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
No, the BBC are among the worst offenders.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
Unemployment is the lowest ever here since 1976, but I wouldn't say Theresa May and the Tories are doing a great job...
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.
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?
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?
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:
So in your opinion what policy of trumps improved black employment rates