TV advertising quality!

[selectortone]

teenage girls dancing or applying makeup.

You say that like it's a bad thing

 

[woodieallen]

Yes. Because it is fact not fiction. Everything in it is verifiable. I don't know if it's possible to read it with rose coloured glasses, though.

I disagree. I took a quick look at the online samples. Yes, for example, the lazy journalism around "police tasered man falls into the river" is verifiable but the book itslef has its own agenda and that all stories in the BBC can be 'bought' or manipulated. If that is the case then who is benefiting from the sloppy journalism I refer to.

Later on the samples are just pure opinion....BBC being influence by blah blah blah and not a single verifiable fact to be seen.

 

[Scruples]

No long or difficult words, perhaps ?

Sorry, Phil...couldn't resist

I've often found that those who resort to laughing and implied insults have lost the argument and, possilbly, the plot.

 

[Scruples]

Yes. Because it is fact not fiction. Everything in it is verifiable. I don't know if it's possible to read it with rose coloured glasses, though.

Be careful. Some facts are taken out of context and twisted to suit the writer's agenda. One book. One version of the 'truth'.

 

[artie]

Well, if there was any political bias in the BBC News, wouldn't there uproar from the opposition party. Are you suggesting there is non-political control of the news? That the Civil Service is editing all the BBC's material before being aired?
Hmm...

It's pretty naive to think that the BBC are not censored or always report facts.

 

[woodieallen]

It's pretty naive to think that the BBC are not censored or always report facts.

Do you have any evidence to support either of those two statements ?

 

[paulrbarnard]

It's pretty naive to think that the BBC are not censored or always report facts.

They are censored to the extent they are held to account when they report false information and indeed have to publicly retract.
I think people are not aware of how censorship in countries like Russia works if they think regulation and accountability are censorship.

 

[artie]

Do you have any evidence to support either of those two statements


By their own admission and from the security service after the fact. You don't have to look far or dig very deep.

 

[woodieallen]

Do you have any evidence to support either of those two statements


By their own admission and from the security service after the fact. You don't have to look far or dig very deep.

Sorry that doesn't cut it.

We need references otherwise it could simply be a figment of your imagination, If you make a sweeping statement as you did then you should be prepared to back it up rather than waffle.

 

[John Brown]

I've often found that those who resort to laughing and implied insults have lost the argument and, possilbly, the plot.

I agree, and have observed, over the years, that Phil knows quite a few long words.

 

[artie]

Sorry that doesn't cut it.

We need references otherwise it could simply be a figment of your imagination, If you make a sweeping statement as you did then you should be preprared to back it up rather than waffle.

It would make no difference. You would find a way to deny it.

 

[woodieallen]

It would make no difference. You would find a way to deny it.

Actually it would make a difference. The most important being that there are references out there to support your statements. In the absence of any then I'll leave others to draw their own conclusions.

 

[Dovetail]

The bigger problem is that online media is only interested in driving clicks from the viewer. No objectivity or balance considerations in there at all. Their algorithms are highly tuned to provide content that matches what you already viewed. If you watched a video that said Russia was right to invade Ukraine then you will continue to receive more videos that follow that same narrative. Very quickly you end up living in an echo chamber that simply keeps feeding you content that fits the world view you already hold. Search in the social media of your choice for Flat Earth and watch a couple of videos and very quickly your feed will fill with content proving the Earth is flat.

Youtube provides tools to stop that. "Not interested in this video/channel" will set that straight.

The issue with the "algorithm" is what happens when you just let it play. If you are active in your choice of entertainment it cuts back on a lot of the crazy.

 

[artie]

Actually it would make a difference. The most important being that there are references out there to support your statements. In the absence of any

Are you claiming there aren't any?

then I'll leave others to draw their own conclusions.

I'd say others are free to arrive at their own conclusions without your leave.

Anyway have fun.

 

[Delaney]

Delaney, you keep returning to the same theme about how wonderful Russia is blah blah blah. You are nothing more than a Russian troll and I for one have a big smile on my face as I put you on Ignore.

I don’t think that’s true. I think you were the one to bring up Ukraine.
I responded to your comment in kind.
I’ve never once said anything positive about Russia, although I’m sure like all places, there is good and bad.

I have however caused a bit of thread drift so I’ll leave it there and apologies to all for getting us off topic.

 

[woodieallen]

Are you claiming there aren't any?

Of course not. But anyone who makes a sweeping statement really ought to be able to substantiate that statement with evidence. When challenged, rather than actually give any references, you just glibly said "They're all out there". This suggests that you never actually did any research or read anything to support your claims.

Anyway, I'll not bother to comment further.

 

[Scruples]

It's pretty naive to think that the BBC are not censored or always report facts.

It's pretty naive to think that the BBC are not censored or always report facts.

Naive? Or just a grown up who reads the news, from a few sources, and makes up my own mind. I prefer that to conspiracy theories and paranoia that can lead people into dark corners.

 

[Scruples]

Yes. Because it is fact not fiction. Everything in it is verifiable. I don't know if it's possible to read it with rose coloured glasses, though.

In preference to getting into conspiracy theories. And the one thing I've learned in my life is that the turth is down to perception. I have reality glasses and read the BBC News, amongst others and I have no need to limit my views by someone else's perception for profit.

 

[artie]

Naive? Or just a grown up who reads the news, from a few sources, and makes up my own mind. I prefer that to conspiracy theories and paranoia that can lead people into dark corners.

That's what most people do, believe what they want to believe.

BTW. Calling something a conspiracy theory is just a way of saying you don't want to believe it. If it was wrong you would call it a lie.

 

[artie]

In preference to getting into conspiracy theories. And the one thing I've learned in my life is that the turth is down to perception.

Sorry to say the turth is the turth but a belief may be down to perception.

I have reality glasses and read the BBC News, amongst others and I have no need to limit my views by someone else's perception for profit.

I don't get that. How could considering another view limit you?

Aren't the BBC working for money?