Flat Earth News by Nick Davies...

Adam Polczyk · Post by **Adam Polczyk** » 16 Nov 2010, 01:43

...Exposing falsehood, distortion and propaganda in the global media.

All the “critical thinkers” out there who may be interested in understanding how the large volume of “news” stories that end up recycled on this forum are actually produced would do well to read this book. I suspect that even the most cynical of you will be surprised at just how rotten the media machine really is.

You can see what other people said about it here

Highly recommended.

Keela · Post by **Keela** » 16 Nov 2010, 07:28

A fascinating read indeed.

Everything with a pinch of salt!

I did an exercise with my students recently. We took out a load of past copies of the local paper. I asked them to search for science based articles in the paper and to check whether the headline matched the actual contents. Very interesting results. Oh and the paper carried mostly health related science-type articles and very few others.

caspian · Post by **caspian** » 16 Nov 2010, 09:54

It's an excellent book and well worth reading, but it left me wondering why Nick Davies continues to work within such a rotten and disreputable business. Perhaps he decided that as long as his ideals were pure, then it's justifiable.

It also leaves one with the question: is there anything you can trust in the MSM? If so, how do you tell, without doing your own independent research?

I can also recommend his book Dark Heart, which although now a bit outdated, is a gruelling and chilling investigation into the disenfranchised masses in Tory Britain in the early-to-mid 1990s.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 16 Nov 2010, 10:52

caspian wrote:It's an excellent book and well worth reading, but it left me wondering why Nick Davies continues to work within such a rotten and disreputable business.

Like (nearly) everyone who works. Because he bloody has to. Even if it flatly contradicts what he believes in.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 16 Nov 2010, 12:07

caspian wrote:It also leaves one with the question: is there anything you can trust in the MSM?

That's not a question I would have thought of.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 16 Nov 2010, 12:07

"If you read newspapers, you MUST read this book."

John Humphreys, BBC TV and radio presenter.

Phew. One less book to buy then.

woodpecker · Post by **woodpecker** » 16 Nov 2010, 12:11

Read this book a couple of years ago (and also went to one of his workshops at City Uni).

Particularly good on what goes on inside the news agencies. Everyone thinks they are doing the donkey work, but they are not, any longer. The news agencies are running on a shoestring and doing very little original reporting any more.

caspian · Post by **caspian** » 17 Nov 2010, 12:47

RenewableCandy wrote:
caspian wrote:It's an excellent book and well worth reading, but it left me wondering why Nick Davies continues to work within such a rotten and disreputable business.
Like (nearly) everyone who works. Because he bloody has to. Even if it flatly contradicts what he believes in.

Yes, I suppose so. But then most people don't write a book about how dreadful the whole business is, and then go back to working in it. This isn't specifically a criticism of Nick Davies, as he's one of the few good eggs in a rotten basket. He's done everyone a favour by exposing a lot of the nasty business of journalism. I guess he still has to pay the bills like the rest of us.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 17 Nov 2010, 14:24

caspian wrote:
RenewableCandy wrote:
caspian wrote:It's an excellent book and well worth reading, but it left me wondering why Nick Davies continues to work within such a rotten and disreputable business.
Like (nearly) everyone who works. Because he bloody has to. Even if it flatly contradicts what he believes in.
Yes, I suppose so. But then most people don't write a book about how dreadful the whole business is, and then go back to working in it.

Were I a better writer, and with a bit more chutzpa, I probably would!

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 17 Nov 2010, 17:08

caspian wrote:disenfranchised masses in Tory Britain in the early-to-mid 1990s.

Is that the same as the disenfranchised masses of the 2000's who were rearranged into constituencies which ensure that the Conservatives have to get about 5% extra votes just to break even with Labour?

caspian · Post by **caspian** » 17 Nov 2010, 17:38

kenneal wrote:
caspian wrote:disenfranchised masses in Tory Britain in the early-to-mid 1990s.
Is that the same as the disenfranchised masses of the 2000's who were rearranged into constituencies which ensure that the Conservatives have to get about 5% extra votes just to break even with Labour?

No, I don't believe so. That's just a figment of your fevered Tory imagination.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 17 Nov 2010, 17:41

Sorry, but it's an acknowledged fact.

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/down ... 20bias.pdf

caspian · Post by **caspian** » 17 Nov 2010, 17:58

Two words: Shirley Porter

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 17 Nov 2010, 18:01

RenewableCandy, in about 1990 wrote:Oh Lady Porter, what shall I do?
I wanted to live in Westminster but they housed me in Peru!
But if I'd voted Tory, I know just what they'd do:
They'd give me a flat in Westminster, and they'd pay my poll-tax too!

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 17 Nov 2010, 20:11

caspian wrote:Two words: Shirley Porter

You're a bit dated there, Caspian. Can't you find anything a bit more recent than over seven years ago?

A lot changes in that length of time, including the bias in the voting system, which has got worse.