20/05/2011

Full of crap and racist. Who knew?

Just in case you missed it.
I've said it before, but being able to tell what the tabloids are going to do is a rubbish super power. It's like having a power that lets you eat your dinner.

Earlier this week, some stats were released that were guaranteed to get the tabloids in a lather, and I went out on a limb and said they would get the tabloids in a lather. Ooh, those lathered up tabloids.  Always with the foreign workers and the too many ethnics.


On the foreign worker scare stories, the Sun gets extra bonus bullshit points for counting everyone born overseas as foreign, regardless of how long they've been in the country or their immigration status. Hurrah! '81% of new jobs go to foreigners' says the headline, which we know isn't strictly true from the hundreds of other times people have covered this. Here's another link to my post with the blue and red marble analogy that helps explain anyway.

Even more bonus points for saying 'shock figures reveal yesterday' despite reporting the same old shite over and over again.

'Four times more jobs go to migrants as total of foreign-born workers hits 4m for the first time' says the Mail, creatively taking a slightly different angle than usual. Blazing new trails, that's the Mail. Always trying to find a different way to express percentages so you won't notice the same story was published a couple of months ago.

As you would expect, both include a boilerplate quote from Sir Andrew Green, of MigrationWatch infamy, who tore himself away from his Steven Seagal DVDs for long enough to say, "The immigration lobby can no longer pretend immigration has very little effect on British workers' job prospects."

Of course, none of the stories let us know that the proportion of UK born people in work hasn't changed in the period, or that the figure is much lower if you look at non-UK citizens. These things might make it much easier to say immigration has little effect on job prospects, so they kind of have to be left out.

On the ethnic minority numbers story, the Express takes the most overtly racist award (again), this time for 'BRITAIN'S 40% SURGE IN ETHNIC NUMBERS'. Yes, that is the same shortened form of 'ethnic minority' to 'ethnic' that the BNP love so much. Extra racist points for counting white people who are not 'white British' as not white at all to come up with:
The huge rise over just eight years means more than nine million people in England and Wales – equivalent to one in six of the population – are now from a “non-white” background.
Extra shitty journalism bonus points for churning this line from Martin Bentham, crack Home Affairs editor of the Evening Standard, who said almost the exact same words.

Extra lazy journalism bonus points for getting a paint-by-the-numbers quote about how terrible this all is from a Tory MP - who just happens to be the hack's husband.

Still, this isn't news really. The Express has been Britain's most overtly racist newspaper for ages. And shit. It's been a shit newspaper for ages too.

The Mail went with 'Immigration 'boosted the UK population by 1.75m in just eight years'', interestingly turning the story into one about immigration and numbers with the headline. Could this signal a bit of a rowing back from its position last time, when it scaremonogered about there potentially being too many black & brown people and used an editorial to call people who might think that was racist 'sanctimonious'.  Perhaps even the Mail realised, "It's political correctness gone mad.  Can't even whinge about how many blacks there are without being called racist," is a bit of a ridiculous argument.

As you would expect, there's a boilerplate quote from Sir Andrew here too. Apparently, "This is the legacy of Labour’s mass immigration policy now appearing in the official figures. They have, whether deliberately or not, changed the face of Britain." I like the way it's now 'deliberately or not', when a while ago they were trumpeting that it was too deliberate and they had the proof, goddammit. Except they didn't. The proof was, in the technical language used by scientists examining evidence, "mucky wank".

Sir Andrew does of course go on to make the obligatory reference to the mysterious 70 million number. Presumably the papers cut the next bit of what he said, which was probably, "Wait, wait. It's nearly that bit where the Jamaican drug dealer calls him a bumbaclart and he chucks him through a glass counter. Yeeeeah! Smashh!"

Anyway, that's it. The UK papers take predictable rubbish, manipulate it predictably and range from borderline to overtly racist. Who knew?

On a similar note, I predicted last night on the Twitter that the Express's front page story today would be bullshit. And what do you know, it is. An Express story about the EU banning something and it turns out they're not banning the thing. It's the shock outcome no-one could expect.

I didn't get any of this right because I'm any good at anything. It's because the papers are shite, which is a conclusion as predictable as they are.  I think I'm gonna need a new schtick.

18 comments:

Dandly said...

I was born in Iran in 1950, it was where my ethnically Welsh parents were at the time. This must make me ‘an ethnic’.
They brought me home as a babe in arms in 1951 after a spot of bother with the Iranian government. So I must be ‘a migrant’.
I am, it seems, an ethnic white British migrant.
Now, what I want to know is……
Can I can use the Muslims only loo?

Nightwatchstate said...

I didn't realise that believing in racially based national self determination was the same as being consumed with racial hatred.

Change the record, 5CC.

Five Chinese Crackers said...

@Nightwatchstate:

That's because it isn't. It is racist though. There's a difference, but it's a bit subtle.

Unlike the tabloids.

Are you a fan of "racially based national self determination?"

If so - well done, you massive racist.

Greig said...

Let's see. Born and raised in the UK and abhor referring to myself as 'British' because of the obnoxiosu connotations the EDL and the right wing papers. I've worked in South Africa, and Italy in the past and held citizenship in both those countries, and generlaly refer to myself as 'European'.

Where do I fit into their brackets?

Richard T said...

It's a pity that the EU can't get round to banning seedy pornographers from owning mainstream media outlets. That would make a good campaign for the Express to start foaming at the mouth about .. no wait a minute; perhaps not.

Nightwatchstate said...

5CC, well done on showing your true colours.

Racism means "Hatred." Something it most certainly does not mean is "preference."

Nationalism - Or supporting People + Land - is an extension of the rights of the individual over their own property, to discriminate according to their preferences, not the states rules. If individuals wish to exclude people on racial grounds, thats their choice, and its not your place to demand who they allow onto their property.Because of this, libertarians and nationalists have always had a common cause - Defending the individuals rights so that a cohesive community can express itself through selective exclusion.


By your (fucking) stupid logic, if I prefer to hang out with people of my own race, that makes me psychotically and irrationally afraid of people of other races. It also follows that you believe everyone should be forced to co-exist, since racialism is one expression of individual rights and freedoms.

Incorrect word usage, orthodox lefty nonsense. Stopped reading your blog years ago when I grew a brain.

Cpoffers said...

@Nightwatch(fucking)state

So what's (fucking) wrong with people of other (fucking) races that you would rather not (fucking) associate with them?

And how is (fucking) exclusion based on (fucking) race not (fucking) racism? (fucking)

Nick Kiddle said...

So you're commenting without reading? Hmm, that does explain a lot, actually.

Five Chinese Crackers said...

Nightwatchstate

That nonsense about racism meaning hatred is the same bullshit alibi the BNP uses to pretend they're not racist.

You want to discriminate against someone because of their race - you're racist. It's not difficult.

By your (fucking) stupid logic, if I offer someone a biscuit, I'm really asking them if I can blap them in the face with a ringbinder. Hang on, no it doesn't! Not unless I have a pretty...uh...unique definition of 'offer someone a biscuit'.

If you want to pretend racism means psychotic and irrational fear because it means you can count yourself as not racist, go ahead. I'm content with the general usage of the word. Hang out with who you like, I don't care. You shouldn't be forced to hang out with anyone. Doesn't mean you're not racist if you want to discriminate on the basis of race though.

I hope this reaches you through your magic. Time telescope that lets you comment on things years after you stopped reading them.

Plus - what is it with racist loons and thinking they can crow, "ooh, you're showing your true colours," about something as basic as thinking that racial discrimination is racist? It should hardly be a surprise. It's not like I'd ever want to hide that.

Ta ta, you massive racist.

Daz said...

Nightwatchstate:

From Dictionary.com:

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.


So, while a sub-definition is, indeed, that of race-based hatred, the main sense is that opinions are formed of people on the basis of their race.

The internet: where your skewed definitions can be tested in seconds. Yer not sounding off down at the local pub now, Sparky.

Cylux said...

I do like how nws helpfully fingered out libertarians as being bigoted shits as well. That's rather helpfully reinforced my own prejudices!

Hannah said...

Nightwatchstate, though I'm far from the first person to respond to your idiotic comment, let me state categorically that "racism" does NOT mean "hatred". That's why we have the phrase "racial hatred".

One of the many great things about the internet is that if you don't understand the meaning of a word, you can look it up in a matter of seconds. A simple Google search would have revealed:

"rac·ism (rszm)
n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race."

Discrimination? Prejudice? I'd say so.

Fruitbat said...

"Defending the individuals rights so that a cohesive community can express itself through selective exclusion."

In other words, lets go back to our old tribal habits of persecuting people who don't fit our own template, even if it's because of an inherited visual trait that is of doing of their own and has no inherent bearing on their cultural upbringing. What a good idea, I do like a bit of meaningless persecution. Why don't we drive out people with mental illness and physical deformaties too, just like we used to? Basic human decency be damned.

By the way NWS, why DO you only want to hang out with people of your own race? Are you allergic to certain colours? Have you discovered some previously unknown scientific process by which skin pigmentation affects brain chemistry and behaviour?

Anonymous said...

Wightnatchman said: "Nationalism - Or supporting People + Land - is an extension of the rights of the individual over their own property, to discriminate according to their preferences, not the states rules..."

Can someone please tell me what that even (fucking) means? Does he mean that nation states are like houses where we can invite who we like into and tell others to fuck off we don't want to buy no jaycloths fank you very much?

I always thought nationalism was a bit ridiculous but now I have even further proof.

James said...

Nightwatch(or whatever...can't be bothered to scroll up), are you seriously trying to suggest that choosing not to hang out with someone purely because of his/her race is not racist? I mean, no-one is saying that you must be filled with hate, but it is still racist isn't it. You are choosing to avoid people based on nothing other than their race. That is clearly racism.

Tony Fraser said...

You'll probably know that Cameron is giving 800 odd million to help vacinate children if Africa. Predictably the tabloids have called for blood, and the Mail Comments page is disgusting, It's embaressing to think people that horrible live in the same country as me

Anonymous said...

@Nitwitstate

"It also follows that you believe everyone should be forced to co-exist, since racialism is one expression of individual rights and freedoms."

In an ideal world no-one should be forced to co-exist with other races. Because in an ideal world no-one's such a shallow, racist pillock.

Paul Ward said...

I can sympathise with the troll above - can you imagine what reading the Mail and the Sun daily without a healthy degree of scepticism can do to the brain?

That said, does anyone know what "national self determination" means? I know it's what West Indian (they all are) drug dealers and Triads prevent me doing, much as I know ketchup causes cancer, but what it actually means, well, I'm stumped.

Ah well, the Memsahib has gone out to Tesco, I'm off to look at some bikini bodies in the DM. Couple of those pop star sluts if I'm lucky.