The Accuracy of Media (Split)

[Turkish]

3 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Sums it up pretty well for me

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/matt-le-tissier-southampton-bucha-tweet-b2052348.html?amp

A person in the media defending the media, who'd have thought it. 

 

 

[TWar]

49 minutes ago, Turkish said:

A person in the media defending the media, who'd have thought it. 

 

 

If you don't listen to those employed to give information who do you listen to? The only answer is to ignore those who investigate these things and listen to some idiot on twitter.

Be skeptical of specific journos by all means, with reason, but to not trust "the media" will leave a void of information which is easily filled by the stupid, the manipulative, or both.

Edited 7 April, 2022 by TWar

[Turkish]

13 minutes ago, TWar said:

If you don't listen to those employed to give information who do you listen to? The only answer is to ignore those who investigate these things and listen to some idiot on twitter.

Be skeptical of specific journos by all means, with reason, but to not trust "the media" will leave a void of information which is easily filled by the stupid, the manipulative, or both.

The other day you dismissed a link i posted as being from the Sun and your comment was "i could have guessed you'd be a sun reader" Sun journalists are employed to give information but you didn't want to accept it. Why are you now contradicting that view?

Take your information from a wide range of sources* then form an opinion, do not only take your information from sources which are confirmation bias. 

*no this does not mean dickheads with youtube channels or twitter helmets.

Edited 7 April, 2022 by Turkish

[TWar]

6 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Take your information from a wide range of sources* then form an opinion, do not only take your information from sources which are confirmation bias. 

*no this does not mean dickheads with youtube channels or twitter helmets.

How do you do that if you write off the independent, one of the most well respected media outlets, as "the media defending the media"?

[Turkish]

1 minute ago, TWar said:

How do you do that if you write off the independent, one of the most well respected media outlets, as "the media defending the media"?

The other day you dismissed a link i posted as being from the Sun and your comment was "i could have guessed you'd be a sun reader" Sun journalists are employed to give information but you didn't want to accept it. Why are you now contradicting that view?

[TWar]

5 minutes ago, Turkish said:

The other day you dismissed a link i posted as being from the Sun and your comment was "i could have guessed you'd be a sun reader" Sun journalists are employed to give information but you didn't want to accept it. Why are you now contradicting that view?

The independent is a good news paper. The Sun is a lying shitrag. Hope this helps.

[Turkish]

1 minute ago, TWar said:

The independent is a good news paper. The Sun is a lying shitrag. Hope this helps.

But that contradicts your earlier statement

"If you don't listen to those employed to give information who do you listen to?" Sun employees are also employed to give information

So now you're saying we shouldn't listen to all people employed to give information, correct?

[SaintsLoyal]

le tissier is total hypocrite with regards to the 'mainstream media' slagging them off daily, but worked for several years and in recent months has done a QA with a BBC sports reporter and two sit down articles with the daily express and daily telegraph. 

[aintforever]

5 minutes ago, Turkish said:

But that contradicts your earlier statement

"If you don't listen to those employed to give information who do you listen to?" Sun employees are also employed to give information

So now you're saying we shouldn't listen to all people employed to give information, correct?

Yeah, because you can't get a proper understanding of potential genocide without checking out a pair of tits first.

[Turkish]

Just now, aintforever said:

Yeah, because you can't get a proper understanding of potential genocide without checking out a pair of tits first.

Unsurprisingly, you're totally missing the point.

 

[TWar]

32 minutes ago, TWar said:

Be skeptical of specific journos by all means, with reason

 

7 minutes ago, Turkish said:

But that contradicts your earlier statement

"If you don't listen to those employed to give information who do you listen to?" Sun employees are also employed to give information

So now you're saying we shouldn't listen to all people employed to give information, correct?

Reread the original comment. It's about not trusting the entire media. Certain outlets can absolutely be doubted, especially ones with good reason to call them bullshit, like Hillsborough.

[Turkish]

Just now, TWar said:

 

Reread the original comment. It's about not trusting the entire media. Certain outlets can absolutely be doubted, especially ones with good reason to call them bullshit, like Hillsborough.

How and who decides which ones we trust and which ones we dont?

[Weston Super Saint]

2 minutes ago, TWar said:

 

Reread the original comment. It's about not trusting the entire media. Certain outlets can absolutely be doubted, especially ones with good reason to call them bullshit, like Hillsborough.

The flip side of that is that certain outlets can be trusted absolutely.

Would you say that is reasonable? Some outlets have never, ever distorted the truth to sell their wares?

[TWar]

1 minute ago, Turkish said:

How and who decides which ones we trust and which ones we dont?

You can make that decision, and your ability to judge accurate sources will be a testiment to your critical thinking skills, hence why I reacted the way I did when you quoted the Sun the other day. If you struggle, however, there are some pretty good media analysis foundations.

[TWar]

Just now, Weston Super Saint said:

The flip side of that is that certain outlets can be trusted absolutely.

Would you say that is reasonable? Some outlets have never, ever distorted the truth to sell their wares?

Trust is a spectrum. No one is perfectly good or perfectly shit, but there is definitely a scale and if you opt for someone way over towards the bullshit end, like GBNews or the Sun, then you should be judged accordingly.

[Turkish]

5 minutes ago, TWar said:

You can make that decision, and your ability to judge accurate sources will be a testiment to your critical thinking skills, hence why I reacted the way I did when you quoted the Sun the other day. If you struggle, however, there are some pretty good media analysis foundations.

You reaction to the sun post was a great insight into your critical thinking skills. I posted some analysis they'd done on a football players and you imediately dismissed it because it was in the Sun and dismissed me by saying "could have guess you were a Sun reader" When in reality i googled something and that was the first link to come up. i haven't bought a copy of the Sun for 25 years, probably more. So i'd suggest your analysis and critical thinking skillls aren't what you think they are.

 

[Turkish]

4 minutes ago, TWar said:

Trust is a spectrum. No one is perfectly good or perfectly shit, but there is definitely a scale and if you opt for someone way over towards the bullshit end, like GBNews or the Sun, then you should be judged accordingly.

How many times do they need to distort the truth to sell their own wares to not be trusted?

[TWar]

18 minutes ago, Turkish said:

You reaction to the sun post was a great insight into your critical thinking skills. I posted some analysis they'd done on a football players and you imediately dismissed it because it was in the Sun and dismissed me by saying "could have guess you were a Sun reader" When in reality i googled something and that was the first link to come up. i haven't bought a copy of the Sun for 25 years, probably more. So i'd suggest your analysis and critical thinking skillls aren't what you think they are.

 

Their analysis was shite, it boiled down to clipping athletic quotes out of context and providing "ratings" rather than actual stats. The sort of crap you read in the sun which is why someone who knew what they were on about wouldn't click a sun article when doing a Google search, you on the other hand...

Edited 7 April, 2022 by TWar

[Weston Super Saint]

22 minutes ago, TWar said:

Trust is a spectrum. No one is perfectly good or perfectly shit, but there is definitely a scale and if you opt for someone way over towards the bullshit end, like GBNews or the Sun, then you should be judged accordingly.

So, you appear to be accepting that ALL media outlets distort the truth.

Isn't that exactly what MLT was suggesting when he said they couldn't be trusted?

[TWar]

18 minutes ago, Turkish said:

How many times do they need to distort the truth to sell their own wares to not be trusted?

Depends on context, do you have an example?

[Turkish]

1 minute ago, TWar said:

Their analysis was shite, it boiled down to clipping athletic quotes out of context and providing "ratings" rather than actual stats. The sort of crap you read in the sun which is why someone who knew what they were on about wouldn't click a sun article when doing a Google search, you on the other hand...

In your opinion the analysis was shite. And we all know the reason for that was it was against your claims regarding a specific player. 

[TWar]

Just now, Weston Super Saint said:

So, you appear to be accepting that ALL media outlets distort the truth.

Isn't that exactly what MLT was suggesting when he said they couldn't be trusted?

No. There is no such thing as an unbiased opinion but that means you should consume more media to gain a more valuable aggregate. MLTs view is "all media bad, therefore war crime didn't happen based off this tweet I found". Which is demonstrably stupid.

[TWar]

3 minutes ago, Turkish said:

In your opinion the analysis was shite. And we all know the reason for that was it was against your claims regarding a specific player. 

Its objectively bad analysis. These "ratings" are akin to posting their video game stats. They are meaningless without actual numbers. 

You can't tell this difference between good numerical analysis and bad opinions with arbitrary numbers on them as its all numbers to you and numbers make your head hurt.

[Turkish]

Just now, TWar said:

Depends on context, do you have an example?

im not going to list all the occasions a media outlet had been shall we call it econimical with the truth, we'd be here all day!

How would you feel about a newspaper, that had say, very close personal ties to the Conservative party, trustworthy or not?

[Turkish]

1 minute ago, TWar said:

Its objectively bad analysis. These "ratings" are akin to posting their video game stats. They are meaningless without actual numbers. 

You can't tell this difference between good numerical analysis and bad opinions with arbitrary numbers on them as its all numbers to you and numbers make your head hurt.

See there you go again, "you dont understand" "you dont get it" too most discussions end up with you having to resort to this when you get tied up in knots.

[Turkish]

5 minutes ago, TWar said:

No. There is no such thing as an unbiased opinion but that means you should consume more media to gain a more valuable aggregate. MLTs view is "all media bad, therefore war crime didn't happen based off this tweet I found". Which is demonstrably stupid.

So you've chose to completely ignore my point earlier when i stated clearly 

"Take your information from a wide range of sources* then form an opinion, do not only take your information from sources which are confirmation bias."

and you launched into a defence of how great the Indepedant is 

[TWar]

2 minutes ago, Turkish said:

So you've chose to completely ignore my point earlier when i stated clearly 

"Take your information from a wide range of sources* then form an opinion, do not only take your information from sources which are confirmation bias."

and you launched into a defence of how great the Indepedant is 

Does wide range mean some good sources and some bad sources? Because if so, that's ridiculous. 

[TWar]

4 minutes ago, Turkish said:

See there you go again, "you dont understand" "you dont get it" too most discussions end up with you having to resort to this when you get tied up in knots.

To be fair, you don't.

[Turkish]

Just now, TWar said:

Does wide range mean some good sources and some bad sources? Because if so, that's ridiculous. 

How do we decided what is a good and bad source? 

How about answering my quesiton about would you trust a newspaper with very close ties to the tory government? Or any other government for that matter.

[TWar]

6 minutes ago, Turkish said:

im not going to list all the occasions a media outlet had been shall we call it econimical with the truth, we'd be here all day!

How would you feel about a newspaper, that had say, very close personal ties to the Conservative party, trustworthy or not?

All papers have ties to government. Its where a lot of stories come from. Also media and politics are intersecting fields, ofcourse media people will move back and forth.

[Turkish]

1 minute ago, TWar said:

To be fair, you don't.

whatever.

[Turkish]

Just now, TWar said:

All papers have ties to government. Its where a lot of stories come from. Also media and politics are intersecting fields, ofcourse media people will move back and forth.

So if they all have ties to government getting most of their stories from, which ones are the most trustworthy?

[TWar]

Just now, Turkish said:

How do we decided what is a good and bad source? 

How about answering my quesiton about would you trust a newspaper with very close ties to the tory government? Or any other government for that matter.

Just answered other question. Again, you decide by using your brain, and if you can't use your brain to decide the sun is a bad source then people will take that as a reflection on the credibility of your opinion. Like if I cited Dave down the pub, or your star sign.

[Turkish]

8 minutes ago, TWar said:

Just answered other question. Again, you decide by using your brain, and if you can't use your brain to decide the sun is a bad source then people will take that as a reflection on the credibility of your opinion. Like if I cited Dave down the pub, or your star sign.

okay so it comes down to personal choice. So does that not suggest that you would lean towards sources that confirm your own views? Soggy for example takes everything in the BBC and Guardian as gospel. Other people believe the BBC is full of fake news. WHo is right?

Edited 7 April, 2022 by Turkish

[Weston Super Saint]

10 minutes ago, TWar said:

Just answered other question. Again, you decide by using your brain, and if you can't use your brain to decide the sun is a bad source then people will take that as a reflection on the credibility of your opinion. Like if I cited Dave down the pub, or your star sign.

You're all over the place on this.

First you say we should trust the Independent and others aren't acceptable.

Then you say we should investigate a number of sources to form an opinion.

Then you say we should only trust sources that you think are trustworthy.

MLG part 2.

[TWar]

8 minutes ago, Turkish said:

okay so it comes down to personal choice. So does that not suggest that you would lean towards sources that confirm your own views? Soggy for example takes everything in the BBC and Guardian as gospel. Other people believe the BBC is full of fake news. WHo is right?

Yes, it is your personal choice who you believe. If you choose to believe a magic 8 ball, a dream you once had, or worse the sun newspaper it is other people's person choice to dismiss you as a fool. MLT found this by not believing "the media" and retweeting obvious Russian propaganda. That is his choice, and it is the choice of the world to call him a bellend. Its all choices.

[TWar]

2 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

You're all over the place on this.

First you say we should trust the Independent and others aren't acceptable.

I never said anything close to that. I'm amazed you got that from what I said.

The other two things aren't mutually exclusive, consume a wide range of reliable sources. Don't consume bollocks to widen the range.

[Turkish]

Just now, TWar said:

Yes, it is your personal choice who you believe. If you choose to believe a magic 8 ball, a dream you once had, or worse the sun newspaper it is other people's person choice to dismiss you as a fool. MLT found this by not believing "the media" and retweeting obvious Russian propaganda. That is his choice, and it is the choice of the world to call him a bellend. Its all choices.

Okay so lets take the BLM London protests as an example. 

The BBC and Guardian described them are largely peaceful protests, with images of black and white people stood side by side.

Meanwhile other outlets showed videos of violence with articles describing rioting & mass arrests. 

Two very different versions of the same event. Who was right? Who do we believe?

[farawaysaint]

5 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Okay so lets take the BLM London protests as an example. 

The BBC and Guardian described them are largely peaceful protests, with images of black and white people stood side by side.

Meanwhile other outlets showed videos of violence with articles describing rioting & mass arrests. 

Two very different versions of the same event. Who was right? Who do we believe?

I believe whatever Rupert Murdoch tells me to believe. I am a good citizen.

[TWar]

9 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Okay so lets take the BLM London protests as an example. 

The BBC and Guardian described them are largely peaceful protests, with images of black and white people stood side by side.

Meanwhile other outlets showed videos of violence with articles describing rioting & mass arrests. 

Two very different versions of the same event. Who was right? Who do we believe?

Who were the other outlets, did either use crime statistics to back up their argument, did either define what they ment by "largely" peaceful or "mass" arrests?

Arrests are recorded so should be pretty easy to decide how many happened. It's then up to you decide if those are high or not in your opinion. The job of the outlets is not to outright lie about the numbers, the BBC wouldn't do so as it would be easily fact checked and they'd be hung out to dry, sites like infowars, not so much.

Edited 7 April, 2022 by TWar

[TWar]

1 minute ago, farawaysaint said:

I believe whatever Rupert Murdoch tells me to believe. I am a good citizen.

Amusing Turkish enjoyed this comment, given Murdoch owns the sun.

[Turkish]

Just now, TWar said:

Amusing Turkish enjoyed this comment, given Murdoch owns the sun.

Jesus Wept.

[TWar]

1 minute ago, Turkish said:

Jesus Wept.

The reaction gifs are back! And it immediately feels like 2004 all over again.

[Turkish]

Just now, TWar said:

The reaction gifs are back! And it immediately feels like 2004 all over again.

Yep, because the post and reaction clearly went over your head. And you accuse me of not getting it. 

[TWar]

Just now, Turkish said:

Yep, because the post and reaction clearly went over your head. And you accuse me of not getting it. 

And the emojis too. You truly are a timecapsule to a different era. It would be endearing if your politics and media literacy weren't also so out of date.

[Turkish]

6 minutes ago, TWar said:

Who were the other outlets, did either use crime statistics to back up their argument, did either define what they ment by "largely" peaceful or "mass" arrests?

Arrests are recorded so should be pretty easy to decide how many happened. It's then up to you decide if those are high or not in your opinion. The job of the outlets is not to outright lie about the numbers, the BBC wouldn't do so as it would be easily fact checked and they'd be hung out to dry, sites like infowars, not so much.

they all gave different figures to the one given out by the Met Police. Some not giving figures at all or playing the numbers down, just saying more than 100. ANy closer to who we should believe on this one?

[TWar]

Just now, Turkish said:

they all gave different figures to the one given out by the Met Police. Some not giving figures at all or playing the numbers down, just saying more than 100. ANy closer to who we should believe on this one?

I'd need sources to exactly which articles you are referring to as well as aforementioned met numbers. Couldn't comment on articles you are half describing. Fact checking is usually a long process and requires actually reading the articles in question.

[Turkish]

1 minute ago, TWar said:

And the emojis too. You truly are a timecapsule to a different era. It would be endearing if your politics and media literacy weren't also so out of date.

Yoy seem to be completely incapable of having a discssion without getting all spiteful and personal. Sad.

[Turkish]

1 minute ago, TWar said:

I'd need sources to exactly which articles you are referring to as well as aforementioned met numbers. Couldn't comment on articles you are half describing. Fact checking is usually a long process and requires actually reading the articles in question.

You can google it if yourself like, it's not hard, you'll likely find the same things as i did. Do you fact check every single article you read, what with it being a long process and all that? 

Edited 7 April, 2022 by Turkish

[Lighthouse]

Two hours of pounding and still nobody has climaxed.