The Publisher's Organisation of Sweden is publicly demanding (not asking, demanding - the language used in swedish is in the imperative) that Sweden's Chancellor of Legal Matters (Justitiekansler) try to overturn the verdict against state media the other week, when state media were deemed to be in breach of the rules of conduct re: their slander and libel of Linda Karlström, a finnish woman and mother of five who had the audacity to criticise and question vaccine safety, efficiency and related issues.
I'm disgusted to the point of vomiting. The Publishers (who are a guild in all but name) actually have utter gall to call to state this:
"Domen är oroväckande då den uttryckligen säger att det svenska självreglerande medieetiska systemet är otillräckligt"
"The verdict is unsatisfactory since it explicitly says that the swedish system of self-regulating media-ethics is insufficicient"
So according to the publishers, the problem isn't the way they invaded a private person's home, publicly unknown and by no means a public person or celebrity, and inveigled themselves to her giving a false sense of security and then edited the material to make her look as unhinged as possbile.
No, the problem is that the verdict says that their self-regulating system (guild) doesn't work.
The very notion that aslong as you put the moniker "journalist" after your name, you can do whatever you please is so disgusting it's rage-inucing.
The guilds own statement is linked in the article. Meanwhile, our parliament's legal committee is preparing a law that will make threats et c against journalists a special crime, much worse than if it was the same crime against me.
But only if they or their employer is part of the Publisher's Organisation. Which any non-narrative or not regime-aligned media is barred from. By the guild.
I have to wonder, being pathologically logical, how they choose whom to employ.
Because to choose from a set of options using defined parameters is to discriminate. Otherwise it is random. Like the peanuts right next to me, on the bedside table. Do I pick a specific peanut based on criteria, or do I just pick a peanut, any peanut?
Also, when listing criteria for selection, you only need to list what are the musts; you never need to list what isn't important since such a list will always be "infinity -1", sort of. It is like when my son is coming over and calls from town, asking if I want him to pick up something. Me listing all the things (in the store) I don't want would be silly, stupid and... well, let's charitably call it "having bad luck trying to think" (the phrase is a swedish idiom, implying innocent idiocy and ignorance without malice in someone).
"Sexueller Orientierung" sounds as wrong in german, as it does in swedish and english. "Sexual preference" is correct, but since preference implies conscious input, thought and above all choice of whether to act on said preference or not, it is no wonder that the forces promoting learned helplessness opts for newspeak, stating it as a spontaneously and naturally occuring drive which is not under conscious control.
Perfect, then all the weirdos will work together where everyone can watch as they sink their own ship! A form where only dumb decisions are made is a slow dumpster fire that yields soft chuckles for months. No one can cheat reality, it always wins in the end.
How do they get away making logically false and preposterous statements like that? Call them out for the equivocating devils they are.
OT, but since I brought it up earlier:
The Publisher's Organisation of Sweden is publicly demanding (not asking, demanding - the language used in swedish is in the imperative) that Sweden's Chancellor of Legal Matters (Justitiekansler) try to overturn the verdict against state media the other week, when state media were deemed to be in breach of the rules of conduct re: their slander and libel of Linda Karlström, a finnish woman and mother of five who had the audacity to criticise and question vaccine safety, efficiency and related issues.
I'm disgusted to the point of vomiting. The Publishers (who are a guild in all but name) actually have utter gall to call to state this:
"Domen är oroväckande då den uttryckligen säger att det svenska självreglerande medieetiska systemet är otillräckligt"
"The verdict is unsatisfactory since it explicitly says that the swedish system of self-regulating media-ethics is insufficicient"
So according to the publishers, the problem isn't the way they invaded a private person's home, publicly unknown and by no means a public person or celebrity, and inveigled themselves to her giving a false sense of security and then edited the material to make her look as unhinged as possbile.
No, the problem is that the verdict says that their self-regulating system (guild) doesn't work.
The very notion that aslong as you put the moniker "journalist" after your name, you can do whatever you please is so disgusting it's rage-inucing.
[https://samnytt.se/tidningsutgivarna-kraver-att-skadestandsdom-mot-svt-overklagas/]
The guilds own statement is linked in the article. Meanwhile, our parliament's legal committee is preparing a law that will make threats et c against journalists a special crime, much worse than if it was the same crime against me.
But only if they or their employer is part of the Publisher's Organisation. Which any non-narrative or not regime-aligned media is barred from. By the guild.
I have to wonder, being pathologically logical, how they choose whom to employ.
Because to choose from a set of options using defined parameters is to discriminate. Otherwise it is random. Like the peanuts right next to me, on the bedside table. Do I pick a specific peanut based on criteria, or do I just pick a peanut, any peanut?
Also, when listing criteria for selection, you only need to list what are the musts; you never need to list what isn't important since such a list will always be "infinity -1", sort of. It is like when my son is coming over and calls from town, asking if I want him to pick up something. Me listing all the things (in the store) I don't want would be silly, stupid and... well, let's charitably call it "having bad luck trying to think" (the phrase is a swedish idiom, implying innocent idiocy and ignorance without malice in someone).
"Sexueller Orientierung" sounds as wrong in german, as it does in swedish and english. "Sexual preference" is correct, but since preference implies conscious input, thought and above all choice of whether to act on said preference or not, it is no wonder that the forces promoting learned helplessness opts for newspeak, stating it as a spontaneously and naturally occuring drive which is not under conscious control.
The war for reality is subtle, very subtle.
😅😂🤣 I mean, this a lovely proof that mRNA causes heavy damage to brain neurons! 🤣
Txs Prof!
That does really kind of sum it all up.
Perfect, then all the weirdos will work together where everyone can watch as they sink their own ship! A form where only dumb decisions are made is a slow dumpster fire that yields soft chuckles for months. No one can cheat reality, it always wins in the end.
Well, if it weren't so unbearably sad I would be laughing at that.
Totally Orwellian.
Good grief.
Notfunny!