Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
The new Public Health (Alcohol) Bill has been under consideration by the government since late 2015 but has not yet been enacted.
It is a far-reaching bill with new legislation on aspects such as minimum pricing, advertising and product labelling.
You can catch the first two parts of our series covering the important aspects of this bill here (on advertising), and here (on minimum pricing). This week we look at how alcohol labels will change, and ask if this bill is what is needed to tackle the problem of alcohol in Ireland.
WHEN YOU BUY a pack of cigarettes in Ireland, around 65% of the box is taken up with health warnings.
It tells you that “smoking kills” and that “tobacco smoke contains over 70 substances known to cause cancer” along with a graphic warning of what smoking can do to our teeth, lungs and throat.
The exact details haven’t been ironed out yet, but the Public Health (Alcohol) Bill is set to bring in similar health warnings to cans and bottles of beer, wine and spirits in Ireland.
Unlike minimum pricing which is clear cut on what it’ll bring, labelling will be much harder for the government to introduce, with legal action from our EU neighbours among the risks to its implementation at the moment.
What it says
Under the section of the bill on “labelling of alcohol products and notices in licensed premises”, it says that all alcohol products manufactured, imported or sold in the State must contain:
Furthermore, anywhere that sells alcohol – both pubs and off-trade – will be required to display these warnings.
Also, the industry will have a three-year period to prepare for the implementation of labelling.
However, it is here where it gets complicated. The bill has little detail on what these warnings will actually look like. It does say, however, that it will be up to the Minister of Health to decide.
The Minister will be able to decide the “size, colour and font type of the printed material on the warning concerned”.
In other words, if the bill was in effect today, Simon Harris could decide how large the warnings would be on alcohol packaging. He could make them part of the small print, or he could place them as prominently as cigarette packaging.
When TheJournal.ie asked the Department of Health what its plans were when this labelling requirement is brought in, they said that they hadn’t been finalised yet.
A spokesperson for the department said: “[We have] commissioned research regarding health warning and information labelling on alcohol products, which will inform the decision making process.
Regulations in this regard will be published after the Bill is enacted.
So, for now, the government will “wait and see” what they’ll do once the bill passes.
One amendment put forth by senators at committee stage could clarify the issue, if accepted by government. A group of senators, including Frances Black and David Norris, proposed a warning “to inform the public of the direct link between alcohol and fatal cancers”.
In relation to a section of the bill which outlines that the onus will be on the Minister to prescribe the size, colour and font type, they put forward the following:
Where at least one third of the printed material will be given over to evidence-based health warnings.
That amendment would bring alcohol packaging more in line with that of cigarettes, with clearly visible-printed warnings on the label.
Systems where drinks companies have voluntarily placed health warnings on their products have been introduced in the likes of the UK and Australia, where warnings take up a small portion of the packaging.
As for if it will work, there is scientific evidence both for and against such actions being successful.
Any exceptions to the rule?
None.
Minister of State for Health Promotion Marcella Corcoran Kennedy has been unequivocal that this part of the legislation will apply across the board, with no exceptions.
When a written question was asked by Fine Gael TD Brendan Griffin regarding possible exemptions for the labelling requirements, she had this response:
The department is not providing an exemption from the labelling provisions in the Public Health (Alcohol) Bill. The labelling provisions will apply to all retailers. [This bill] provides a 3 year lead in time for the introduction of the labelling provisions.
When Fianna Fáil TD Timmy Dooley queried whether an imported alcohol product could have its health warning attached after it arrived in the country, Corcoran Kennedy responded:
“Under the legislation, it will be an offence for an individual to manufacture, import or sell to a person in the State an alcohol product that does not comply with the labelling requirements.
All alcohol products imported into the State must be correctly labelled prior to being removed from the warehouse and placed on sale in the State.
Why this is important
A range of amendments were being discussed by senators before the bill conspicuously disappeared from debate in the Houses of the Oireachtas towards the end of last year.
Members of both houses have repeatedly asked the government when it will be brought back, but its burial from debate was closely followed with a Fine Gael parliamentary meeting where concerns were raised about the advertising provisions in the bill.
As a result, amendments proposed to the bill remain in limbo, until the government reintroduces the legislation again.
A warning on cancer was proposed to be added to the bill by senators, and although it has not been finalised yet, it is something that the Irish Cancer Society was very keen on.
Its head of services and advocacy, Donal Buggy, said: “We are asking the bill go further in its labelling provisions and for a specific warning on alcohol products that highlight the link between alcohol and fatal cancers.
People are simply not aware of the cancer risk associated with drinking alcohol and we need to ensure they are presented with the facts… Of the 900 new cancers each year related to alcohol, half of them could be prevented if people drank within the Department of Health’s guidelines.
In terms of guidelines, this would equate to 17 units a week for men (around 7 pints of beer, cider or stout) and 11 units for women.
Buggy added: “We know from experience in the fight against tobacco that public health legislation like the smoking ban works and that is why it is so important this Bill is enacted as soon as possible”.
The President of the Royal College of Physicians in Ireland and member of the Alcohol Health Alliance, Professor Frank Murray, says that the provisions contained in this bill are essential to deal with the harms caused by alcohol in Ireland.
He said: “The [latest] Health Research Board data demonstrates that, between 1995-2013, the rate of increase in alcoholic liver disease trebled among 15-34 year olds… It also shows that as more women consume alcohol in greater amounts, this is having an adverse impact on their health.
One in 10 breast cancers between 2001 and 2010 was attributable to alcohol.
“I urge all Oireachtas members to urgently adopt this important piece of public health legislation and all of its contents, including establishing a minimum price for alcohol and introducing health labelling.”
Trouble ahead
It’s already been flagged that Ireland could face big trouble with its EU neighbours on this provision for labelling.
The state is subject to common free trade laws and other countries in the bloc feel that bringing in a labelling requirement could impede this.
A key part of the campaign for Britain to leave the EU last year was the idea that Brexit would allow the UK to “take back control” of its affairs.
The idea of taking back control of its own laws got a section to itself in the white paper on Brexit that was recently published by the UK government.
While Ireland has been a net beneficiary from being part of the EU, as shown in this FactCheck from theJournal.ie, the country is subject to regulations of free trade that govern all member states.
And, in terms of labelling, other EU countries feel that this new bill could act as a barrier to free trade.
Countries, such as France and Germany, feel that the move would have negative implications for importing its nation’s products into Ireland.
Fine Gael MEP Brian Hayes explained: “If the legislation is introduced, manufactures who import alcohol into Ireland would be required to include health labels on their products.
“11 EU Member States have submitted objections to the legislation as well as the European Commission stating that the legislation would create barriers to free trade.
The Commission issuing warning shots against Ireland on this issue denies the principle of subsidiarity and hampers public policy making in Ireland. It sets a dangerous precedent and must be opposed.
Despite EU concerns, Corcoran Kennedy told the Dáil that, in regard to this legislation, Ireland had adhered to its obligations and that the bill is free to go through the houses of the Oireachtas.
This matter was complicated, however, by a statement made by Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald in the Dáil last October, when asked about a different system whereby all alcohol sold would have a unique code that could be traced back to the buyer.
She said: “In the case of imports from EU countries, any additional labelling requirements would be regarded as infringing internal market rules relating to free movement of such products”.
That certainly raises further problems. If additional labelling on alcohol on imported alcohol products would, as Fitzgerald suggests, infringe rules related to free trade, Ireland leaves itself open to potential legal action over this provision of the bill.
Last week, Fitzgerald also said in the Dáil that Minister Corcoran Kennedy had taken time to re-examine elements of the bill which some felt would be “unduly punitive, particularly for small enterprises”.
As we pointed out last week in relation to minimum pricing, it is not the only part of the bill which could be challenged in court.
Any other problems?
Again, as we’ve seen with other aspects of the bill, Ireland is taking the lead in some respects among other European countries in the steps they are taking with this alcohol bill.
We don’t have hard evidence to show all of its provisions will reduce alcohol-related harms because we’re among the first countries to introduce them.
The potential legal implications notwithstanding, the requirement to label all of their products will have a damaging effect on exports for Irish companies, according to the alcohol industry.
The head of the Alcohol Beverage Federation of Ireland Ross Mathuna told TheJournal.ie that its job of supporting local brewers and distillers in creating jobs was incompatible with some aspects of the bill.
He said: “If you’re trying to launch a new product in Ireland, you may have to carry health warnings for products you want to sell abroad. We should standardise the label as much as possible but a label for here and a different label for somewhere else makes no sense.
We want the legislation to have its intended effect. But don’t kill the industry here – an industry which is supporting a lot of jobs.
In terms of “intended effect”, then-Minister for Health Leo Varadkar made the government’s intentions clear when he published the bill in late-2015.
He said: “This Bill addresses alcohol as a public health issue for the first time by tackling price, availability, marketing, advertising, and labelling.
By taking this approach and confronting the problem in a wide range of ways, I am confident that we can make a huge difference to public health.
So when’s it all going to happen?
Soon, according to Taoiseach Enda Kenny.
The bill disappeared from debate in the House of the Oireachtas before Christmas, and opposition members have been pressing the government on when they’ll get a final chance to debate the bill before TDs vote on it.
Even on last week’s most tumultuous of Valentine’s Days, Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin found the time to ask the Taoiseach this question, amid the Maurice McCabe controversies:
Prior to Christmas, there was significant concern and debate on the Public Health (Alcohol) Bill… Will the Taoiseach indicate when it will be brought back for discussion, debate and passage through the House?
Kenny replied that he believed Minister Corcoran Kennedy would reintroduce the bill to to the house “quickly”.
Having said that, the bill was last debated properly in the Seanad in 2016, and the extensive lobbying being done on aspects of the bill, particularly in terms of advertising and shop layout, is coupled with the Tánaiste’s statement that parts of the bill “are being examined again”.
The bill has ambitious aims, and sets out an unprecedented collection of ways to tackle the public health issue of alcohol.
In its current form, it will radically change how alcohol is shown to us, how much it costs and what its packaging looks like.
Barring any major changes to the bill being proposed by government, and provided they follow through and bring it forward again quickly, it has the potential to change Ireland’s attitude to alcohol.
Whether it actually will, however, remains to be seen.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Governments want control pf information and bit by bit they will get it
@John Mc Grath: yes the end of net neutrality is near….free speak as we know it will be squashed in favour of the lying currupt MSM if they get their way.
@John Mc Grath: that’s not what this is. Fake news and false information is a genuine threat to democracy and it’s only going to get worse.
@PaddyOverABarrel: yawn. You’ve no idea what net neutrality refers to
@Conor Paddington: it’s not really. The communication channels have just altered, in a pretty revolutionary way that nobody could have foreseen, and society hasn’t been able to keep up. The communication and information channels won’t alter to suit pre-existing structures of society, it will have to be the other way around.
@Conor Paddington: look at the referendum, the bias and conduct of ‘normal’ media is more worrying, they put themselves forward as fair and implant Ian and they are anything but. I reckon much of this coming down hard on social media is Main stream media trying to shit down competition.
TheJournal.ie. Is smack bang part of the main stream and tops the independent for bias and lack of balance
@Conor Paddington: Ah its the Narrative Guzzler. Figures you’d support this. You support whatever they tell you to. Rent-a-sheep. Political prostitute. Completely devoid of decency or principles. I actually feel sorry for you, even though I know in my heart that in your perfect world, you’d shop me in, given the chance and I’d be off to the gulag.
@Liam Doyle: I’m not a resistance to change lunatic, and you are right that we will have to change to keep up. BUT, the Facebooks and the Twitters have taken over from traditional media and have to realise that they are accountable for the platform they are giving to people who want to disseminate dangerous, false information. They shouldn’t curate, or take an editorial role. But they have to be responsible for what information they are allowing to spread.
@Magic Frog Wizard: in my perfect world everyone would have the same access to education that I had and would engage in dialogue and while not everyone would agree, people would engage in dialogue and show compassion in their disagreements. But perfect worlds don’t exist and everything you just said is a load of shite.
@Conor Paddington: nah, all information should be free to all. People aren’t idiots, the vast majority will sort the wheat from the chaff. When you imagine not long over a century ago our forebears we’re paying people so their kids could be given a touch of knowledge in a hedge school and now our kids have access to every library, encyclopedia, university at their fingertips! It’s to be celebrated, not controlled by Luddites.
@Conor Paddington: Well of course you’d say it was a load of shite, it was directed at you sweetie :-) If you agreed with it then your whole world view would collapse and your simple little head would implode. Can’t have that now can we?
@eric nelligan: thr Journal isn’t financed well enough to have any meaningful narrative voice, anyone who gets the majority of their news or opinions from the Journal is severely limiting themselves. Equally, arguing against the Journal as a “beacon” of the mainstream media is a pure (though probably not malicious) straw man.
@Conor Paddington: Who gets to say what fake news and false information entails? The British government, in this case? Would you trust them? Would you trust our government? Think carefully.
This is the same Britain where a guy was very recently prosecuted for making a Holocaust joke?
I don’t trust anybody in the world to be a censor or to determine what news is fake for me. I want to do that myself. You’re far too eager to hand over control of the information economy to our supposedly benevolent rulers.
@ihcalaM: Beautifully put, I second all of that.
@Liam Doyle: I think people are great, but it’s totally inaccurate to say that the vast majority of people will sort out the fake news from actual information. People (to some degree, you and I included) believe what reaffirms their world view and gives them that warm fuzzy feel of certainty inside. I am not a luddite, and I love the dissemination of information that is happening. But, when somebody makes up believable facts about the holocaust being a lie, and people believe it that’s dangerous. When people take a video of a speech of Obama’s that actually happened and CGI his mouth and his voice to make it sound like he is saying something that he’s not, that’s dangerous. Everything needs to be regulated and kept in check. History has proven that we’re shit at regulating ourselves.
@Magic Frog Wizard: Great comment, you have painted a very vivid picture of how simple it is to lead and manipulate certain people into believing what they are TOLD by chancers and spoofers. Fox and CNN are perfect examples of mainstream media manipulators, both with differing political bias. Sure fake news never existed until a certain Mr Trump won the last US election !
@ihcalaM: that’s where the genuine issue lies, and it’s very difficult. I certainly don’t want the British government to control what information I receive. I also totally disagree with the prosecution of the holocaust dog guy (though that wasn’t the government, it was the courts). But, something needs to be done. I would be comfortable with allowing the information yo be spread, but very visible disclaimers marking it as potential fake news. People can then read it and decide for themselves.
@Conor Paddington: Are you seriously suggesting that we make “believable facts about the Holocaust being a lie” illegal, or restricted information in some way? Or even nonsense about Obama?
If you think that’s going to help the scourge of Holocaust denial, you couldn’t be MORE wrong. That’s exactly the kind of thing those losers would use as validation of their beliefs. “Look, we’re being silenced for our views! We must be on to something!”.
Censorship *does NOT work*. It is a totally hapless strategy and this has been proven time and time again. We have to take it upon ourselves to counter falsehoods on social media and elsewhere with facts, rather than relying on the government or anyone else to do it for us – because that is a very sinister slippery slope.
@ihcalaM: for one thing, I am not saying it should be made illegal. I am saying facebook amd twitter need to be made accountable for its dissemination. Secondly, I don’t think you’ve read my second comment yet.
@ihcalaM: also, the Brexit referendum (and a lot of other recent elections) have made it clear that when false information appeals to people’s emotions, countering it with genuine facts just doesn’t work.
@Conor Paddington: do you still really believe that’s what caused Brexit? 17.4 million people, fake news? Can you not understand that there a are a lot of people in bad straits who just want change, cos this aint working for them? Your attitude to the votes won’t solve the underlying issues.
@Conor Paddington: Making Facebook etc. “accountable for its dissemination” will essentially make it illegal – if threatened with big fines these corporations will censor this information to the point where it is de-facto illicit info on big websites. For example, you’ll be banned from these sites for sharing any such information.
Will Google also be held responsible for what they host and the links they provide? Surely. If so – this information, false as it is, will become virtually unobtainable.
Is that what you want? I’m genuinely curious as to how this would work.
Again, the same anti-effect will be achieved. Holocaust deniers and the like will claim that the corporations (run by spooky Jews, no doubt) are suppressing the “truth” about the Holocaust. It adds fuel to the fire.
@Liam Doyle: no, I absolutely don’t believe it cause 17.4 million people to vote for Brexit. But do you really think it swung no votes? 350 million a week to the NHS? Dead stop to immigration? Do you not thinl false information played a role in people deciding the way they did? Brexit was a protest vote against Cameron and austerity and it may have happened either way. But false information from official quarters and troll farms from Russia definitely swung a few votes, maybe even a few million. Truth is you and I don’t know.
@ihcalaM: I am not uncomfortable woth admitting that I have no idea how it could work, and I don’t thibk any government action should be taken lightly. But do you not see an issue with fake news and deep fake videos and Russian troll farms as they currently exist? Because they’re getting more and more sophisticated and have long since passed us out.
@ihcalaM: sadly after the Cambridge Analytica episode , Facebook entered a partnership with the very political Think Tank , the Atlantic Council , to ” monitor posts and educate the civil society “. Yet the Guardians and New York Times of this world haven’t written any critical article about it . The idea that the Atlantic Council more than likely now has access to users Facebook accounts alarms me far more than any Cambridge Analytica episode .
@Conor Paddington: Again, it’s a question of values.
Western civilisation has come up against (and used) propaganda before, and has come out the other side. Today’s propaganda takes a different form, and there’s no doubt that some of it has quite a negative impact on our social fabric, but it’s the same old foe.
But the simple fact remains – it’s going to take an awful lot more than pesky Russian bots and fake news articles to convince me that my freedom from censorship needs to be surrendered. That is not something we should be giving up lightly. It’s a surrender of the mind.
@ihcalaM: so what about huge disclaimers over facebook posts adjudged to have fake news in them? No restriction, no limitation, just a “buyer beware”? I personally agree that censorship in most forms is by definition an unnecessary evil.
@Conor Paddington:
Moan, Moan, Moan, Whinge, Whinge Whinge. Jeez, you’re worse that Hilary Clinton.
@Jimmy Coltrane: phenomenal input. Well done.
@Conor Paddington: but the swing votes don’t matter without the base. Why were 17m non-swing voters willing to vote for brexit? Why were 60 odd million voters willing to vote for trump? Why are these people so desperate that they’re willing to gamble their future? That’s the real question, but everyone is talking about the margins, the swing votes!
@Conor Paddington: Disclaimers I have much less of a problem with. We’re free to ignore disclaimers if we want to read something, whereas deleting/censoring something outright robs us of agency.
Disclaimers are a little bit patronising and still have the same kind of issues – e.g. who decides what gets a disclaimer, what is their basis for slapping a disclaimer on an article, etc. but it’s a completely different ballgame.
The problem is that the legislation proposed above seems to be angled more towards getting *rid* of ‘fake’ content rather than just providing a warning label. We’ll see how it pans out I suppose.
@Frank Cauldhame: Here’s an interesting correlation https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=Fake%20news,Pizzagate
@Conor Paddington: I think that you are a bit naive. What you call fake news is just a new fancy term for centuries-old good old-fashioned eliminating of opposition. Every view which does not correspond with your own is suddenly not different opinion but fake news.
Do not be so narrow-minded, not everyone shares your view and more importantly what makes you think that your view is the only right one?
A rainbow has many colours.
@Pat Patovic: that is a totally incorrect characterisation of my point of view and actually better describes Donald Trump. My definition of fake news is where somebody knowingly makes something up, knows it’s correct, and reports it as the truth intending that other people believe it.
@Conor Paddington: Lol, fake news as you call it is nothing new, it is called propaganda. Many people, politicians, states, you name it did use propaganda even if they knew it was not truthful. It was always here and it is here to stay whether you like it or not. As I said it is naive to think you can do anything about it. Every newspaper or station is owned by somebody and if you ever work in one you will get strict guidelines on what you can and what you cant do. They do not come from a fairy of truth but from person or entity who own that station and who will own you.
There is no unbiased or unaligned entity or organization which could be tasked with deciding what is true and what is not. Everyone should be free to decide what they want to believe.
This crusade against so-called fake news is the same as trying to force some religion on everyone. Either you do have freedom of religion and press or you don’t. There is no middle ground here.
Ah the good old “it’s for the greater good” tax argument.
@Ennui Kenny: There’s nothing you can’t fix with more taxation…
@Dave Thomas: High taxes?
@Magic Frog Wizard: Sadly that’s exactly how they go about reducing “High Taxes” …. only they don’t call them taxes, they call them charges or levy’s etc so your tax burden gets reduced but you end up paying twice as much.
Attempting to stifle free speach, just like here
Don’t let governments take control of internet use. This is an area the state and media corporations have little control over and see as a danger to them.
@Daniel Donovan: I have to agree with this. It’s little like saying the information in a free newspaper is somewhat suspect, that may or may not be accurate, however charging a small fee for it isn’t likely to change to veracity of the information.
If anything, those prone to acts of mischief are likely to rebel even more in defiance against such attempts at state censorship.
It’s important to educate the public how to discern the difference between what’s genuine information, and what’s nonsense.
A simple but benign example is a few days ago – all over facebook people were sharing posts that Mars would appear as large as the moon in the sky. Now most sensible people know that such a thing is absurd, but yet people continued to share it.
That example is benign as it doesn’t really hurt someone, but it is an example of how sharing false information spreads very quickly.
Every day I see nonsense posted on FB and Twitter. Stuff that could be easily verified with a quick google search. But people are lazy and will re-share anything that supports their confirmation bias.
I think the idea of digital literacy is actually a good one, and should go hand in hand with a critical thinking class in school.
@Seán Ó Briain:
Spot on – large sections of society seem to be incapable of recognising complete BS when they see it, especially online (as often demonstrated right here on the Journal).
It’s a sad reflection on our education system that people can be so easily duped.
@Walt Jabsco: Absolutely, that is a sad fact, BUT the solution being proposed in the article is an insidious one.
Any attempt to start filtering out the news information we have access to (‘false’ or not) is not something any right minded person should support.
@ihcalaM:
The aim isn’t to filter out false information, it’s to teach people how to recognise it.
@Walt Jabsco: The aim of what?
The supposed leaked legislation mentioned above wants to hold corporations responsible for the dissemination of fake news.
The only way to do that is to punish them for not cracking down on it – which will lead to them filtering the information people see to avoid said punishments.
If it was just a proposal based on educating people to recognise fake news I’d be behind it – it seems to be a lot more than that, no?
@ihcalaM: the report goes as far as dedicating one chapter to the Catalonia referendum and stating that Russian and Putin bots were responsible for misinforming people regarding the number of injured . The report goes as far as stating that there were not 900 people injured and that that number is wrong and a misinformation of Putin bots . It’s risible and I think most of us saw the police brutality live on TV . I think the aim of this committee is to finally forbid RT and Sputnik in the UK .
@Isabel Oliveira: “most of us saw the police brutality live on TV” what utter bollocks. Half the footage was old footage of a miner’s strike in Asturias. That lady who had all her fingers broken? Turned out it was some swollen cartilage. There were TWO people (that’s 2/dos/1+1) seriously injured out of the 900+ figures Puigdemont and his spin doctors were flogging to the rest of the world.
@Harry Whitehead: please don’t insult my intelligence ! 2 people only injured during the referendum . You couldn’t make this up . Spanish police are saints and all images i saw on rte, BBC , Portuguese and Spanish TV are fake and the people of Catalonia are liars . You’ve got some cheek , I’ll give you that .
@Isabel Oliveira: You don’t have enough intelligence to insult. I’ll repeat again – that’s two people SERIOUSLY injured (laughably bad try at rewriting my post by the way) out of the absurdly hyperbolic 900+ figures the separatists were putting forward. Including the non-existent six year old boy who was supposedly left paralysed. Puigdemont and his nutcase nationalists very well can make it up, as it happens.https://elpais.com/elpais/2017/10/04/inenglish/1507104937_874487.html
@Isabel Oliveira: “On Monday, the Catalan health service issued several documents in Catalan, French, and English admitting that the figure of 893 represents people “who have been seen by doctors.” It’s clear that just because someone sees a doctor, it does not mean that they are hurt or sick. In total, four people were admitted into hospitals for treatment, two with minor conditions and two in serious condition. One man was hit by a rubber bullet in the eye, surely fired by the Civil Guard or the National Police, because the Catalan police do not use such equipment. The other is a man who suffered a heart attack during one of the police interventions.”
@Isabel Oliveira: Here’s your REAL fake news: http://www.lasexta.com/noticias/nacional/jordi-sanchez-presidente-de-la-anc-el-balance-de-heridos-no-existe-en-europa-desde-la-ii-guerra-mundial_2017100259d16d7f0cf213697993e4f3.html
Let it never be said that nationalists don’t know how to egg custard to the point where it ceases to be custard. ¡Desde la segunda guerra mundial! Even Trump would have been proud of that whopper.
@Harry Whitehead: did I mention the 2nd works war? Certainly not . I mentioned and it’s above 900 injured . Now if you think that’s “fake news ” I suggest the issue can be taken with the Catalonian Health Authorities of the injured treated who provided the number of 844 on October 17 and then updated to 983.
Also , I don’t think it was the Russians who made the hyperbolic statement of the war but actually someone in the Catalan pro independence section .
That the British parliament has the sheer arrogance of calling liars to the health authorities of a sovereign country and conclude that 900 injured is the result of Putin bots shows me the circus that British politics has become and the utter contempt they have for their people and the international community .
Their ‘version’ of highly sanitised history will be under serious threat so. They’ll have to levy themselves. Sky News will be bankrupt in a month!
We are living in an era where we have the greatest freedom of information of any time and these self serving charlatans don’t like it one bit.
Was fake news an issue when the establishment and their MSM cronies created the narrative about WMD’s that led to the deaths of millions of people in the ME?
Also, who decides what constitutes fake or misleading news? The government? The MSM? The academics? The civil service?
Let’s look at a hypothetical example. Let’s assume 4 news stories over the last week provide positive news for the Trump administration while 4 news stories over the last week provide negative news for the Trump administration. If an MSM news site only provides information to the public regarding the negative stories, are they guilty of providing Fake narratives and misleading news?
Final point: I could take three facts about the Israel-Palestine conflict and write a pro-Israel opinion piece in a newspaper. Another person could take the same three facts and write an anti-Israel opinion piece. Which one is misleading and biased?
People are rejecting the narratives of the “MSM – the Enemy of the People” and the establishment does not like it…
@Low Energy Jeb: The press and social media outlets should have the freedom to print whatever they espouse, it’s then up to the individual to be honest and sieve through the news. Not everyone is stupid as the government would have you think. What you are saying is correct.
How long do you think until they introduce a fresh air tax, you know, for just breathing?
@Dave Thomas: Will Irish Air fix the leaks or just install meters like Irish Water?
@Dave Thomas: Their time is coming to an end and they know that, its becoming a swan song now?
Since the report mentions Bill Browder as an honest and independent source for their findings one has to wonder how they have the moral to decide on fake news and propaganda . Bill Browder’s built up media and intelligence agencies persona is up there amongst the best examples of fake news I’ve come across .
Fake news is ok in the UK, as long as it’s on the side of a big red bus haha!
@Dunn: Plenty of it here as well… Garda McCabe suffered a lot of it here…
@TamuMassif2019: he did indeed.
Wait for it, i can see the same thing happening here, and then straight after, the gov will continue on with their own fake news as if it has absolutely no effect on themselves! It’ll be an excuse for another tax.
God.. these people are so transparent that it’s cringey. Stop trying to control information, you freaks.
@Magic Frog Wizard: We’re getting closer and closer to the abattoir , surely we can all smell the blood and know what awaits us . Real democracy is less than a century old , and these people want to remove our ability to make choices .
@Ken Hayden: I’m a little more optimistic. These things are signs of desperation imo but the horse has long bolted.
@Ken Hayden:
The likes of Trump and Putin trying to shut down a free press are a much greater threat to democracy.
@Walt Jabsco: They abuse that freedom and use it for their own gain, at the expense of others. Free and FAIR press is important. Free and biased press is incredibly dangerous.
@Magic Frog Wizard: The US media have no legal obligation to be fair.
The first amendment does not mean that you have to be nice to anyone or charitable about their positions. It guarantees complete freedom of the press, not “freedom of the press if you’re not biased against the President”.
It’s staying that way, and there’s not a single thing you or Mr. Trump can do about it.
@ihcalaM: Of course there is. We can reject the narratives pushed by the US media and other MSM platforms and call them out for being biased and Fake. We can then go off and find or create new media platforms which a free internet provides us. And that is essentially what has happened.
However, we now have the establishment and the MSM trying to regulate us for portraying what they assume to be Fake and/or misleading news. Does the first amendment not protect us the same as they protect the MSM? Or is it OK to apply a different standard for First Amendment and free speech rights to speech we do not agree with?
@ihcalaM: I’m not actually arguing against the substantive point you make on free speech in this article, Malachy. I think we align pretty much perfectly on that issue…
@Low Energy Jeb: I’m not sure what specific point you’re arguing here.
There’s nothing anybody can realistically do to change the protections given to the press by the First Amendment (guaranteeing freedom, bias or not), even though Trump has suggested he wants to do such a thing. That was my point.
People can push back against and boycott biased media but that wasn’t the point I was arguing. It goes without saying that people power is effective, my point is that US media have zero *legal* need to be ‘fair’ to the likes of Trump.
Some of the best journalism ever has come from unfair hit-pieces. For example, Hitchens’ book on Bill Clinton was endlessly illuminating and educational, but it wasn’t unbiased.
Neutrality and objectivity in journalism are sometimes overrated, in my view.
The ugly head of Fascism silencing the dissenters .
@Ken Hayden: Even this comment is being pushed into the basement , thought police , thy name is Journal .
State sponsored propaganda as your main or only source of information is the goal
Our politicians and gov should note that labour is at 3% in the polls and one of the main reasons for that is them making false promises and spreading fake news before the 2011 election!
Like they are already doing with the BBC? Would anyone really trust the BBC as they are just a mouthpiece for their own government, BBC staff are vetted by MI5 from the 30′s right up to the 90′s and many feel that they are still doing that today. News readers are actors, they report the so called news. Look at how the BBC news acts towards the outcome of the Brexit referendum, their staff wasn’t happy but how can the BBC teach children about what is bias or fake news after reading the following… https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9055183/BBC-admits-receiving-millions-in-grants-from-EU-and-councils.html
Also how can MP’s talk about fake news in the media when they lie to the media themselves and they themselves don’t want the media to expose the truths that would effect their business connections and brown envelopes. There is fake news but politicians are that corrupt now that they think they can sweep everything under the mat of fake news to save themselves and their pals. So who decides what is fake or not then?
The UK is really developing into an overbearing nanny state. Who decides what is fake news? some busy-body PC bureaucrat.. Its all about power and control.
Good luck with that
How’s Brexit.
@Matthew Gorman: How’s Paisley Jr now and May?
@TamuMassif2019: they’re on their holidays!
have your say