I decided to get the majority of my news stories through an app I have on my phone called 'SmartNews'. SmartNews gets all the recent headlines from across various newspapers; left and right wing.
One news story I came across was 'Denmark Cuts Migrant Benefits'. The story comes from BreitBart, a right wing newspaper, based in California with offices in London and Texas. The story itself was actually unbiased as they only told the facts and statistics of how the government was cutting immigrants (from the current Syrian crisis) benefits. However, at the end of the article was a video where reporters were out in the field and they interviewed several of the migrants. I believe the information to be accurate as it consists of a video actually out in the field and you can see whats happening in the background, also the story was reported across several newspapers, both right and left wing.
The video shows the migrants being interviewed in a field, they say that they will walk 500KM to Sweden where they can claim more benefits and be allowed to send money back to their families left in Syria.
From my opinion, the 'refugees' in the video are clearly not desperate as portrayed by some media, they are not children or helpless women, they are fully grown men who claim to be fleeing a war torn country. They then state that they are willing to WALK 500KM to another country to be allowed more benefits. No matter which way you put it, thats greed, especially given the circumstances they claim to be coming over for. If you're a refugee then you simply go where theres no war and thats safe to live, genuine refugees do not go to wherever's offering the most amount of money you can claim. Also, I beg the question, why are the men coming to the safe countries and leaving the women and children in the danger zone? Call me old fashioned but shouldn't it be the other way round? Now Im not saying all migrants are benefit seeking frauds, as I've seen other cases of quite clear desperation, all Im saying is: Should we really be letting the type of people in this video claim our hard earned tax money?
Another headline I came across was 'Ex- POW treated better by Nazis than council'.
The story tells of 91 year old Private Richard Lawson, who was captured by Nazis in 1944 during WW2, the council threatened him with homelessness when he became to ill to pay his rent. The threat of eviction caused him to collapse on his way to pay the sum and he was hospitalised. Lawson says that the Nazis that captured him in WW2 treated him better than Croydon Council did.
The story comes from the Daily Mirror which is a left wing newspaper. I believe the information to be accurate as there are pictures that back up the story, full names, locations are used and even a statement from the council. A story like this would also have catastrophic consequences for a newspaper and even the political party its associated with, if found out to be faked.
My opinion on this is that soldiers should be looked after and cared for when they leave the army especially when they've fought for the country in a war such as Richard had. I understand that the eviction notice was automatically generated and sent by a computer, but I still think that the ex-soldier shouldn't have been so poor that he couldn't pay his rent to begin with, especially when there are people claiming benefits falsely that have never worked or contributed to the country in anyway.
The final headline I got was off an online website called 'UniLad'. They have accounts across twitter, Instagram and Facebook with a following of millions. Unilad in recent times have come under fire for being extremely left wing, and ever since then they have tried taking a relatively neutral stance,
The headline was: This Argument About Feet On A Train Seat Quickly Becomes One About Religion
The article itself is just a description of what happened in the video, however what happened in the video is extreme. It all starts off with the woman having her feet up on the seat. The muslim man then goes mental and claims that if she has her shoes up then he cannot pray. The women simply defends herself and her actions and seems somewhat shocked by the mans callous remarks. The muslim then threatens to call the police for her having her feet up. The woman states that she has a different religion to him, he then replies that 'he is muslim and can't pray with his shoes on'. The man seems kind of drunk to me however he seems to be moving around ok and that intoxication is against islamic law.
I understand that not the whole video has been uploaded and I do know what people are like in London, so for all I know she may have aggravated him prior to this. However, in the comments section many people were siding with the man and they, like me, had only see the video. Personally, I find this shocking because what the man is saying is to some extent: extremism. All the woman had done is put her feet up on the seat, which is annoying but then again everyone has done that at some point.
Do you actually believe that the Syrian refugees are 'greedy' as they are begging for financial support and any help for their families that don't have the luxury of walking 500km from country to country to be abused by the majority of people and then by certain news corporations. I really doubt that they are greedy. I do believe that if the men let the children and women walk over 310 miles then they would then get called lazy and further cowardice. You are basing your entire argument on this one video that you have watched, do you think you could be subject to certain prejudices that BreitBart are posting even after stating that they are 'very right wing'?
ReplyDeleteDo you believe that everyone who took part in every war should be exempt from paying taxes and bills? After claiming you couldn't bare to waste the tax payers money on the refugees but think that ex-soldiers shouldn't have to pay their bills something seems off.
Great piece by the way.
As I said, when it comes to the migrant crisis, I understand that not all of them are like the males in the video. However as I also said, Im old fashioned and believe in the women and children first protocol. If all the migrants were women and children as portrayed by left wing media, then I would have every single one of them (especially given the stories about child rape and forced prostitution going on in the migrant camps, that has been documented by the refugees themselves). I just think that as a refugee you go where its safe and where you can eat, sleep etc. Also as I said the story hasn't just been documented by right wing media its been by LEFT as well.
DeleteOn the story of the soldier, I never stated that ex troops shouldn't be exempt from paying bills, as I said, I just believe that people who have put their lives on line for this country, shouldn't be faced with eviction and homelessness, there should be financial and other support for them. Its a two way street; I think that because they steped up when the country needs them, we should step up when they need us, but then again, thats just me.
I guess I agree, it is just you.
DeleteIm confused Oli, you think that soldiers shouldn't be given support after they've left the army? Or you're agreeing with me that they should?
DeleteI disagree with your statement about the concerns with Syrian refugees seeking aid form other countries. As your source is ''right wing'', echoing the beliefs of Conservative individuals who subject their beliefs to the higher classes who should get to keep more of the money they earn, I believe that it is incredibly biased and degrading in the fact that these people are not native to the country they are seeking refuge in and are not earning any amounts of money which a conservative believer would see as immoral. Despite the video showing some light on the situation, the fact that they are willing to walk 500km just to support their family shows how desperate they really are and that they're walking there to gain more benefits because they are so desperate and helpless that Sweden is the only place that can supply them with enough money to live and help out their family members who are not able to escape the horrendous situation in their home country. To send the women and children on this journey would be far more dangerous and have much worse consequences than supporting them in Syria.
ReplyDeleteOther than this I agree with your essay:)
Sorry Emma, but I couldn't disagree more with you here. They're leaving the women and children defenceless in a war zone against an 'army' (ISIS) that believes women should be used as prostitutes and slavery, yet the men coming here (to the safety zone) shows desperation? Surely you'd send the women and children to the countries where theres no forced prostitution and slavery etc? I think you're wrong and contradicting yourself here. Also, as I said, the story has been documented across left wing and right wing media as well.
DeleteSurely, if you got given the choice of a country to go to if the UK was a war-torn country, then you would rather go somewhere safer and with more financial aid for you and your family. If the aim is to go somewhere where there is no war and is safe to live then they would go anywhere of course, but if you have a big family then you need a little bit more financial aid which countries like Moldova, Kosovo and Albania may not be able to offer. Whereas the richer countries such as Sweden can afford to give more financial aid. Sweden is the 6th richest country in Europe and is better equipped to support them which is why they aim to go to Sweden. It is hardly greed if you go to the country to make money to send back to your family in Syria, but it is the need to support them as they're your family.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Oliver that you are biasing the argument on the one video you have watched. With videos like this the news companies could have interviewed various refugees but decided to use them and make a story out of their want for Sweden. Is the source reliable though as the uploader of the video was a user called Rimsen and not a reliable news agency.
This post was interesting none the less.
Im not sure of the question you're asking, yes if I was a refugee Id go to the country thats offering the most aid, but, if I got to a country thats safe then found out theres another country thats offers more money, Id still stay there and not walk 500KM to another country just to get that extra bit.
DeleteSome great debate going on here (exactly what we wanted), I know all of you understand that debate sharpens your thinking and responses. Scrutinising media sources and their reliability is exactly what we are trying to do but it is very difficult! Looking at Gillmor and Keen's points, we can see evidence in these posts of people who were 'the former audience' becoming 'citizen journalists' but also perhaps, as Keen says, 'posting is just another person's version of the facts.' Jake, you do well to scrutinise your sources and you make a good point about only seeing a certain part of a video. I would also add that sometimes a YouTube video should be seen in isolation: the behaviour of that one person can be presented as an example of how a whole group of people behaves. I suppose to illustrate this we can look at that YouTube video from a few years ago of a drunk white woman racially abusing black people on public transport in London. Did people see that as 'typical' behaviour of white people or was it seen as an isolated incident by an offensive individual?
ReplyDeleteGood stuff though!
Thank you sir, I think you're the only one who's actually read the bits where I've scrutinised my sources and stated its been documented by left and right wing media as well. I did see that video and I believe that to be typical London behaviour. Just kidding, also in that video several white people actually stood up for the black victim and it soon turned against the white woman herself! However, I do get your point! Thanks Sir :-)
DeleteWithout intentionally echoing what everybody else is saying, I disagree with your statement that the refugees are greedy and are just fleeing their country purely to claim benefit money. I believe that the refugees would much rather be in their original country, safe with their families, earning money of their own; however due to the terrible circumstances in Syria, the refugees have no other choice but to flee their country. I feel that there’s clear discrimination against the males in the video, in your post, as you say “the 'refugees' in the video are clearly not desperate as portrayed by some media, they are not children or helpless women, they are fully grown men who claim to be fleeing a war torn country”. I agree that in the video the refugees shown are male, however just because they’re one gender and not the other doesn’t necessarily mean they’re any less or more desperate for help. Both male and females can be in a life threatening situation asking for help, it doesn’t just have to be ‘helpless women’ for someone to recognise there’s a crisis. Just because someone is a ‘fully grown’ man, doesn’t mean they’re any stronger or any less desperate than what women or children would be.
ReplyDeleteI also feel that just because the refugees are willing to walk an extra 500km to gain extra safety, which money will provide them, and gain a little extra money, it doesn’t prove them to be greedy. Anyone would walk further in a crisis such as this to try and protect themselves and their families. As the man states in this video, he wants to get to his family quicker, and the country he’s currently in, means he has to wait longer to see his family who he had to leave behind.
I believe that the males in this video, and most other refugees have their families best interests at heart, whether that be gaining more money so they can send remittances back to support their family.
The source that this article came from is “right-wing”, as you pointed out, and therefore they won’t necessarily have the interests of the migrants at heart, as they’re not looking to support people who haven’t worked hard for their money. Furthermore, this article is arguably biased as it is ultimately aiming to get across the fact that refugees are greedy and therefore are trying to persuade their audiences/readers that this is the case. Ultimately, the article has persuaded people, such as you, that the refugees are ‘greedy’ and therefore the readers will believe this and arguably not look for a counter argument or a less bias opinion.