| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dai...ping-them.htmlOriginally Posted by the other bob wilson
In fairness to the big papers they are at least flagging it as 'sponsored' and mentioning the government.
I believe that's required under Advertising Standards.
Funnily they take slightly different approaches. The mail makes it crystal clear, the sun not so.
What is not clear about "Produced in partnership with the UK Government"?
If the article makes it plain that it is sponsored by or on partnership with the government I can't see a problem.
There is at least one poster on here who thinks the virus has not really hit Wales that much - perhaps a look at the cases by local area figures here will change their minds;-
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...in-each-region
Can't see the problem with the government wasting millions on what equates to a party political broadcast during a global pandemic where 60,000 people in the country have died?
You don't think it is a problem that the gov is spending taxpayer money on what is essentially a propaganda piece?
I think it is just slightly less clear than sponsored by. One implies money has the changes hands and the other doesn't. I think I know which one the government would rather they wrote.
I certainly wasn't trying to defend the government, it was just that I had that Private Eye article to hand so I felt able to answer TOBW's question. I thought the headline of the article EC put up was a bit misleading and the use of 'appears' three words into it probably wasn't the best way to back it up. He's got a masters in journalism though so what do I know?
Private Eye were completely cynical about the government campaign and, I'm sure, will have more to say about it next time round. They do that kind of stuff really well, there's no need to sex it up.
Is anyone surprised?
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...itain-lockdown
It’s all a front with this government, they’re making positive noises to us yet pissing in the wind behind the scenes.
Like football its all about results...and they have been awful in UK...highest death rate in Europe.
Wales has some of the highest incidences in UK with hot spots in South East Wales and lately North Wales. So, the answer from Professor Drakeford seems to be to allow up to meet up locally within our hotspots which must mean a higher chance of us spreading it around.
Everything about our handling of this has been pretty pathetic when compared to most other countries. I sometimes think things like the Dominic Cummings trip are done deliberately to divert attention from the mess we've made of it.
How were these produced? At a company I worked for we sponsored advertorials and guy we wrote them ourselves sometimes, with the publisher editing. Other times we’d send them a brief outlining the message we wanted to convey and they’d write it and we’d edit. Either way they were essentially adverts for our company/products dressed-up as editorial.
It could be that’s not what has taken place here in fairness but I thought this was maybe being implied, rather than this being independently produced content just sponsored by the government. Hence the headline.
Did Private Eye clarify that point as it makes a bit of a difference about how would be perceived (acknowledging the broader point that regardless only selected publications have benefited from this advertising fund anyway).
Our handing of this pandemic hasn't been pathetic. Our government's handling of it has.
The Cummings saga isn't some sort of attention-diverting ploy by the crafty Tories. It's just another glaring example of their hopeless incompetence. Boris and his minions wanted to 'take back control'. People like you helped to give them that control and we're all now dealing with the consequences.
If they wanted to divert from covid, they would probably choose something non-covid.
It looks like Michael Gove has been researching possible diversions.
I wasn't suggesting that you were trying to defend the Govt. Sorry if that's how it came across.
I was just bringing this story back as I thought it was relevant - it shows that the Tory Govt. have previous in paying newspapers to print their truth so it shouldn't be much of a surprise to people that they're doing similar now.
I take your point but Private Eye didn't deal with the specifics that you mention, their angle was that the campaign was set up with the claimed intention of helping the beleaguered newspaper industry but the Cardiff Uni research showed that the network of independent local news publishers, which make up over a third of the total, haven't received a penny between them and that 95% of them hadn't been able to access any coronavirus-related funding, despite government advice to the contrary. They pretty much let the facts speak for themselves and the reader could look between the lines to decide exactly what the government is up to here. If there's a wider issue they'll unearth it, I'd prefer that to jumping in feet first with a conspiracy theory.
It looks like Jack Peat saw the recent articles in the Sun and Mail and was confident enough to assert that the government were directly paying those papers to say positive things about them, giving the impression that the reader would be unaware of it, in a similar way to what China has allegedly been doing with the Telegraph. The caveat 'appears' turned up by word three though, the articles he talked about were by-lined 'sponsored by the government', he was using the week old Private Eye article as his main point of reference and then finished it by pretty much asking 'why would the government bother paying the Sun and Mail to say positive stuff about them?' which is a good question and one he might have been better off trying to answer himself. It would be a bit like City paying DML to put positive stuff about them on here.
Lockdown is being eased too soon, so say the scientists.
It appears that, for all of the people knocking him, Drakeford is still following the science. Johnson clearly isn't. Since we can't really close the border with England, if England catches a second wave, so will we and so will Scotland.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...n-sage-adviser
Are Johnson and Cummings easing the lockdown to remove the bad stories? Are they doing it based on London's figures only? Or are they doing it because other countries in Europe, who have not been anywhere near as badly hit as the UK, are easing their lockdowns?
Or is there some other reason?
Edmunds and Farrar are basically saying we are taking a risk in easing lockdown.
I was just looking for the Lance Armstrong trailer for a new documentary about him, your post reminded me of it. It finishes off with him saying 'I'm not going to lie to you Marina, I'm going to tell you...' then there's a momentary pause as he chooses his words '...my truth'. I'm sure it's always been the case but I'm more and more aware that truth and reality are becoming subjective concepts. Lance, Trump and Boris have been trailblazers in that regard.
He’s hardly alone though, labour got there arses handed to them in a plate last election, hugely embarrassing for them with some of the seats they lost. I won’t comment though, I hate the stuff.
Funnily enough, I noticed that with the Lance Armstrong trailer - you are so right about truth and reality.
You've neglected to mention a crumbling economy, rising unemployment, a variety of other health issues and the fact that a significant and ever-growing percentage of the population are sick to the back teeth of living like this.
The simple fact of the matter is that a full-scale lockdown was always going to be a temporary measure. There are valid arguments to suggest it began too late or it wasn't stringent enough in the UK, but that's effectively in the past now. You only have to have walked the streets in recent weeks to realise that things have changed significantly and many of the predictions about how things will work going forward are fanciful at best.
The ideas of either an indefinite continuation of the current restrictions or a reintroduction of earlier restrictions if the infection rate rises again are unworkable. Personally, I don't see any value at all in suggestion the lockdown should continue. It's just pointless.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
