A long read, but well worth it - what he says is all the more meaningful for me because of his background.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/ope...-news-machine/
Printable View
A long read, but well worth it - what he says is all the more meaningful for me because of his background.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/ope...-news-machine/
Was just coming on to post his interview with channel 4 news last night so will piggyback on your thread.
https://www.channel4.com/news/peter-...-out-fake-news
"They’re turning their readers into dupes"
:yikes: :hehe:
Even Johnson’s chief cheer leader Laura Kunesberg called him out today.
Probably won’t last long but when even She says it.....
The last paragraph is a powerful punchline:
"But there is now clear evidence that the prime minister has debauched Downing Street by using the power of his office to spread propaganda and fake news. British political journalists have got chillingly close to providing the same service to Boris Johnson that Fox News delivers for Donald Trump."
How interesting that you see her as biased in one way, whilst I see her as biased in the opposite way.
BBC news people have often told me that they find they can't win because viewers will pick out stuff according to their own prejudices and regard it as bias. Now I've always rejected that , but your post there makes me wonder whether there's some merit in the defence.
It's probably powerful to you because it's something you want to believe, but to others it just sounds like more dramatic fake news from the liberal elite media. It all just goes to prove that people are now so divided in both the UK and USA that productive debate seems impossible. It's a very worrying prospect because, as I said in another thread, the only alternative to debate settled by voting is ,historically , war.
Here's an interesting question for you. If you won an election or vote after a campaign and public debate but were then told that it didn't count because the losing side insisted on their view, how would you feel ? What would be your next move ?
Spot on
Sorry Eric, I don't monitor the message board 24/7. Not sure what you're on about anyway - that I know people in BBC News ?
Well, sorry but I do, even if that seems unimaginable to you. I'm afraid I know people at Sky and RT too. In fact I know all sorts of people - even MPs !!!!
They're all just human beings you know, and so people do know them.
Hey, here's a shocker Eric. You might well have seen me on tv or heard me on the radio !
You wouldn't think that was possible when I'm just a human being would you ?
In fact, here's a third bite of the cherry which will make all the bollocks I've written here worth it if you listen Eric.
Trust me, politicians , journalists and especially actors are just as bloody stupid and faulted as anyone. If there's any difference it's that they haven't got the deferential gene.
Eric , you are as good as any other bugger my boy, and there is absolutely no reason why you should think otherwise. You can go and be a BBC correspondent or an MP if you want to, or anything else you choose and which is within your capability, ( which both the things I mentioned are ).
Strangers Bar in the House of Commons is exactly the same as your local pub, except that the crooks drinking there are far more dangerous.
It seems as though you are not familiar with any of my work. I debunked the entire Trump Russia Collusion hoax, and where possible I provided original source material every step of the way. I thought it would open a few people's eyes, but it had the opposite effect, and all I got was a load of abuse and constant ridicule. This was quite interesting since brexit is exactlty the same game, with the same players, using the same methods. It actually made me pay attention to the behaviour of other people, especially how they reacted to the fake news media narratives. I may post my conclusions at some point, but I think a lot of people have already worked out that Western society is going to be pretty screwed up going forward.
I find the suggestion anyone is pro Boris in the media especially if you consider the following:
BBC accused of being pro remain .
The hysteria In all sections of the media of Boris to mention a few :
proguiging parliament .
Lying to the queen .
Supreme court ruling.
His row in his girlfriend's flat.
The association with the American lass.l
His attacks on May .
The use of Humburg on parliament.
Sorry as some point out there's blindness out there when it comes to politics .
This idea the press /media is pro right wing it not completely true , its which story you chose to follow and comment on, and what hatred you have festering within you.
Ironically there was an awful statement in the lords last week suggesting fire fighters may have treated the Grenville Tower differently depending on the race of the occupants, it went largely unreported, can you imagine a politician or house of Lords MP on the right side of politics getting away with that ??
No, he's pointing out that most of the news which the BBC have reported about Boris is negative, which tends to disprove the claim above that they're pro Boris
Even in these chaotic days, this qualifies as a completely ludicrous and somewhat baffling argument. Working my way down your message, I would start by agreeing with you that not everyone in the media is pro Johnson, but, certainly in the print media, the large majority of them are.- as for the BBC there was a poll done quite recently, that there is a large number of people who think they are left wing biased, but then there are similar numbers who feel they are right wing biased.
As has been pointed out already, you then go on to claim that by reporting the events you list (news events which were covered by the news media!) this is, somehow, proving that the news media is anti, not pro, Johnson. I don't get why you didn't also mention the fact that we have a Prime Minister who won't say how many children he has fathered, his intervention in the Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe case when he was Foreign Secretary, tthe fact he twice voted against a deal which could have had us out of the EU months ago and that he has hung out the DUP to dry in the last fortnight - using your logic, that would have strengthened your argument.
Can I ask, if you don't think the media is pro Johnson, who do you think they favour? Even you can't imagine it is jeremy Corbyn and his party surely? Just imagine what the print media would have made of the events you list if a quarter of them related to Corbyn not Johnson.
The notion that any of the stories you list should be ignored and are down to the petty vendettas of the writers, as you seem to imply, is simply ridiculous when you consider that they relate to the Prime Minister of this country
Just click on the page on the BBC website which shows the front pages of the national newspapers and you soon see how "hostile" the majority of the print media is to Johnson.
Finally, if you are going to bring a tragedy where scores of people needlessly died or were made homeless into your argument, at least get the name of the block of flats that burned down right - it was Grenfell Tower.
I didn’t miss your point at all. We have a Prime Minister who has has the backing of many print newspapers and indeed up till recently revived a very handsome fee from one (The Telegraph). So it’s fair to say he’s got a lot of support.
You (again) seem to suggest there is some bias against him despite he fact that he is a Politician in the most prominent position in the country and needs to be held to account and so come up with some ridiculous distracting piece of analogy involving Firefighters.
By the way it’s not ‘hysteria’ to comment on a PM :
Lying to the Queen
Proroguing Parliament
Voting down an agreement twice to enhance his own reputation and nothing more
Etc etc etc...::
TOBW is right, you’ve made an utterly ludicrous argument
The BBC are pro right wing, pro Monarchy, pro bosses against workers, pro Israeli, anti Irish, pro union state, pro England, the beeb is an instrument used by the English led UK state to influence thick people.
The BBC are none of those things. There is no bigger critic of the Corporation than me, but I'm afraid that's utter nonsense .
You appear to be on some freaky wind up mission.
Kaardiff professor types did research on the Beeb [commissioned by the beeb I believe] and they were found to be right wing, pro bosses, pro leave EU, pro Israeli over Arabs, anti Scottish independence etc etc.
Scotland might well be independent now if it wasn't for Auntie.
Which makes the same error of over estimating the power of the BBC and establishment in influencing voting patterns as did the Remain and Clinton campaigns.
I should think it's quite easy to find evidence of anything you want to find in such research , so that probably says more about the professor himself than anything else.
It might be that some people will give it credibility because a professor produced it, but I'm afraid that fewer people these days automatically accept the word of academics because they've been caught out manipulating the facts for political or financial reasons so often.
Those Welsh based bods are the go to types for this type of thing, they looked at air time given to one side and the other side, they looked at positive and negative slants given to one side and the other side, they looked at how Auntie treated one side when they were in Government and then how the other side were treated when they were in Government.
But I knew it all along, it was obvious to anybody that is impartial and has seen the English led UK State broadcaster report on the troubles in Ireland, Industrial disputes, right and left wing political arguments, the middle East conflict, Scottish independence referendum etc etc, that the beeb has a bias towards the middle England type of view point.
You just said the same thing again
What part of their report - the data collection, analysis and/or methodology - do you disagree with?
http://theconversation.com/hard-evid...-the-bbc-17028
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall...9-07-15a.252.2
I wouldn't get sucked into that discussion Jon.
I regret that data collection and graphs have largely replaced higher thinking in our dumbed down society since it's actually meaningless . You can gather and present data to back up anything you want to prove - I was doing that myself forty or fifty years ago with figures for press and public consumption. Also , you can and will be misled even if you genuinely draw conclusions from figures alone.
I know you won't accept that, but on the other hand, it's no use trying to convince me that such simple arithmetical sophistry is credible.
It's a pity that so many people are happy to sub contract thinking to "experts" because they're no more trustworthy than anyone else.
Ronnie I regard myself as impartial, pride myself on it actually and for decades i've seen the Beeb to be right wing biased and anti left wing causes then the Beeb commissioned experts to look at their coverage and the experts told them they were right wing biased, the Beeb claim that they are putting things in place to try and redress the balance.
So its not me reading about it and agreeing, its me always saying they are right wing biased over the decades and my view then gets backed up by experts.
Same with little clubs and little countries in football being more likely to get done by poor refereeing decisions that the big teams and the big countries, the Welsh clubs particularly likely to be done because of English only officials refereeing matches between English and Welsh clubs no doubt going back to the early days, my whole memory imo for certain, I used to name them, Liverpool and Man Utd, England and Germany, some people would say they can remember a wrong decision go against them, oh yes but for ever one wrong decision that goes against them they get two wrong decisions go for them, Welsh team get treated particularly badly, ive always known it and said it and then just like the Beeb case somebody does research sending recently retired top level refs every game for a Premier League season and for them to look at every goal scored and every goal disallowed, I didn't need no experts I knew Liverpool and Man u would come out top for wrong decisions in their favour and the Swans come bottom for having the most wrong decisions go against them.
Then there was the Brexit vote, our Celtic cousins in N.Ireland and Scotland voted in, Wales surprisingly till you know the facts voted out along with England, but I knew and said just like I said with the right wing biasedness of the Beeb and the big team getting the lions share of wrong decisions in their favour that the huge English immigrant population in Wales had swung the Welsh vote from remain to leave, then experts look at it and yet again agree with trampie09.
Always keep your eyes wide open and be true and impartial don't allow any prejudice into your thought process, look at the troubles in N.I I have no involvement with Irish or English but believing in fairplay it was obvious the rights and wrongs and used to say give it 200 years and the goodies will be seen as the baddies and the baddies as the goodies, you should have seen the London press coverage back in the day, oh well some people are easily fooled.
Your 'higher thinking' is just to ignore evidence, data and rigorous analysis and opt for blind prejudice, wrapped up in self-satisfied posturing.
Much like the poster profile now known as Wales-Bales.
You do it in every thread. I suppose you can (both?) at least claim consistency.
I wish you wouldn't introduce all this childish name calling you know.
Kuenssberg, Neil and Peston are often accused of pedalling the Conservative #10 line.
I don't think anyone is impartial really. That's against human nature.
The problem with the BBC is that they claim impartiality and I don't think they can do that.
Now, I see them as left biased just as you see them as right biased and much as I dislike the organisation I don't see how they can win on that basis.
You speak of racial divisions and racial similarities within the UK which I cannot share - Celtic cousins and so forth- and these divisions don't exist in reality since the ancient tribe you speak of has long been totally mixed with everyone else.
There's little in common between Ireland ,Scotland and Wales in fact, and Wales is far more similar to England than the other two.
I'll have to feel more energetic than I do right now to discuss the Irish troubles, but that's a great deal more complicated than Irish versus English. The rights and wrongs of it are far from clear though.
I'm not going to start telling you what to think or say, but I'd guess you're enthusiastically opposed to racism, and I wonder whether you've considered that your arguments are based on what some would call racism ?
That's a great post though and poses many questions