Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 43

Thread: The information war

  1. #1
    Senior Member Senior Member Idaho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Exeter, England
    Posts
    6,417

    Default The information war

    The information age always promised information wars, but it's remarkable and scary to see it play out.

    The information war has always been with us, but it's power and scale are now acute. Information controllers are shock troops, occupying forces and King makers.

    The right wing media hijack of the brexit debate. Trump and his fake news election win. The fact we don't know if
    Putin and Trump are allies or enemies.

    While at the same time the Arab Israeli war goes full information overt. The occupation gathers pace, and the debate is channeled:

    http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/...122330451.html

    The 1982 invasion of Lebanon, however, saw a change in the favoured tides for Israel. As images of the Sabra and Shatila massacre flooded into American news media, Israel suddenly needed to defend itself. The war in Lebanon would trigger the need for an official public relations strategy, known in Hebrew as "Hasbara". The basic strategy would be to push back with footage of Palestinians fighting against the occupation, highlighting Israel's role as "underdog" and "victim".
    Last edited by Idaho; 03-17-2017 at 16:58.
    "The republicans will draft your kids, poison the air and water, take away your social security and burn down black churches if elected." Gawain of Orkney

  2. #2
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    5,889

    Default Re: The information war

    I refer you to Corbyn's supporters and the closed circle of information. There has always been a certain filtering of informational sources, even as far back as Orwell's satires. But I've never seen anything quite so actively closed as Corbyn's deliberate focus on social media-based campaigns.

  3. #3
    Ask Hooahguy (Not Here) Forum Administrator Beskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    No longer in Albion
    Posts
    15,359

    Default Re: The information war

    Trump and Obama wiretapping.
    Never mind about Corbyn though, media rightwing bias is overt at the moment. With all the u turns, election scandals, and so on, Theresa May is rather unscathed thanks to support from the media who are very hostile to all opposition Labour, Libdems, SNP, etc. UKIP is still featured a lot too.
    "What makes something right or wrong?" | How to spot a Humanist
    "Men of Quality do not fear Equality." # | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs." RG

  4. #4
    Senior Member Senior Member Idaho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Exeter, England
    Posts
    6,417

    Default Re: The information war

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    I refer you to Corbyn's supporters and the closed circle of information. There has always been a certain filtering of informational sources, even as far back as Orwell's satires. But I've never seen anything quite so actively closed as Corbyn's deliberate focus on social media-based campaigns.
    I think Corbyn is a poor example of a successful information war

    The pro Corbyn echo chamber is, however, a good example of a defensive niche. But it's a dead end.
    "The republicans will draft your kids, poison the air and water, take away your social security and burn down black churches if elected." Gawain of Orkney

  5. #5
    Senior Member Senior Member Idaho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Exeter, England
    Posts
    6,417

    Default Re: The information war

    Quote Originally Posted by Beskar View Post
    Trump and Obama wiretapping.
    Never mind about Corbyn though, media rightwing bias is overt at the moment. With all the u turns, election scandals, and so on, Theresa May is rather unscathed thanks to support from the media who are very hostile to all opposition Labour, Libdems, SNP, etc. UKIP is still featured a lot too.
    UKIP! An insignificant political party who had support from information brokers. Their one mp and his media backers blackmailed a weak tory government into a daft referendum. And the media backers pushed hard and won.
    "The republicans will draft your kids, poison the air and water, take away your social security and burn down black churches if elected." Gawain of Orkney

  6. #6
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    5,889

    Default Re: The information war

    Quote Originally Posted by Beskar View Post
    Trump and Obama wiretapping.
    Never mind about Corbyn though, media rightwing bias is overt at the moment. With all the u turns, election scandals, and so on, Theresa May is rather unscathed thanks to support from the media who are very hostile to all opposition Labour, Libdems, SNP, etc. UKIP is still featured a lot too.
    Something can be done about lies and their proponents, if only by reminding the liars of what they'd said. The 350m a week is an example. Nothing can be done when listeners actively filter out anything that disagrees with their worldview. See the Labour thread, where the argument was put forward that primary sources that were ex-shadow cabinet were intrinsically problematic because they were ex. Ie. that people disagreeing with Corbyn were by nature untrustworthy as sources. With a closed circle like that, and Corbyn's support is the most complete example of that that I've seen anywhere, then information becomes useless.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Senior Member Idaho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Exeter, England
    Posts
    6,417

    Default Re: The information war

    You are such a bore about Corbyn

    You bend every topic on to the same track.
    "The republicans will draft your kids, poison the air and water, take away your social security and burn down black churches if elected." Gawain of Orkney

    Member thankful for this post:



  8. #8
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    5,889

    Default Re: The information war

    Quote Originally Posted by Idaho View Post
    You are such a bore about Corbyn

    You bend every topic on to the same track.
    You're the one talking about information, and blaming people telling lies. An example being the journalist who was surprised by the result of the Brexit vote, and trying to look for Leave supporters on social media, and finding that he could not, such being the nature of the closed circle. Corbyn's support is the most complete example of the closed circle I've seen, not just because of the social media focus, but because their support uses arguments that actively closes the circle. Any study of communication looks at the basic premise of a communicator and a listener. You're blaming the communicator. But what can be done when the listener actively filters out communication?

  9. #9
    Senior Member Senior Member Idaho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Exeter, England
    Posts
    6,417

    Default Re: The information war

    I'm blaming a journalist?

    You are missing the point. I'm not trying to make a partisan statement of who is right. I'm talking about the new age of information control.
    "The republicans will draft your kids, poison the air and water, take away your social security and burn down black churches if elected." Gawain of Orkney

  10. #10
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    14,642

    Default Re: The information war

    Lies!

    They're everywhere, lies, lies, lies!!!
    I can't trust any of you! I don't even know whether Pannonian makes everything about Corbyn anymore, he could be lying about mentioning Corbyn everytime he mentions him, or it could be ironic.
    Am I joking? How would I know? Is there any hard proof that cannot be dismissed? Do I know there is a sun or is that an optical illusion/object in the matrix?


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

    Members thankful for this post (2):



  11. #11
    Member Member Crandar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Alpine Subtundra
    Posts
    563

    Default Re: The information war

    Bana Alabed.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...esieged-aleppo
    The Guardian would have us believe that a 7-years old Syrian girl spend its time tweeting in English about how she was repeatedly about to get killed or how the Aleppo genocide was imminent.

    Like that black, American journalist who also prophetized a massacre that never happened.
    http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/ba...age-1093668593
    Now, he's reporting about the al-Jinah controversy, but the topic of the perpetrator is less comfortable, here.
    http://www.longwarjournal.org/archiv...k-in-syria.php

    Notice that the last activist of Aleppo waiting to die happened to be a nice-looking woman wearing hipster glasses.
    Totally representative of the Zenkhi beheaders of children and coincidentally very easy to identify with ther for the readers of embarrassments to journalism, like the clown McKernan.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7471641.html

    Should I expect an apology for him, since copy-pasting spamming in social media is a job even a kid could do?
    Last edited by Crandar; 03-17-2017 at 19:47.

  12. #12
    Member Member Greyblades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,035

    Default Re: The information war

    Are you feeling ok Idaho? You seem manic.
    Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.


    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
    Don't be scared that you don't freak out. Be scared when you don't care about freaking out
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  13. #13
    Member Member Shaka_Khan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,129

    Default Re: The information war

    I get the feeling that if the right wing governments fail, we won't see them rise again for a long time. I have little confidence in them because they based their aims and credibility on lies and possibility on themselves being misinformed. When looking at how the leaders got elected, a lot of it had to do with how the electors felt about the previous leaders.
    Wooooo!!!

  14. #14
    Senior Member Senior Member Idaho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Exeter, England
    Posts
    6,417

    Default Re: The information war

    Quote Originally Posted by Greyblades View Post
    Are you feeling ok Idaho? You seem manic.
    I do my best thinking when I'm manic.
    "The republicans will draft your kids, poison the air and water, take away your social security and burn down black churches if elected." Gawain of Orkney

    Member thankful for this post:



  15. #15
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    12,750

    Default Re: The information war

    Quote Originally Posted by Idaho View Post
    I'm blaming a journalist?

    You are missing the point. I'm not trying to make a partisan statement of who is right. I'm talking about the new age of information control.
    Oh really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Idaho View Post
    UKIP! An insignificant political party who had support from information brokers. Their one mp and his media backers blackmailed a weak tory government into a daft referendum. And the media backers pushed hard and won.
    Biggest UK party in the EU Parliament - until the 2010 election British media was almost entirely hostile - then they got a big chunk of the national vote.

    It's OK to have an agenda, it's not OK to lie about it - even to yourself.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    Member thankful for this post:



  16. #16
    Senior Member Senior Member Othello Champion Montmorency's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    8,710

    Default Re: The information war

    Who was hostile, and when? To what extent? In the written articles? The editorials? The televised coverage? In print? Online?

    I suggest that when you apply this term, "the media", in a judgement on coverage of issues or persons, without heavy qualification and a narrow focus you are simply bound to be misguided or just plain wrong.
    Vitiate Man.

  17. #17
    Ask Hooahguy (Not Here) Forum Administrator Beskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    No longer in Albion
    Posts
    15,359

    Default Re: The information war

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Who was hostile, and when? To what extent? In the written articles? The editorials? The televised coverage? In print? Online?

    I suggest that when you apply this term, "the media", in a judgement on coverage of issues or persons, without heavy qualification and a narrow focus you are simply bound to be misguided or just plain wrong.
    I am presuming you are referring to my post.

    It is actually addressing main-stream media (except Channel 4, probably), so BBC, Sky News, Daily Fail, The Sun, and all the other big money suspects you can imagine. Surprisingly, some of the traditional mainstream left like the Guardian simply dislike Corbyn themselves so sit in that zone where they dislike everything.

    Smaller left-wing blogs such as the Canary and Peter Stefanovic, etc are all supportive of Corbyn and used by his supporters. But a lot of what they report on, some of which is good reporting, is totally ignored on in the main-stream, or they fail to give adequate due attention to it.

    For example, the Conservative Election fraud. They fiddled and broke expenses limits, so they were able to spend a lot more money on campaigning than what they were allowed. This is a massive deal, and it was completely ignored by all mainstream media except for Channel 4, who were dogged on, determined to press for the investigation. It ended up being a £70,000 fine, a fraction fo what was spent and there wasn't by-elections in 23 seats affected as what it should be since it was electoral fraud. This would have been major if so, since Tories only have a majority of 11 and these were seats only won by 100 votes, etc, so big scope for political change especially as the Conservative party is divided too, if they could not retain their majority.

    It was only after Channel 4 pressed so far, and the court gave its verdict, the BBC, etc, begrudgingly gave the news about it. If you blinked, you would have missed it.
    Last edited by Beskar; 03-17-2017 at 23:38.
    "What makes something right or wrong?" | How to spot a Humanist
    "Men of Quality do not fear Equality." # | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs." RG

  18. #18
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    5,889

    Default Re: The information war

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Who was hostile, and when? To what extent? In the written articles? The editorials? The televised coverage? In print? Online?

    I suggest that when you apply this term, "the media", in a judgement on coverage of issues or persons, without heavy qualification and a narrow focus you are simply bound to be misguided or just plain wrong.
    The BBC is accused by both the Labour and Conservative parties as favouring the other side. Which should make it clear that it favours neither, but the more likely scenario is that it will face attacks whoever is in charge of the country. And this is the most respected news source in the world.

    If we can't settle on what news sources are respectable, then how do we ascertain what sources are reliable and what are not? Basic historiography, taught at all schools in the UK AFAICR, gives an answer that works for historians, who are used to working with incomplete pictures. Divide your sources into primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. While one must be wary of biases, one favours sources as close to the subject as possible, as they are most likely to know about the subject, and secondary etc. sources base their knowledge on primaries. Remember that, sources as close to the subject as possible.

    I refer you back to the Labour thread last year, where you had arguments against primary sources on the grounds that they were too close to the subject. Historians bear biases in mind when considering any source, but close proximity to a subject is never considered a negative, for obvious reasons. Yet you have this argument coming up, to invalidate a source on those grounds. Gove's statement during the Brexit campaign that this country has had enough of experts is idiotic enough, but the argument against primary sources dismisses the very basis of expertise.

    Lies can be disproven. But the casual dismissal of the means by which truth can be assessed is more insidious and damaging.

  19. #19
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    12,750

    Default Re: The information war

    Quote Originally Posted by Idaho View Post
    UKIP! An insignificant political party who had support from information brokers. Their one mp and his media backers blackmailed a weak tory government into a daft referendum. And the media backers pushed hard and won.
    Quote Originally Posted by Idaho View Post
    I'm blaming a journalist?

    You are missing the point. I'm not trying to make a partisan statement of who is right. I'm talking about the new age of information control.
    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Who was hostile, and when? To what extent? In the written articles? The editorials? The televised coverage? In print? Online?

    I suggest that when you apply this term, "the media", in a judgement on coverage of issues or persons, without heavy qualification and a narrow focus you are simply bound to be misguided or just plain wrong.
    He's referring to my post.

    Here's a rundown from 2013 which amounts to the BBC saying "sorry we wrote you off as cranks."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22396689

    Here's a report from 2005 painting them as such cranks: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...ge/4509943.stm

    "UKIP has threatened legal action to force an election re-run in a marginal seat in a dispute over a misleading Conservative election leaflet.

    They say a close result in the Somerton and Frome constituency "must be disputed"."

    And another: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...ge/4414563.stm

    Note the photoes used of then-leader Knapman.

    2008 in the wake of the financial crash: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ow/7678724.stm

    There you can see the BBC's historic Left-Wing bias. Funny how when the Beeb was biased in that direction Beskar was telling me it was actually fair and that "reality is slightly left-wing" but if I was now to suggest that there's no right-wing bias he would object strenuously.

    The British media, meaning TV, the big papers, was "hostile" to UKIP and the Toies in that they were not taken seriously until after 2010, after the Eurozone meltdown.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  20. #20
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    5,889

    Default Re: The information war

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    There you can see the BBC's historic Left-Wing bias. Funny how when the Beeb was biased in that direction Beskar was telling me it was actually fair and that "reality is slightly left-wing" but if I was now to suggest that there's no right-wing bias he would object strenuously.
    The BBC is historically conservative with a small c (hence its nickname of Auntie), but with liberal aspirations. In its news department (as opposed to its entertainment wing which got embroiled in scandal), it's expressed in a more rigorous respect than most for journalistic standards. It believes in these standards, which is a liberal trait, and it believes it has to live up to those standards, which is a conservative trait.

  21. #21
    Senior Member Senior Member Othello Champion Montmorency's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    8,710

    Default Re: The information war

    Quote Originally Posted by Beskar View Post
    I am presuming you are referring to my post.

    It is actually addressing main-stream media (except Channel 4, probably), so BBC, Sky News, Daily Fail, The Sun, and all the other big money suspects you can imagine. Surprisingly, some of the traditional mainstream left like the Guardian simply dislike Corbyn themselves so sit in that zone where they dislike everything.

    Smaller left-wing blogs such as the Canary and Peter Stefanovic, etc are all supportive of Corbyn and used by his supporters. But a lot of what they report on, some of which is good reporting, is totally ignored on in the main-stream, or they fail to give adequate due attention to it.

    For example, the Conservative Election fraud. They fiddled and broke expenses limits, so they were able to spend a lot more money on campaigning than what they were allowed. This is a massive deal, and it was completely ignored by all mainstream media except for Channel 4, who were dogged on, determined to press for the investigation. It ended up being a £70,000 fine, a fraction fo what was spent and there wasn't by-elections in 23 seats affected as what it should be since it was electoral fraud. This would have been major if so, since Tories only have a majority of 11 and these were seats only won by 100 votes, etc, so big scope for political change especially as the Conservative party is divided too, if they could not retain their majority.

    It was only after Channel 4 pressed so far, and the court gave its verdict, the BBC, etc, begrudgingly gave the news about it. If you blinked, you would have missed it.
    Well, not directly to your post, but sure.

    What makes you say that some sources are biased against Corbyn? What would it look like for an unbiased treatment, and how does it differ from current treatments? What exactly are current treatments, and how do we appraise them? If we could find that most of the "mainstream media" were biased against Corbyn the person, what else would that suggest about potential biases? Or would it suggest nothing at all?

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    He's referring to my post.

    Here's a rundown from 2013 which amounts to the BBC saying "sorry we wrote you off as cranks."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22396689

    Here's a report from 2005 painting them as such cranks: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...ge/4509943.stm

    "UKIP has threatened legal action to force an election re-run in a marginal seat in a dispute over a misleading Conservative election leaflet.

    They say a close result in the Somerton and Frome constituency "must be disputed"."

    And another: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...ge/4414563.stm

    Note the photoes used of then-leader Knapman.

    2008 in the wake of the financial crash: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ow/7678724.stm
    I don't think this is sufficient to make any judgement. It would be more straightforward if you could point to some editorial policy, or meta-review of BBC content.

    There you can see the BBC's historic Left-Wing bias. Funny how when the Beeb was biased in that direction Beskar was telling me it was actually fair and that "reality is slightly left-wing" but if I was now to suggest that there's no right-wing bias he would object strenuously.

    The British media, meaning TV, the big papers, was "hostile" to UKIP and the Toies in that they were not taken seriously until after 2010, after the Eurozone meltdown.
    Is that a because the BBC and the rest of the media suddenly have a right-wing bias? Or is it causative in a emerging right-wing bias?
    Vitiate Man.

  22. #22
    Ask Hooahguy (Not Here) Forum Administrator Beskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    No longer in Albion
    Posts
    15,359

    Default Re: The information war

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    There you can see the BBC's historic Left-Wing bias. Funny how when the Beeb was biased in that direction Beskar was telling me it was actually fair and that "reality is slightly left-wing" but if I was now to suggest that there's no right-wing bias he would object strenuously.
    That was Stephen Colbert - “It is a well known fact that reality has liberal bias.”

    Beeb is unusually supportive of this government, and it has gone downhill after Nick Robinson left and got replaced by Laura Kuenssberg. This is also measurable 234 YouGov. It is not unique and the YouGov ratings are rather telling.
    "What makes something right or wrong?" | How to spot a Humanist
    "Men of Quality do not fear Equality." # | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs." RG

  23. #23
    Ask Hooahguy (Not Here) Forum Administrator Beskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    No longer in Albion
    Posts
    15,359

    Default Re: The information war

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    What makes you say that some sources are biased against Corbyn? What would it look like for an unbiased treatment, and how does it differ from current treatments? What exactly are current treatments, and how do we appraise them? If we could find that most of the "mainstream media" were biased against Corbyn the person, what else would that suggest about potential biases? Or would it suggest nothing at all?
    Using above example of Laura Kuenssberg, she has breached imparity by the BBC's own watchdog on numerous occasions. This is done by misreporting statements he made, either in response to questions he was not answered, or paraphased poorly. Whilst Corbyn is not perfect and is flawed, there is a concerted effort to make him look worse by some outlets.

    Now lets look at when Jeremy Corbyn recently published his tax return. This was done become of the current Chancellor Phillip Hammond is earning over a million and fiddling the numbers. He point-blank refused to do so (as it would expose him), but Jeremy Corbyn posted his. What ensured Jeremy Corbyn being accused on lying and cheating on his tax return... except he didn't. But the news was not apologising over the matter and if you read that article and the wording used.. well... there is only one direction it is in, and it isn't just from the unflattering photo of Corbyn.

    I haven't even mentioned the fact Corbyn exposed the government of giving Surrey Council a sweet-heart deal, which the government repeatedly denied but was completely true, with records, letters, and everything leaked proving the fact.

    Now look at some of the major current scandal at the moment.
    Electoral expenses fraud... only Channel 4 was really bothering with this. Some reports from Independent, Mirror, etc.
    Department of Work & Pensions ‘Kill Yourself’ scandal -Not even touched by the BBC. Read more here or here or here.
    Treatment about Conservative's U-turn in the budget...

    List can go on, but sleep calls.

    Edit:
    Just noticed this on Guardian.. two headlines.
    Jeremy Corbyn 'absolutely fine' with second Scottish vote
    Jeremy Corbyn denies backing second Scottish independence vote

    This kind of back and forth is a constant affair...

    Edit 2:

    This made me laugh. Stephen Hawking gave a rather decent explanation for why Corbyn should stand down, no harm in that.
    Stephen Hawking has said Jeremy Corbyn should resign as Labour leader, adding that although he believes in many of his policies, he cannot win a general election.

    “I regard Corbyn as a disaster,” the renowned physicist told the Times. “His heart is in the right place and many of his policies are sound, but he has allowed himself to be portrayed as a leftwing extremist.”


    That is a objectively fair argument. Corbyn is protrayed as a extremist and constantly attacked for being so in the mainstream media. No issues so far....

    Then the opinion quote at the side of page:
    Even Stephen Hawking says Corbyn has failed. This is no rightwing conspiracy - Sam Glover

    It seems like Mr Glover cannot read.
    Stephen Hawking said the 'failure' was in the portrayal of coming across as an extremist, nothing to do with 'sound policies' and he has his heart in the right place.
    Then Mr Glover claps himself on the back, "There is no rightwing conspiracy!" he declares...!
    If so, then who is Stephen Hawking suggesting is portraying Jeremy Corbyn as said "left-wing extremist" ? It was the moomins.

    Tool.
    Last edited by Beskar; 03-18-2017 at 01:26.
    "What makes something right or wrong?" | How to spot a Humanist
    "Men of Quality do not fear Equality." # | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs." RG

  24. #24
    Senior Member Senior Member Othello Champion Montmorency's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    8,710

    Default Re: The information war

    Quote Originally Posted by Beskar View Post
    Using above example of Laura Kuenssberg, she has breached imparity by the BBC's own watchdog on numerous occasions. This is done by misreporting statements he made, either in response to questions he was not answered, or paraphased poorly. Whilst Corbyn is not perfect and is flawed, there is a concerted effort to make him look worse by some outlets.

    Now lets look at when Jeremy Corbyn recently published his tax return. This was done become of the current Chancellor Phillip Hammond is earning over a million and fiddling the numbers. He point-blank refused to do so (as it would expose him), but Jeremy Corbyn posted his. What ensured Jeremy Corbyn being accused on lying and cheating on his tax return... except he didn't. But the news was not apologising over the matter and if you read that article and the wording used.. well... there is only one direction it is in, and it isn't just from the unflattering photo of Corbyn.

    I haven't even mentioned the fact Corbyn exposed the government of giving Surrey Council a sweet-heart deal, which the government repeatedly denied but was completely true, with records, letters, and everything leaked proving the fact.

    Now look at some of the major current scandal at the moment.
    Electoral expenses fraud... only Channel 4 was really bothering with this. Some reports from Independent, Mirror, etc.
    Department of Work & Pensions ‘Kill Yourself’ scandal -Not even touched by the BBC. Read more here or here or here.
    Treatment about Conservative's U-turn in the budget...

    List can go on, but sleep calls.

    Edit:
    Just noticed this on Guardian.. two headlines.
    Jeremy Corbyn 'absolutely fine' with second Scottish vote
    Jeremy Corbyn denies backing second Scottish independence vote
    It seems to me your assessment of bias has more to do with your own interests and perceptions than any particular assessment of coverage. Especially with the last bit, you seem to be venturing into an epistemic framework like Fragony's, wherein something you come upon and deem significant does not receive as much attention as you feel it should, and this confirms both that the content is worthy of attention and that its not receiving attention elsewhere detracts from the credibility of other sources. Put that way, it will be unavoidable for these sources to be biased, since their bias is itself an expression of the single-issue publication you referenced and of your worldview. And that elides any granular consideration of how one source may differ on the same issues, or the same issue across many manifestations in the world, or the effect of timing and interaction with other contemporaneous coverage.
    Vitiate Man.

  25. #25
    Ask Hooahguy (Not Here) Forum Administrator Beskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    No longer in Albion
    Posts
    15,359

    Default Re: The information war

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    It seems to me your assessment of bias has more to do with your own interests and perceptions than any particular assessment of coverage. Especially with the last bit, you seem to be venturing into an epistemic framework like Fragony's, wherein something you come upon and deem significant does not receive as much attention as you feel it should, and this confirms both that the content is worthy of attention and that its not receiving attention elsewhere detracts from the credibility of other sources. Put that way, it will be unavoidable for these sources to be biased, since their bias is itself an expression of the single-issue publication you referenced and of your worldview. And that elides any granular consideration of how one source may differ on the same issues, or the same issue across many manifestations in the world, or the effect of timing and interaction with other contemporaneous coverage.
    Failings of the DWP are very evident and it is getting worse. Government suggested Anxiety being of effectively being made-up. As for singular source, I pointed to multiple. But I guess it is okay for other media organisations to report on it, including the Independent.

    Even if you take my personal and professional considerations for Mental Health out of the equation, that was only one issue out of 6 I mentioned. I have no love for Corbyn and I don't vote Labour except the only single occasion in 2007 since they were a friend and never won anyway. This Doesn't mean I haven't noticed a bias in general.

    Therefore I disagree with your argument. There are significant differences in the parallels.
    Last edited by Beskar; 03-18-2017 at 01:35.
    "What makes something right or wrong?" | How to spot a Humanist
    "Men of Quality do not fear Equality." # | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs." RG

  26. #26
    Ni dieu ni maître! Senior Member a completely inoffensive name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    I live on the org, feeding off of what few thanks are tossed at my posts. It is up to you to make sure I don't starve.
    Posts
    8,056

    Default Re: The information war

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    It seems to me your assessment of bias has more to do with your own interests and perceptions than any particular assessment of coverage. Especially with the last bit, you seem to be venturing into an epistemic framework like Fragony's, wherein something you come upon and deem significant does not receive as much attention as you feel it should, and this confirms both that the content is worthy of attention and that its not receiving attention elsewhere detracts from the credibility of other sources. Put that way, it will be unavoidable for these sources to be biased, since their bias is itself an expression of the single-issue publication you referenced and of your worldview. And that elides any granular consideration of how one source may differ on the same issues, or the same issue across many manifestations in the world, or the effect of timing and interaction with other contemporaneous coverage.
    Is this even English
    In all these papers we see a love of honest work, an aversion to shams, a caution in the enunciation of conclusions, a distrust of rash generalizations and speculations based on uncertain premises. He was never anxious to add one more guess on doubtful matters in the hope of hitting the truth, or what might pass as such for a time, but was always ready to take infinite pains in the most careful testing of every theory. With these qualities was united a modesty which forbade the pushing of his own claims and desired no reputation except the unsought tribute of competent judges.
    Member thankful for this post: ICantSpellDawg

  27. #27
    Senior Member Senior Member Othello Champion Montmorency's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    8,710

    Default Re: The information war

    Quote Originally Posted by Beskar View Post
    Failings of the DWP are very evident and it is getting worse. Government suggested Anxiety being of effectively being made-up. As for singular source, I pointed to multiple. But I guess it is okay for other media organisations to report on it, including the Independent.

    Even if you take my personal and professional considerations for Mental Health out of the equation. I have no love for Corbyn and I don't vote Labour, and the only single occasion was in 2007. Doesn't mean I haven't noticed a bias in general.
    But notice, the link here appears to report on something rather different. So are deficiencies in this department not receiving appropriate coverage? Or is it the specific "kill yourself" angle that you are concerned about? You have to distinguish.

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    Is this even English
    What's up?
    Vitiate Man.

  28. #28
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    5,889

    Default Re: The information war

    Quote Originally Posted by Beskar View Post
    Edit 2:

    This made me laugh. Stephen Hawking gave a rather decent explanation for why Corbyn should stand down, no harm in that.
    Stephen Hawking has said Jeremy Corbyn should resign as Labour leader, adding that although he believes in many of his policies, he cannot win a general election.

    “I regard Corbyn as a disaster,” the renowned physicist told the Times. “His heart is in the right place and many of his policies are sound, but he has allowed himself to be portrayed as a leftwing extremist.”


    That is a objectively fair argument. Corbyn is protrayed as a extremist and constantly attacked for being so in the mainstream media. No issues so far....

    Then the opinion quote at the side of page:
    Even Stephen Hawking says Corbyn has failed. This is no rightwing conspiracy - Sam Glover

    It seems like Mr Glover cannot read.
    Stephen Hawking said the 'failure' was in the portrayal of coming across as an extremist, nothing to do with 'sound policies' and he has his heart in the right place.
    Then Mr Glover claps himself on the back, "There is no rightwing conspiracy!" he declares...!
    If so, then who is Stephen Hawking suggesting is portraying Jeremy Corbyn as said "left-wing extremist" ? It was the moomins.

    Tool.
    The Guardian has a history of publishing opinion pieces by writers of all parts of the political spectrum. Even far rightists, and in the case of Paul Mason and Seumas Milne (the latter being a full time Guardian writer at one point), Corbyn's inner circle. Opinion pieces are opinion pieces, to be judged on the same historiographical standards that I described above.

  29. #29
    Ask Hooahguy (Not Here) Forum Administrator Beskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    No longer in Albion
    Posts
    15,359

    Default Re: The information war

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    But notice, the link here appears to report on something rather different. So are deficiencies in this department not receiving appropriate coverage? Or is it the specific "kill yourself" angle that you are concerned about? You have to distinguish.
    It is the broader deficiencies on multiple levels. There are multiple stories about different areas. There is even another one where it costs more in denying and being superstringent due to multiple assessments, back-pay and so on, than what is actually being 'saved' by implementing a Dickensian era style process. The kill yourself scandel which is supported from multiple sources was just another drop which was recent and recalled from memory.

    BBC is significantly more focused on Trump than anything domestic which shows current government in a bad light.

    Another example, unrelated to DWP. Northern Ireland had a recent election where the Unionist parties for the first time ever does not have its historical majority. Given the gravity of this affair, would it be on prime time UK politics show that day..? Nope, it was UKIP.

    I just did a google search now. Look at these press titles, then look at the BBCs.
    http://imgur.com/JG65HNr
    http://imgur.com/OGeBLqg

    You have to admit that is amusing.
    Last edited by Beskar; 03-18-2017 at 01:58.
    "What makes something right or wrong?" | How to spot a Humanist
    "Men of Quality do not fear Equality." # | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs." RG

  30. #30
    Senior Member Senior Member Othello Champion Montmorency's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    8,710

    Default Re: The information war

    Quote Originally Posted by Beskar View Post
    It is the broader deficiencies on multiple levels. There are multiple stories about different areas. There is even another one where it costs more in denying and being superstringent due to multiple assessments, back-pay and so on, than what is actually being 'saved' by implementing a Dickensian era style process. The kill yourself scandel which is supported from multiple sources was just another drop which was recent and recalled from memory.

    BBC is significantly more focused on Trump than anything domestic which shows current government in a bad light.
    How do you assess that? Television or radio airtime? Gross count of articles or videos headlining Trump over time? Front page or 'top story' coverage?

    What I'm getting at is how one may think of a source as biased, or conceive of bias in itself, is inadequate without a clear and robust metric. Is an article or piece of content biased, and how can we tell? If so, how do you use it to reflect on an entire stream of coverage over time, or a series of streams that may be thematically or otherwise linked? If you identify some bias, what is it in fact a bias for or against?

    Another example, unrelated to DWP. Northern Ireland had a recent election where the Unionist parties for the first time ever does not have its historical majority. Given the gravity of this affair, would it be on prime time UK politics show that day..? Nope, it was UKIP.

    I just did a google search now. Look at these press titles, then look at the BBCs.
    http://imgur.com/JG65HNr
    http://imgur.com/OGeBLqg

    You have to admit that is amusing.
    So what is it, one similar headline per site? Why is something like this what you use to make a judgement of bias?
    Vitiate Man.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO