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

Quote:

---

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".

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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 :laugh4:

The pro Corbyn echo chamber is, however, a good example of a defensive niche. But it's a dead end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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.

You are such a bore about Corbyn :laugh4:

You bend every topic on to the same track.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

You are such a bore about Corbyn :laugh4:

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?

I'm blaming a journalist? :confused:

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.

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. :dizzy2: :sweatdrop:
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? :inquisitive:

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?

Are you feeling ok Idaho? You seem manic.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Are you feeling ok Idaho? You seem manic.

---

I do my best thinking when I'm manic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

I'm blaming a journalist? :confused:

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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

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

I'm blaming a journalist? :confused:

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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

Is this even English

---

What's up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

What's up?

---

You use too many big words when smaller words make me learn better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

You use too many big words when smaller words make me learn better.

---

I don't even remember what words I used. Let's bring out the lede: bias is unlimited since the process of assessing bias is hopelessly biased. And it isn't even a case where you can be blind to your own bias while cognizant of another's bias - you'll be mostly blind both to your own biases and to those of others, fixating on whatever intimations are salient at any given moment.

There isn't even a point singling anyone out, it just becomes a harsh reminder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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.

---

unscathed from who? the electorate, or the press?
I assume you really mean the electorate, as expressed in the constant trend of opinion polls in the last year.

this presumes that it is substantially the press that leads opinion of the public, rather than the other way around.
it is certainly true that both influence the other, but I could never support the opinion above as it makes representative democracy a pointless sham, and the conception of individual autonomy a bitter dream.
in this view of the world we are nothing more than a bee colony, to be herded around by political 'pheromones' in pursuit of the queens greater plan.

i say this as an admirer of The Righteous Mind, in the understanding that much of what we perceive as Logic is no more than post-facto justification of subconscious intuition. i say this also as an admirer of 5th Gen Warfare, in the understanding that societal change can be effected by sophisticated psy-ops, and that elements of this have crept in to recent political campaigns.

perhaps i can accept this dualism because at a fundamental level i trust my subconscious intuition, as I trust my ability to take an interest in a subject sufficiently that my grasp of the essential problem is an effective framework for that intuition to work upon.

and I expect every other member of the electorate to act in the same way (leaving the choice of what they choose to take an interest in entirely up to them).
the franchise is given to adults of legally sound mind, i expect them to use that acquired wisdom and render judgement on matters of import.

so, dialling this back to the topic at hand; yes, life is difficult when lies are told and dissimulation is endemic. deal with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

so, dialling this back to the topic at hand; yes, life is difficult when lies are told and dissimulation is endemic. deal with it.

---

Deal with it by discussing the topic? Good idea!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

So what is it, one similar headline per site? Why is something like this what you use to make a judgement of bias?

---

Spur of moment amusement from a simple google search. As I said,it was amusing.

I found this video of a deconstruction of the BBC Report on Labour's policy to provide free school meals by putting VAT on Private Schools.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZGw28inrkI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I found this video of a deconstruction of the BBC Report on Labour's policy to provide free school meals by putting VAT on Private Schools.

---

Google the author.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Google the author.

---

Doesn't negate the terrible reporting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Doesn't negate the terrible reporting.

---

Someone who's made a career of peddling Jewish conspiracy theories now makes a video peddling MSM conspiracy theory. If you reckon he's a good spokesman for Corbyn, good for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Someone who's made a career of peddling Jewish conspiracy theories now makes a video peddling MSM conspiracy theory. If you reckon he's a good spokesman for Corbyn, good for you.

---

I like how you are not even talking or referring to the content of the broadcast or the policy being advocated. I think everyone here knows you dislike Corbyn so you can safely move away from saying how bad he is, without the constant reminder.

The policy was actually advocated by Nick Clegg in the coalition days. It is not unique for Corbyn and it is actually a rather decent one. The pilots have been very positive and shown significant improvements. It is also a current policy within the Scottish government.

Are you going to discuss it or continue to ignore it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I like how you are not even talking or referring to the content of the broadcast or the policy being advocated. I think everyone here knows you dislike Corbyn so you can safely move away from saying how bad he is, without the constant reminder.

The policy was actually advocated by Nick Clegg in the coalition days. It is not unique for Corbyn and it is actually a rather decent one. The pilots have been very positive and shown significant improvements. It is also a current policy within the Scottish government.

Are you going to discuss it or continue to ignore it?

---

If you're just going to post a video and pretend it's worthwhile discussion, why not link to the article which that video is part of? Note: The Canary, which the author is a regular columnist for, and which is known as the left wing version of Breitbart or whatever extreme right loonrag you care to name. And yeah, the author has been on RT as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

If you're just going to post a video and pretend it's worthwhile discussion, why not link to the article which that video is part of? Note: The Canary, which the author is a regular columnist for, and which is known as the left wing version of Breitbart or whatever extreme right loonrag you care to name. And yeah, the author has been on RT as well.

---

Only saw the video myself, but you still not commented further on it. I don't particularly care about the person who put the video on YouTube or even about Corbyn himself. It doesn't still change the fact of the BBC reported as they did on the policy subject. It still doesn't change the fact you haven't commented on the BBC report or the policy itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Only saw the video myself, but you still not commented further on it. I don't particularly care about the person who put the video on YouTube or even about Corbyn himself. It doesn't still change the fact of the BBC reported as they did on the policy subject. It still doesn't change the fact you haven't commented on the BBC report or the policy itself.

---

The video, and your post, is about the tone of the report. And whatever their failings, the BBC has far more credibility than the likes of The Canary and Russia Today whom the video's author pundits for. I'm not going to be lectured to by one of their shills.