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 Politics |
| 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 |
"Recalling Newsnight's coverage, Maitlis said: "It might take our producers five minutes to find 60 economists who feared Brexit and five hours to find a sole voice who espoused it. "But by the time we went on air we simply had one of each; we presented this unequal effort to our audience as balance. It wasn't." Brexit. The gift that keeps on giving." TBF this is more than just Brexit. See also: climate change. She was the one who got censored for saying Cummings broke COVID laws right ? Because Boris said he didn't ...  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Recalling Newsnight's coverage, Maitlis said: "It might take our producers five minutes to find 60 economists who feared Brexit and five hours to find a sole voice who espoused it. "But by the time we went on air we simply had one of each; we presented this unequal effort to our audience as balance. It wasn't." Brexit. The gift that keeps on giving." Her full speech was quite illuminating and really does call into question by just how much Johnson and his acolytes were attempting to manipulate the most trusted brand in news. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To be impartial you need to treat all things equally. It is far easier to report the facts and not get drawn into an impartiality vortex. I don't think the BBC or the general public can deal with the facts though. " False equivalence again. She also said... "I later learned the name for this myopic style of journalism is 'both-side-ism', which speaks to the way it reaches a superficial balance, while obscuring a deeper truth." If there is an overwhelming set of opinion on one side then why should the other side get an equal voice? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To be impartial you need to treat all things equally. It is far easier to report the facts and not get drawn into an impartiality vortex. I don't think the BBC or the general public can deal with the facts though. " I look forward to seeing the monster raving looney party on every QT. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To be impartial you need to treat all things equally. It is far easier to report the facts and not get drawn into an impartiality vortex. I don't think the BBC or the general public can deal with the facts though. I look forward to seeing the monster raving looney party on every QT. " Quite right! Actually while we are at it, there are people who passionately believe Nazism is the right way to go. Let’s give them an equal voice. How about those people who see nothing wrong in having sex with minors? Equal voice for them? Yes they are extreme examples but where do we draw the line, who decides and on what basis? The original point was there were an overwhelming number of economists concerned about the impact of Brexit and very few advocates/supporters. Yet it was positioned as an equally valid/supported viewpoint. Personally I want to know that (made up numbers) 95% of economists think Brexit is a bad idea vs 5% who think it is a good idea. Not have it positioned as a 50/50 argument! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Recalling Newsnight's coverage, Maitlis said: "It might take our producers five minutes to find 60 economists who feared Brexit and five hours to find a sole voice who espoused it. "But by the time we went on air we simply had one of each; we presented this unequal effort to our audience as balance. It wasn't." Brexit. The gift that keeps on giving." This is where Maitliss is full of shit. Firstly, who honestly knows 60 economists? Secondly, the producers are more likely to maintain contact with folk who they get on with and hold similar views. Of course they are going to find people who were against Brexit quicker than those who supported it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Recalling Newsnight's coverage, Maitlis said: "It might take our producers five minutes to find 60 economists who feared Brexit and five hours to find a sole voice who espoused it. "But by the time we went on air we simply had one of each; we presented this unequal effort to our audience as balance. It wasn't." Brexit. The gift that keeps on giving. This is where Maitliss is full of shit. Firstly, who honestly knows 60 economists? Secondly, the producers are more likely to maintain contact with folk who they get on with and hold similar views. Of course they are going to find people who were against Brexit quicker than those who supported it." Are you saying you know better than the presenter of Newsnight who is a career journalist that worked for the BBC for many years? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Recalling Newsnight's coverage, Maitlis said: "It might take our producers five minutes to find 60 economists who feared Brexit and five hours to find a sole voice who espoused it. "But by the time we went on air we simply had one of each; we presented this unequal effort to our audience as balance. It wasn't." Brexit. The gift that keeps on giving. This is where Maitliss is full of shit. Firstly, who honestly knows 60 economists? Secondly, the producers are more likely to maintain contact with folk who they get on with and hold similar views. Of course they are going to find people who were against Brexit quicker than those who supported it." The Government Economic Service (GES) is the professional body for UK economists in the public sector and employs over 1,500 economists working across more than 30 government departments and agencies. Because you may not know 60 it does not mean they do not exist. Why should all the producers working for the BBC all hold the same negative view of Brexit? Isn't that a bit of a coincidence? With Brexit I tried to listen to both sides of the argument so I could make an informed decision. I heard on one side the anti Brexit arguments about the economic damage it would cause, weakened security in Europe, loss of freedom of travel in Europe, loss of inward investment and partnering across borders, international trade protection and even the high cost of using a mobile in Europe coming back. On the Brexit side I heard the emotional call "Take back control" and the inaccurate "£350 million a week saving given to the NHS". There was "Let's go WTO" and "Stop immigration". I heard how, freed from the EU rules, Britain would travel the world making new trade agreements. What did we find? Other countries had wanted to trade with us because we were part of the EU. Talks about trade with India rapidly turned to compensation for the way we grew rich on their resources in Victorian times. China was always happy to hear so long as we bought loads of their stuff. The USA wondered why we left the EU and we joined the queue to get a trade deal with Bukino Fasa. New Zealand asked why, after we dumped them when we joined the EU, should they want to trade with us. And immigration? That got worse because the French and other EU states no longer gave a damn about Britain. I did not hear much on the BBC about that. That bunch of right wing fascists!!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Recalling Newsnight's coverage, Maitlis said: "It might take our producers five minutes to find 60 economists who feared Brexit and five hours to find a sole voice who espoused it. "But by the time we went on air we simply had one of each; we presented this unequal effort to our audience as balance. It wasn't." Brexit. The gift that keeps on giving. This is where Maitliss is full of shit. Firstly, who honestly knows 60 economists? Secondly, the producers are more likely to maintain contact with folk who they get on with and hold similar views. Of course they are going to find people who were against Brexit quicker than those who supported it." it's not about knowing, it's about finding. "Dear economics department, we are looking to interview some economists. Can you let us know the names of any economists willing to be interviewed, and if they see Brexit as being economically positive or negative" Assuming you voted leave, I'm guessing you can provide the name of three ecinimists that say Brexit is economically good. I will start with Minford. Whi else should the BBC have gone to... ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To be impartial you need to treat all things equally. It is far easier to report the facts and not get drawn into an impartiality vortex. I don't think the BBC or the general public can deal with the facts though. False equivalence again. She also said... "I later learned the name for this myopic style of journalism is 'both-side-ism', which speaks to the way it reaches a superficial balance, while obscuring a deeper truth." If there is an overwhelming set of opinion on one side then why should the other side get an equal voice?" Oh dear.... You do get the wrong end of the stick at times. Simply put: The BBC are so concerned about giving people or issues impartiality that the news items become diluted or unbalanced from the core of the story. This should come as no shock to you? The general public however, will all have their points of views catered for, no matter their views in this approach. That is how the BBC want it to be. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To be impartial you need to treat all things equally. It is far easier to report the facts and not get drawn into an impartiality vortex. I don't think the BBC or the general public can deal with the facts though. False equivalence again. She also said... "I later learned the name for this myopic style of journalism is 'both-side-ism', which speaks to the way it reaches a superficial balance, while obscuring a deeper truth." If there is an overwhelming set of opinion on one side then why should the other side get an equal voice? Oh dear.... You do get the wrong end of the stick at times. Simply put: The BBC are so concerned about giving people or issues impartiality that the news items become diluted or unbalanced from the core of the story. This should come as no shock to you? The general public however, will all have their points of views catered for, no matter their views in this approach. That is how the BBC want it to be. " Hmmm don’t think I had wrong end of stick at all! Giving equal balance (airtime) to viewpoints that are not equally shared or include extreme or niche views is not being impartial, it is creating a sense of equality of importance/relevance. An uninformed member of the public watching two economists argue about pros and cons of Brexit can be forgiven for thinking each viewpoint has equal support, and therefore credibility, in the expert economist community. Clearly, if Matiss is to be believed, this was not the case. If her 60-1 ratio is to be believed then only 1.6% of economists thought Brexit was a good idea. Surely responsible journalism should be explicit about that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To be impartial you need to treat all things equally. It is far easier to report the facts and not get drawn into an impartiality vortex. I don't think the BBC or the general public can deal with the facts though. False equivalence again. She also said... "I later learned the name for this myopic style of journalism is 'both-side-ism', which speaks to the way it reaches a superficial balance, while obscuring a deeper truth." If there is an overwhelming set of opinion on one side then why should the other side get an equal voice? Oh dear.... You do get the wrong end of the stick at times. Simply put: The BBC are so concerned about giving people or issues impartiality that the news items become diluted or unbalanced from the core of the story. This should come as no shock to you? The general public however, will all have their points of views catered for, no matter their views in this approach. That is how the BBC want it to be. Hmmm don’t think I had wrong end of stick at all! Giving equal balance (airtime) to viewpoints that are not equally shared or include extreme or niche views is not being impartial, it is creating a sense of equality of importance/relevance. An uninformed member of the public watching two economists argue about pros and cons of Brexit can be forgiven for thinking each viewpoint has equal support, and therefore credibility, in the expert economist community. Clearly, if Matiss is to be believed, this was not the case. If her 60-1 ratio is to be believed then only 1.6% of economists thought Brexit was a good idea. Surely responsible journalism should be explicit about that?" You have done it again.... Are you really struggling to understand what I write or are you trying to be smart? I will work you out along the way  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are you saying you know better than the presenter of Newsnight who is a career journalist that worked for the BBC for many years?" No, we are simply suggesting in her specific case, or rather the producers, perhaps instead of sticking with the same echo chamber of voices they go to all the time they should branch out more often. Alarm bells should be going when all your 'experts' are saying the same thing. Echo chambers are toxic and are no good for people as a whole. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To be impartial you need to treat all things equally. It is far easier to report the facts and not get drawn into an impartiality vortex. I don't think the BBC or the general public can deal with the facts though. False equivalence again. She also said... "I later learned the name for this myopic style of journalism is 'both-side-ism', which speaks to the way it reaches a superficial balance, while obscuring a deeper truth." If there is an overwhelming set of opinion on one side then why should the other side get an equal voice? Oh dear.... You do get the wrong end of the stick at times. Simply put: The BBC are so concerned about giving people or issues impartiality that the news items become diluted or unbalanced from the core of the story. This should come as no shock to you? The general public however, will all have their points of views catered for, no matter their views in this approach. That is how the BBC want it to be. Hmmm don’t think I had wrong end of stick at all! Giving equal balance (airtime) to viewpoints that are not equally shared or include extreme or niche views is not being impartial, it is creating a sense of equality of importance/relevance. An uninformed member of the public watching two economists argue about pros and cons of Brexit can be forgiven for thinking each viewpoint has equal support, and therefore credibility, in the expert economist community. Clearly, if Matiss is to be believed, this was not the case. If her 60-1 ratio is to be believed then only 1.6% of economists thought Brexit was a good idea. Surely responsible journalism should be explicit about that? You have done it again.... Are you really struggling to understand what I write or are you trying to be smart? I will work you out along the way "Lol no I am trying to do too many things at once and failing. So I may have this wrong again but reading back you said... “It is far easier to report the facts and not get drawn into an impartiality vortex.” So are you saying the BBC should drop the pretence of being impartial and simply report facts? If you are then I agree! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are you saying you know better than the presenter of Newsnight who is a career journalist that worked for the BBC for many years? No, we are simply suggesting in her specific case, or rather the producers, perhaps instead of sticking with the same echo chamber of voices they go to all the time they should branch out more often. Alarm bells should be going when all your 'experts' are saying the same thing. Echo chambers are toxic and are no good for people as a whole." OR if the vast majority of all experts in a field are all saying the same thing, then perhaps the consensus indicates what is happening/going to happen and the small minority of dissenting voices are just outliers who lack credibility? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To be impartial you need to treat all things equally. It is far easier to report the facts and not get drawn into an impartiality vortex. I don't think the BBC or the general public can deal with the facts though. False equivalence again. She also said... "I later learned the name for this myopic style of journalism is 'both-side-ism', which speaks to the way it reaches a superficial balance, while obscuring a deeper truth." If there is an overwhelming set of opinion on one side then why should the other side get an equal voice? Oh dear.... You do get the wrong end of the stick at times. Simply put: The BBC are so concerned about giving people or issues impartiality that the news items become diluted or unbalanced from the core of the story. This should come as no shock to you? The general public however, will all have their points of views catered for, no matter their views in this approach. That is how the BBC want it to be. Hmmm don’t think I had wrong end of stick at all! Giving equal balance (airtime) to viewpoints that are not equally shared or include extreme or niche views is not being impartial, it is creating a sense of equality of importance/relevance. An uninformed member of the public watching two economists argue about pros and cons of Brexit can be forgiven for thinking each viewpoint has equal support, and therefore credibility, in the expert economist community. Clearly, if Matiss is to be believed, this was not the case. If her 60-1 ratio is to be believed then only 1.6% of economists thought Brexit was a good idea. Surely responsible journalism should be explicit about that? You have done it again.... Are you really struggling to understand what I write or are you trying to be smart? I will work you out along the way
Lol no I am trying to do too many things at once and failing.
So I may have this wrong again but reading back you said...
“It is far easier to report the facts and not get drawn into an impartiality vortex.”
So are you saying the BBC should drop the pretence of being impartial and simply report facts?
If you are then I agree! "Exactly what I'm saying
The BBC have been on this trajectory for a while now and it is in everything they do.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OR if the vast majority of all experts in a field are all saying the same thing, then perhaps the consensus indicates what is happening/going to happen and the small minority of dissenting voices are just outliers who lack credibility? " Keep in mind we aren't aregueing for the 'other side' here. Experts can be wrong, and they can be bought and paid for. They can also have their own motivations. The government followed SAGE experts into lockdowns, and now we have massive inflation because of the impact to supply in the economy. Another example would be WHO experts shouting about the urgent danger of Monkeypox despite it only having 3196 confirmed cases in the UK. An expert with real credibility would be someone who can explain something complicated and/or substantiate their claims to a normal person in terms they can comprehend. When people waffle off charts and numbers they don't come across as experts' they come across as salesmen with an agenda. (Like the monkeypox nonsense). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OR if the vast majority of all experts in a field are all saying the same thing, then perhaps the consensus indicates what is happening/going to happen and the small minority of dissenting voices are just outliers who lack credibility? Keep in mind we aren't aregueing for the 'other side' here. Experts can be wrong, and they can be bought and paid for. They can also have their own motivations. The government followed SAGE experts into lockdowns, and now we have massive inflation because of the impact to supply in the economy. Another example would be WHO experts shouting about the urgent danger of Monkeypox despite it only having 3196 confirmed cases in the UK. An expert with real credibility would be someone who can explain something complicated and/or substantiate their claims to a normal person in terms they can comprehend. When people waffle off charts and numbers they don't come across as experts' they come across as salesmen with an agenda. (Like the monkeypox nonsense)." policy should be informed by experts not led. How much of inflation is driven by lockdown. Rather than supply side issues in China. Or Russia. Or even brexit. I'm not sure we'd be in much better a position than gmhad we been more open. Interewtws in evidence to support your views. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Experts? An ‘ex’ is a has been, and a ‘spurt! Is a drip under pressure " You sound like my father! Dad joke!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OR if the vast majority of all experts in a field are all saying the same thing, then perhaps the consensus indicates what is happening/going to happen and the small minority of dissenting voices are just outliers who lack credibility? Keep in mind we aren't aregueing for the 'other side' here. Experts can be wrong, and they can be bought and paid for. They can also have their own motivations. The government followed SAGE experts into lockdowns, and now we have massive inflation because of the impact to supply in the economy. Another example would be WHO experts shouting about the urgent danger of Monkeypox despite it only having 3196 confirmed cases in the UK. An expert with real credibility would be someone who can explain something complicated and/or substantiate their claims to a normal person in terms they can comprehend. When people waffle off charts and numbers they don't come across as experts' they come across as salesmen with an agenda. (Like the monkeypox nonsense)." Yep a lone expert is questionable. But when most experts are saying the same things, then we should listen. This was exactly the case with Brexit. Project Fear is fast becoming Project Reality. Giving equal voice to a minority view (that Brexit would be good economically) caused huge damage and influenced people who didn’t (and couldn’t be expected to) understand. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OR if the vast majority of all experts in a field are all saying the same thing, then perhaps the consensus indicates what is happening/going to happen and the small minority of dissenting voices are just outliers who lack credibility? Keep in mind we aren't aregueing for the 'other side' here. Experts can be wrong, and they can be bought and paid for. They can also have their own motivations. The government followed SAGE experts into lockdowns, and now we have massive inflation because of the impact to supply in the economy. Another example would be WHO experts shouting about the urgent danger of Monkeypox despite it only having 3196 confirmed cases in the UK. An expert with real credibility would be someone who can explain something complicated and/or substantiate their claims to a normal person in terms they can comprehend. When people waffle off charts and numbers they don't come across as experts' they come across as salesmen with an agenda. (Like the monkeypox nonsense). Yep a lone expert is questionable. But when most experts are saying the same things, then we should listen. This was exactly the case with Brexit. Project Fear is fast becoming Project Reality. Giving equal voice to a minority view (that Brexit would be good economically) caused huge damage and influenced people who didn’t (and couldn’t be expected to) understand." Remember these wise words encouraging us to remain. The EU is a market on our doorstep, ready for further exploitation by British firms, The membership fee seems rather small for all that access. Why are we so determined to turn our back on it" And predicting that Brexit could lead to an economic shock, Scottish independence and Russian aggression. The person that penned this should have been our PM. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Recalling Newsnight's coverage, Maitlis said: "It might take our producers five minutes to find 60 economists who feared Brexit and five hours to find a sole voice who espoused it. "But by the time we went on air we simply had one of each; we presented this unequal effort to our audience as balance. It wasn't." Brexit. The gift that keeps on giving." Maybe instead of finding out the economists views beforehand they should have selected them at random and on a regular basis throughout the campaign. If they were truly random and the vast majority support a particular view it would soon become clear | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Recalling Newsnight's coverage, Maitlis said: "It might take our producers five minutes to find 60 economists who feared Brexit and five hours to find a sole voice who espoused it. "But by the time we went on air we simply had one of each; we presented this unequal effort to our audience as balance. It wasn't." Brexit. The gift that keeps on giving. Maybe instead of finding out the economists views beforehand they should have selected them at random and on a regular basis throughout the campaign. If they were truly random and the vast majority support a particular view it would soon become clear" Hey you don’t you come in here spouting good ideas and good common sense! This is a Fan forum!!!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Recalling Newsnight's coverage, Maitlis said: "It might take our producers five minutes to find 60 economists who feared Brexit and five hours to find a sole voice who espoused it. "But by the time we went on air we simply had one of each; we presented this unequal effort to our audience as balance. It wasn't." Brexit. The gift that keeps on giving.TBF this is more than just Brexit. See also: climate change. She was the one who got censored for saying Cummings broke COVID laws right ? Because Boris said he didn't ... "Yeah the climate change bias is ridiculous. They have a real scientist, and a maniac who believes the earth is 6,000 years old for "balance". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OR if the vast majority of all experts in a field are all saying the same thing, then perhaps the consensus indicates what is happening/going to happen and the small minority of dissenting voices are just outliers who lack credibility? Keep in mind we aren't aregueing for the 'other side' here. Experts can be wrong, and they can be bought and paid for. They can also have their own motivations. The government followed SAGE experts into lockdowns, and now we have massive inflation because of the impact to supply in the economy. Another example would be WHO experts shouting about the urgent danger of Monkeypox despite it only having 3196 confirmed cases in the UK. An expert with real credibility would be someone who can explain something complicated and/or substantiate their claims to a normal person in terms they can comprehend. When people waffle off charts and numbers they don't come across as experts' they come across as salesmen with an agenda. (Like the monkeypox nonsense). Yep a lone expert is questionable. But when most experts are saying the same things, then we should listen. This was exactly the case with Brexit. Project Fear is fast becoming Project Reality. Giving equal voice to a minority view (that Brexit would be good economically) caused huge damage and influenced people who didn’t (and couldn’t be expected to) understand. Remember these wise words encouraging us to remain. The EU is a market on our doorstep, ready for further exploitation by British firms, The membership fee seems rather small for all that access. Why are we so determined to turn our back on it" And predicting that Brexit could lead to an economic shock, Scottish independence and Russian aggression. The person that penned this should have been our PM. " Not 1 nibble | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Recalling Newsnight's coverage, Maitlis said: "It might take our producers five minutes to find 60 economists who feared Brexit and five hours to find a sole voice who espoused it. "But by the time we went on air we simply had one of each; we presented this unequal effort to our audience as balance. It wasn't." Brexit. The gift that keeps on giving." . This provides a good example as to why the BBC should either be closed down or privatised. We have no choice buy to pay the licence fee yet there are lots of other channels far more worthy of a subscription. Her statement lacks common sense for two reasons. How often do economists ever get their predictions right? To find economists supporting Brexit all she had to do was phone Tim Martin or Lord Bamford . The arrogance of this presenter defies belief. She seems to that only her opinion mattes and not that of anyone else. It would be interesting to know what her salary at the BBC was. She was milking the public for every penny she could get. Maybe the public have more common sense and have a better grasp of reality than she has . Her arrogance defies belief . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Recalling Newsnight's coverage, Maitlis said: "It might take our producers five minutes to find 60 economists who feared Brexit and five hours to find a sole voice who espoused it. "But by the time we went on air we simply had one of each; we presented this unequal effort to our audience as balance. It wasn't." Brexit. The gift that keeps on giving.. This provides a good example as to why the BBC should either be closed down or privatised. We have no choice buy to pay the licence fee yet there are lots of other channels far more worthy of a subscription. Her statement lacks common sense for two reasons. How often do economists ever get their predictions right? To find economists supporting Brexit all she had to do was phone Tim Martin or Lord Bamford . The arrogance of this presenter defies belief. She seems to that only her opinion mattes and not that of anyone else. It would be interesting to know what her salary at the BBC was. She was milking the public for every penny she could get. Maybe the public have more common sense and have a better grasp of reality than she has . Her arrogance defies belief . " did Tim and Banford know some then? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Recalling Newsnight's coverage, Maitlis said: "It might take our producers five minutes to find 60 economists who feared Brexit and five hours to find a sole voice who espoused it. "But by the time we went on air we simply had one of each; we presented this unequal effort to our audience as balance. It wasn't." Brexit. The gift that keeps on giving.. This provides a good example as to why the BBC should either be closed down or privatised. We have no choice buy to pay the licence fee yet there are lots of other channels far more worthy of a subscription. Her statement lacks common sense for two reasons. How often do economists ever get their predictions right? To find economists supporting Brexit all she had to do was phone Tim Martin or Lord Bamford . The arrogance of this presenter defies belief. She seems to that only her opinion mattes and not that of anyone else. It would be interesting to know what her salary at the BBC was. She was milking the public for every penny she could get. Maybe the public have more common sense and have a better grasp of reality than she has . Her arrogance defies belief . " Oh MrHay, you do seem to be struggling a bit these days | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tim Martin, the renowned economist?" It's honestly not worth responding to Hay. He just trolls. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tim Martin, the renowned economist? It's honestly not worth responding to Hay. He just trolls." He posts satirically to make fun of people who vote Tory and people who think Brexit is a good idea. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tim Martin, the renowned economist? It's honestly not worth responding to Hay. He just trolls. He posts satirically to make fun of people who vote Tory and people who think Brexit is a good idea." it does feel like he's flipped. I can't tell if this is intentional or because the real life has swung so far, that they've left no room for the exaggerated view that he used to revel in. It's a shame. Wind up Hay was an asset to the forum. Now it feels like tired rock band who are still touring to feed their drug habit. Noone wangs to hear the new stuff and when we hear their classics, it simply reminds us of how far they have fallen. It doesn't help that Seb gets more notes nowadays. You will always be remembered Hay as one of the better WUMs. Let the new talent have the space to grow. x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OR if the vast majority of all experts in a field are all saying the same thing, then perhaps the consensus indicates what is happening/going to happen and the small minority of dissenting voices are just outliers who lack credibility? Keep in mind we aren't aregueing for the 'other side' here. Experts can be wrong, and they can be bought and paid for. They can also have their own motivations. The government followed SAGE experts into lockdowns, and now we have massive inflation because of the impact to supply in the economy. Another example would be WHO experts shouting about the urgent danger of Monkeypox despite it only having 3196 confirmed cases in the UK. An expert with real credibility would be someone who can explain something complicated and/or substantiate their claims to a normal person in terms they can comprehend. When people waffle off charts and numbers they don't come across as experts' they come across as salesmen with an agenda. (Like the monkeypox nonsense). Yep a lone expert is questionable. But when most experts are saying the same things, then we should listen. This was exactly the case with Brexit. Project Fear is fast becoming Project Reality. Giving equal voice to a minority view (that Brexit would be good economically) caused huge damage and influenced people who didn’t (and couldn’t be expected to) understand. Remember these wise words encouraging us to remain. The EU is a market on our doorstep, ready for further exploitation by British firms, The membership fee seems rather small for all that access. Why are we so determined to turn our back on it" And predicting that Brexit could lead to an economic shock, Scottish independence and Russian aggression. The person that penned this should have been our PM. " Being PM was more important to him than the country so Get Brexit Done became his mantra | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Recalling Newsnight's coverage, Maitlis said: "It might take our producers five minutes to find 60 economists who feared Brexit and five hours to find a sole voice who espoused it. "But by the time we went on air we simply had one of each; we presented this unequal effort to our audience as balance. It wasn't." Brexit. The gift that keeps on giving." Th article below is probably a true reflection of what people think on Emily Which leads to another revealing and concerning topic within her speech. Maitlis spoke of the corporation reaching a “superficial balance” of “both sideism” during the Brexit debates when producers of Newsnight would seek to find pro-Brexit economists and anti-Brexit economists to equally argue their case. Maitlis seems to believe that minority voices shouldn’t have been given the same amount of exposure, as they didn’t fall into the category of respected consensus. Or worse still, the audience should have been made aware – like the children they are – that one side was indeed correct. It is worth remembering that Remainer economists made predictions that didn’t come true, such as businesses fleeing the UK en masse and trade collapsing after Brexit. This condescending opinion is sadly shared by many on the left and it should be confronted whenever it rears its ugly head, especially in the case of Brexit. It is alarming that a senior and respected journalist, who up until recently was paid a vast sum by the taxpayer, is essentially making the case for restricting the general public of their right to have their views represented. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Recalling Newsnight's coverage, Maitlis said: "It might take our producers five minutes to find 60 economists who feared Brexit and five hours to find a sole voice who espoused it. "But by the time we went on air we simply had one of each; we presented this unequal effort to our audience as balance. It wasn't." Brexit. The gift that keeps on giving. Th article below is probably a true reflection of what people think on Emily Which leads to another revealing and concerning topic within her speech. Maitlis spoke of the corporation reaching a “superficial balance” of “both sideism” during the Brexit debates when producers of Newsnight would seek to find pro-Brexit economists and anti-Brexit economists to equally argue their case. Maitlis seems to believe that minority voices shouldn’t have been given the same amount of exposure, as they didn’t fall into the category of respected consensus. Or worse still, the audience should have been made aware – like the children they are – that one side was indeed correct. It is worth remembering that Remainer economists made predictions that didn’t come true, such as businesses fleeing the UK en masse and trade collapsing after Brexit. This condescending opinion is sadly shared by many on the left and it should be confronted whenever it rears its ugly head, especially in the case of Brexit. It is alarming that a senior and respected journalist, who up until recently was paid a vast sum by the taxpayer, is essentially making the case for restricting the general public of their right to have their views represented. " does she say they couldn't have their views represented? Or that it was hard work to represent both sides, and that this isnt shared with the viewers? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Recalling Newsnight's coverage, Maitlis said: "It might take our producers five minutes to find 60 economists who feared Brexit and five hours to find a sole voice who espoused it. "But by the time we went on air we simply had one of each; we presented this unequal effort to our audience as balance. It wasn't." Brexit. The gift that keeps on giving. Th article below is probably a true reflection of what people think on Emily Which leads to another revealing and concerning topic within her speech. Maitlis spoke of the corporation reaching a “superficial balance” of “both sideism” during the Brexit debates when producers of Newsnight would seek to find pro-Brexit economists and anti-Brexit economists to equally argue their case. Maitlis seems to believe that minority voices shouldn’t have been given the same amount of exposure, as they didn’t fall into the category of respected consensus. Or worse still, the audience should have been made aware – like the children they are – that one side was indeed correct. It is worth remembering that Remainer economists made predictions that didn’t come true, such as businesses fleeing the UK en masse and trade collapsing after Brexit. This condescending opinion is sadly shared by many on the left and it should be confronted whenever it rears its ugly head, especially in the case of Brexit. It is alarming that a senior and respected journalist, who up until recently was paid a vast sum by the taxpayer, is essentially making the case for restricting the general public of their right to have their views represented. " Except there was no equal voice and it created a sense of false equivalence of opinion. Here is another example... British Medical Journal asked 1172 doctors, nurses and paramedics. 83% said Brexit would be bad for the NHS. The Express found 50 who supported it and ran this headline... “Doctors, nurses and paramedics urge public to vote for Brexit to save NHS” Totally misleading and disingenuous. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
