[hrothgar]

fromageGB, on 2019-November-05, 05:51, said:

I could say the same about USA television news channels. CNN is 100% Trump bashing, Fox is 100% Trump praising, or so it seemed to me EVERY TIME I flicked through channels. At least in the UK I can watch BBC if I want a Guardian equivalent, or Sky or RT for a more balanced view, or Al Jazeera or RT when I want more world-wide news.

Question: When you say RT, do you mean Russia Today?

Comment 1: Television "news" is pretty piss poor in the US. The PBS Newshour is one of the few things worth watching.

Comment 2: If you want a decent news source, your best choice these days is probably still online versions of print.

I recent cancelled my subscription to the NYT over their editorial coverage, however, I find that a mixture of The New York Review of Books and The Atlantic is a reasonable substitute. There are also some good podcasts.

[Cyberyeti]

Zelandakh, on 2019-November-05, 06:51, said:

The BBC as "a pro-Labour pro-remain propaganda organ". Now I have heard everything.

Varies by network, I actually rarely watch TV, but on the radio, I believe radio 4 is centre right, but radio 5 which I listen to and tends to have presenters aged around 40 is very much centre left (but not necessarily pro Corbyn) pro remain.

[PeterAlan]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-November-05, 05:40, said:

Have you really read it much, there are loads of "a source close to the Brexit team say ...." or "a source in Tory HQ ..." which are UTTERLY implausible for them to get, as they would be VERY unlikely to have sources there, and those sources would be much more likely to go to a less left wing paper (the Times for example which has been pro remain).

Also the "There is a chance Brexit could do ..." stories where the chance is like 0.000001% but it will scare people, and they'll present it like it's a decent chance.

This still reads to me as a bunch of assertions without any real evidence being adduced. I think that you need much firmer ground before accusing reputable journalists of making up stories.

I too am a homeless centrist (and much more Radio 4 than Radio 5), but the main difference between us, I suspect, is that I am firmly pro-remain whereas I have the strong impression that you are not. You suggest that I haven't "really read it [The Guardian] much"; in fact, I read the online edition most days, and buy the paper edition from time to time, as I do The Times. I thought that the The Times' relatively balanced pro-remain stance on Brexit was appropriate pre-referendum; since then, it seems to me to have trimmed somewhat and editorially to be insufficiently critical of the various positions that both the successive governments and the opposition have put forward.

[Winstonm]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-November-05, 05:40, said:

Have you really read it much, there are loads of "a source close to the Brexit team say ...." or "a source in Tory HQ ..." which are UTTERLY implausible for them to get, as they would be VERY unlikely to have sources there, and those sources would be much more likely to go to a less left wing paper (the Times for example which has been pro remain).

Also the "There is a chance Brexit could do ..." stories where the chance is like 0.000001% but it will scare people, and they'll present it like it's a decent chance.

Although I share your displeasure with the state of news reporting in this era of infotainment vs news, I am more concerned with single source reporting (which is not journalistic) than with unnamed sources.

Perhaps that is because I am old enough to have lived through Watergate here in the U.S. but the emphasis should not be on what is reported but whether or not the editor and editorial decisions can be trusted. The journalistic decision about a story should be determined by whether or not it can be confirmed by a second source; if not, no story.

It is a matter of trust. I don't get to hear grand jury testimony. I have to trust the legal system. If a news story is run, I have to made a decision whether or not to trust the outlet that is reporting that news.

It is much more difficult today than it was 45 years ago. Once bias is allowed systemically into journalism, all journalism becomes opinion. That is a shame.

[Cyberyeti]

PeterAlan, on 2019-November-05, 07:57, said:

This still reads to me as a bunch of assertions without any real evidence being adduced. I think that you need much firmer ground before accusing reputable journalists of making up stories.

I too am a homeless centrist (and much more Radio 4 than Radio 5), but the main difference between us, I suspect, is that I am firmly pro-remain whereas I have the strong impression that you are not. You suggest that I haven't "really read it [The Guardian] much"; in fact, I read the online edition most days, and buy the paper edition from time to time, as I do The Times. I thought that the The Times' relatively balanced pro-remain stance on Brexit was appropriate pre-referendum; since then, it seems to me to have trimmed somewhat and editorially to be insufficiently critical of the various positions that both the successive governments and the opposition have put forward.

I should add, that I only see the Guardian when people link stories to FB and since the people who do it are rabidly pro remain and anti-Tory, those are the only stories I tend to see.

My degree is in essence in statistics, so bad use of stats also irks me and is common (plus asking the wrong questions in surveys and then thinking the results mean anything).

I thought Brexit was a 50:50 call (I did vote but haven't revealed how) so vowed to back whichever side won the referendum, so I am now a Brexiteer.

I rarely read newspapers, but when I do, tends to be the Times or if I can't get that the i. I have radio 5 on not quite all my waking hours, but pretty much whenever I'm not listening to music or playing bridge.

[Cyberyeti]

PeterAlan, on 2019-November-05, 07:57, said:

This still reads to me as a bunch of assertions without any real evidence being adduced. I think that you need much firmer ground before accusing reputable journalists of making up stories.

I too am a homeless centrist (and much more Radio 4 than Radio 5), but the main difference between us, I suspect, is that I am firmly pro-remain whereas I have the strong impression that you are not. You suggest that I haven't "really read it [The Guardian] much"; in fact, I read the online edition most days, and buy the paper edition from time to time, as I do The Times. I thought that the The Times' relatively balanced pro-remain stance on Brexit was appropriate pre-referendum; since then, it seems to me to have trimmed somewhat and editorially to be insufficiently critical of the various positions that both the successive governments and the opposition have put forward.

OK, concrete example. https://www.theguard...BBhEsVeTY96clzA

What they don't tell you (and the BBC did) is that this is a document that has been routinely produced for pretty much every election other than the last one, although usually earlier than this in the process.

[PeterAlan]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-November-05, 18:14, said:

OK, concrete example. https://www.theguard...BBhEsVeTY96clzA

What they don't tell you (and the BBC did) is that this is a document that has been routinely produced for pretty much every election other than the last one, although usually earlier than this in the process.

Both articles make clear that this has been done in the past, but not in the period immediately before the election, which apparently was the basis for the objection. I don't think that a comparison of the articles supports your contention that the Guardian is trying to hide anything:

BBC News website said:

One government insider ... said it was an "established process" for a government to cost opposition policies in this way.

And previous Conservative and Labour Governments have indeed done this ahead of general elections and referendums, although there was not time to do this in 2017.

It has not in recent years been done days before the "purdah" period where civil servants are strictly restricted in their actions.

The opposition said it was a "scandal" and that the government had been caught "red handed" using civil servants in this way so close to an election, and at a time when the government has chosen not to do an economic assessment of its own landmark policy - the new Brexit deal.

Guardian article said:

McDonnell said he warned the civil service that the Conservatives’ exercise was an abuse of power, telling the Independent: “I said first of all… you do not know what is in the manifesto so that is pure speculation. Secondly, this being done within hours of the formal campaign being undertaken. Thirdly, I think it’s an abuse of power.”

He added: “I’m happy for anyone to examine our policies, but to do this hours before a general election campaign is I think an abuse of power. Unacceptable.”

Previous governments have used the Treasury machine to criticise opposition party spending plans. George Osborne used a dossier of civil service reports to attack Ed Miliband’s policies in 2015, although its publication was in the January of that year, significantly ahead of the May 2015 election.

[cherdano]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-November-05, 05:40, said:

Have you really read it much, there are loads of "a source close to the Brexit team say ...." or "a source in Tory HQ ..." which are UTTERLY implausible for them to get, as they would be VERY unlikely to have sources there, and those sources would be much more likely to go to a less left wing paper (the Times for example which has been pro remain).

Also the "There is a chance Brexit could do ..." stories where the chance is like 0.000001% but it will scare people, and they'll present it like it's a decent chance.

I don't like the guardian because of its sensationalizing headlines and unbalanced selection of news stories, even though they are trying to appeal to someone with my approximate political views.
But their reporting always seemed good to me - can you give just one example of such an implausible story? It may seem implausible to you, but they do keep getting leaks of government documents that turn out to be genuine (e.g. Operation Yellowhammer).

[PeterAlan]

CY, I've always appreciated your contributions to the whole range of forums here, but for me this sub-thread has gone on long enough. My feeling is that it's becoming more and more about your own prejudices concerning The Guardian, which seem to me to be more evident than the paper's alleged issues, and I don't expect to contribute further to it.

[Cyberyeti]

PeterAlan, on 2019-November-06, 03:38, said:

CY, I've always appreciated your contributions to the whole range of forums here, but for me this sub-thread has gone on long enough. My feeling is that it's becoming more and more about your own prejudices concerning The Guardian, which seem to me to be more evident than the paper's alleged issues, and I don't expect to contribute further to it.

I was comparing the guardian article which makes a vague reference to alleged abuse of civil servants in 2015 but doesn't say that this document was produced for pretty much EVERY election before that including under labour, to the BBC radio 5 article (not the one on the website) where it was explained in full detail.

I have no prejudice against the Guardian, I just want them to go back to something close to unbiased reporting. Cherdano also comes up with another beef I have with them, sensationalist headlines not supported by the story.

[Zelandakh]

The biggest issue I personally have with the Guardian is when they do opinion pieces and often (apparent) news stories in certain areas tend to come across to me in that vein. Against that I very much like the writing style, which I find clearer and cleaner than the majority of publications. I also think they are usually amongst the best at producing summaries and timelines and this is probably the thing I use the Guardian for the most as a primary reference. The BBC for example is actually quite poor in this area and their summaries, though accurate, often miss out many crucial details. Overall, I think the Guardian is very useful as a secondary reference. As with any news service, understanding the editorial bias and matching against other sources is useful in getting a more informed position.

[Cyberyeti]

Zelandakh, on 2019-November-06, 04:33, said:

The biggest issue I personally have with the Guardian is when they do opinion pieces and often (apparent) news stories in certain areas tend to come across to me in that vein. Against that I very much like the writing style, which I find clearer and cleaner than the majority of publications. I also think they are usually amongst the best at producing summaries and timelines and this is probably the thing I use the Guardian for the most as a primary reference. The BBC for example is actually quite poor in this area and their summaries, though accurate, often miss out many crucial details. Overall, I think the Guardian is very useful as a secondary reference. As with any news service, understanding the editorial bias and matching against other sources is useful in getting a more informed position.

The BBC is not a monolith, and I have little experience of the website. I have a natural suspicion of stories that only appear in one place where sources are not named and untraceable, and the Guardian seems to have a lot of these.

[fromageGB]

Zelandakh, on 2019-November-05, 06:51, said:

The BBC as "a pro-Labour pro-remain propaganda organ". Now I have heard everything.

You think the Guardian is pro-labour? No, what I meant was that it is very green and liberal biased. Not in the news reporting, which I think pretty good if naturally UK-centric, but in the political analytical TV programs. I occasionally catch Newsnight after bridge and usually the green liberal is given much more time to speak, and the conservative is not allowed to complete a sentence in reply without being interrupted.

[fromageGB]

hrothgar, on 2019-November-05, 07:15, said:

Question: When you say RT, do you mean Russia Today?

Yes, RT.com website, or we have a TV channel that you may not have over there. Certainly wasn't available in the hotel offerings I saw. The coverage is never in depth, but it reports events that completely escape the UK news.

[hrothgar]

fromageGB, on 2019-November-06, 08:53, said:

Yes, RT.com website, or we have a TV channel that you may not have over there. Certainly wasn't available in the hotel offerings I saw. The coverage is never in depth, but it reports events that completely escape the UK news.

Thanks

I think that I have a much better understanding of your mental faculties...

[Zelandakh]

fromageGB, on 2019-November-06, 08:42, said:

You think the Guardian is pro-labour?

Go back and read post #30 from this thread.

fromageGB, on 2019-November-06, 08:42, said:

No, what I meant was that it is very green and liberal biased. Not in the news reporting, which I think pretty good if naturally UK-centric, but in the political analytical TV programs. I occasionally catch Newsnight after bridge and usually the green liberal is given much more time to speak, and the conservative is not allowed to complete a sentence in reply without being interrupted.

The BBC produces a range of programs with varying biases. My favourite political show by far until recently was This Week. Anyone who thinks a show hosted by Andrew Neil and with Michael Portillo as its regular pundit would be overtly liberal and/or biased towards Remain probably has issues beyond which anyone here at BBF can help them (although that was essentially the charge an extreme right-wing American made before storming off in an AN interview not so long back ). I do not generally watch Newsnight but when I have my impression has always been that the Liberal and SNP candidates are the ones that tend to get pushed out and most directly challenged by the moderators.

fromageGB, on 2019-November-06, 08:53, said:

Yes, RT.com website, or we have a TV channel that you may not have over there. Certainly wasn't available in the hotel offerings I saw. The coverage is never in depth, but it reports events that completely escape the UK news.

When I first saw RT I briefly thought it might be worth referring to occasionally as an alternative resource. It quickly became apparent that it is in no way trustworthy and constantly both misses out critical information to push a specific agenda and on occasion even reports obviously fake theories with little to no basis in facts or evidence as the established truth. By all means continue to watch RT but I would urge you to be very cautious in taking anything reported there seriously and always double-check against a more reliable source.

[fromageGB]

Zelandakh, on 2019-November-06, 10:29, said:

Go back and read post #30 from this thread.

I know CY gave that comment, but I wondered if that was your impression too. To me it seems that the Guardian is very anti-Conservative, strongly pro-Liberal, extremely pro-Green, but fairly neutral with regard to Labour, or only mildly in favour.

[Zelandakh]

fromageGB, on 2019-November-07, 04:20, said:

I know CY gave that comment, but I wondered if that was your impression too. To me it seems that the Guardian is very anti-Conservative, strongly pro-Liberal, extremely pro-Green, but fairly neutral with regard to Labour, or only mildly in favour.

The Guardian was traditionally a Liberal newspaper, actually the Liberal newspaper as it was essentially the only one during my childhood. I do not read the paper form but I can easily believe that editorial support was strongly tested during the coalition years and in the immediate aftermath. So it may well be that it was become closer to the Labour party; from over in mainland Europe it is not so easy to judge.

In terms of the online copy, the major positions held seem to me to be more closely aligned to liberals than socialists and even within the Labour sphere generally closer to Blair than Corbyn, albeit with obvious (and really quite major) exceptions. My impression is more towards yours than CY's though, with the caveat that CY may well be more influenced by the newspaper than the website, not to mention our presumed differences in political bias.

[Cyberyeti]

Zelandakh, on 2019-November-07, 06:56, said:

The Guardian was traditionally a Liberal newspaper, actually the Liberal newspaper as it was essentially the only one during my childhood. I do not read the paper form but I can easily believe that editorial support was strongly tested during the coalition years and in the immediate aftermath. So it may well be that it was become closer to the Labour party; from over in mainland Europe it is not so easy to judge.

In terms of the online copy, the major positions held seem to me to be more closely aligned to liberals than socialists and even within the Labour sphere generally closer to Blair than Corbyn, albeit with obvious (and really quite major) exceptions. My impression is more towards yours than CY's though, with the caveat that CY may well be more influenced by the newspaper than the website, not to mention our presumed differences in political bias.

I'm actually influenced by the few stories I see. I have a lot of rabidly pro-remain (mainly pro-Labour) friends who constantly link stories from it on FB, so I admit I don't get a fair cross section.

[Zelandakh]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-November-07, 07:03, said:

I'm actually influenced by the few stories I see. I have a lot of rabidly pro-remain (mainly pro-Labour) friends who constantly link stories from it on FB, so I admit I don't get a fair cross section.

I guess the question is, if you are basing it off of Brexit stories with a Remain leaning why you would think of that as being pro-Labour rather than pro-Liberal? Surely the one non-regional mainstream party that has come out as unequivocally for remaining in the EU is the Liberals?