The Queen / The Monarchy

[multitool]

Where, on the Internet? 🤣🤣🤣

Yes, why not?

You like VWs, Ska, Scooters, and wänking. How much of that stuff gets organised on the Internet? How much information gets exchanged?

And then look at Brexit. That was entirely an Internet phenomenon.

 

[BoldonLad]

Yes, why not?

You like VWs, Ska, Scooters, and wänking. How much of that stuff gets organised on the Internet? How much information gets exchanged?

And then look at Brexit. That was entirely an Internet phenomenon.

eh? While I don't doubt the influence of the internet on various topics, I don't thing it is true to say that Brexit was entirely an internet phenomenon.

I well remember seeing miles and miles of placards advocating "Vote Leave" in Derbyshire. Further, among the many people I know who voted Leave, my, shall we say, more mature acquaintances, are not internet users. Among many of my younger acquaintances who voted leave, they simply voted against the "toff" (ie Cameron), not for Brexit.

In terms of the original subject (ie The Monarchy), I agree, they should go. Perhaps too late for William, but, he should be the last, and, the ball should be put in motion to ensure his children have a "normal" life.

I don't see the need to have anything to replace them, no point in replacing one lot with another lot.

 

[multitool]

eh? While I don't doubt the influence of the internet on various topics, I don't thing it is true to say that Brexit was entirely an internet phenomenon.

I well remember seeing miles and miles of placards advocating "Vote Leave" in Derbyshire. Further, among the many people I know who voted Leave, my, shall we say, more mature acquaintances, are not internet users. Among many of my younger acquaintances who voted leave, they simply voted against the "toff" (ie Cameron), not for Brexit.

In terms of the original subject (ie The Monarchy), I agree, they should go. Perhaps too late for William, but, he should be the last, and, the ball should be put in motion to ensure his children have a "normal" life.

I don't see the need to have anything to replace them, no point in replacing one lot with another lot.

Fair enough, perhaps "entirely" was over-egging it a bit. You are right in so far as the Brexit vote was predominantly the older section of the population, and there was considerable conventional input from RW tabloid press, and, indeed, the BBC by platforming Farage repeatedly.

I think, however, that the Cambridge Analytica thing was significant, and more worryingly a foretaste of what is to come.

 

[Pale Rider]

If you are of the left, you think the BBC are a bunch fascist establishment supporting lackeys.

If you are of the right, you think the BBC are a bunch of woke leftie Guardian reading w@ankers.

If you are attempting to be impartial, as the BBC is, then the aim is for a roughly equal number of complaints from both sides.which indicates you are steering close to the correct path.

 

[newfhouse]

If you are of the left, you think the BBC are a bunch fascist establishment supporting lackeys.

If you are of the right, you think the BBC are a bunch of woke leftie Guardian reading w@ankers.

If you are attempting to be impartial, as the BBC is, then the aim is for a roughly equal number of complaints from both sides.which indicates you are steering close to the correct path.

Simplistic and wrong. Complainants, a self selecting and uncontrolled group, are far from the best means of assessing or monitoring impartiality.

Take the subjects of climate change or vaccination. There is scientific consensus, based on well understood facts. There are also noisy outliers, prone to complaining to the media. The correct path for impartial broadcasters is not to take the middle ground giving, say, Prof. Whitty and Piers Corbyn equal weight. The same is true of politics and economics, albeit the evidence base may have a wider spread.

Reporting on Boris Johnson’s lies is another example. The middle ground was to ‘both-sides’ coverage when everyone, including Johnson himself, knew him to be a liar.

 

[multitool]

If you are of the left, you think the BBC are a bunch fascist establishment supporting lackeys.

If you are of the right, you think the BBC are a bunch of woke leftie Guardian reading w@ankers.

If you are attempting to be impartial, as the BBC is, then the aim is for a roughly equal number of complaints from both sides.which indicates you are steering close to the correct path.

A man of your calibre, moving cheek by jowl, as you did, with those of the highest level who shape our world, cannot fail to know that the BBC is driven, to a large extent, by the commercial factors that drive all broadcasters, and that they have an interest in ratings that surpasses pretty much interest in anything else. Hence Farage being one of the most frequent Question Time guests in the programmes history.

It seems odd that such a minor political player, an MEP, who failed on numerous occasions to become an MP, should be accorded such prominence. The reason is, of course, related to ratings, and clicks.

 

[Deleted member 28]

Yes, why not?

You like VWs, Ska, Scooters, and wänking. How much of that stuff gets organised on the Internet? How much information gets exchanged?

And then look at Brexit. That was entirely an Internet phenomenon.

The difference is once the 'arranging ' has been done we actually meet up and socialise so that's where your analogy ends. The fiddle*ng bit I do in private as it only takes a few seconds.

Brexit was a whole different thing which I took about 30 seconds to ponder over and that was it.

 

[Pale Rider]

Simplistic and wrong. Complainants, a self selecting and uncontrolled group, are far from the best means of assessing or monitoring impartiality.

Take the subjects of climate change or vaccination. There is scientific consensus, based on well understood facts. There are also noisy outliers, prone to complaining to the media. The correct path for impartial broadcasters is not to take the middle ground giving, say, Prof. Whitty and Piers Corbyn equal weight. The same is true of politics and economics, albeit the evidence base may have a wider spread.

Reporting on Boris Johnson’s lies is another example. The middle ground was to ‘both-sides’ coverage when everyone, including Johnson himself, knew him to be a liar.

The editorial judgment is based on the reader making up their own mind after being given as many sides to the story as practical.

If you want to be told what to think, that fine, but don't go looking to a broadcaster which is attempting to be impartial.

All you are saying is you want the side you agree with to be given greater prominence, or the side you disagree with to be under-reported.

Usual muddle headed thinking as seen in the Edinburgh comic discussion.

 

[the snail]

Brexit was a whole different thing which I took about 30 seconds to ponder over and that was it.

Wow, I didn't realise you'd put anything like that level of thought into it

 

[the snail]

The editorial judgment is based on the reader making up their own mind after being given as many sides to the story as practical.

If you want to be told what to think, that fine, but don't go looking to a broadcaster which is attempting to be impartial.

All you are saying is you want the side you agree with to be given greater prominence, or the side you disagree with to be under-reported.

Usual muddle headed thinking as seen in the Edinburgh comic discussion.

No, it's about giving people the information necessary to assess the validity of the views presented. Without that people assume that either side of the argument is just as likely to be right, and you can just pick the narrative that you prefer, e.g. the MMR vaccine/autism thing, which was never supported by any real science or hard evidence, and It's quite wrong to suggest the two sides of that debate were equally valid, and ultimately dangerous.

 

[newfhouse]

All you are saying is you want the side you agree with to be given greater prominence, or the side you disagree with to be under-reported.

That’s not what I said at all. To use an analogy, a report on a football match might tells you who played well, who deserved to win, or that there were controversial decisions by the referee or VAR, but they don’t both-sides the result or leave you to make up your own mind who won. They tell you the final score.

 

[Pale Rider]

No, it's about giving people the information necessary to assess the validity of the views presented. Without that people assume that either side of the argument is just as likely to be right, and you can just pick the narrative that you prefer, e.g. the MMR vaccine/autism thing, which was never supported by any real science or hard evidence, and It's quite wrong to suggest the two sides of that debate were equally valid, and ultimately dangerous.

Impartial media do not attempt to play god.

Two sides of an argument are always valid to report.

That’s not what I said at all. To use an analogy, a report on a football match might tells you who played well, who deserved to win, or that there were controversial decisions by the referee or VAR, but they don’t both-sides the result or leave you to make up your own mind who won. They tell you the final score.

The football game has taken place and is finished.

A report on it should be fair and accurate, if that means saying Rovers were rubbish, so be it.

Practically, there's an art to doing that inasmuch as you don't do a total hatchet job on one side even if they deserve it.

All that does is make the publication you are writing for appear mean spirited.

Fashions change, the minute by minute match report is now a thing of the past.

If you look at the big footie supplements on a Monday, most of the 'match reports' are reaction to the game in the form of quotes from managers, players, and others commenting on any controversies in the game.

 

[newfhouse]

Impartial media do not attempt to play god.

Two sides of an argument are always valid to report.

So equal prominence to an oncology consultant and Derek off YouTube who thinks crystals will sort it in a debate about cancer treatments?

Is this the ‘no need for experts’ business rearing its head again?

 

[Deleted member 28]

Wow, I didn't realise you'd put anything like that level of thought into it

Doing the right thing doesn't take much thinking about. 😉

 

[multitool]

Why only 'two sides' to an argument?