General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
They're the first to complain that they aren't being included.
They're the first to complain that they aren't the only ones talking.
Decrying cancellation on the front of a newspaper.
That's the trouble with public service broadcasters, they are not immune from political interference.
Jeremy Corbyn got it right, rather than make the controller a political position make them accountable to a independent body. This should go some way to repairing the BBC's bias problem.
It won't happen though they are too good a propaganda outfit. Who for? The establishment. Whichever party is in power. So, you want to change the BBC? You need to change government.
And for those that advocate abolition, at least with the current system, you have one lever of power. Good luck in influencing Rupert Murdoch to sway his reporting.
Scrabbles around looking for shocked face Pikachu
Sorry, Pikachu wasn't right wing enough.
Does the 9 year window chosen for this co-inside precisely with when production was outsourced?
Fortunately, forty years of mostly questionable social science has proven, albeit very inconclusively, that visual media has no effect whatsoever on the viewer. Which is why this sort of thing is, as they say, No Big Deal.
This academic review is brought to you by the upstanding fellows at Shell Oil, The Deutch-Russo Benevolent Fund, and Cambridge Analytica. As you were.
"...Things like that, you know, the usual big guy lies" said Ford Prefect "You know, I'm not even so sure they were wrong" said Zaphod Beeblebrox in a relaxed tone. "I mean suuure, maybe on some idiotic races here and there like humans or..." "What? What about humans?" Piped Arthur Dent.
I'm shocked, shocked I say.
This bias has been known and commented upon in UK political forums for over a decade. This, for instance, is parr for the course.
The show also constantly used rightwing hacks from client media or thinktank spokespeople when filling the non-politician spot. It got to the point that if felt that Kate Andrews had been burnt onto my monitor.
Turn the ship, turn the ship!
No way? A tory-run organisation is amplifying voices sympathetic to their cause? I am shocked.
Standard British sarcastic comment...
It's almost as if right wing people shouting loudly gets more viewers, be it with those that agree with them or not.
///////////SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
Looks at their political presenters...no way
Am I missing something or does this article not provide a link to the study? Red flag there.
The data is in the article
A selection of the data is in the article.
What's their methodology, what's their assumptions, what's their references? If you want to look credible and trustworthy in your analysis you should provide links to this sort of information. Otherwise you might be accused of misinformation.
I'm not saying either way, but I am asking where this can be found. I don't think that's unreasonable, right?
It seems like all of the data is in the article to me. There are searchable tables on all of the criteria and the information comes from the publicly accessible TV show that is being studied. I'm sure if you trawled through every episode and charted the guests yourself, it would be easy to point out anything false.
It looks like the study is still ongoing and has not been "published" in that it has not been written up and peer reviewed, but this is an article about the raw data collected and drawing some conclusions from that alone.
Even if it were peer reviewed and published in a journal, the peers would not go through and verify the data before publication.
Yeah that's all fine and good. I just thought it was odd that they don't mention this. I'm not sure why they didn't. But I only spent a few minutes looking at the article, it was just something that crossed my mind. Usually this a big red flag when talking about and presenting data, that's all.
There are articles about studies, and there are articles of investigative reporting. This is the latter.