rmanx Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 That'll be the day! Hahah you believe that don't you... Other than its obvious Pro-Israel, Pro-Brexit, Anti-Immigrant, Pro-Establishment bias...etc etc etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 That'll be the day! Hahah you believe that don't you... Other than its obvious Pro-Israel, Pro-Brexit, Anti-Immigrant, Pro-Establishment bias...etc etc etc Sorry. I thought we were talking about the BBC. Who are you referring to? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 So what do you disagree with below? It seems totally uncontroversial to me as an observation. The bit where you said "we have no way of knowing", and that nobody could say with certainty. Scientists seem to think that they do have ways of knowing. And lots do actually say what's happening with certainty. At least, as much certainty as the scientific community will ever give. There's overwhelming consensus on the big picture of what's happening, and why it's happening. You also claim it's "not unprecedented" and cyclical, and while climate change itself obviously is not unprecedented, that statement ignores the predictions they're making of unprecedented speed of change. And yes I agree that nothing is likely to change, especially with the likes of Trump running the show, which is why I brought it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarne Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 http://news.sky.com/story/gang-films-torture-of-man-with-special-needs-on-facebook-live-10718364 Jesus wept, black people can be evil! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 http://news.sky.com/story/gang-films-torture-of-man-with-special-needs-on-facebook-live-10718364 Jesus wept, black people can be evil! The irony in your post is staggering... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 http://news.sky.com/story/gang-films-torture-of-man-with-special-needs-on-facebook-live-10718364 Jesus wept, black people can be evil! Bad Tarne! You should know by now. Only white people are racist. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 At least, as much certainty as the scientific community will ever give. You said it. Six scientists. Six opinions. Except for Einstein. He was brilliant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 http://news.sky.com/story/gang-films-torture-of-man-with-special-needs-on-facebook-live-10718364 Jesus wept, black people can be evil! Bad Tarne! You should know by now. Only white people are racist. The blithering fool labelled all black people as evil....that is the text book definition of racism. Now if he had said "Those particular people are evil" then that would be okay, because evil is not a defining attribute of any race, gender, religion or nationality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 At least, as much certainty as the scientific community will ever give.You said it. Six scientists. Six opinions. Yes, I was going to add that that is the bit people often latch onto. Scientists acknowledge the bits they don't know. It's a part of the process, and somehow seen as a weakness by those who don't understand. At least, as much certainty as the scientific community will ever give.Except for Einstein. He was brilliant. I'm sure he'd be honoured with your approval. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 (edited) The BBC has a left leaning agenda that it pushes remorselessly and this is also a form of manipulation. The BBC is only ever accused of bias by people who are a long way from any sort of political centre. Hence it comes under fire equally from both extremes. Left - right is meaningless except as a relative comparison - ie relative to where to centre ground is at any particular time. In general Britain is very much more economically liberal than it was 50 years ago. But much more progressive on some social issues - eg it was a Conservative lead coalition which introduced gay marriage. Edited January 5, 2017 by pongo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 At least, as much certainty as the scientific community will ever give.You said it. Six scientists. Six opinions. Yes, I was going to add that that is the bit people often latch onto. Scientists acknowledge the bits they don't know. It's a part of the process, and somehow seen as a weakness by those who don't understand. At least, as much certainty as the scientific community will ever give.Except for Einstein. He was brilliant. I'm sure he'd be honoured with your approval. I thought that too as I typed it. What a coincidence. Great minds think alike. (You, me and Einstein. ) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 i have already asked you once before for a list of your "credible" non fake news sites pongo. i would be prepared to at least read them. how about it? Russia has no tradition of a free press. Journalists live under permanent threat and the Russian media exists only with the permission of those in power. Sputnik News and Russia Today are effectively part of the same state organisation. Their purpose is to undermine and confuse factual reporting. Media, in the Soviet Union, was a tool of dictatorship and control - a tradition which continues today on the internet - eg the well known Russian troll factories which daily churn out fake news stories, forum comments, abusive social media posts etc. Effort to Expose Russia’s ‘Troll Army’ Draws Vicious Retaliation - New York Times Responsible and trustworthy media is typically characterised by reputation and a strong tradition of editorial experience and integrity. It’s about being able to trust the way in which sources and stories, even if unattributed, are carefully verified and contextualised before responsible publication. That whole tradition of separate sources. If you want a list of trustworthy US media then you could do worse than look at which organisations have won Pulitzers over the past century. You want to know that someone thought long and hard about a thing before publishing it - rather than doing it to cause trouble or for giggles. In the UK - the BBC, The FT and The Economist, for example, clearly all provide responsible and trustworthy reporting, analysis and commentary. Inevitably there are mistakes - but the fact that the BBC, for example, is so frequently criticised from both left and right is a strong indication that the balance is approximately right. Internationally there are countless news agencies and publications with similar standing and deserved reputation. The media is an establishment - in the best possible sense of that word. Media should be an establishment, something with codes and traditions. The brightest and best educated should be informing debate - in the same way that the brightest and the best educated should be running the great departments of govt and The City. Conspiracy theorists, contrarians and political extremists dismiss established practice and tradition as the mainstream media. As if "mainstream" were somehow a pejorative. As if there were anything wise about instead believing unaccredited rumour, non-expert opinion, the pub bore, Twitter noise, what someone said on Facebook, Julian Assange etc. It's like trusting witch-doctors instead of going to the hospital. There is a strong case today for verified reporting and analysis to carry some independent mark of standard and integrity - perhaps something like an ISO. It’s not that mad free speech, conspiracy nonsense, or made up news should not be allowed - just that such content should not be reported as if it were produced to a reliable standard. It should be clear that sites reporting such content cannot be trusted. — One of Putin’s closest advisors is Vladislav Yuryevich Surkov In contemporary Russia … the stage is constantly changing: the country is a dictatorship in the morning, a democracy at lunch, an oligarchy by suppertime, while, backstage, oil companies are expropriated, journalists killed, billions siphoned away. Surkov is at the centre of the show, sponsoring nationalist skinheads one moment, backing human rights groups the next. It's a strategy of power based on keeping any opposition there may be constantly confused, a ceaseless shape-shifting that is unstoppable because it's indefinable. — Peter Pomerantsev, in "Putin's Rasputin", London Review of Books issue of 20 October 2011 a simple no would have sufficed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 Pongo likes the detail. A good post it was too. Albeit a tad exhaustive... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 so i have got the bbc, the financial times and the economist? i have got a telly but i'm not sure they sell the others in andreas shop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 a simple no would have sufficed I have suggested the BBC, The Economist and the FT. Also The New York Times and The Atlantic for feature pieces. For daily news I listen most days to The Globalist on Monocle 24. France24 is an excellent TV news channel when something big is happening. I haven't looked at it for a while. But the Christian Science Monitor is often very good. That might seem surprising. i'm not sure they sell the others in andreas shop Don't you have the internet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.