In reply to Post #2090
If you want a barometer or a guide to how governments act and how you can judge them , you will not find a man with more knowledge than Noam Chomsky ,try to find an interview , over the previous 50 years where someone has got the better of him ,
I will often listen to Peter Oborne , he has risked his career on numerous occasions to highlight things , "inside the Israeli lobby " was more than a bit risky to his career , i have a lot of respect for him .
Annie Machon , Mi5 whistle blower , has highlighted a lot of truths
John Pilger ,the legend
So, How do you know what these are exposing is the truth?? Simply because you think its plausible or hard evidence? If its hard evidence then surely people get arrested for crimes they commit??
The broader the reporting spectrum you choose to use if you're arsed about certain issues, chances are you'll have a well informed view of the event.
Im not so sure, you have lots of information yes, but then its down to you to interpret it which is similar to chinese whispers and can change to suit your own mind set........
If you want a barometer or a guide to how governments act and how you can judge them , you will not find a man with more knowledge than Noam Chomsky ,try to find an interview , over the previous 50 years where someone has got the better of him ,
I will often listen to Peter Oborne , he has risked his career on numerous occasions to highlight things , "inside the Israeli lobby " was more than a bit risky to his career , i have a lot of respect for him .
Annie Machon , Mi5 whistle blower , has highlighted a lot of truths
John Pilger ,the legend
So, How do you know what these are exposing is the truth?? Simply because you think its plausible or hard evidence? If its hard evidence then surely people get arrested for crimes they commit??
The broader the reporting spectrum you choose to use if you're arsed about certain issues, chances are you'll have a well informed view of the event.
Im not so sure, you have lots of information yes, but then its down to you to interpret it which is similar to chinese whispers and can change to suit your own mind set........
In reply to Post #2101
His Book. Manufacturing Consent is well worth a read.
His Book. Manufacturing Consent is well worth a read.
In reply to Post #2101
Of course it's then down to you, nothing like Chinese whispers
Same as turning up at a lake at a certain time of year, certain day of the week, in certain weather conditions. You then choose where you peg up and how you set up too get it right, based on previous knowledge gained and taking into account what's going on and will more than likely go on.
The broader the factors you can interpret the more chance of being right. If you prejudge even with all the available information as many do, you are what you are and probably end up storming the Capitol with a flag and red hat on
Nothing wrong with interpreting things wrongly. Just how quickly you realise and change is the measure.
Of course it's then down to you, nothing like Chinese whispers
Same as turning up at a lake at a certain time of year, certain day of the week, in certain weather conditions. You then choose where you peg up and how you set up too get it right, based on previous knowledge gained and taking into account what's going on and will more than likely go on.
The broader the factors you can interpret the more chance of being right. If you prejudge even with all the available information as many do, you are what you are and probably end up storming the Capitol with a flag and red hat on
Nothing wrong with interpreting things wrongly. Just how quickly you realise and change is the measure.
In reply to Post #2103
Interpretation is an individuals choice, what you may interpret as something, others may not from the same information though......who is then correct?
Interpretation is an individuals choice, what you may interpret as something, others may not from the same information though......who is then correct?
In reply to Post #2104
Of course it is, it's highly improbable and rare that each would have the same life experience for the same information to be interpreted differently. So the person who'd had most exposure to the event would be more informed in their decision making at that point. Experts anyone?
Of course it is, it's highly improbable and rare that each would have the same life experience for the same information to be interpreted differently. So the person who'd had most exposure to the event would be more informed in their decision making at that point. Experts anyone?
In reply to Post #2099
Its's not that straight forward tho, is it? This is one of the big problems with TV news at the moment. Most of the time, both sides of a point of view are given equal weighting as though both points of view are equally valid. But often, they aren't.
Examples;- Pascale Lammy who was the former Head of the World Trade Organisation- WTO- absolutely schooled Ian Duncan Smith and Andrea Leadsom on interviews on BBC. They were both given "equal status" in the exchange as though both points of view were valid. But, Lammy as the former head of the WTO, had a MUCH better understanding of WTO rules than those 2. So, to say differing points have view have equal weighting, isn't always correct.
Or, put it another way. Would we give equal weighting to flat earthers in a debate about the world being flat when it's demonstrably true it's not?
Its's not that straight forward tho, is it? This is one of the big problems with TV news at the moment. Most of the time, both sides of a point of view are given equal weighting as though both points of view are equally valid. But often, they aren't.
Examples;- Pascale Lammy who was the former Head of the World Trade Organisation- WTO- absolutely schooled Ian Duncan Smith and Andrea Leadsom on interviews on BBC. They were both given "equal status" in the exchange as though both points of view were valid. But, Lammy as the former head of the WTO, had a MUCH better understanding of WTO rules than those 2. So, to say differing points have view have equal weighting, isn't always correct.
Or, put it another way. Would we give equal weighting to flat earthers in a debate about the world being flat when it's demonstrably true it's not?
In reply to Post #2105
Yes if your at an event and see it first hand but that's rare so you rely on news sources for an event but each is different to a degree......so all reliable but also unreliable to a degree as they change it to suit.....
Yes if your at an event and see it first hand but that's rare so you rely on news sources for an event but each is different to a degree......so all reliable but also unreliable to a degree as they change it to suit.....
In reply to Post #2107
Suit who? Their perceived audience? So again you take a broad amount of evidence before you make an informed decision if you're arsed about certain issues. Pretty simple
Suit who? Their perceived audience? So again you take a broad amount of evidence before you make an informed decision if you're arsed about certain issues. Pretty simple
In reply to Post #2106
I know why you mean mate.You have to platform different views though to see how they hold up to scrutiny. Baldwin v Buckley being the best example I can think of, bravely organised and put on in this country.
I know why you mean mate.You have to platform different views though to see how they hold up to scrutiny. Baldwin v Buckley being the best example I can think of, bravely organised and put on in this country.
In reply to Post #2104
But interpretation isn't just about choice. It's about knowledge and understanding as well. I could use a brexit related example, (he-he) but I don't want your head to explode, so I'll use my work as an example of this
I work in child protection. Anyone remember Sarah's Law, after she was murdered by the paedophile Roy Whiting? Common sense says yes it's a good idea that we should be told where paedophiles live so that kids can be kept safe.
I know through my work the majority of kids are sexually abused and then murdered by someone in the family or close to the family. Very few are abducted and then abused/murdered. Also, while a paedophile is a sex offender, not all sex offenders are paedophiles. The majority of them abuse kids while in intimate adult relationships.
So, we all get obsessed about the weirdo in the block of flats across the road but don't look and think about relatives and friends around us and don't consider them as potential risks to our kids. And that's not even looking at child on child abuse within families.
So yes, interpretation is a part of how we see, think and feel about the world, but the greater knowledge and understanding you have of something, it helps inform how we interpret those events.
But interpretation isn't just about choice. It's about knowledge and understanding as well. I could use a brexit related example, (he-he) but I don't want your head to explode, so I'll use my work as an example of this
I work in child protection. Anyone remember Sarah's Law, after she was murdered by the paedophile Roy Whiting? Common sense says yes it's a good idea that we should be told where paedophiles live so that kids can be kept safe.
I know through my work the majority of kids are sexually abused and then murdered by someone in the family or close to the family. Very few are abducted and then abused/murdered. Also, while a paedophile is a sex offender, not all sex offenders are paedophiles. The majority of them abuse kids while in intimate adult relationships.
So, we all get obsessed about the weirdo in the block of flats across the road but don't look and think about relatives and friends around us and don't consider them as potential risks to our kids. And that's not even looking at child on child abuse within families.
So yes, interpretation is a part of how we see, think and feel about the world, but the greater knowledge and understanding you have of something, it helps inform how we interpret those events.
In reply to Post #2106
I'm not really talking about giving equal status to both sides of a face to face debate, although unless it's something clearly bonkers such as your flat earth example, it's fair to at least hear both arguments
I mean choosing a report which interests you for whatever reason and looking into conflicting opinions through different outlets. Where the other side generally have no means of immediate or direct response.
Somebody charming and articulate can make a good case for most things even if it's total cobblers.
I'm not really talking about giving equal status to both sides of a face to face debate, although unless it's something clearly bonkers such as your flat earth example, it's fair to at least hear both arguments
I mean choosing a report which interests you for whatever reason and looking into conflicting opinions through different outlets. Where the other side generally have no means of immediate or direct response.
Somebody charming and articulate can make a good case for most things even if it's total cobblers.
I find it difficult to understand how this new Fox News style TV channel is being so eagerly welcomed by so many.
It would seem that, despite the print media being so overwhelmingly right-leaning and there being no shortage of right wing opinions on line, on the radio and telly, many feel they are oppressed by lefty BBC types who stifle such views. The BBC seem pretty well balanced most of the time, even if they do give more weight than is due to idiots sometimes. 99% of climate scientists vs Piers Corbyn? Really? And let's not forget it was QT that made Farage famous.
Where did this right wing victim mentality come from? It caused Brexit, and now it's set to drag the country even further to the right with a mainstream TV channel.
It would seem that, despite the print media being so overwhelmingly right-leaning and there being no shortage of right wing opinions on line, on the radio and telly, many feel they are oppressed by lefty BBC types who stifle such views. The BBC seem pretty well balanced most of the time, even if they do give more weight than is due to idiots sometimes. 99% of climate scientists vs Piers Corbyn? Really? And let's not forget it was QT that made Farage famous.
Where did this right wing victim mentality come from? It caused Brexit, and now it's set to drag the country even further to the right with a mainstream TV channel.
In reply to Post #2112
BBC lefty leaning? Pffft. It's an overwhelmingly white, male middle class institution and is, in no way, a bed of left wing political activism. Look at the new chairman FFS. £400, 000 of donations to the Cunservatives. It's a myth propagated by the tories and the right to monetise it. They hate anything they struggle to privatise and monetise.
BBC lefty leaning? Pffft. It's an overwhelmingly white, male middle class institution and is, in no way, a bed of left wing political activism. Look at the new chairman FFS. £400, 000 of donations to the Cunservatives. It's a myth propagated by the tories and the right to monetise it. They hate anything they struggle to privatise and monetise.
In reply to Post #2113
News with an agenda isn't news. So if you disagree with the way an event is reported, or wether it even happened :- there's an agenda. I find ITV and BBC do a decent job of impartiality, both models can and do work well alongside each other. If you believe the BBC is leftist it's you that's out of kilter.
News with an agenda isn't news. So if you disagree with the way an event is reported, or wether it even happened :- there's an agenda. I find ITV and BBC do a decent job of impartiality, both models can and do work well alongside each other. If you believe the BBC is leftist it's you that's out of kilter.
In reply to Post #2112
Did you mean infamous Jon
Did you mean infamous Jon