Current Affairs The General Election

[abelard]

Russians interfering in elections is bad. Australians interfering in elections is a-ok.

I suspect most people can grasp the qualitative difference between this:

You know you're not legally required to like Jeremy Corbyn in order to vote for him right? | First Dog on the Moon

Perhaps you wanted someone more jolly and a bit less beardy weirdy

www.theguardian.com

and this:

Alexander Downer says Australia should reduce UK intelligence sharing if Corbyn wins

Former top diplomat in the UK says Labour leader’s ‘Maduro-style economic agenda’ would imperil Australian investments

www.theguardian.com

 

[zzr45]

I suspect most people can grasp the qualitative difference between this:

You know you're not legally required to like Jeremy Corbyn in order to vote for him right? | First Dog on the Moon

Perhaps you wanted someone more jolly and a bit less beardy weirdy

www.theguardian.com

and this:

Alexander Downer says Australia should reduce UK intelligence sharing if Corbyn wins

Former top diplomat in the UK says Labour leader’s ‘Maduro-style economic agenda’ would imperil Australian investments

www.theguardian.com

Doesn’t matter. If somebody cannot vote in an election then it’s completely irresponsible for a media source to give them a platform or report on it. People quite rightly lost their proverbial when Trumps views on Corbyn were aired. Either it’s wholly embraced or wholly inappropriate.

Granted the way the world communicates now, it is difficult to filter out foreign reporting etc, but UK based media (and voters) can’t have it both ways

 

[abelard]

Doesn’t matter. If somebody cannot vote in an election then it’s completely irresponsible for a media source to give them a platform or report on it. People quite rightly lost their proverbial when Trumps views on Corbyn were aired. Either it’s wholly embraced or wholly inappropriate.

Granted the way the world communicates now, it is difficult to filter out foreign reporting etc, but UK based media (and voters) can’t have it both ways

Surely that's a bit much? I don't think it would be inappropriate for, say, the Jerusalem Post or Haaretz to comment on the UK election (even though I wouldn't expect it to be impartial, never mind accurate), and I don't think the UK media would be doing its job if it didn't let readers/viewers know how the rest of the world sees us.

But it doesn't seem unreasonable to distinguish between the views of private citizens on one hand, and the statements of governments (or indeed acts in the case of Russia, America, Australia or Israel) and their representatives on the other.

 

[Aberblue]

Doesn’t matter. If somebody cannot vote in an election then it’s completely irresponsible for a media source to give them a platform or report on it. People quite rightly lost their proverbial when Trumps views on Corbyn were aired. Either it’s wholly embraced or wholly inappropriate.

Granted the way the world communicates now, it is difficult to filter out foreign reporting etc, but UK based media (and voters) can’t have it both ways

That's a pretty odd view. Plenty of people from all over the political spectrum in the UK commented on the US Presidential election, for example.

 

[Jebus_lives]

Russians interfering in elections is bad. Australians interfering in elections is a-ok.

Really?!

 

[tsubaki]

Doesn’t matter. If somebody cannot vote in an election then it’s completely irresponsible for a media source to give them a platform or report on it. People quite rightly lost their proverbial when Trumps views on Corbyn were aired. Either it’s wholly embraced or wholly inappropriate.

Granted the way the world communicates now, it is difficult to filter out foreign reporting etc, but UK based media (and voters) can’t have it both ways

He could vote in this election though, if he as a Commonwealth citizen was registered on the UK electoral roll at a UK address.

Also First Dog on the Moon has been in the Guardian for ages, so it’s not like they gave him a platform just for this (though I can’t recall him commenting on UK politics before now).

 

[OnlyBlueWillDo]

I suspect most people can grasp the qualitative difference between this:

You know you're not legally required to like Jeremy Corbyn in order to vote for him right? | First Dog on the Moon

Perhaps you wanted someone more jolly and a bit less beardy weirdy

www.theguardian.com

and this:

Alexander Downer says Australia should reduce UK intelligence sharing if Corbyn wins

Former top diplomat in the UK says Labour leader’s ‘Maduro-style economic agenda’ would imperil Australian investments

www.theguardian.com

Australians have had the biggest influence on UK elections over the last 30/40 years of any nationality, it's called Rupert Murdoch.

 

[zzr45]

Surely that's a bit much? I don't think it would be inappropriate for, say, the Jerusalem Post or Haaretz to comment on the UK election (even though I wouldn't expect it to be impartial, never mind accurate), and I don't think the UK media would be doing its job if it didn't let readers/viewers know how the rest of the world sees us.

But it doesn't seem unreasonable to distinguish between the views of private citizens on one hand, and the statements of governments (or indeed acts in the case of Russia, America, Australia or Israel) and their representatives on the other.

The problem is that we cannot have it both ways. The views of an individual are just as 'foreign' as those of a statehood. To allow one and not the other opens up plenty of Grey areas (Remember Fancy Bear has nothing to do with the Russian state...) ripe for exploitation. Either it is to be accepted and up to people to make their own judgements on, or something that must be taken out completely.

 

[Jebus_lives]

Doesn’t matter. If somebody cannot vote in an election then it’s completely irresponsible for a media source to give them a platform or report on it. People quite rightly lost their proverbial when Trumps views on Corbyn were aired. Either it’s wholly embraced or wholly inappropriate.

Granted the way the world communicates now, it is difficult to filter out foreign reporting etc, but UK based media (and voters) can’t have it both ways

What happens if the UK based media, carrying views of UK commentators on the GE, are owned by foreign companies/foreign nationals?

 

[abelard]

The problem is that we cannot have it both ways. The views of an individual are just as 'foreign' as those of a statehood. To allow one and not the other opens up plenty of Grey areas (Remember Fancy Bear has nothing to do with the Russian state...) ripe for exploitation. Either it is to be accepted and up to people to make their own judgements on, or something that must be taken out completely.

You seem to be conflating several things which aren't actually very similar.

When Obama spoke out against Brexit, a lot of people (including some Remainers) felt it was inappropriate for a foreign Head of State to be weighing in on British domestic affairs. But I don't recall anybody suggesting that he should be somehow legally barred from commenting, or that the British press shouldn't have reported his remarks.

Obama speaking out is qualitatively not the same thing as a National Review or Fox News piece in favour of Brexit though, and neither is clandestine CIA interference to swing the vote - which is what Russia is accused of doing.

It doesn't make any sense to compare the personal opinion of long-time Guardian cartoonist who happens to be from Australia with covert interference from a foreign intelligence agency, as these are obviously not even remotely similar.

 

[zzr45]

You seem to be conflating several things which aren't actually very similar.

When Obama spoke out against Brexit, a lot of people (including some Remainers) felt it was inappropriate for a foreign Head of State to be weighing in on British domestic affairs. But I don't recall anybody suggesting that he should be somehow legally barred from commenting, or that the British press shouldn't have reported his remarks.

Obama speaking out is qualitatively not the same thing as a National Review or Fox News piece in favour of Brexit though, and neither is clandestine CIA interference to swing the vote - which is what Russia is accused of doing.

It doesn't make any sense to compare the personal opinion of long-time Guardian cartoonist who happens to be from Australia with covert interference from a foreign intelligence agency, as these are obviously not even remotely similar.

What are the purposes of the two activities?

To influence British opinion. The two are one and the same. It is either acceptable or unacceptable.

There was, of course complaints about Obama’s comments:

Backlash after Barack Obama EU referendum intervention

Leave campaigners accuse Barack Obama of doing Downing Street's bidding - after he says the UK would be at "the back of the queue" for US trade deals if it left the EU.

www.bbc.co.uk

Foreign intervention shouldn’t be judged on whether we like the message or not. The Guardian presumably will not be running any future articles about Russian influence on British elections, having for all intends and purposes enabled a foreign national to influence the electorate.

 

[abelard]

The Guardian presumably will not be running any future articles about Russian influence on British elections

They literally ran a (typically poor) piece on this today

Leaked NHS papers 'put online by posters using Russian methods'

Questions about dissemination of documents do not mean they are fake, but pose new puzzle

www.theguardian.com

[PS: lol!!!! "A 19-page report published on Monday by the consultancy Graphika said that while it could not conclusively prove a Russian origin to the leak, the early distribution of the cache of files via Reddit, three German-language websites and an anonymous Twitter account reflected a method of operation seen repeatedly over recent years.]

There was, of course complaints about Obama’s comments:

Backlash after Barack Obama EU referendum intervention

Leave campaigners accuse Barack Obama of doing Downing Street's bidding - after he says the UK would be at "the back of the queue" for US trade deals if it left the EU.

www.bbc.co.uk

Yes, like I said:

When Obama spoke out against Brexit, a lot of people (including some Remainers) felt it was inappropriate for a foreign Head of State to be weighing in on British domestic affairs. But I don't recall anybody suggesting that he should be somehow legally barred from commenting, or that the British press shouldn't have reported his remarks.

The notion of eradicating any sort of 'foreign influence' on British opinion is beyond absurd.

Or would you have @Bruce Wayne running citizenship checks before someone is allowed to post here?

Some types are fine (opinion columns, overseas press coverage); some is unfortunate but likely impossible to legally prevent, though it should be condemned (heads of state etc taking advantage of their position); and some should be resisted by any means necessary (interference by intelligence agencies).

 

[Jebus_lives]

The president of the USA making statements to influence UK political direction and Russian interference in GE process are the equivalent of a cartoon in a daily newspaper.

 

[abelard]

The president of the USA making statements to influence UK political direction and Russian interference in GE process are the equivalent of a cartoon in a daily newspaper.

Corbyn derangement leads the mind to strange places.

 

[dead_soft]

What are the purposes of the two activities?

To influence British opinion. The two are one and the same. It is either acceptable or unacceptable.

There was, of course complaints about Obama’s comments:

Backlash after Barack Obama EU referendum intervention

Leave campaigners accuse Barack Obama of doing Downing Street's bidding - after he says the UK would be at "the back of the queue" for US trade deals if it left the EU.

www.bbc.co.uk

Foreign intervention shouldn’t be judged on whether we like the message or not. The Guardian presumably will not be running any future articles about Russian influence on British elections, having for all intends and purposes enabled a foreign national to influence the electorate.

You are really struggling to follow this argument despite it being one you started.

For starters, First Dog is from the Australian section of the newspaper