Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What do you think, OP?" I believe where there's power there's corruption, and controlling the flow of information to millions+ is a powerful industry indeed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's little point in me trying to disguise my opinion on the subject as I suspect I'd fail, you are however free to disagree if you feel I'm wrong." I reject the premise in the question. Which makes it a nonsense to answer. How about something like "do you get your news from traditional sources, or do you seek out other forms of media?" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What do you think, OP? I believe where there's power there's corruption, and controlling the flow of information to millions+ is a powerful industry indeed." Awesome. Rock on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you still engage and get your news from mainstream sources like the BBC, Sky, Mirror, Guardian etc, or do you believe that these outlets are ideologically driven and more focused on pushing a message rather than delivering objective updates on reality?" What’s more likely to be ideological driven, a major world news outlet employing thousands of journalists and staff, or a guy in a shed on YouTube? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you still engage and get your news from mainstream sources like the BBC, Sky, Mirror, Guardian etc, or do you believe that these outlets are ideologically driven and more focused on pushing a message rather than delivering objective updates on reality? What’s more likely to be ideological driven, a major world news outlet employing thousands of journalists and staff, or a guy in a shed on YouTube? " "both" is an acceptable answer to this question, in my view. It's amazing to me that people think that because we don't follow the Klever Kranks Klique or whatever, we're unable to do source analysis of what we consume. Can, do, still reject a bunch of wild premises. It's not "join the conspiracy mongers" or "be a sheeple" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nah mate, get all mine off YouTube and Facebook, no ideologically driven agendas there, and all the places I choose to get my news from agree with what I think, so they must be better than the mainstream media." Nailed it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you still engage and get your news from mainstream sources like the BBC, Sky, Mirror, Guardian etc, or do you believe that these outlets are ideologically driven and more focused on pushing a message rather than delivering objective updates on reality? What’s more likely to be ideological driven, a major world news outlet employing thousands of journalists and staff, or a guy in a shed on YouTube? "both" is an acceptable answer to this question, in my view. It's amazing to me that people think that because we don't follow the Klever Kranks Klique or whatever, we're unable to do source analysis of what we consume. Can, do, still reject a bunch of wild premises. It's not "join the conspiracy mongers" or "be a sheeple"" How to you gauge the success of your analysis if you’re not au fait with a subject? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's little point in me trying to disguise my opinion on the subject as I suspect I'd fail, you are however free to disagree if you feel I'm wrong. I reject the premise in the question. Which makes it a nonsense to answer." What was the premise? I'm not trying to corner you here, you're free to answer the question with as much context as makes you comfortable. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's little point in me trying to disguise my opinion on the subject as I suspect I'd fail, you are however free to disagree if you feel I'm wrong." Nor should you, OP. You asked a question. If folk don't like the question, they can happily ignore it & engage with threads that better suit them 
To answer your question, though, I get mine from the BBC. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nah mate, get all mine off YouTube and Facebook, no ideologically driven agendas there, and all the places I choose to get my news from agree with what I think, so they must be better than the mainstream media." Love the ironic judgementalism here, especially it's failure to hide the presupposed black and white thinking under a thin layer of wit | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you still engage and get your news from mainstream sources like the BBC, Sky, Mirror, Guardian etc, or do you believe that these outlets are ideologically driven and more focused on pushing a message rather than delivering objective updates on reality?" I place a lot more reliance on what some people refer to as MSM or “legacy” media, because despite not being perfect or close to perfect, they are regulated and accountable. If bbc produce a story, for example, they are likely to have documented and researched sources, and if those sources don’t stand up as being robust then they can be challenged, taken to court, referred to regulators etc. Yes, individual newspapers have political biases, but again, they are accountable for what they publish. Outside these sources, it’s the Wild West, with stiff being made up and little / no accountability. You think the MSM isn’t objective? Try looking at non-MSM sources, much more skewed and biased. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's little point in me trying to disguise my opinion on the subject as I suspect I'd fail, you are however free to disagree if you feel I'm wrong. Nor should you, OP. You asked a question. If folk don't like the question, they can happily ignore it & engage with threads that better suit them
To answer your question, though, I get mine from the BBC. "Thankyou, whilst I don't like the BBC myself, it's a nice change to see someone reply without immediately going on the defensive | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's little point in me trying to disguise my opinion on the subject as I suspect I'd fail, you are however free to disagree if you feel I'm wrong. I reject the premise in the question. Which makes it a nonsense to answer. What was the premise? I'm not trying to corner you here, you're free to answer the question with as much context as makes you comfortable." You've set up an alternative. Option 1. "Do you still engage and get your news from mainstream sources like the BBC, Sky, Mirror, Guardian etc" Option 2 "do you believe that these outlets are ideologically driven and more focused on pushing a message rather than delivering objective updates on reality?" If you pick option 1, you are missing out on all the insight from option 2. The strong implication is that option 2 is the only correct answer, and that option 2 is not ideologically driven and straying from reality - that 2 is superior. My answer is I look both at independent sources and mainstream media, and both have ideologies, agendas, and their own spin on "objective reality", whatever the fuck that is. Objective reality is difficult if not impossible to convey - bias is everywhere. Regulation and institutional standards are one way to protect against the craziest stuff, which the smaller outlets are often immune from or escape. That doesn't mean that governmental/institutional biases don't creep in. They're different problems. One problem with the proliferation of media outlets is information silos, and our perceptions of reality differ quite widely. I vet my sources. Both institutional and otherwise. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's little point in me trying to disguise my opinion on the subject as I suspect I'd fail, you are however free to disagree if you feel I'm wrong. Nor should you, OP. You asked a question. If folk don't like the question, they can happily ignore it & engage with threads that better suit them
To answer your question, though, I get mine from the BBC.
Thankyou, whilst I don't like the BBC myself, it's a nice change to see someone reply without immediately going on the defensive "That's the FAB forum for you  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's little point in me trying to disguise my opinion on the subject as I suspect I'd fail, you are however free to disagree if you feel I'm wrong. Nor should you, OP. You asked a question. If folk don't like the question, they can happily ignore it & engage with threads that better suit them
To answer your question, though, I get mine from the BBC.
Thankyou, whilst I don't like the BBC myself, it's a nice change to see someone reply without immediately going on the defensive "I wasn't going on the defensive. I was going on the offensive. If you want good answers, ask good questions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nah mate, get all mine off YouTube and Facebook, no ideologically driven agendas there, and all the places I choose to get my news from agree with what I think, so they must be better than the mainstream media. Love the ironic judgementalism here, especially it's failure to hide the presupposed black and white thinking under a thin layer of wit "I’m like the guys on YouTube, I tell it like it is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nah mate, get all mine off YouTube and Facebook, no ideologically driven agendas there, and all the places I choose to get my news from agree with what I think, so they must be better than the mainstream media." You forgot to describe the YouTube rabbit holes as “I do all my own research” Otherwise, nailed it! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you still engage and get your news from mainstream sources like the BBC, Sky, Mirror, Guardian etc, or do you believe that these outlets are ideologically driven and more focused on pushing a message rather than delivering objective updates on reality?" I don't watch any media i am totally devoid of negativity | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's little point in me trying to disguise my opinion on the subject as I suspect I'd fail, you are however free to disagree if you feel I'm wrong. Nor should you, OP. You asked a question. If folk don't like the question, they can happily ignore it & engage with threads that better suit them
To answer your question, though, I get mine from the BBC. "BBC is one of my main sources, and another is the Irish Times, excellent newspaper. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you still engage and get your news from mainstream sources like the BBC, Sky, Mirror, Guardian etc, or do you believe that these outlets are ideologically driven and more focused on pushing a message rather than delivering objective updates on reality?" None really out of those 4 you mentioned. Sometimes I'll look at the actual Australian sky news channel, not the British one, for amusement.. It's completely fear based, that seems to be its business model.. There was a newspaper I used to occasionally read called "positive news". I haven't seen it for a while, it was an interesting read though & an original concept. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you still engage and get your news from mainstream sources like the BBC, Sky, Mirror, Guardian etc, or do you believe that these outlets are ideologically driven and more focused on pushing a message rather than delivering objective updates on reality?" OP I find it interesting that you listed the outlets you did, which are actually some of the more trusted news outlets in terms of impartiality. There are lots of media outlets who are much more bias in their news reporting, whether it’s left or right leaning. But I wouldn’t say any that you listed push an agenda. In answer to your question, I try not to rely on any one outlet for my news. And if I read a story that has strong views on something I try to challenge it by seeing what other outlets are saying. Sometimes a story, while not factually incorrect, may be reported in two very different ways by two different outlets, leaving the reader with two very different views. OP, may I ask, which outlets do you source your news from? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""objective reality", whatever the fuck that is. Objective reality is difficult if not impossible to convey - bias is everywhere." I just cut straight to the meaty bit of what you put, and couldn't resist highlighting the irony of you questioning what objective reality is, only to then highlight in the following sentence that you understand it perfectly well. I believe there is an objective reality to pretty much everything at the root, in the case of politics for example, someone does something for a reason (typically self interest), someone then responds to it for their own reasons (also self interests), the subjective bit after is either party then trying to justify their actions in a way which makes them appear to be the moral authority. So getting back to my original question, do you believe that the media focuses more closely on the objective nature of the events I just described, or throws in with the subjective justifications which follow, based on their own interests? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you still engage and get your news from mainstream sources like the BBC, Sky, Mirror, Guardian etc, or do you believe that these outlets are ideologically driven and more focused on pushing a message rather than delivering objective updates on reality? What’s more likely to be ideological driven, a major world news outlet employing thousands of journalists and staff, or a guy in a shed on YouTube? "both" is an acceptable answer to this question, in my view. It's amazing to me that people think that because we don't follow the Klever Kranks Klique or whatever, we're unable to do source analysis of what we consume. Can, do, still reject a bunch of wild premises. It's not "join the conspiracy mongers" or "be a sheeple" How to you gauge the success of your analysis if you’re not au fait with a subject? " dunno. This death of expertise and listening to a bunch of gurus who make out like they're experts in everything is completely alien to my way of thinking | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OP, may I ask, which outlets do you source your news from?" Alex Jones and his gay frogs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""objective reality", whatever the fuck that is. Objective reality is difficult if not impossible to convey - bias is everywhere. I just cut straight to the meaty bit of what you put, and couldn't resist highlighting the irony of you questioning what objective reality is, only to then highlight in the following sentence that you understand it perfectly well. I believe there is an objective reality to pretty much everything at the root, in the case of politics for example, someone does something for a reason (typically self interest), someone then responds to it for their own reasons (also self interests), the subjective bit after is either party then trying to justify their actions in a way which makes them appear to be the moral authority. So getting back to my original question, do you believe that the media focuses more closely on the objective nature of the events I just described, or throws in with the subjective justifications which follow, based on their own interests?" I think you think you've got me or something, but I think you don't understand what I've said. I think everyone is being subjective, because it's inevitable. I think anyone who tells you otherwise is lying or a moron. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OP, may I ask, which outlets do you source your news from? Alex Jones and his gay frogs." Oh, I’m sorry. I thought from the way you were condescending to other posters here that you were actually looking for a serious discussion. I guess not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nah mate, get all mine off YouTube and Facebook, no ideologically driven agendas there, and all the places I choose to get my news from agree with what I think, so they must be better than the mainstream media. Love the ironic judgementalism here, especially it's failure to hide the presupposed black and white thinking under a thin layer of wit
I’m like the guys on YouTube, I tell it like it is."I'll humour you. Your simplistic implication is that people actively seek out news sources which confirm their own biases. Do you ever consider that people may be getting their news from multiple outlets, including their own experiences and observations of the world around them, and gradually, steadily gravitate toward the source which most coherently brings these observations together, in a process which can take anything from weeks to months to years and even decades to come together? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OP, may I ask, which outlets do you source your news from? Alex Jones and his gay frogs. Oh, I’m sorry. I thought from the way you were condescending to other posters here that you were actually looking for a serious discussion. I guess not. " I've observed over the past months that people on Fab, yourself included, are typically condescending when challenged on any topic which goes a bit more in depth that the 'do you find squeaky farts smell sweeter?' type topics I see elsewhere, I respond with condescension in return, as that seems to be the fashion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OP, may I ask, which outlets do you source your news from? Alex Jones and his gay frogs. Oh, I’m sorry. I thought from the way you were condescending to other posters here that you were actually looking for a serious discussion. I guess not. I've observed over the past months that people on Fab, yourself included, are typically condescending when challenged on any topic which goes a bit more in depth that the 'do you find squeaky farts smell sweeter?' type topics I see elsewhere, I respond with condescension in return, as that seems to be the fashion." Wow. Just wow. I’m done with this thread. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nah mate, get all mine off YouTube and Facebook, no ideologically driven agendas there, and all the places I choose to get my news from agree with what I think, so they must be better than the mainstream media. Love the ironic judgementalism here, especially it's failure to hide the presupposed black and white thinking under a thin layer of wit
I’m like the guys on YouTube, I tell it like it is.
I'll humour you.
Your simplistic implication is that people actively seek out news sources which confirm their own biases.
Do you ever consider that people may be getting their news from multiple outlets, including their own experiences and observations of the world around them, and gradually, steadily gravitate toward the source which most coherently brings these observations together, in a process which can take anything from weeks to months to years and even decades to come together?"I’m sceptical when I see people waxing lyrical about the Covid ‘hoax’ (as an easy example) and pretending that they know more about vaccine efficacy than actual medical professionals because their media outlet(s) of choice told them so. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nah mate, get all mine off YouTube and Facebook, no ideologically driven agendas there, and all the places I choose to get my news from agree with what I think, so they must be better than the mainstream media. Love the ironic judgementalism here, especially it's failure to hide the presupposed black and white thinking under a thin layer of wit
I’m like the guys on YouTube, I tell it like it is.
I'll humour you.
Your simplistic implication is that people actively seek out news sources which confirm their own biases.
Do you ever consider that people may be getting their news from multiple outlets, including their own experiences and observations of the world around them, and gradually, steadily gravitate toward the source which most coherently brings these observations together, in a process which can take anything from weeks to months to years and even decades to come together?"No, but I believe people think they’ve done that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nah mate, get all mine off YouTube and Facebook, no ideologically driven agendas there, and all the places I choose to get my news from agree with what I think, so they must be better than the mainstream media. Love the ironic judgementalism here, especially it's failure to hide the presupposed black and white thinking under a thin layer of wit
I’m like the guys on YouTube, I tell it like it is.
I'll humour you.
Your simplistic implication is that people actively seek out news sources which confirm their own biases.
Do you ever consider that people may be getting their news from multiple outlets, including their own experiences and observations of the world around them, and gradually, steadily gravitate toward the source which most coherently brings these observations together, in a process which can take anything from weeks to months to years and even decades to come together?
No, but I believe people think they’ve done that."It's remarkable how many people seem to think that they are in a small group of elites who know the Truth, when they're all following very similar lines that are logically incoherent and contradictory - and I'm being kind about it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think everyone is being subjective, because it's inevitable. I think anyone who tells you otherwise is lying or a moron." You're probably right, everyone is ultimately self interested to some degree and perfect objectivity is probably impossible to reach as there are too many variables surrounding it? But that doesn't mean that some people's subjective interests will be closer toward objective reality, and therefore fairer and more truthful than others, and whilst I can't always word my views on something so complex particularly well nor perhaps fully understand other's opinions on such things either, I suppose what I want to know is 'Do you believe that the media has a particular focus on describing events as closely and fairly as possible to how they really are, or is it more driven by a subjective agenda focused on leading people's minds toward a particular opinion, where events are simply a tool to achieve this?' | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nah mate, get all mine off YouTube and Facebook, no ideologically driven agendas there, and all the places I choose to get my news from agree with what I think, so they must be better than the mainstream media. Love the ironic judgementalism here, especially it's failure to hide the presupposed black and white thinking under a thin layer of wit
I’m like the guys on YouTube, I tell it like it is.
I'll humour you.
Your simplistic implication is that people actively seek out news sources which confirm their own biases.
Do you ever consider that people may be getting their news from multiple outlets, including their own experiences and observations of the world around them, and gradually, steadily gravitate toward the source which most coherently brings these observations together, in a process which can take anything from weeks to months to years and even decades to come together?
No, but I believe people think they’ve done that."Maybe, but there's in implication in how you're responding that suggests you think YOU know better than they do? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think in an age of social media, a lot of people get their news from a variety of places- mainstream sources yes, but also it’s much easier to get news from independents and from people actually on the ground or involved" … and it’s much harder to know how reliable those alternative sources are … are they regulated? Who are they? What is their previous track record loose in terms of accuracy? Etc etc etc … | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OP, may I ask, which outlets do you source your news from? Alex Jones and his gay frogs. Oh, I’m sorry. I thought from the way you were condescending to other posters here that you were actually looking for a serious discussion. I guess not. I've observed over the past months that people on Fab, yourself included, are typically condescending when challenged on any topic which goes a bit more in depth that the 'do you find squeaky farts smell sweeter?' type topics I see elsewhere, I respond with condescension in return, as that seems to be the fashion. Wow. Just wow. I’m done with this thread. " I'm serious. On the surface, this site and community would present itself as being a free, fun loving and liberal gathering, but I've honestly never seen more bias, cliqueyness, judgementalism and hostile defensiveness on *any* site in my many years using the internet? I don't doubt that there are some lovely people nestled away on here, but what I've just described seems to infest this forum to the core, and I suspect is why more people prefer to simply read rather than participate in the snake pit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nah mate, get all mine off YouTube and Facebook, no ideologically driven agendas there, and all the places I choose to get my news from agree with what I think, so they must be better than the mainstream media. Love the ironic judgementalism here, especially it's failure to hide the presupposed black and white thinking under a thin layer of wit
I’m like the guys on YouTube, I tell it like it is.
I'll humour you.
Your simplistic implication is that people actively seek out news sources which confirm their own biases.
Do you ever consider that people may be getting their news from multiple outlets, including their own experiences and observations of the world around them, and gradually, steadily gravitate toward the source which most coherently brings these observations together, in a process which can take anything from weeks to months to years and even decades to come together?
No, but I believe people think they’ve done that.
Maybe, but there's in implication in how you're responding that suggests you think YOU know better than they do?"All I know is that people are often blind to their own biases. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nah mate, get all mine off YouTube and Facebook, no ideologically driven agendas there, and all the places I choose to get my news from agree with what I think, so they must be better than the mainstream media. Love the ironic judgementalism here, especially it's failure to hide the presupposed black and white thinking under a thin layer of wit
I’m like the guys on YouTube, I tell it like it is.
I'll humour you.
Your simplistic implication is that people actively seek out news sources which confirm their own biases.
Do you ever consider that people may be getting their news from multiple outlets, including their own experiences and observations of the world around them, and gradually, steadily gravitate toward the source which most coherently brings these observations together, in a process which can take anything from weeks to months to years and even decades to come together?
No, but I believe people think they’ve done that.
It's remarkable how many people seem to think that they are in a small group of elites who know the Truth, when they're all following very similar lines that are logically incoherent and contradictory - and I'm being kind about it"I think you’re being very kind but yes, it is very reminiscent of the window scene from Life of Brian. “We’re all individuals” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OP, may I ask, which outlets do you source your news from? Alex Jones and his gay frogs. Oh, I’m sorry. I thought from the way you were condescending to other posters here that you were actually looking for a serious discussion. I guess not. I've observed over the past months that people on Fab, yourself included, are typically condescending when challenged on any topic which goes a bit more in depth that the 'do you find squeaky farts smell sweeter?' type topics I see elsewhere, I respond with condescension in return, as that seems to be the fashion. Wow. Just wow. I’m done with this thread. I'm serious. On the surface, this site and community would present itself as being a free, fun loving and liberal gathering, but I've honestly never seen more bias, cliqueyness, judgementalism and hostile defensiveness on *any* site in my many years using the internet? I don't doubt that there are some lovely people nestled away on here, but what I've just described seems to infest this forum to the core, and I suspect is why more people prefer to simply read rather than participate in the snake pit." fab is just a cross section of society. That said I rarely see what you've described (although caveat, I'm neurospicy). However I do see people not like being challenged. In many places or the internet we seek out kind. Perhaps fab is more broad ? Maybe I have missed the backstory on these cases tho. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well, that question isn't written with a raging agenda hidden like an elephant in a china shop "Be fair he didn't call anyone a sheeple. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you still engage and get your news from mainstream sources like the BBC, Sky, Mirror, Guardian etc, or do you believe that these outlets are ideologically driven and more focused on pushing a message rather than delivering objective updates on reality? I place a lot more reliance on what some people refer to as MSM or “legacy” media, because despite not being perfect or close to perfect, they are regulated and accountable. If bbc produce a story, for example, they are likely to have documented and researched sources, and if those sources don’t stand up as being robust then they can be challenged, taken to court, referred to regulators etc. Yes, individual newspapers have political biases, but again, they are accountable for what they publish. Outside these sources, it’s the Wild West, with stiff being made up and little / no accountability. You think the MSM isn’t objective? Try looking at non-MSM sources, much more skewed and biased. " And what does the regulator do? Nothing,just look a what Offcom haven't done over the many instances (they themselves ruled) of BBC bias during the Brexit years.'documented and resesrched sources'? Like Martin Bashirs Diana interview? Court ruling-none,Offcom ruling-none.Newsnight Jimmy Saville? Newspapers accountable?The Guardians long serving former editor Peter Wilby, convicted paedo and paedo protector,what has happened there? A clue,nothing,despite articles being binned by the editor which resulted in hundreds of children in care homes (particularly in Wales) being subjected to years of abuse.Regulation and accountability is a myth. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". […] including their own experiences and observations of the world around them, and gradually, steadily gravitate toward the source which most coherently brings these observations together, in a process which can take anything from weeks to months to years and even decades to come together?" Do you mean like Flat Earthers? Because their own observation is such a small area of the world, it skews their perception. They never see the bigger picture. MSM as it’s being called, is a misleading term really. There’s no bar that under which you are “alternative” and over, you are MSM. Gbat | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I refer myself to my private note. "Lovely feeling of being unique/special/superior eh? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". […] including their own experiences and observations of the world around them, and gradually, steadily gravitate toward the source which most coherently brings these observations together, in a process which can take anything from weeks to months to years and even decades to come together? Do you mean like Flat Earthers " No, not at all like that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I refer myself to my private note.
Lovely feeling of being unique/special/superior eh? "Quite the opposite my dear chap. And I again refer myself to my private note. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I refer myself to my private note.
Lovely feeling of being unique/special/superior eh?
Quite the opposite my dear chap.
And I again refer myself to my private note.
"It makes you feel like an arse?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I refer myself to my private note.
Lovely feeling of being unique/special/superior eh?
Quite the opposite my dear chap.
And I again refer myself to my private note.
It makes you feel like an arse? " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I refer myself to my private note.
Lovely feeling of being unique/special/superior eh?
Quite the opposite my dear chap.
And I again refer myself to my private note.
It makes you feel like an arse?
"I can't fit sunglasses on my arse personally, but that's because I'm not cool, clever and special  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I refer myself to my private note.
Lovely feeling of being unique/special/superior eh?
Quite the opposite my dear chap.
And I again refer myself to my private note.
It makes you feel like an arse?
I can't fit sunglasses on my arse personally, but that's because I'm not cool, clever and special " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you still engage and get your news from mainstream sources like the BBC, Sky, Mirror, Guardian etc, or do you believe that these outlets are ideologically driven and more focused on pushing a message rather than delivering objective updates on reality? I place a lot more reliance on what some people refer to as MSM or “legacy” media, because despite not being perfect or close to perfect, they are regulated and accountable. If bbc produce a story, for example, they are likely to have documented and researched sources, and if those sources don’t stand up as being robust then they can be challenged, taken to court, referred to regulators etc. Yes, individual newspapers have political biases, but again, they are accountable for what they publish. Outside these sources, it’s the Wild West, with stiff being made up and little / no accountability. You think the MSM isn’t objective? Try looking at non-MSM sources, much more skewed and biased. And what does the regulator do? Nothing,just look a what Offcom haven't done over the many instances (they themselves ruled) of BBC bias during the Brexit years.'documented and resesrched sources'? Like Martin Bashirs Diana interview? Court ruling-none,Offcom ruling-none.Newsnight Jimmy Saville? Newspapers accountable?The Guardians long serving former editor Peter Wilby, convicted paedo and paedo protector,what has happened there? A clue,nothing,despite articles being binned by the editor which resulted in hundreds of children in care homes (particularly in Wales) being subjected to years of abuse.Regulation and accountability is a myth." You are answering your own question here, highlighting instances where media sources have been found wanting. Ofcom, and the court system, regularly censure regulated media providers. Some newspapers have even closed down due to losing credibility because of their behaviour. Are they perfect? Of course not. But they are much more transparent, robust and reliable than the alternatives | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I use mainstream to see what's happening in the UK/ world and as a benchmark then if something interests me, I look at other sources and make my mind up on were I sit- through various materials or life experience. I feel too many people look at outlets and get misinformation for example people having no real idea why they are marching for whatever cause has flooded social media. " What “other sources” do you use? What sort of track record do they have in terms of being thorough, accurate, non-biased and ethical? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". […] including their own experiences and observations of the world around them, and gradually, steadily gravitate toward the source which most coherently brings these observations together, in a process which can take anything from weeks to months to years and even decades to come together? Do you mean like Flat Earthers? Because their own observation is such a small area of the world, it skews their perception. They never see the bigger picture. MSM as it’s being called, is a misleading term really. There’s no bar that under which you are “alternative” and over, you are MSM. Gbat " Agreed. What is the name for the alternative to MSM? Is there one? Doesn’t a new provider automatically become MSM once they hit certain distribution levels? The term MSM is a very weak catchall term, covering a massive range of providers. Trying to describe them all as a single entity is nonsense | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
