OBO wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:01 pm
Yet you know nothing about the bint...fuck off and troll elswhere.
Do you fully appreciate that you are a figure of fun?
I do actually mean what I say - just regurgitating the headline "she's paid £12k an hour" demonstrates you probably haven't thought about it very much. Ditto on the point of what one person considers talent someone else can't stand.
OBO wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:01 pm
Yet you know nothing about the bint...fuck off and troll elswhere.
Do you fully appreciate that you are a figure of fun?
I do actually mean what I say - just regurgitating the headline "she's paid £12k an hour" demonstrates you probably haven't thought about it very much. Ditto on the point of what one person considers talent someone else can't stand.
Stuff like ^^^^ is just gonna attract weeksy.
And I meant what I said boy...
you and "jackyjoll" are trolling/goading for a reaction.
I expect it from "jackyjoll", he's been posting snidey crap like he's doing now for over 20 yrs. It's all the sad sack has got...shame the bone idle twat didn't put the same effort into maintaining his dog of a Triton, such a waste of a great bike..
Nobody mentioned anything about a headline...quit your trolling.
So tell me then, why is it not worth paying her £12k per hour? You also still haven't answered if it's £12k per hour or £12k per show which is an hour, or £24k per 2hr show or what?
You obviously have an opinion on the matter otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up.
EDIT: BTW I've never tried to troll anyone, sorry if you see it that way.
Last edited by Mr. Dazzle on Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
John Redwood talking about TV news, especially BBC news:
For much of the last year the two story lines of pandemic and global warming have dominated most news broadcasts. It is often not a case of “news”, but recycling “olds”. It is often not hard news but regurgitated opinion or forecasts, not reported events and government statements but opinion surveys and lobby group reports inspired to prove a viewpoint.
I think he's broadly right but I also think it's nothing new. In fact I bet if you did one of these derided media studies degrees you'd find text books saying pretty much the same thing. That's a little bit ironic, given the thrust of his argument
The media has never been hard news IMO, which is why we have papers, TV channels and now websites that run across the whole spectrum from left to right.
I also see his sort of opinion floated a lot. These days, more than any other time in history AFAICT, every media announcement is greeted by a whole chorus of online content drilling down into the fine minutiae of "what really happened" complete with sources....so if the media are failing us on the one hand surely the huge availability of information on the other counters it?
Mr. Dazzle wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 3:48 pm
I think he's broadly right but I also think it's nothing new. In fact I bet if you did one of these derided media studies degrees you'd find text books saying pretty much the same thing. That's a little bit ironic, given the thrust of his argument
The media has never been hard news IMO, which is why we have papers, TV channels and now websites that run across the whole spectrum from left to right.
I also see his sort of opinion floated a lot. These days, more than any other time in history AFAICT, every media announcement is greeted by a whole chorus of online content drilling down into the fine minutiae of "what really happened" complete with sources....so if the media are failing us on the one hand surely the huge availability of information on the other counters it?
What are "... papers, TV channels and now websites ..." if not "media"? Lost me there, sorry, my bad I guess.
It is the advent of 24 hour rolling news media which has required the gaps between so-called "hard news" to be filled with non-news items. IYSWIM
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people." - Giordano Bruno
I mean papers etc. as examples of the media. Da Meeja have always been about recycled opinion and comment, not the hard news everyone misses. They print/screen/upload whatever gets people 'through the door' not an impartial story. We have outlets which lean one way or the other so that you know what particular flavour of bias and opinion you're buying into, even if you don't call it that.
Totally agree about rolling news and the internet BTW, it just massively changes the wheat/chaff ratio.
Just to maybe clarify - if the news was historically all about hard news, why have their always been multiple outlets with multiple spins and different audiences? If it's hard news surely there's only one story?
Saga Lout wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 2:11 pm
John Redwood talking about TV news, especially BBC news:
For much of the last year the two story lines of pandemic and global warming have dominated most news broadcasts. It is often not a case of “news”, but recycling “olds”. It is often not hard news but regurgitated opinion or forecasts, not reported events and government statements but opinion surveys and lobby group reports inspired to prove a viewpoint.
Like him or loathe him, I think he's hit the nail on the head,
As ever was.
Once the News starts telling you things you don't like you're all over it, pulling it apart, looking at what isn't shown, disgusted when facts drift into opinion.
If it's telling you what you want to hear, you don't give so much of a toss. Redwood has probably just got older and doesn't like anyone under 50 or uppity foreigners.
Mr. Dazzle wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 4:37 pm
Just to maybe clarify - if the news was historically all about hard news, why have their always been multiple outlets with multiple spins and different audiences? If it's hard news surely there's only one story?
Because there's news and there's opinion. When I was young and apolitical in the 70s I used to buy the Telegraph. I liked that the news was (in my opinion) reported straight and opinions and commentary about the news were clearly labelled as such. The tabloids' "news" seemed to be aimed at a much more partisan audience with news and comment difficult to differentiate. Now all the "news" outlets seem to report the news as if they have their own dog in the fight.
Well if that's true - and I really don't know how you'd begin to tell if it were/weren't other than through straight opinion - I suspect it is mostly due to the shift in media format and not much to do with SJW, Wokeness, Snowflakes, Gammons or the Toxic Elderly. In fact if anything I also suspect the latter would be a result of the former, not the other way around.
Saga Lout wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 7:35 pm
Because there's news and there's opinion. When I was young and apolitical in the 70s I used to buy the Telegraph. I liked that the news was (in my opinion) reported straight and opinions and commentary about the news were clearly labelled as such. The tabloids' "news" seemed to be aimed at a much more partisan audience with news and comment difficult to differentiate. Now all the "news" outlets seem to report the news as if they have their own dog in the fight.
Even if you can clearly separate 'fact' and opinion, the bias shows in which 'facts; you include. On any day there is an almost infinite number of 'facts', so selection is inevitable, but the eg, Telegraph and the Guardian are quite likely to select different sub-sets
Saga Lout wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 7:35 pm When I was young and apolitical in the 70s I used to buy the Telegraph. I liked that ...
I used to read the Guardian. Partly because when they got something wrong they were about the only paper to print corrections in a font big enough to read.
Horse wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:13 pm
I used to read the Guardian. Partly because when they got something wrong they were about the only paper to print corrections in a font big enough to read.
I've read the Guardian. If you're right, it should be 50% corrections.
Saga Lout wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 9:08 pm
I've read the Guardian. If you're right, it should be 50% corrections.
They only correct facts, large parts of the Guardian are opinions.
I don't have a regular paper, but occasionally buy the Times, the Telegraph or the Guardian*. It is quite interesting to compare the slants of say the Guardian and the Telegraph to essentially the same facts. Both often offer valid viewpoints, and the objective 'truth' lies somewhere between them.
* I also sometimes read the Express, just for a giggle. But please don't tell anyone.
