Bbc : Biased Broadcasting Corporation

[Tyke02]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

A good example of this is the interview I heard with the French politician (the one Tykes says never happened) :

...and this is a good example of your distortion.  I didn't say it never happened, but I'm not going to blindly accept your account of it immediately after I've found that what you said about that Harford programme was wide of the mark. With evidence😁

[Chekhov]

4 minutes ago, Tyke02 said:

If your england/scotland mask thing had been circulating equally widely they might have looked at that too, with I can assure you similar results.

If you want to campaign about future policy, then you really need to put together more credible arguments, as the fact that you can't see the confounding factors in the england scotland comparison that mean it doesn't prove anything will have people disregarding the rest of your output.

 

OK, tell me, why would the fact that masked Scotland and Wales (both parts of the same country as England) having worse Covid figures than unmasked England, not prove that masks cannot have a significant effect on Covid transmission ? 

[Tyke02]

20 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

The story did appear on the Beeb News front page. All of the featured items on there are just links to where the full story is.

E.g. a major story featured on the front page  today is :

 

Channel crossings: Dozens of Albanian child migrants go missing

 

The actual story is in Kent local news.

OK, I see the albanian story too, so probably not an algorithm.  Maybe the archive version was just a different time of the day.

20 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

 >>or whether there's an algorithm at work based on subjects you've looked at in the past<<

 

I can only say that the Beeb never mentioned that in their reply to me, which would have been a good get out for them, so one would think either that that cannot be the case, or the Beeb's feedback department aren't doing their job properly.

I suspect that they have a number of standard responses, and have enough complaints like yours to have one that seems to address the issue without mentioning content, so only a quick cut and paste needed to reply and get on with the rest of the mailbox.  I doubt if they are given the staffing to be able to produce considered individual responses if it looks like a standard one will fit, particularly for serial complainers.

18 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

OK, tell me, why would the fact that masked Scotland and Wales (both parts of the same country as England) having worse Covid figures than unmasked England, not prove that masks cannot have a significant effect on Covid transmission ? 

Many people have already done this, you just reject the answers.  

 

For example:

 

Edited December 3, 2022 by Tyke02

[Chekhov]

22 minutes ago, Tyke02 said:

 I've found that what you said about that Harford programme was wide of the mark. With evidence😁

In your opinion.

Harford was arguing, implying at the very least, that comorbidities were not that significant.

I note, unless I have missed it, that you did not answer the point about the presenter of a statistics programme personalising a story to bypass people's logic circuits. And bypassing people's logic circuits whilst personalising public health policy was, of course, most of the reason they ended up shutting down society for a virus which 99% of people were surviving and the average age of death was in the 80s. Public health policy is about the number of life years saved v the cost. And any possible number of saved live with suppression would not have qualified under the NHS QALY criteria. And that is before we start taking lost years off, e.g. of cancer victims with late diagnosis.

 

15 minutes ago, Tyke02 said:

>>Chekhov said OK, tell me, why would the fact that masked Scotland and Wales (both parts of the same country as England) having worse Covid figures than unmasked England, not prove that masks cannot have a significant effect on Covid transmission ? <<

 

Many people have already done this, you just reject the answers.  

No they haven't.

 

This is the post you linked to and it is not "an answer" :

 

Instead of mistakenly reducing complex situations in different countries down to a single variable, why not spend some time reading some of the papers that I have linked to in this thread. 

Edited December 3, 2022 by Chekhov

[trastrick]

1 hour ago, Hecate said:

New York Times article from 2020: A Popular Political Site Made a Sharp Right Turn. What Steered It?

 

What happened?  RCP's always Conservative-leaning owners apparently fired a shed load of their journalists, replaced them with Conservative writers, including some who had worked for the Republican Party, took up with The Federalist, and took in massive amounts of $$$$ from Republican mega-donors.

 

RCP is only 'politically balanced' post-2016 to those whose judgement has been blunted by  years of lapping up Tucker Carlson's and Sean Hannity's brand of political balance.

If anyone has any respect at all for democracy, they should accept that citizens have a right to turn to news outlets they trust.

 

After 6 years of the MSM's breathless reporting of one failed Trump hoax after another, it is only natural that people are turning in droves to outlets like Fox and RealClear for the other side of the story.

 

There's always 2 sides, unless you are some kind of religious nutcase, or blind political partisan, who truly believe they and they only, possess the only divine truth, and all others are "irredeemable deplorables". who "lap up"  any view that contradicts their own.  

 

People who express such views are either gullible or intentionally obtuse.

 

In any event they are actually a danger to democracy, as shown in the wars of the last century, and today (again) in the latest War in Europe!

 

But in the "what happened?" category, people are turning away from the one sided, leftist view of political issues, and opting for change.

 

To whit: Pelosi and crowd ousted from Congress, and the once revered CNN, scrambling to remain relevant in the post-"Russian Collusion" era and all the other failed hoaxes, they pushed on to their trusting audience, for 6 years.

 

Latest Cable News Ratings bear this out:

 

"Fox News Channel coasted to a first-place finish in the October cable news ratings, sweeping the top five most-watched prime time shows for the month and delivering an average prime time audience of 2.292 million viewers. MSNBC finished second in prime with 1.177 million viewers, followed by CNN, which failed to break one million, delivering just 624,000 viewers"

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2022/11/01/fox-news-finishes-first-again-in-october-cable-news-ratings-as-msnbc-drops-20-in-prime-time

 

See also:

 

New York Post

" CNN layoffs loom as Chris Licht warns staffers shakeup ‘will accelerate"

 

Seems nobody's buying their product anymore!

 

"The times, they are a changin' " - Bob Dylan "

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 3, 2022 by trastrick

[Chekhov]

13 minutes ago, Tyke02 said:

...and this is a good example of your distortion.  I didn't say it never happened, but I'm not going to blindly accept your account of it 

Anyone who listened to the Beeb over the pandemic will know that BBC interviewers rarely, if ever, questioned the basic premise of vaccine passports, or masks come to that, when interviewing anyone. So my story is consistent with that. TBH a BBC interviewer actually asking the interviewee searching questions over vaccine passports policy, or mask policy come to that, would have been news worthy. It almost never happened.

This is more typical :

 

 I remember vividly the day facemasks became mandatory. The Beeb did a load of Vox pops (crap journalism anyway,  but there we go) and nobody they chose to interview said "I hate wearing a facemask and I do not want to do so", despite most people saying that at the time and since. The nearest they came was one woman stating "I don't like it but if it'll help I don't mind". Quite apart from anything that was implying that facemasks were a proven effective means of suppressing Covid, which has never been  the case. 

[Tyke02]

9 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

In your opinion.

... supported with evidence.  See the difference?

10 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Harford was arguing, implying at the very least, that comorbidities were not that significant.

Isn't evidence that covid was regarded as the underlying cause of death in 80-90% of people enough to support that.  Don't bother to tell me again you don't believe in death certificates when the 17,000 number you have been banging on about comes from, guess where?

 

21 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

I note, unless I have missed it, that you did not answer the point about the presenter of a statistics programme personalising a story to bypass people's logic circuits.

I didn't hear it that way.  I can see though that you would be looking for any way to avoid accepting the logic of the arguments presented which are strong enough to stand alone anyway.

24 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

This is the post you linked to and it is not "an answer" :

 

Instead of mistakenly reducing complex situations in different countries down to a single variable, why not spend some time reading some of the papers that I have linked to in this thread. 

See, I said you couldn't see the problem with your approach and would reject anything that might help you to understand it.

[Tyke02]

18 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Anyone who listened to the Beeb over the pandemic will know that BBC interviewers rarely, if ever, questioned the basic premise of vaccine passports, or masks come to that, when interviewing anyone. So my story is consistent with that. TBH a BBC interviewer actually asking the interviewee searching questions over vaccine passports policy, or mask policy come to that, would have been news worthy. It almost never happened.

This is more typical :

 

 I remember vividly the day facemasks became mandatory. The Beeb did a load of Vox pops (crap journalism anyway,  but there we go) and nobody they chose to interview said "I hate wearing a facemask and I do not want to do so", despite most people saying that at the time and since. The nearest they came was one woman stating "I don't like it but if it'll help I don't mind". Quite apart from anything that was implying that facemasks were a proven effective means of suppressing Covid, which has never been  the case. 

...and so we jump to the next horse in the never ending merry go round of cut and paste...

[trastrick]

2 hours ago, Magilla said:

Exists already. The BBC commercial arm.

Well, let's hear it for no more wireless license fees!

 

It's been a long time coming! 

 

[RollingJ]

25 minutes ago, trastrick said:

Well, let's hear it for no more wireless license fees!

 

It's been a long time coming! 

 

There haven't been 'wireless licences' for a good few years.