|
Well put Andy. I must admit to not watching the link. I saw the Momentum part and knew instantly it was probably a politically biased bunch of ultra left wing guff. Bad enough with the so called 'normal' media coverage being pure hyperbole without this hogwash. They are not all locked up. Some walk among us and can even breed. Perish the thought.
Cheers Concrete
|
Well put Andy. I must admit to not watching the link. I saw the Momentum part and knew instantly it was probably a politically biased bunch of ultra left wing guff. B
It's mostly a rant by Piers Morgan about the alleged incompetence of the government. Now I'd accuse Piers of many things but being a natural lefty and mouthpiece for Momentum is not one of them. He seems to have taken it on himself to be the 'people's tribune' holding government to account where Parliament is allegedly failing to do so.
There's a certain irony to it.
|
Well put Andy. I must admit to not watching the link. I saw the Momentum part and knew instantly it was probably a politically biased bunch of ultra left wing guff. B
It's mostly a rant by Piers Morgan about the alleged incompetence of the government. Now I'd accuse Piers of many things but being a natural lefty and mouthpiece for Momentum is not one of them. He seems to have taken it on himself to be the 'people's tribune' holding government to account where Parliament is allegedly failing to do so.
There's a certain irony to it.
There's a lot more on that page than just Morgan's rant with many other videos, most of which deserve to be ridiculed as much as those from Icke and Corbyn's brother (for example).
The trouble is that (sorry for continuing to go off-topic) amongst some of Morgan's genuine journalism during the pandemic (including holding others [not just government ministers] to account), he has also acted irresponsibly and often, in my view (like many in the MSM [on both sides of the political divide]), been a complete berk in a good number of his comments, both on TV and twitter.
The mainstream media has not had a good run during the pandemic, and deserves much of the blame for fanning the flames with their often sensationalist, biased, ideologically-driven, clickbait-ey, opinion-led (and not factually-led) reporting. They appear to be more concerned about keeping ratings, revenue and notariety up than providing the public with an informed service (which can still be interesting and sometimes entertaining).
|
|
Essentially my point is not to identify who did what to whom and when, it is a general dissatisfaction of the broadcast media. I have no real knowledge of their political allegiance it is just their methods and style I dislike. Far removed from genuine enquiry and more akin to asking the questions simply to get the answer you want. In some roles I like Piers Morgan and as stated he does have a propensity for plain speaking which is admirable. This is spoiled my an engendered form of outrage which detracts from the subject matter. How many on this forum would accept that style of debate in a discussion with anyone? Very few I suspect. Our family and our social circle is a really diverse cross section of political and social views and opinions. This is great and makes for interesting discussions. We have ground rules after some members got a bit carried away during previous debates, and these rules allow contrasting views to be aired. Views which I freely admit have on occasion changed my view in turn. That's how it all works. Not this Ya Boo I can shout louder than you and ask more silly questions to divert or derail the discussion. This goes for all extremes on the right or left. I did not have a lot in common with Tony Benn, but his gift as an orator to be able to express his views coherently and calmly would put the majority of public servants to shame these days. I offer this as my own humble opinion on matters to hand.
Cheers Concrete
|
|
Indeed - I've noticed that a lot of people nowadays are unwilling to discuss issues at all, whether between family members, work colleagues or others (e.g. on forums, ironically) by looking at issues from all sides and aspects, respecting others have a right to speak and put their views, but also to be open to new facts, ideas and thinking and to read/watch other sources to see if their own and others' arguments actually stand up to scrutiny.
Often the way things go is mud-slinging with little actual factual content and lots of opinion sourced from media and less reputable sources that has an idelogical bent to fit the confirmation bias of the person.
It's one of reasons why I have been, for the past year, searching for a proper factual-based news outlet (I can read opinions from anywhere and make my own mind up based on factual reporting) to replace my Daily Telegraph subscription. I know this is going over old ground, but I remember when I was in 6th form in the early 90s that, by and large, I could pick up any broadsheet British newspaper (Telegraph, Times, Guardian, Indie, FT) and not have a problem discerning fact and opinion (or worse) because it was blindly obvious and they kept the commentary essentially separate.
Even at college, debate back then was far more civilised and people just said 'I disagree with you strongly, and here are my reasons why', and each side allowed the other to make their points before responding, for the most part.
Sadly, things changed as politics and society did, not helped by the major changes to the education system that seemed to promote the worst aspects of political activism and gutter tabloid journalism/trash TV etc, including thinking that shouting matches and individuals using 'weasel words' and more recently identity politics to shut down opposing views.
I admit to getting caught up in the heat of the moment, often because I get frustrated at the 'Oh no, not this again' element of many a so-called debate, often started out by rage-baiting for no good reason other than the OP is bored and likes to tick off others. That's how forums die off - most people easily tire of the shouting matches and either leave or just stay away most of them time.
Let's hope we (as a nation and species) can quickly and safely find a way out of the current crisis so we can get back to discussing other things, as I think it has shown up both the very best and very worst aspects of modern society in stark detail for all to see - including when looking in the mirror.
|
|
Your comments ring disturbingly true. What an unfortunate state of affairs it has come to this. In my final school year (1964) there were several debates on current affairs. One concerning how the Beatles music would affect the adolescents!. All conducted with due respect and manners. As you point out, these days the level of debate is shockingly poor, ungracious and sometimes just plain bullying. We laid our ground rules after some debates got overheated. The family covers nearly all aspects of the political spectrum, which is fine. Mostly truly held beliefs and ones that can be argued to justify their cause. How it should be.
I really don't know how to go about censuring the broadcast media. Apart from not watching the majority of news coverage, which is ineffective because they don't know or even care if I watch or not. As long as they can have their ivory tower jobs and good salaries and feed us all the guff we get, why should they care? One day I would like to see a Ministry for Common Sense with a Minister for Banging Heads Together. If it doesn't pass the common sense test or any organisation is being deceitful, obstructive or dishonest then there should be real and commensurate penalties against them. There, glad I got that off my chest! Roll on the revolution!
Cheers Concrete
|
|
With regards to the bias in the media, both print/online and TV news, the only way to really show them how we feel is a) telling them (and it being reported very publicly) on a regular basis and b) being able to vote with our feet/wallets when we don't like what they provide (which would require publicising of accurate, independently-sourced circulation/subscription/TV ratings data regularly).
The UK TV news is by law supposed to be impartial. To be honest, it never has been, because journalists are people, and people have biases, and, by and large, journalism tends to attract more (less so in the past, but increasingly so since the early 90s) people from the political left, especially since the advent of the Interweb and the rise of PR-driven politics and higher numbers of young people going to college (whose staff are dominated by the hard Left, giving them a very large target audience for political propaganda) in the 1990s.
I think that in the past, journalists were willing to set aside their personal political beliefs to a much greater degree in the pursuit of a good story and the truth, nowadays it's all polarised through their own personal political lens.
I certainly don't want any 'Ministry of Truth' or anything resembling what those supporting the very authoritarian, Orwellian proposals of the Hacked Off activists are proposing, but nor do I want a free-for-all system where you get everything now as ideologically-driven tabloid trash in the US, where they are about 2-5 years ahead of us in the process, where their broadsheet newspapers (once revered like ours) are now just ideological tabloids and often mouthpieces for political groups and even certain foreign governments, and their TV news outlets have gone even further and are far more dangerous because of their far wider and instant reach, assisted by the scoial media monoploies to stay on top at the expense of small (more honest/honourable) independent outlets.
I mean it's noticeable now that our TV news give lip service to their (toothless) regulators and on a very regular basis espouse the personal and very highly politicised opinions of their ediotrial and senior journalistic staff, both on air or, circumventing the regs, via popular (and higly reported) social media feeds like Twitter.
That many of them and an increasing number of newspapers are now actively censoring or completely shutting down reader/viewer commentary (and not just the really vile stff, which is obvious) because said people often disagree with the factual basis or views of the article (often pointing out serious and numerous flaws) is even more concerning.
The ironic thing is that many of the newspapers are/have been perfectly happy to allow obvious and dangerous paid-for trolls who are either mouthpieces for hostile foreign governments or activist groups (who 99% of the time hide their true 'identity' [who they work for as a troll] and agenda) because it earns them subscription and ad reveneue in the short to medium term.
As with biased TV news, all this (including poor journalism) does is drive away many long term, previously loyal readers/viewers, who take their wallets with them. Many of them are now beginning to learn the hard way that this sort of journalism (the same for the entertainment industry) is not what most of the public wanted, and that we're increasingly fed up.
It was only because those in positions of power in the media/entertainment/finance and government/civil service circles only took notice of the activist crowd that tended to shout the loudest (especially online) that we are in the position we now find ourselves in, with 70% of people thinking the news coverage of the pandemic is bad, newspaper subscriptions and revenue, and TV ratings taking a dive when technically they should be doing great business.
For example, I am among many long-term subscribers of the Telegraph who is either seriously contemplating not renewing our subscriptions or have already done so. And from talking to friends and family, I know many of them are just as angry and disappointed over the news coverage, including from news outlets of different political persuasions or supposedly none at all.
What I think has gone relatively unnoticed, at least on this side of the Atlantic, is the huge effect propping up the MSM (TV and newspapers/online) and many on the Hard Left by the social media giants, who have been doing so whilst actively censoring independents for a good few years now, but have significantly ramped this up since the start of the pandemic.
They pretend to act as platforms (and thus don't have to adhere to media publishing rules) but act like publishers whilst profiting from the whole thing and advancing their own agendas - especially with many other huge multinational firms and their billionairre bosses are 'shaping' this agenda seemingly for their own power grabs and to make untold $Bns in the process.
This is very dangerous because it all heavily influences how we and governments are viewing and dealing with the pandemic. Many of the public just are oblivious to it all.
That's my daily 'rant' over too.
|
That's my daily 'rant' over too.
The mods could swap this rant for the one in the 'toilets' thread and nobody would be any the wiser.
In fact you could cut and paste paragraphs from one to the other and we'd not know.
Just a set of opinions/assertions with no supporting evidence and no grounding in fact.
|
That's my daily 'rant' over too.
The mods could swap this rant for the one in the 'toilets' thread and nobody would be any the wiser.
In fact you could cut and paste paragraphs from one to the other and we'd not know.
Just a set of opinions/assertions with no supporting evidence and no grounding in fact.
With print media we have the choice to buy it or not. With broadcast media we have the off switch, which I regularly use. I still communicate with lots of people from differing backgrounds and the consensus is that the news is no longer a reliable source of factual information. That to me is accepted fact. The rest as you, and I myself admit is opinion. But opinion based upon some logical conclusions drawn from experience. It is nice when people agree but not a problem if they do not. Each one of us is capable of deciding what they wish to read or listen to and take from it what they please. All I ask is a decent level of debate to discuss matters arising.
Cheers Concrete
|
|
I do so love conspiracy theories.
It alerts me to te epeople I should not bother to read as they post repetitive posts about vague things which are unverifiable.
And they are so desperate they use 1,000 words where 50 will do..
|
|
<< With print media we have the choice to buy it or not. With broadcast media we have the off switch, which I regularly use. >>
Yes, of course, but if you never buy or turn on, you have no way of knowing what is being transmitted, so are no longer able to judge the content. In a way rather like UK leaving the EU so that it is no longer able to influence it as a member, but we still have to trade with it (or hope to).
<< I still communicate with lots of people from differing backgrounds and the consensus is that the news is no longer a reliable source of factual information. That to me is accepted fact. >>
No, it's accepted opinion. Having a circle of friends who agree to believe the same thing does not make it fact. In any case I'm not sure how you can define the accuracy of news as 'fact', unless you can show that a published statement is positively untrue.
|
<< With print media we have the choice to buy it or not. With broadcast media we have the off switch, which I regularly use. >>
Yes, of course, but if you never buy or turn on, you have no way of knowing what is being transmitted, so are no longer able to judge the content. In a way rather like UK leaving the EU so that it is no longer able to influence it as a member, but we still have to trade with it (or hope to).
<< I still communicate with lots of people from differing backgrounds and the consensus is that the news is no longer a reliable source of factual information. That to me is accepted fact. >>
No, it's accepted opinion. Having a circle of friends who agree to believe the same thing does not make it fact. In any case I'm not sure how you can define the accuracy of news as 'fact', unless you can show that a published statement is positively untrue.
very difficult to disprove a negative.
I fail to see the analogy between buying or watching news media or not and leaving the EU. We trade with scores of countries throughout the world simply because of mutual advantage. I do buy weekend newspapers and I watch Andrew Neil. Between that and other forms of communication I am reasonably well supplied with information.
I thought I had made plain that, as you put it, my circle of friends which includes a large family have differing views about lots of subjects. Some of them could not agree on the colour of s***. I find this helps to discern some form of truth through the breadth of knowledge and opinion. When the vast majority agree on something, like the news media not being trustworthy, then the media loses credence and it becomes accepted fact or opinion if you wish that it is not really a good source of information. It is certainly true that most people 'in my circle' deem it a fact the media is very poor at its reason for being.
The media itself being a nebulous concept it is going to be hard to prove or disprove any notion of performance. But if confidence is lost then the people they are meant to inform rightly view it as a fact that it is woefully under performing. An accepted fact in my experience. I have my opinion and will express it. Hopefully without rancour so that is can be read and possibly commented on with the same sentiments.
I am now going to lie down in a darkened room for a week or so to reflect on matters.
See you all soon
Cheers Concrete
|
|
Concrete, perhaps we have slightly different interpretations of 'Fact' - I mean correct, verifiable, if you prefer scientific, fact. You seem to be accusing the media of publishing non-fact, when I suspect you mean partial truth. Hard to get every relevant fact into a 30-minute bulletin for example.
Maybe your circle of friends agree on that ? How would you all get on living in Russia, perhaps, where it was once said there was no Izvestia in Pravda, and vice versa (one means Truth, the other News) ?
|
Concrete, perhaps we have slightly different interpretations of 'Fact' - I mean correct, verifiable, if you prefer scientific, fact. You seem to be accusing the media of publishing non-fact, when I suspect you mean partial truth. Hard to get every relevant fact into a 30-minute bulletin for example.
Maybe your circle of friends agree on that ? How would you all get on living in Russia, perhaps, where it was once said there was no Izvestia in Pravda, and vice versa (one means Truth, the other News) ?
Andrew, we obviously do have different interpretations of matters. That is maybe to be expected. I do think that if the media can spend 30 minutes giving us partial truth then I suggest they try harder or take longer and give us the full truth. If they removed the hyperbole and over dramatisation they would have sufficient time to do so.
You seem somewhat concerned that I am in thrall to 'my circle of friends'. I can assure you that isn't so. I thought I has explained the diversity of opinion therein. I suspect if any of us was unfortunate enough to live in Russia we would not enjoy had we already enjoyed our freedoms here. At work we had an office in Poland to manage our projects there. I visited for long periods over the years. To hear them speak about the Russians would make your hair curl.
Can we agree to differ on this subject and lay it to rest? I am sure it be resurrected in some form or other in future and the debate will continue. I has been nice debating with you and you make your points very well. So do some others here and that is why I like the forum so much. There is some good well informed opinion and facts that are mostly put very well, and even if you disagree I admire some of the arguments put.
Have a nice weekend.
Cheers Concrete
|
That's my daily 'rant' over too.
The mods could swap this rant for the one in the 'toilets' thread and nobody would be any the wiser.
In fact you could cut and paste paragraphs from one to the other and we'd not know.
Just a set of opinions/assertions with no supporting evidence and no grounding in fact.
A bit rich, given that:
a) I haven't copied any wording (please show me) - I may have referred to similar information, but that's not the same, and;
b) You and people of your opinion have continually been posting on the OMB thread the same tired old nonsense since 2016, just dressed up.
The problem is that I and others do give evidence, but, again, you and others seem to believe that the likes of the Guardian, Indie, NYT and CNN/MSNBC/BBC etc are the only 'go-to' sources of factual news reporting, despite significant evidence to the contrary.
At least I occasionally read such articles and watch broadcasts from other media sources.
I have refuted (with evidence) essentially every one of the OMB assertions by your side, and as usual, you change the subject and make another baseless set of accusations or big up some slip or minor argument as 'the world is going to end' as if you-know-who is worse than certain leaders from WWII and deliberately avoid discussing the extremely serious and numerous (fact-based) accusations against Chinese President Xi as if he is some kind of 'misunderstood great leader' and all the allegations are made up rubbish from evil Western security agencies (depsite all evidence saying otherwise).
But then your go-to source is the Guardian, which, alongside CNN & Co., gives cover on a daily basis for the CCP and its allies.
I'm fed up that supposedly intelligent people have been hoodwinked so easily and they appear to be indulging in petty student politics on a daily basis by throwing their toys out of the pram over events that happened 4 years ago with legitimate and fair elections. Something I used to see outside of the LSE when I was at college in the 90s where those 'Socialist Workers' (a real contradiction-in-terms) shouted at the sky all day whilst few took any notice.
The world has moved on. We currently have more important things to be concerning ourselves with. Anyone notice how the Hard Left (quite a lot of the Left in fact) have not come up with ONE sensible, worthwhile solution to the issues we now face ourselves with, other than to sit at home doing nothing, being paid out of thin air until a vaccine (that may never arrive or not for several years) comes along?
|
|
@Engineer Andy
Now twigged that OMB = Orange man bad.
I'm old fashioned enough to distinguish refute (disprove) from deny whereas modern usage treats then interchangeably. I cannot see that anything has been disproved.
You have also been unable to stand up your own statement about the extent to which 'the wall' has been completed or provide the requested hard evidence that Obamagate is anything more than a hashtag in search of a scandal.
The subject of the OMB thread is President Trump not Xi or Putin whom you've put up as Aunt Sallies with the apparent intent of diverting attention from Trump.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 21/05/2020 at 14:42
|
You have also been unable to ... provide the requested hard evidence that Obamagate is anything more than a hashtag in search of a scandal.
And - it might be added - despite adding several thousand repetitive words to this thread :-)
|
|
<< A bit rich, given that: ... a) ... b) >>
Oh dear, Andy is clearly bored again.
|
|
|
