Do you trust the mainstream media?

[Gabbatek]

No, the BBC are among the worst offenders.

exactly, as if the bbc is at the top and neutral. It should be in yellow under s.c

 

[Zethor]

Can you sum it up for those of us who aren't inclined to read all that?

Sure. The chart is quite accurate as it's based on facts, research and a clear methodology, all of which are available for further reading on that site.

 

[humbug]

Sure. The chart is quite accurate as it's based on facts, research and a clear methodology, all of which are available for further reading on that site.

Whose facts? for example the BBC never report on Trumps successes making them extremely bias, they use ONS figures on Economics and Brexit cometary as if they are the gold standard despite the fact that the ONS have yet to be right on anything, they use pollsters who are consistently wrong.

You can always use someone's research and facts as if they are the god of all such things, it doesn't mean they are, in the case of the BBC and probably about 90% of mainstream British media are very selective indeed when it comes to 'Fact checking'

The BBC's fact checking predicted a Hillary landslide, it predicted remain would win by a good margin.... nope.

Its what you get when one propaganda mouthpiece agrees with another, and that's all it is.

 

[humbug]

Whose facts? for example the BBC never report on Trumps successes making them extremely bias, they use ONS figures on Economics and Brexit cometary as if they are the gold standard despite the fact that the ONS have yet to be right on anything, they use pollsters who are consistently wrong.

You can always use someone's research and facts as if they are the god of all such things, it doesn't mean they are, in the case of the BBC and probably about 90% of mainstream British media are very selective indeed when it comes to 'Fact checking'

The BBC's fact checking predicted a Hillary landslide, it predicted remain would win by a good margin.... nope.

Its what you get when one propaganda mouthpiece agrees with another, and that's all it is.

We have to go back to the point of this thread.

33 countries polled on whether or not they trust their own news media, in our case we are stone dead last and have been for years, 23% of us trust our news outlets.

Now ask yourself if this has been an ongoing thing for years why is this the first time we are hearing about it, why did it take John Cleese to print it off and take it into the studio like a billboard to highlight it?

 

[asim18]

Yeah, BBC may like to come across as "fact reporters" but that just means the 1 or 2 full on propaganda/mind control pieces they put out here and there are much more effective, plus even innocent stories have some very dodgy suggestive stuff in them; for example when they were reporting on the migrant crisis several months ago they aired detailed instructions on what routes the underground smugglers were taking to get people into get into the UK so as to try to increase numbers even further and provide a free advertisement campaign worth millions so even more migrants take those routes. Also the terrorism promoter who was invited on live TV, TWICE, to tell the world how you never need to contact ISIS to perform attacks for them and if it's simply "ISIS Style" the media should automatically attribute the attack to ISIS. Also John Sweeney's piece on Russia hacking was also utterly jam packed with some very dodgy/childish/weird thought control attempts. Also the day long LCY runway charade and how they cherrypicked a telephone caller to anger the black community into a riot by telling them pollution is racist (the full transcript is utterly hilarious and I've posted it in the past). Also the poster they created and flashed on TV which read "kill white police officers", I mean you really cant watch any news unless you're just watching to criticise the reporting, watching news for informational purposes is simply a bad idea.

Man the list of dodgy reporting is pretty much just endless.

They are probably worse than Daily Mail because daily mail bs is blatantly obvious and easily identifiable, BBC propaganda is harder to spot unless you're into media psychology and are aware of the various control/implantation mechanisms/devices. Also BBC seems especially bad since they started propagandising children on what fake news is and how to spot it. I mean who on earth allows a propaganda News outlet to teach children on spotting fake news. What a disaster lmao.

 

[Zethor]

Whose facts? for example the BBC never report on Trumps successes making them extremely bias, they use ONS figures on Economics and Brexit cometary as if they are the gold standard despite the fact that the ONS have yet to be right on anything, they use pollsters who are consistently wrong.

Example.

You can always use someone's research and facts as if they are the god of all such things, it doesn't mean they are, in the case of the BBC and probably about 90% of mainstream British media are very selective indeed when it comes to 'Fact checking'

No that's not how it works. Check out that site, take your time and tell me what research and which facts are dodgy. The "I don't like that kid so I disagree with him" argument belongs in the playground, so how about backing up your wild assumptions huh?

The BBC's fact checking predicted a Hillary landslide, it predicted remain would win by a good margin.... nope.

Lol. What does fact checking have to do with predictions? You're very confused, facts are things that happened and can not be denied whereas any prediction has a margin of error...

Its what you get when one propaganda mouthpiece agrees with another, and that's all it is.

Examples, examples, examples...

 

[humbug]

Example.

No that's not how it works. Check out that site, take your time and tell me what research and which facts are dodgy. The "I don't like that kid so I disagree with him" argument belongs in the playground, so how about backing up your wild assumptions huh?

Lol. What does fact checking have to do with predictions? You're very confused, facts are things that happened and can not be denied whereas any prediction has a margin of error...

Examples, examples, examples...

I'm not going to convince you ^^^^ and that's just fine, trying is just running round in circles denying the truth and asking for other proof when it disagrees with you.
You have yet to make a case at all.
-----------

@asim18

Right. As i said before, an example is Assad, he is a secularist, Damascus is full of Christians, Moderate Muslims of all sects and even some Jews, there are some, quite a lot of 'Traditional?' Muslims who don't like Christians or Jews or even different factions of their own kind.

To keep them from creating hell you need a strong leader to rule, a dictator because a lot of these people are living in a seventh century ideology, Hussain, Gaddafi.... same regional problems same dictatorial yes bumholes to control them and if you want to know what happens when you remove those strong Men look no further than Iraq and Libya post those dictators, they are at eachothers throats and moderate secular people are the ones doing all the bleeding and dying.

Pragmatism, something the hard left doesn't understand, Lefties are driven by emotion.

These people who call themselves Syrian democrats and the opposition are not our friends, they are not nice people but what they are is smart, they understand the guilt and self flagellation lefties engage in and they take advantage of their idiosyncrasies, so they all get thousands of £ UK media donated equipment to propagandise their fake intent to get us to help them and organisations like the BBC and CH4 buy it hock line and sinker.

These western leftist organisations with their catastrophic lack of understanding of the real world and blind do gooder nonsenses are dangerous.

 

[humbug]

Edited my Post ^^^

 

[Zethor]

Nowhere in your rambling did you show any proof and when you're presented with it, you just dismiss it without offering a counterargument. You haven't started this thread to have a debate or the learn more about the subject, you're just using it to confirm your preexisting ideas.

 

[humbug]

Nowhere in your rambling did you show any proof and when you're presented with it, you just dismiss it without offering a counterargument. You haven't started this thread to have a debate or the learn more about the subject, you're just using it to confirm your preexisting ideas.

I said mainstream media used pollsters that predicted a Hillary and Remain Victory , they based their arguments upon the data to provided to the public, the same data producers who miss predicted everyother electoral event in recent times.
If you want to disagree with that there is no materials that anyone can produce to prove themselves, its not about that. if you want to remember history and todays facts differently no one call help you, look out of the window, you shouldn't need my help.

And with that how do you prove Trump coverage is not entirely negative? that's the proposition that i'm putting to you, now if you think i'm wrong about that the burden of prof is with you, give me some BBC news reports that are positive about Trump, or Brexit.

 

[Zethor]

I said mainstream media used pollsters that predicted a Hillary and Remain Victory , they based their arguments upon the data to provided to the public, the same data producers who miss predicted everyother electoral event in recent times.
If you want to disagree with that there is no materials that anyone can produce to prove themselves, its not about that. if you want to remember history and todays facts differently no one call help you, look out of the window, you shouldn't need my help.

Predictions have margins of error and they are just predictions, not facts. Be insisting with this non-issue you are trying to control the conversation and I assume you are doing it unknowingly as you're generally a decent person.

Any with that how do you prove Trump coverage is not entirely negative, that's the proposition that i'm putting to you, now if you think i'm wrong about that the burden of prof is with you, given me some BBC news reports that are positive about Trump, or Brexit.

Which one of Trump's actions do you consider positive? Give me a few examples and then we'll check what the BBC had to say. For instance, his pick for the SCOTUS is a surprisingly decent choice in my view and the BBC published several positive articles related to it.

 

[humbug]

Predictions have margins of error and they are just predictions, not facts. Be insisting with this non-issue you are trying to control the conversation and I assume you are doing it unknowingly as you're generally a decent person.



Which one of Trump's actions do you consider positive? Give me a few examples and then we'll check what the BBC had to say. For instance, his pick for the SCOTUS is a surprisingly decent choice in my view and the BBC published several positive articles related to it.

Ok.

US unemployment rates at their lower ever under Trump https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

Unemployment amongst blacks is also at its lowest under Trump since records began, not a very good racist.
https://money.cnn.com/2018/06/01/news/economy/black-unemployment-rate-record-low/index.html

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

I guess all of that protectionism as opposed to globalism is in fact working. Maybe we should take the same approach?

 

[VincentHanna]

Unemployment is the lowest ever here since 1976, but I wouldn't say Theresa May and the Tories are doing a great job...

 

[humbug]

Unemployment is the lowest ever here since 1976, but I wouldn't say Theresa May and the Tories are doing a great job...

I put it to you there is a correlation between the slump in migration since the Brexit vote and our current low unemployment.

I think Trump is looking after his own, as opposed to Mexicans.

Again, we should do the same.

 

[VincentHanna]

I put it to you that it's been coming down for 7 years and the Brexit vote has nothing to do with it

I back this up with actual factual statistics:

 

[Tefal]

Whose facts? for example the BBC never report on Trumps successes making them extremely bias, they use ONS figures on Economics and Brexit cometary as if they are the gold standard despite the fact that the ONS have yet to be right on anything, they use pollsters who are consistently wrong.

You can always use someone's research and facts as if they are the god of all such things, it doesn't mean they are, in the case of the BBC and probably about 90% of mainstream British media are very selective indeed when it comes to 'Fact checking'

The BBC's fact checking predicted a Hillary landslide, it predicted remain would win by a good margin.... nope.

Its what you get when one propaganda mouthpiece agrees with another, and that's all it is.

Fact checking didnT predict anything.

If it's a prediction its nott a fact and it certainly isn't fact checked.
.It's an educated guess

Ok.

US unemployment rates at their lower ever under Trump https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

Unemployment amongst blacks is also at its lowest under Trump since records began, not a very good racist.
https://money.cnn.com/2018/06/01/news/economy/black-unemployment-rate-record-low/index.html

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

I guess all of that protectionism as opposed to globalism is in fact working. Maybe we should take the same approach?

So in your opinion what policy of trumps improved black employment rates

 

[Zethor]

Ok.

US unemployment rates at their lower ever under Trump https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

Unemployment amongst blacks is also at its lowest under Trump since records began, not a very good racist.
https://money.cnn.com/2018/06/01/news/economy/black-unemployment-rate-record-low/index.html

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

I guess all of that protectionism as opposed to globalism is in fact working. Maybe we should take the same approach?

The BBC reported on US unemployment many times, such as here and here. Here's an article during Obama's term. They all look professional, neutral and factual to me.

As for protectionism vs globalism, you are yet again trying to control the conversation, having failed to show that the BBC's coverage of Trump is "entirely negative".

 

[humbug]

Nothing about Black unemployment? is any of it on the BBC's main news outlets? ^^^^

I put it to you that it's been coming down for 7 years and the Brexit vote has nothing to do with it

I back this up with actual factual statistics:

The financial crisis is what's caused that mound in the middle of that chart, 2016 / 2017 (Brexit) we have the lowest unemployment on that record.

 

[VincentHanna]

Explain the much higher drop in 2014/2015 if the Brexit vote is the reason unemployment is low...

 

[humbug]

Economic recovery ^^^^

So in your opinion what policy of trumps improved black employment rates

My opinion? They are not having to compete with international economic migration quite so much.