Also In The News

[leicsmac]

In another part of the world...

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-52518844

 

Probably - hopefully - some trigger happy nervous idiot making a mistake. The SK's seem to think so, anyway.

[Mike Oxlong]

51 minutes ago, Strokes said:

We send the bbc £3.6 billion a year, let’s give that to the NHS instead 

Make sure there’s room to trumpet the 20,000 more police and 50,000 extra nurses on the side of the bus 

Edited 3 May 2020 by Mike Oxlong

[Danizen]

Denise, there, making sure the important facts are present and correct. 

[Guest MattP]

43 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

NB. Never really understood the accusations of "BBC bias" in any case - not without some kind of completely independent inquiry to prove them rather than from vested interests. Pretty much every government of any stripe of the last few decades has bitched about the Beeb getting under their skin.

Really? - You don't need an inquiry to see how anti Brexit it was, just look at numbers on a QT a panel over the last decade, totally out of touch with public opinion. You can also put a pretty strong argument it was anti Corbyn as well given decisions handed down on coverage of him. That actually worked well for them short term as it gave them the line of "we are being attacked by left and and right" - although on further inspection you could see what was going on.

 

Even in this Panorama story it has completely broken its rules, they are supposed to be inform the audience of any political persuasion, mssing one I can forgive, missing all six though?

 

The BBC hasn't had it in for all government either, it loved the early years of the Blair government, it was very fond of Cameron as he tried to convert Guardian readers into voting Tory. My local Tory councillor was surprised at how nice they were between 2008-2010.

 

It has a liberal bias that will partly be explained by being in big cities, but also partly be seeking out its biases.

 

If it is to remain funded by the public via a tax, it has to represent that public.

[urban.spaceman]

 

[Guest MattP]

@leicsmac This is what we are dealing with, the BBC speaking to open communists to find speakers for it's research.

 

I can't imagine the reaction if the BBC was liaising with fascists to be put in touch with a documentary on immigration.

[Mike Oxlong]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

Really? - You don't need an inquiry to see how anti Brexit it was, just look at numbers on a QT a panel over the last decade, totally out of touch with public opinion. You can also put a pretty strong argument it was anti Corbyn as well given decisions handed down on coverage of him. That actually worked well for them short term as it gave them the line of "we are being attacked by left and and right" - although on further inspection you could see what was going on.

 

Even in this Panorama story it has completely broken its rules, they are supposed to be inform the audience of any political persuasion, mssing one I can forgive, missing all six though?

 

The BBC hasn't had it in for all government either, it loved the early years of the Blair government, it was very fond of Cameron as he tried to convert Guardian readers into voting Tory. My local Tory councillor was surprised at how nice they were between 2008-2010.

 

It has a liberal bias that will partly be explained by being in big cities, but also partly be seeking out its biases.

 

If it is to remain funded by the public via a tax, it has to represent that public.

I’m not sure what this means. I would like it to fearlessly analyse and scrutinise the important issues of the day in an objective way 

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

I’m not sure what this means. I would like it to fearlessly analyse and scrutinise the important issues of the day in an objective way 

It's surely not that hard to understand? It means you try to represent public opinion as a public broadcaster. 

 

As for the second part, wouldn't we all? If it did that we wouldn't have an issue.

 

Instead we've got partisan politics in documentaries, presenters giving opinions as columnists and communists being saught out as go betweens.

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, MattP said:

Really? - You don't need an inquiry to see how anti Brexit it was, just look at numbers on a QT a panel over the last decade, totally out of touch with public opinion. You can also put a pretty strong argument it was anti Corbyn as well given decisions handed down on coverage of him. That actually worked well for them short term as it gave them the line of "we are being attacked by left and and right" - although on further inspection you could see what was going on.

 

Even in this Panorama story it has completely broken its rules, they are supposed to be inform the audience of any political persuasion, mssing one I can forgive, missing all six though?

 

The BBC hasn't had it in for all government either, it loved the early years of the Blair government, it was very fond of Cameron as he tried to convert Guardian readers into voting Tory. My local Tory councillor was surprised at how nice they were between 2008-2010.

 

It has a liberal bias that will partly be explained by being in big cities, but also partly be seeking out its biases.

 

If it is to remain funded by the public via a tax, it has to represent that public.

Sorry, a perceived bias in panellist numbers for one current affairs panel show does not a biased institution make.

 

I think given how politically charged news in general seems to be these days pretty much any individual opinion on it's reportage - including my own in that - is going to be subjective and driven by the beholders own political bias. Hence my thought about proof only being sought by some kind of multilateral inquiry.

 

As for the last line, like @Mike Oxlong says, that sounds an awful lot like the Beeb should just be telling the public what it wants to hear, rather than what really is - because the public are as open to their own biases as anyone else. For what it's worth, I think the Beeb could be as squeaky clean as Saint Peter in terms of its investigative reportage and people would still find reason to call it out for perceived bias simply because it is pointing out malpractice by people they happen to like and agree with.

 

 

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

@leicsmac This is what we are dealing with, the BBC speaking to open communists to find speakers for it's research.

 

I can't imagine the reaction if the BBC was liaising with fascists to be put in touch with a documentary on immigration.

Does the man being a commie automatically make the health workers referred by him liars about this particular situation?

 

That being said, Panorama could and should have done better in finding cleaner sources because poisoned well fallacy is a thing and having someone like that as a source gives people an out to disregard the whole thing - which they should have known.

[Mike Oxlong]

30 minutes ago, MattP said:

It's surely not that hard to understand? It means you try to represent public opinion as a public broadcaster. 

 

As for the second part, wouldn't we all? If it did that we wouldn't have an issue.

 

Instead we've got partisan politics in documentaries, presenters giving opinions as columnists and communists being saught out as go betweens.

Forgive me for being thick 

 

I was just interested in what you mean by “public opinion” 

 

 

 

 

Edited 3 May 2020 by Mike Oxlong

[Guest MattP]

15 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Sorry, a perceived bias in panellist numbers for one current affairs panel show does not a biased institution make.

 

I think given how politically charged news in general seems to be these days pretty much any individual opinion on it's reportage - including my own in that - is going to be subjective and driven by the beholders own political bias. Hence my thought about proof only being sought by some kind of multilateral inquiry.

 

As for the last line, like @Mike Oxlong says, that sounds an awful lot like the Beeb should just be telling the public what it wants to hear, rather than what really is - because the public are as open to their own biases as anyone else. For what it's worth, I think the Beeb could be as squeaky clean as Saint Peter in terms of its investigative reportage and people would still find reason to call it out for perceived bias simply because it is pointing out malpractice by people they happen to like and agree with.

 

Does the man being a commie automatically make the health workers referred by him liars about this particular situation?

 

That being said, Panorama could and should have done better in finding cleaner sources because poisoned well fallacy is a thing and having someone like that as a source gives people an out to disregard the whole thing - which they should have known.

Perceived? FFS mate wake up.

 

It's all here - https://iea.org.uk/media/iea-analysis-shows-systemic-bias-against-leave-supporters-on-flagship-bbc-political-programmes/

 

Only question is whether you want to take it in or ignore it? Don't answer that!

 

Does being a commie mean he's not telling the truth? Nope. Same as it doesn't mean Nick Griffin or Tommy Robinson aren't often telling the truth.

 

But you exercise judgement on your sources and then the public judge you on that.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Perceived? FFS mate wake up.

 

It's all here - https://iea.org.uk/media/iea-analysis-shows-systemic-bias-against-leave-supporters-on-flagship-bbc-political-programmes/

 

Only question is whether you want to take it in or ignore it? Don't answer that!

 

Does being a commie mean he's not telling the truth? Nope. Same as it doesn't mean Nick Griffin or Tommy Robinson aren't often telling the truth.

 

But you exercise judgement on your sources and then the public judge you on that.

Fair enough, thank you for the link and it looks salient to me. Allow me to rephrase: Sorry, a bias in panellist numbers for one (or even two) current affairs panel show does not a politically biased institution make in terms of news reportage.

 

Griffin was certainly right about the grooming gangs for one thing - just a shame that he then took that as a green light to generalise/demonise an entire ethnic community and demand their "voluntary" repatriation as part of his party policy based on it. Trump is right in his belief that manned space flight should be an integral part of future US scientific policy - just a shame that pretty much all his other scientific policy may well mean that we never really get the chance to get out there.

 

Sometimes terrible people do make accurate points,and context matters.

[Mike Oxlong]

22 minutes ago, MattP said:

Perceived? FFS mate wake up.

 

It's all here - https://iea.org.uk/media/iea-analysis-shows-systemic-bias-against-leave-supporters-on-flagship-bbc-political-programmes/

 

 

Well, at least the Institute for Economic Affairs is beyond reproach 🤔

 

https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/regulator-issues-warning-institute-economic-affairs-brexit-report/governance/article/1524900

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Well, at least the Institute for Economic Affairs is beyond reproach 🤔

 

https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/regulator-issues-warning-institute-economic-affairs-brexit-report/governance/article/1524900

Well, if that is true then I retract some of my comments above.

[Gordon the Great]

6 hours ago, Mike Oxlong said:

I’m not sure what this means. I would like it to fearlessly analyse and scrutinise the important issues of the day in an objective way 

Yes it would be good if it did, we have had years of anti Tory,anti Brexit, anti English and anti normal dross.The BBC used to be the voice of truth and reason , now very sadly it`s a joke.It`s gone from a world wide respected institution to a parody of what it is meant to be.It`s embarrassing.

[urban.spaceman]

Matter of time.

 

 

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, Gordon the Great said:

Yes it would be good if it did, we have had years of anti Tory,anti Brexit, anti English and anti normal dross.The BBC used to be the voice of truth and reason , now very sadly it`s a joke.It`s gone from a world wide respected institution to a parody of what it is meant to be.It`s embarrassing.

Speaking only for myself here, but I'd be very interested in knowing what's normal and what isn't and who's doing the judging and how they stand in some kind of authority.

[urban.spaceman]

 

 

[urban.spaceman]

RT'd by Owen Jones.

 

 

They've literally making her point for her.

[Guest MattP]

12 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

 

 

Outraged over the contents of a bookcase - the hard left still hasn't reached peak madness. Complaining of double standards now as we would go crazy if it was Corbyn. 

 

Maybe when Gove has written an forward for a holocaust denier, consistently shared platforms with them and chucked a few quid in the bucket for terrorist groups who want to eliminate a Jewish state we will compare them, until then Owen I'd probably be quiet.

[yorkie1999]

On 03/05/2020 at 11:04, Danizen said:

Denise, there, making sure the important facts are present and correct. 

I'd be more worried about heading the wrong way in the fast lane.

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

 

 

Disappointed that Michael and Sarah haven't got any Marx and Engels there. Nothing further left than Blair, Blunkett & Cable that I can see....

 

Glad to see they haven't got "The joy of sex" on display, though. I could do without nightmares during lockdown.

 

Seriously, though.....idiocy from Owen Jones. Anyone should be prepared to read arguments that challenge their thinking.....and to challenge ideas they disagree with, not avoid or ban them.

I've never read Mein Kampf, but would like to do so one day. If that book was in my possession, would it automatically make me a Nazi?! 

[davieG]

2 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Disappointed that Michael and Sarah haven't got any Marx and Engels there. Nothing further left than Blair, Blunkett & Cable that I can see....

 

Glad to see they haven't got "The joy of sex" on display, though. I could do without nightmares during lockdown.

 

Seriously, though.....idiocy from Owen Jones. Anyone should be prepared to read arguments that challenge their thinking.....and to challenge ideas they disagree with, not avoid or ban them.

I've never read Mein Kampf, but would like to do so one day. If that book was in my possession, would it automatically make me a Nazi?! 

I read it about 20 years ago had a copy of it from my late brother, seems to have disappeared over the years, forgotten nearly all of it I should read it again

[urban.spaceman]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

 

Outraged over the contents of a bookcase - the hard left still hasn't reached peak madness. Complaining of double standards now as we would go crazy if it was Corbyn. 

 

Maybe when Gove has written an forward for a holocaust denier, consistently shared platforms with them and chucked a few quid in the bucket for terrorist groups who want to eliminate a Jewish state we will compare them, until then Owen I'd probably be quiet.

 

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Disappointed that Michael and Sarah haven't got any Marx and Engels there. Nothing further left than Blair, Blunkett & Cable that I can see....

 

Glad to see they haven't got "The joy of sex" on display, though. I could do without nightmares during lockdown.

 

Seriously, though.....idiocy from Owen Jones. Anyone should be prepared to read arguments that challenge their thinking.....and to challenge ideas they disagree with, not avoid or ban them.

I've never read Mein Kampf, but would like to do so one day. If that book was in my possession, would it automatically make me a Nazi?! 

He's such an idiot he lacks the skills to understand just how much of an idiot he actually is.

 

 

Here he's using the example of someone reviewing The Bell Curve, and saying that some things are not up for debate.

 

But Owen, Wheen had to actually ****ing read the book to review it you prat. 

 

The left needs to get rid of dickheads like him.

[Alf Bentley]

5 minutes ago, davieG said:

I read it about 20 years ago had a copy of it from my late brother, seems to have disappeared over the years, forgotten nearly all of it I should read it again

 

Might give you a few hints so that you can rule over the Foxes Talk reich for 1000 years - or at least have more clout. 

 

Was it worth reading as you recall? I've been told it's simply not very well written - rambling - but would like to find out for myself some day, if I get round to it before I snuff it.