of context and distort them, and she says to you no teffle, you are a complete liar that is not what i said, she would be perfectly within her rights to object.

Having the law act only in retrospect as you propose, is quite stupid, because by that time some falsehood by a slick journo looking for a quick kill, could ruin someone's career or life and then it would be too late.

Take the UK media as an example, and think to yourself how much rubbish, downright lies and distortion, passes for serious journalism.

So just because the United Federation of Self Promoting Journalists happens not to like something, this doesn't make their opinion sacred.

I am not sure how it is in Ireland, But take a look at the UK and see how the political agenda is increasingly set by the press and not the politicians. In the UK the politicians are literally petrified of going against the grain and following their convictions because of the press. Let's face it, in the UK the tabloids have debased the the very currency of politics, and some journalists Like Paxman think it is their duty to be as rude and obnoxious as possible when interviewing politicians! He looks as though he has a plate of **** in front of his nose during every interview he conducts. And then they have the effrontery to ask why the public is so disillusioned by politics!
Teffle 22 | 1,321
18 Jan 2011 #104
I'm happy I can sue a paper if they manipulate with my words

You can still do it anyway.

Having the law act only in retrospect as you propose, is quite stupid,

Well seemingly dozen of other countries and their media and laws don't think so.

but if on the other hand you decided to take her words out of context and distort them,

Of course - but what about the right to publish the truth however unpalatable it may be for the subject?
puella 4 | 172
18 Jan 2011 #105
Teffle for me it's clear. My own words are my own property and if someone wants to use them they have to do it under my conditions. Full stop.

You can still write a libel article just not involving my words in the text. I see no problem. Just a fundamental right.
hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,377
18 Jan 2011 #106
Well seemingly dozen of other countries and their media and laws don't think so.

Well just because the others are idiots doesn't mean you have to join the queue.

Of course - but what about the right to publish the truth however unpalatable it may be for the subject?

Nothing wrong with the truth, this law is clearly in place to catch out the liars.

You know, not many people have the time or money to become bogged in vexatious lawsuits against the Murdochs of this world.
Teffle 22 | 1,321
18 Jan 2011 #107
You can still write a libel article just not involving my words in the text.

I don't know why you are fixated on the actual words/quotes - it isn't necessarily about that. The above text referring to the law simply mentions:

articles that have not been checked and approved by people quoted in the article

Quoted as in they are mentioned in the article, not that their words are quoted.

Well just because the others are idiots doesn't mean you have to join the queue.

Fine, whatever you think. I'm glad I don't live in an environment where the media are subject to laws like this that's for sure.

Public figures are rarely unnecessarily upset - great.

Potentially at the expense of the real story. Scandals could take years to come to light.
hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,377
18 Jan 2011 #108
Quoted as in they are mentioned in the article, not that their words are quoted.

What is so hard to understand? you want to use my words in print, you have to ask my permission first, surely that is the polite thing to do.

If you take somebody's photo it's polite to ask them first, if you film somebody, it is advisable to get their permission first.

Why would you find this objectionable?

If you want to get around this law you can always quote somebody off the record.

Fine, whatever you think. I'm glad I don't live in an environment where the media are subject to laws like this that's for sure.

So i guess you are not a big fan of accountability, or maybe when it is applied to somebody else but not to you?
Teffle 22 | 1,321
18 Jan 2011 #109
So i guess you are not a big fan of accountability, or maybe when it is applied to somebody else but not to you?

Don't know how you make that leap.

You might fall foul of Polish media law yourself hague the way you are going ; )
hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,377
18 Jan 2011 #110
That is no substitute for an argument I am afraid(:
You do seem to be in favor of media scrutiny but not when it is applied to the media itself.

Take your best shot media laws(:

It seems to me we're on the verge of a complete demolition job here are we not(:
Teffle 22 | 1,321
18 Jan 2011 #111
I am "a fan" of a press that is as free as it can be in an open democracy.

I am a fan of journalists being held accountable for their actions should they print lies.

I am not a fan of vetting and prior approval of journalistic pieces by a mentioned subject, simply because they feature in the piece. Again, I state that this is not neccessarily about quotes - and I suppose it's open to interpretation - but the law seems to me, to refer to individuals simply being named.

...bans journalists from publishing articles that have not been checked and approved by people quoted in the article

What if I was a cog in some political scandal and a proposed piece mentions that I was at X location on a certain night - if I don't like the sound of this or what it may imply I can stop this element of the story running?

It doesn't have to be about misquoting anyones actual words.

Of course I take the point that the law is designed to prevent lies being printed but at what expense?

Swings and roundabouts I say. As if politicians don't lie frequently.

Its pretty obvious we are never going to see this the same way - you appear to view Paxman as something of an obnoxious ogre. For me, he would be closer to a hero - so what does that tell you? : )
puella 4 | 172
18 Jan 2011 #112
Quoted as in they are mentioned in the article, not that their words are quoted.

Then sorry, I was sure that word "quoting" meaning is strict and means only to quote somebody's words not "to mention" somebody. I'm not sure then if such right really exist. If yes then it's a scandal indeed.
hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,377
18 Jan 2011 #113
Your interpretation is obviously the correct one.

but the law seems to me, to refer to individuals simply being named.

That is got to be complete BS, there is no way a journalist would seek the approval of somebody by simply including his or her name in an article, it would be a logistical nightmare and simply impossible to enforce.

It seems to me that the link you provided could be a classical example of creative journalism.

it simply must be in relation to the quotation of somebody else, and that is the way I interpret it.
puella 4 | 172
18 Jan 2011 #114
I think that even if Teffle is right, politics don't need any laws to protect their business. It's enought that they are friends with a chief redactor and eat lunch together every week...
Teffle 22 | 1,321
18 Jan 2011 #115
it simply must be in relation to the quotation of somebody else, and that is the way I interpret it.

Yes I agree it's more likely - but it's still ambiguous.

I would wonder what exactly constitutes "quoting" anyway - I wouldn't be surprised if it had a pretty broad definition for the purposes of the legislation.
puella 4 | 172
18 Jan 2011 #116
I would wonder what exactly constitues "quoting" anyway - I wouldn't be surprised if it had a pretty broad definition for the purposes of the legislation.

Teffle in Polish mentioning means mentioning and quoting means quoting. There is no linguistic mix with that two terms like in English. You should check the orginal Polish source of that verdict.
Teffle 22 | 1,321
18 Jan 2011 #117
Teffle in Polish mentioning means mentioning and quoting means quoting.

No, it's not what I meant in this case.

E.g. Puella stated "mentioning means mentioning"

Puella said that mentioning and mentioning were the same.

Puella indicated that in her opinion mentioning and quoting were not necessarily the same.

It appeared to some observers I spoke to that Puella had differing views.

etc etc

There are lots of ways of saying things and it can move further and further away and become more vague all the time. For the purposes of the legislation quoting may not exactly mean "..."

You should check the orginal Polish source of that verdict.

I'll need someone like you to do that I'm afraid!

(I have very little Polish)
puella 4 | 172
18 Jan 2011 #118
I'll need someone like you to do that I'm afraid!

If I've only knew where to look for it... ;)

en.rsf.org/report-poland,125.html

btw. is it a proof of good joirnalistic job when an article misspell the name of a president? It should be KaczyƄski not "Kackzynski". That's quite amusing ;D

I think that Monika Olejnik is more in power than whole PiS was ever and that's PiS who should be aware of what TVN says about them, not contrary.
Teffle 22 | 1,321
18 Jan 2011 #119
OK puella - I really don't want to overstate all of this about the media.

It's not that I think Poland's media is under some sort of iron fist - not at all. I was just aware of the press freedom rankings and the rest of the posts just followed - I didn't even know about this legislation until this thread.

I'm sure the rankings are not flawless - but the relative positioning of other countries seemed to make sense. Also, the legislation was not the only issue that the site had with Polish media.

The whole thing stems from a by now long forgotten reference to church & state about 4 pages ago !

: )
puella 4 | 172
18 Jan 2011 #120
and yes and it's also a quoting but indirect. You can say that someone believes in things that he/she really don't agree with.

Example:

Mr German said in the interview that he admires of Hitler's tactic plans of Blitz Krieg as a really well organized military action as well as Napoleon Bonaparte military genius.

Mr German said that he admires Hitler. Mr German compared Hitler to Napoleon.

Wouldn't it be a manipulation changing the intention of Mr German who is just a military tactic passionate?


Home / UK, Ireland / Polish and Irish people are related?
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.