|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 13, 2023 0:37:37 GMT
Do you agree?
For example I switched on the BBC today and got this inane debate about that dodgy git at the BBC and it went on for ages, then some 4 hours later the same load of crap was repeated. Why broadcast the same programme twice in one day? It was bad enough the fist time. A load of freakin women gossiping and saying nothing.
So you may well ask what is really going on in the country, and the answer is we really do not know, because this bullshit is filling the airwaves, like gossip day in and day out. It does not matter what channel you listen to. GB News is just as shit as the BBC for gossip. Newspapers are the same and even if you try independent reporters on Youtube they are all covering this shit and never bother to research real news, like stuff that actually matters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 13, 2023 11:16:45 GMT
I have a bit of news today. Top Harvard psychology professor Francesca Gino has been outed as a fraud.
So who in the UK does report it?
It seems we have her in the Times, FT, Daily Mail, but the BBC has gone quiet. Why would that be? Lets take a look at what the BBC does report on her.
How being a rebel at work gets you ahead
The neglected benefits of the commute
The bias that can cause catastrophe
And so on. the BBC is a regular publisher of her work, but fails to notify the Brits that they were reporting a fraud.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 13, 2023 12:16:34 GMT
Thing is BvL, a 'News' programme regardless of broadcaster will want to attract viewers/listeners. I suspect a story about a Harvard psychology professor who has been outed as a fraud would immediately have people reaching for the remote. People who tune into news programmes want to hear 'relevant' news stories. People who want to listen to news stories about Harvard professors tune into the World Service not the 6 O'clock news.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 13, 2023 13:03:10 GMT
Thing is BvL, a 'News' programme regardless of broadcaster will want to attract viewers/listeners. I suspect a story about a Harvard psychology professor who has been outed as a fraud would immediately have people reaching for the remote. People who tune into news programmes want to hear 'relevant' news stories. People who want to listen to news stories about Harvard professors tune into the World Service not the 6 O'clock news. The poof that you are wrong is actually contained in my second post. I'll make it very simple to see. The BBC put out a whole series of long articles showcasing her research. I only listed three, but I think you will find others. The BBC's normal bias in news reporting is to report people doing wrong stuff. We know this from my first post. Now can you spot the anomaly here?
Indeed if you as a professional publisher publish errors unwittingly and then later on you discover the mistake, it is the practice to publish a correction. They have published the work of a fraud and now leave their readers lied to. Exactly how moral is this?
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 13, 2023 13:10:29 GMT
Thing is BvL, a 'News' programme regardless of broadcaster will want to attract viewers/listeners. I suspect a story about a Harvard psychology professor who has been outed as a fraud would immediately have people reaching for the remote. People who tune into news programmes want to hear 'relevant' news stories. People who want to listen to news stories about Harvard professors tune into the World Service not the 6 O'clock news. The poof that you are wrong is actually contained in my second post. I'll make it very simple to see. The BBC put out a whole series of long articles showcasing her research. I only listed three, but I think you will find others. The BBC's normal bias in news reporting is to report people doing wrong stuff. We know this from my first post. Now can you spot the anomaly here?
Indeed if you as a professional publisher publish errors unwittingly and then later on you discover the mistake, it is the practice to publish a correction. They have published the work of a fraud and now leave their readers lied to. Exactly how moral is this?
I assure you people who tune into a news bulletin aren't interested in a story about a Harvard professor. Ref the BBC I cant comment, I don't watch it. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jul 13, 2023 13:49:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 13, 2023 14:01:25 GMT
The poof that you are wrong is actually contained in my second post. I'll make it very simple to see. The BBC put out a whole series of long articles showcasing her research. I only listed three, but I think you will find others. The BBC's normal bias in news reporting is to report people doing wrong stuff. We know this from my first post. Now can you spot the anomaly here?
Indeed if you as a professional publisher publish errors unwittingly and then later on you discover the mistake, it is the practice to publish a correction. They have published the work of a fraud and now leave their readers lied to. Exactly how moral is this?
I assure you people who tune into a news bulletin aren't interested in a story about a Harvard professor. Ref the BBC I cant comment, I don't watch it. The people are that stupid because of channels like the BBC. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 13, 2023 14:04:59 GMT
Same pattern eh? I forgot to mention the fraud I referred to earlier was also reported in the Guardian. It looks like a score of Guardian 2, BBC 0 so far. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jul 13, 2023 21:24:53 GMT
Don’t understand the complaint. When corruption and fraud hits home here it gets reported. If it doesn’t affect many in the UK, who’s going to be that interested…?
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 13, 2023 22:17:57 GMT
Don’t understand the complaint. When corruption and fraud hits home here it gets reported. If it doesn’t affect many in the UK, who’s going to be that interested…? What it highlights is dishonesty in science and raises questions as regards the worth of peer review. These are issues that have an immense bearing on the people of the UK as it is 'honest science' that is 'peer reviewed' that the government are using to initiate policies detrimental to most UK citizens. It is interesting that in this item bloggers are praised for highlighting the fraud. In some science, bloggers indicating errors and malpractice are dismissed as charlatans and deniers. Nothing so nasty in the world of science than some of the people that reside therein. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jul 13, 2023 22:55:57 GMT
Don’t understand the complaint. When corruption and fraud hits home here it gets reported. If it doesn’t affect many in the UK, who’s going to be that interested…? What it highlights is dishonesty in science and raises questions as regards the worth of peer review. These are issues that have an immense bearing on the people of the UK as it is 'honest science' that is 'peer reviewed' that the government are using to initiate policies detrimental to most UK citizens. It is interesting that in this item bloggers are praised for highlighting the fraud. In some science, bloggers indicating errors and malpractice are dismissed as charlatans and deniers. Nothing so nasty in the world of science than some of the people that reside therein. That’s your valid view. But it still doesn’t get over the problem of getting people interested. They were interested in the MMR “revelations” because they (falsely) predicted adverse outcomes to ordinary people’s children. But other than that, what guides them is the money in their pocket after putting a roof over the family’s head, food on the table, and light and warmth. I doubt Boris’s victimisation as told by Nadine Dorries, is likely to sway many voters or get many listers, readers or viewers. A few more Huw Edwards-sized stories is what’s needed to get a larger audience for “The News” as wanted by VPL… |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Jul 14, 2023 5:37:16 GMT
Behavioural "scientists" have a quite long and noble history of 'cheating', so I'd say it's not news at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 14, 2023 11:49:15 GMT
What it highlights is dishonesty in science and raises questions as regards the worth of peer review. These are issues that have an immense bearing on the people of the UK as it is 'honest science' that is 'peer reviewed' that the government are using to initiate policies detrimental to most UK citizens. It is interesting that in this item bloggers are praised for highlighting the fraud. In some science, bloggers indicating errors and malpractice are dismissed as charlatans and deniers. Nothing so nasty in the world of science than some of the people that reside therein. That’s your valid view. But it still doesn’t get over the problem of getting people interested. They were interested in the MMR “revelations” because they (falsely) predicted adverse outcomes to ordinary people’s children. But other than that, what guides them is the money in their pocket after putting a roof over the family’s head, food on the table, and light and warmth. I doubt Boris’s victimisation as told by Nadine Dorries, is likely to sway many voters or get many listers, readers or viewers. A few more Huw Edwards-sized stories is what’s needed to get a larger audience for “The News” as wanted by VPL… I listened to Radio 4 this morning for about ten minutes. There was some professor on highlighting floods, rainfall, record temperatures and demanding that something is done to mitigate the effects and stop the increase by government. It was a global warming catastrophe rant well clear of any incisive questions from the reporter or any counter view at all. 'The News' is not always what interests people it is quite often what the news reporters and editors decide we should hear and how we should hear it. The continual Huw Edwards guessing game was able to monopolise 'the news' to the exclusion of much else for days. GB news were no different. Maybe we deserve no different but then maybe the news reporters are pandering to the lowest common denominator. There was a desperation to create the UK record temperature and this was widely reported but the questions surrounding that record temperature are ignored yet debate like that is the very stuff of news broadcasts, or should be. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jul 14, 2023 13:36:45 GMT
That’s your valid view. But it still doesn’t get over the problem of getting people interested. They were interested in the MMR “revelations” because they (falsely) predicted adverse outcomes to ordinary people’s children. But other than that, what guides them is the money in their pocket after putting a roof over the family’s head, food on the table, and light and warmth. I doubt Boris’s victimisation as told by Nadine Dorries, is likely to sway many voters or get many listers, readers or viewers. A few more Huw Edwards-sized stories is what’s needed to get a larger audience for “The News” as wanted by VPL… I listened to Radio 4 this morning for about ten minutes. There was some professor on highlighting floods, rainfall, record temperatures and demanding that something is done to mitigate the effects and stop the increase by government. It was a global warming catastrophe rant well clear of any incisive questions from the reporter or any counter view at all. 'The News' is not always what interests people it is quite often what the news reporters and editors decide we should hear and how we should hear it. The continual Huw Edwards guessing game was able to monopolise 'the news' to the exclusion of much else for days. GB news were no different. Maybe we deserve no different but then maybe the news reporters are pandering to the lowest common denominator. There was a desperation to create the UK record temperature and this was widely reported but the questions surrounding that record temperature are ignored yet debate like that is the very stuff of news broadcasts, or should be. I don't necessarily disagree, but as you admit, you only listened for 10 min. I haven't yet listened to BBC at all today. But weather is always a prime talking point in the UK, and often gets confused with climate, so both wacky and feasible opinions get aired.
Personally, I think climate change is obvious and needs to be catered for, used, and where possible, alleviated. It may or may not be existential for some countries, and deciding on the cause(s) might be helpful. Some actions already have the benefit of cleaning up the environment — others are only making life more difficult.
The Huw Edwards story today appears to have shifted its focus onto the activities of the BBC and the Sun, with a couple of references to Murdoch's anti-BBC actions and views — though I don't understand why it's still getting so much coverage.
News brings news, which can be made more informative by interviews, but I regard debate as a different programme form...
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jul 14, 2023 13:57:48 GMT
That’s your valid view. But it still doesn’t get over the problem of getting people interested. They were interested in the MMR “revelations” because they (falsely) predicted adverse outcomes to ordinary people’s children. But other than that, what guides them is the money in their pocket after putting a roof over the family’s head, food on the table, and light and warmth. I doubt Boris’s victimisation as told by Nadine Dorries, is likely to sway many voters or get many listers, readers or viewers. A few more Huw Edwards-sized stories is what’s needed to get a larger audience for “The News” as wanted by VPL… I listened to Radio 4 this morning for about ten minutes. There was some professor on highlighting floods, rainfall, record temperatures and demanding that something is done to mitigate the effects and stop the increase by government. It was a global warming catastrophe rant well clear of any incisive questions from the reporter or any counter view at all. 'The News' is not always what interests people it is quite often what the news reporters and editors decide we should hear and how we should hear it. The continual Huw Edwards guessing game was able to monopolise 'the news' to the exclusion of much else for days. GB news were no different. Maybe we deserve no different but then maybe the news reporters are pandering to the lowest common denominator. There was a desperation to create the UK record temperature and this was widely reported but the questions surrounding that record temperature are ignored yet debate like that is the very stuff of news broadcasts, or should be. The BBC can't be expected to give airtime to every fringe nutter who wants to come on and argue against the scientific consensus. |
|
