[Will Hunt]

if you've ever read anything about yourself or stuff you know lots about in the media, it teaches you that they all talk nonsense and that you should take everything with a pinch of salt.

Ha, yeah, there were a few news reports on some of the work my group did when I was doing a PhD and anything in the non-specialist media was total bollocks.

I get this point but I'm not sure how much I'd read into it when considering political reporting. When a hack gets the job of reporting on the FA of the Dawn Wall or whatever they're dipping into a specialist subject for a day or a couple of minutes/hours and the reporting reflects that. It's not comparable to political reporting where the correspondents spend their whole careers closely following the events and often have relevant education in history/PPE etc.

On the general principle of BBC bias, we've flogged this horse to death before on here and I can't be arsed to join in again.

[Loos3-tools]

Just as the corona narrative is starting to look on shaky ground they ramp up the behavioural nudges or deflect with identity politics.

Okay, there are 4 points here:

What is the corona narrative
What is the recent counter evidence
Identify the increased behavioural nudges
How is the BBC increasingly using identity politics to distract viewers

I am not clear what they are. Please can you unpack this for me?

Will you answer this Mr Tools?

I'm inviting a shit storm of my own making replying to that, so best to assume and probably quite correctly it was a no nothing idiot statement

[seankenny]

I get this point but I'm not sure how much I'd read into it when considering political reporting. When a hack gets the job of reporting on the FA of the Dawn Wall or whatever they're dipping into a specialist subject for a day or a couple of minutes/hours and the reporting reflects that. It's not comparable to political reporting where the correspondents spend their whole careers closely following the events and often have relevant education in history/PPE etc.

Having worked in and with the media for years, I can’t emphasis this enough. Some reporters know their subject backwards, some are clueless and have picked up the story that morning.

But... I tend to find a lot of economics reporting really poor. I think this comes because it bleeds into everything else so inevitably not very knowledgeable people report on it. Also maybe editors count PPE as a relevant qualification in this respect...

[JamieG]

Just as the corona narrative is starting to look on shaky ground they ramp up the behavioural nudges or deflect with identity politics.

Okay, there are 4 points here:

What is the corona narrative
What is the recent counter evidence
Identify the increased behavioural nudges
How is the BBC increasingly using identity politics to distract viewers

I am not clear what they are. Please can you unpack this for me?

Will you answer this Mr Tools?

I'm inviting a shit storm of my own making replying to that, so best to assume and probably quite correctly it was a no nothing idiot statement

This is getting totally ridiculous. This is a thread that you specifically started! And now you won't actually answer someone's request for evidence (or even a more detailed explanation) of the BBC's supposed narrative bias. No wonder everyones eyes are rolling!

[tomtom]

I have to stand up (with national anthem playing, wearing my Kate and Wills celebration boxers) and stick up for the BBC’s coverage of the Royal Family this last week.

[Loos3-tools]

Just as the corona narrative is starting to look on shaky ground they ramp up the behavioural nudges or deflect with identity politics.

Okay, there are 4 points here:

What is the corona narrative
What is the recent counter evidence
Identify the increased behavioural nudges
How is the BBC increasingly using identity politics to distract viewers

I am not clear what they are. Please can you unpack this for me?

Will you answer this Mr Tools?

I'm inviting a shit storm of my own making replying to that, so best to assume and probably quite correctly it was a no nothing idiot statement

This is getting totally ridiculous. This is a thread that you specifically started! And now you won't actually answer someone's request for evidence (or even a more detailed explanation) of the BBC's supposed narrative bias. No wonder everyones eyes are rolling!

Ok ok this video explains everything

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fxjNQZFrthw&feature=youtu.be

[JamieG]

I don't know why I even bothered . . . 

[Loos3-tools]

Take this interview. No matter what your opinion it would never appear on the bbc

https://www.newsweek.com/stanford-doctor-calls-lockdowns-biggest-public-health-mistake-weve-ever-made-1574540?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true

[mrjonathanr]

Will you answer this Mr Tools?

I'm inviting a shit storm of my own making replying to that, so best to assume and probably quite correctly it was a no nothing idiot statement

  Fair enough

[Loos3-tools]

They haven’t interviewed Martin Kulldorff and here is an interesting experience of one Dr being interviewed on BBC world

https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/coronavirus/2020/10/why-scientists-fear-toxic-covid-19-debate

[Loos3-tools]

There a clip out there somewhere of Allyson Pollock literally being taken off air for questioning the narrative. Cut off mid sentence when answering a question during a bbc interview

[JamieG]

Take this interview. No matter what your opinion it would never appear on the bbc

https://www.newsweek.com/stanford-doctor-calls-lockdowns-biggest-public-health-mistake-weve-ever-made-1574540?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true

No, true the BBC would never cover the potential long term negative effects of coronavirus and lockdown.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54483547
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55998067
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-54418913
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20201021-coronavirus-the-possible-long-term-mental-health-impacts

It just doesn't fit the narrative . . .

[abarro81]

Re the newstatesman article, I just read the headline part.. do you really think your approach to discussion (saying something vaguely controversial then failing to engage in discussion at all) "encourages nuance"? If so I want what you're smoking. You're worse than the people you spend all your posts deriding, to the point where I can't work out whether it's all a giant deliberate ironic joke

[Loos3-tools]

This Oxford professor states the bbc asked her not to talk about her anti lockdown appeal

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-scientists-at-war-a4569551.html%3famp

[Loos3-tools]

Take this interview. No matter what your opinion it would never appear on the bbc

https://www.newsweek.com/stanford-doctor-calls-lockdowns-biggest-public-health-mistake-weve-ever-made-1574540?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true

No, true the BBC would never cover the potential long term negative effects of coronavirus and lockdown.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54483547
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55998067
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-54418913
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20201021-coronavirus-the-possible-long-term-mental-health-impacts

It just doesn't fit the narrative . . .

It’s not the same

[tomtom]

And Piers Morgan had left GMTV. Jaw. Drop.

[abarro81]

This Oxford professor states the bbc asked her not to talk about her anti lockdown appeal

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-scientists-at-war-a4569551.html%3famp

And yet I've heard her discuss it on the BBC on R4 (Today or WATO)...

[Loos3-tools]

Re the newstatesman article, I just read the headline part.. do you really think your approach to discussion (saying something vaguely controversial then failing to engage in discussion at all) "encourages nuance"? If so I want what you're smoking. You're worse than the people you spend all your posts deriding, to the point where I can't work out whether it's all a giant deliberate ironic joke

Psychedelics would be the drug of choice but I’m not really brave enough to go there these days. There is some interesting research showing mental health benefits. Unfortunately they were vilified for the last  50 years because the government and media said so 

[teestub]

...to the point where I can't work out whether it's all a giant deliberate ironic joke

I often find myself leaning in this direction, that it’s all a performance piece, just not sure to what end!

[Loos3-tools]

You encouraged me back on here knobber

[JamieG]

Take this interview. No matter what your opinion it would never appear on the bbc

https://www.newsweek.com/stanford-doctor-calls-lockdowns-biggest-public-health-mistake-weve-ever-made-1574540?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true

No, true the BBC would never cover the potential long term negative effects of coronavirus and lockdown.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54483547
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55998067
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-54418913
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20201021-coronavirus-the-possible-long-term-mental-health-impacts

It just doesn't fit the narrative . . .

It’s not the same

Everything in the newsweek link is in the BBC links. Disproportionate effect on poorer people, long term (and short term) mental health problems. Lockdown (but not the virus) more problematic for the young. What am I missing? Explain why it is not the same. I mean its not 'exactly' the same interview, but as far as I can see everything is covered.

[abarro81]

I can only assume Dan sits at home jerking off over how clever is his to manage to get us to waste all our time on his art

[ali k]

And Piers Morgan had left GMTV. Jaw. Drop.

What a snowflake. Don’t dish it if ya can’t take...wonder how long the weather guy had been holding that in...

[Loos3-tools]

Take this interview. No matter what your opinion it would never appear on the bbc

https://www.newsweek.com/stanford-doctor-calls-lockdowns-biggest-public-health-mistake-weve-ever-made-1574540?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true

No, true the BBC would never cover the potential long term negative effects of coronavirus and lockdown.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54483547
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55998067
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-54418913
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20201021-coronavirus-the-possible-long-term-mental-health-impacts

It just doesn't fit the narrative . . .

It’s not the same

Everything in the newsweek link is in the BBC links. Disproportionate effect on poorer people, long term (and short term) mental health problems. Lockdown (but not the virus) more problematic for the young. What am I missing? Explain why it is not the same. I mean its not 'exactly' the same interview, but as far as I can see everything is covered.

If the bbc or government gave a shit about these things they would spend equal time pumping this out as they do the fear campaign

[abarro81]

If the bbc or government gave a shit about these things they would spend equal time pumping this out as they do the fear campaign

How do you come to that conclusion?
1) Gov - no they wouldn't, that would be a fucking retarded way to run a country. ("These are the measures we think are most appropriate, here's a list of reasons why you should ignore them")

2) Media
This is a tricky one because it blurs the lines of science, politics, morals, opinions... Your starting point seems to be that all sides of a debate are equal, but that's a weak starting point e.g. we don't need a climate change denier on every climate article, we don't need to spend as much time on homeopathy as medical treatments with actual evidence behind them. How to choose what to cover "fairly" then becomes quite complex...