Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
No, not that kind of baked.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



Only foreign papers.

See yourselves as others do.
  (+2, -5)
(+2, -5)
  [vote for,

Only allow papers from other countries to be sold in your own. This would cut the amount of propagandising that a government could do to it's own people.
dare99, Oct 10 2002

Loot http://www.loot.com/
For those who don''t know the reference [dare99, Oct 10 2002, last modified Oct 04 2004]


       but the question is, is it the governments that do the propagandising or is it the papers?
Gulherme, Oct 10 2002

       One does it for the other....and visa versa.
dare99, Oct 10 2002

       Title's fine. Idea sucks. I was tempted to say "WIBNI", but it wouldn't be nice.   

       So many reasons why this is ... well, it's not even a bad idea, it's more of a 'non-idea'. It's not even logical. It makes no sense.   

       Newspapers tend to have a local target market. Your idea eliminates the existence of these. The only papers that would be created would be other-country propaganda ones. Why bother?   

       I could go on but it's pointless.
waugsqueke, Oct 10 2002

       Which newpapers? Here in the UK, newspapers have national coverage. It's these that I think should change. I was not proposing swaping "LOOT" for "Pravda"!
dare99, Oct 10 2002

       That's the problem. In the US, most papers are provincial. Even in the UK we have some successful provincial newspapers (eg. The Scotsman, The (Glasgow) Herald).   

       I personally would find it rather hard to read a newspaper written in French (for example).   

       Finally, the idea becomes redundant as most newspapers of any size are present on the web anyway. If you really want to see how others are seeing you (and can understand their language) then surf the web.
PeterSilly, Oct 10 2002

       // Which newpapers? Here in the UK, newspapers have national coverage. It's these that I think should change. I was not proposing swaping "LOOT" for "Pravda"! //   

       Right. As soon as the law preventing "LOOT" (whatever that is) comes into effect preventing its sale in its native country, the publishers stop printing it. Likewise, Pravda stops running if no one in Moscow is going to be able to read it.
waugsqueke, Oct 10 2002

       Hope I'm not raining on any picnics here, but I get lotsa papers free from all over the world on the internet. It's sure broadened my horizons. Propaganda from every conceivable source. It may all be lies, but it is a diverse and balanced mountain of lies, anyway.

       Oops. Did I say papers? I meant on-line equivalents of papers. Actual real physical papers are for making nests.

       Oops again. Now i see that PeterSilly already said this. Sorry, PeterSilly.
rabbit, Oct 10 2002

       Quality newspapers should be read with a knowledge of the writer, the editor and the general policy and history of the said paper. That way you can guard yourself from intaking too much bias and sorting fact from interpretation.   

       That isn't easy when you are reading a selection of your own country's newspapers. It would become nigh on impossible if a foreign publisher were to produce it.   

       Poor quality newspapers are generally advertising fodder and sensational gossiping outlets where there are few facts and even fewer direct quotes in their original context.   

       -- Thats not to say they aren't influencial, the Tory victory in the UK general election of 92 is largely credited to 'The Sun' tabloid. On the day (or before) of election it ran a front page item with the face of Neil Kinnock (Labour party opposition leader) superimposed onto a lightbulb with the headline {paraphrasing} :"If this man wins, will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights".
Jinbish, Oct 10 2002

       What UnaBubba said.
DrBob, Oct 10 2002

       What's so terrible about papers? There's never a constant amount of genuine news, but that's what being smart is for: a little red klaxon goes off after 3 lines of sensationalist Bullsheet, and you stop reading.   

       Honestly. Complaining about the free press. What pathetic overeducated ennui-maddened whinge is this.
General Washington, Oct 10 2002

       // but that's what being smart is for //   

       <smug, patronising> Sadly, the bulk of tabloid readers aren't as smart as us </smug, patronising>
8th of 7, Oct 10 2002

       I was expecting something banning domestic Tops papers (ugh!) and only allowing quality French Zig-Zags or Rizlas..   

       Moving along: I'm sure that us Americans would all be enlightened by the middle eastern newspapers..
Mr Burns, Oct 10 2002

       //Newspapers tend to have a local target market//   

       And they also have my local "Target" circular.
blissmiss, Oct 10 2002

       Hm, yes. About my bout of righteousness earlier... well sometimes you glimpse the View From Mars, and it is not good. But I'm better now, back sniping in the noman's land between being right and being happy.
General Washington, Oct 10 2002

       I'll settle for just Page 3.   

       But dare99 has a real point - it is only when you travel to other countries, and see the news as they see it, that you realise just how biased your own country's reporting really is.   

       Britain has a very free press but coverage of, say, Northern Island is decidedly one-sided (something you only realise when you go to a country that is decidedly one-sided on the opposite side).   

       And as a visitor, I can see just how biased the US's reporting is. The international coverage of any "national" newspaper here is laughably weak, entirely limited to stories about how short and nasty life is abroad.   

       Btw, if you non-Americans want to see the world how the US sees it, subscribe to the International Herald Tribune.
DrCurry, Oct 11 2002

       UnaBubba, you must have had a really bad day. Most writers, including journalists, are badly underpaid, if they are paid at all, and most of the stuff put up on the internet (at least, the stuff I read) is not put up there for money, but is put up by people who have something to say and want others to read it. I know there's a lot of shit on the net - the world in general is full of shit - but that doesn't mean that nothing of value is to be found there. It's all a matter of what you are looking for.
Forgive me for this naive enthusiasm, but I think we are tremendously privileged to be able to find, so easily, right at home, with our little computers, such a vast, virtually infinite, quantity of information and creative production. Of course, there is no substitute for "going there" and physically being with actual real live people who live in the place that you want to learn about. But not everybody can do this, and even of those who have the capacity to get out of their own little spaces, many lack the motivation to do so. Little can be done for them, except that the internet makes it easy and safe to encounter the unfamiliar. Only a pathological fear of the unknown acts as an inhibitor under such conditions.
As for newspapers and their electronic equivalents, you are free to take them or leave them. But some of them are wonderful and eye-opening, and the internet gives an opportunity for the little ones, the ones that aren't there for the money, to make their thoughts known to whoever in the world cares to listen.
rabbit, Oct 11 2002

       // it is only when you travel to other countries, and see the news as they see it, that you realise just how biased your own country's reporting really is. //   

       I think we all get the point. It's the proposed solution that is not working for me.   

       So I'll just accept that this is here only to make that point, and that makes it a rant.
waugsqueke, Oct 11 2002

       As you seem to have had the strongest reaction to this idea, can you think of a better solution then Waugs. I'm not normally given to ranting.
dare99, Oct 11 2002

       No, because I mostly disagree with your premise. Of course, a country's native print media will speak differently of it than another country's print media will. I offer no solution because I don't recognize this as a problem. As others have pointed out, we can sort out the propaganda for ourselves, and choose to disregard it.   

       Maybe this is a bigger problem in the UK than the US... the press here is often very critical of the government. Even Pravda and Izvestia are able to run anti-government stories now. The Big Brother controlled press isn't that big an issue these days. Maybe China... Cuba. The only places that would really benefit from this idea are the very places that would never do it.   

       If I have the strongest reaction, it's only because I've tried to examine this idea in a practical sense, which it seems you haven't done. If you think about how newspapers operate as a business, you would quickly see that they would cease to function under your model. There appears to have been no consideration given to this.
waugsqueke, Oct 11 2002

       I agree, many of the ideas that I have posted to the halfbakery are not the nadir of practicality, I never felt that that was a restriction to posting here.   

       I think you may be fooling yourself to the actual freedom of the press in the west (UK, US, Europe, wherever). There are more forms of censorship than a government controled soldier stood by the editor. Don't look at what they print but rather at all the view points they don't.
dare99, Oct 11 2002

       Rupert Murdoch is the nicest man in the world and all of his television channels are of the highest quality.
calum, Oct 11 2002

       Keep taking the pills [calum]. They're bound to work eventually.
PeterSilly, Oct 11 2002


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle