Page 142 of 142 FirstFirst ... 4292132138139140141142
Results 2,116 to 2,130 of 2130

Thread: Coronavirus Discussion WITHOUT POLITICAL COMMENTS

  1. #2116
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    619
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eclectic Al View Post
    I will admit that I am critical about almost everything to do with the BBC, and am automatically inclined to put the worst possible interpretation on everything they do. Take anything I post in that light.
    Perhaps the thing that annoys me about them most is that I find I am compelled to visit their news site so often, because it has such breadth of coverage. However, the reason for that is that it uses its possession of a guaranteed income stream via the licence fee to support a dominant position in online news within the UK. So that annoys me too.
    You've certainly got that right!! The BBC is like most of the mainstream media; active participants and political activists. The public trust in this media is right about zero at this time. The fake news is just unbelievable and those organizations think the people are so stupid they don't see through this stuff. Read widely; lots of sources and those you can trust whom you know are reliable and HONEST. That last word is key as there are so few of them around these days. The best information and discussion these days comes from independent blogs and U-Tube shows.

    This thread insists that it's a Covid19 discussion without politics. This is not possible since the media politicizes the pandemic for its own ends. And if you don't know what I'm talking about you either don't want to, or you should. Make haste to try and find the truth. We're living in dark times in terms of thought control and groupthink. And the Woke Taliban.
    Last edited by Christabel; Jun-17-2020 at 10:13.

  2. #2117
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    7,213
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eclectic Al View Post
    it has such breadth of coverage. However, the reason for that is that it uses its possession of a guaranteed income stream via the licence fee to support a dominant position in online news within the UK. So that annoys me too.
    If a publicly-funded media organisation didn't have a dominant position, but occupied a niche market, with a specialist, rather than comprehensive coverage, you'd be really steaming!

  3. Likes TalkingHead liked this post
  4. #2118
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    619
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MacLeod View Post
    If a publicly-funded media organisation didn't have a dominant position, but occupied a niche market, with a specialist, rather than comprehensive coverage, you'd be really steaming!
    All the taxpayers are asking is for fair and balanced reporting. What they do is the opposite. If you want to push an agenda pay for it yourself and don't have the hide to ask the people to stump up for it. The ABC is the same in Australia; I worked there in the 1970s and I experienced all of it. Nothing has changed since then. You were bullied if you didn't toe the political line and I most certainly did not. It stings when the camera crew ignores you because you're a conservative and then shouts obscenities at every other opportunity!! 45 years later you'll still see these same people on Twitter spewing their undergraduate bile.

    "Comprehensive coverage" is anathema to these media cave-dwellers. Honestly, I don't think they have the smarts. Today it is all about who can shout the loudest. The Covid crisis has divided the people along health and economic lines too. Just what we needed!!

    All praise to the Australian federal government for saving Australia from the depredations of the pandemic (to date) but time to open again for business!! Two or three states have opened for business and the Premiers of those state (like governors in the US) are all arguing with each other about which state deserves to get all the tourists!!
    Last edited by Christabel; Jun-17-2020 at 11:09.

  5. #2119
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    270
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MacLeod View Post
    If a publicly-funded media organisation didn't have a dominant position, but occupied a niche market, with a specialist, rather than comprehensive coverage, you'd be really steaming!
    Ah, but now you're tempting me to continue with the BBC bashing.

    Suffice it to say that it is perverse that the BBC receives a guaranteed income stream (derived from an outdated legal obligation to have a licence in order to own equipment capable of receiving broadcast signals), and uses that to try to create a dominant position for itself in online news.

    Why the licence fee continues is a mystery, when most of what the BBC does is the same stuff as organisations without such funding do perfectly well (sport, popular drama, etc). Even in news and current affairs, ITV and Sky do pretty well (- I exclude Channel 4, as that is also publicly owned, although funded differently).

    If the BBC wanted to justify the licence fee it should precisely focus on niche areas that might not survive well in the private sphere (eg classical music coverage?) and argue that that is appropriate using some sort of Reithian argument about culture. I would have some sympathy with that argument, but the BBC does the opposite and chases viewing figures, just like a commercial operator. So let it compete on a level playing field then - rather than keep the fee and use a lot of it to squeeze out alternative online news sources.

    I also have recent personal experience of how vicious they are (or their outsourced enforcers are) in pursuing the licence fee. My daughter was at Bristol uni for 1 year and because there was a television on the wall in her student apartment she technically needed a TV licence (even if she never watched it). Being good citizens we paid for one. At the end of the year she left, and moved into a shared house. The TV Licensing people noticed that the licence had not been renewed, and the campaign began: I have a whole history of increasingly threatening communications, all based on incorrect assumptions which then resulted in factual errors such as statements that she was breaking the law. Our response when they announced that there would be an enforcement visit was that they could go round to the property if they wanted, but given that she didn't live there it was perhaps something they should take up with the owners of the property. I think their main objective was to make sure that her name and address stayed on their database so that they could pursue her for a licence there (which she did not need), and that was what we were not going to do (- ie let them have her new address). I suspect putting her new address on their database would actually have been a breach of the data protection laws, as they had no need for that information. However, they've probably got an exemption of some sort from that too. The whole licence fee system is a scandal (- and I haven't even got onto the fact that about 1 in 8 of all magistrates court cases relate to non-payment of licence fee, and these disproportionately relate to women on low incomes). Rant over.

    I've drifted a bit off Covid-19 there - apologies.
    Last edited by Eclectic Al; Jun-17-2020 at 11:20.

  6. Likes Christabel liked this post
  7. #2120
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    7,213
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eclectic Al View Post
    Ah, but now you're tempting me to continue with the BBC bashing.

    [...]

    I've drifted a bit off Covid-19 there - apologies.
    Quite .

  8. #2121
    Senior Member Jacck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    4,158
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eclectic Al View Post
    Ah, but now you're tempting me to continue with the BBC bashing.
    Suffice it to say that it is perverse that the BBC receives a guaranteed income stream (derived from an outdated legal obligation to have a licence in order to own equipment capable of receiving broadcast signals), and uses that to try to create a dominant position for itself in online news.
    Why the licence fee continues is a mystery, when most of what the BBC does is the same stuff as organisations without such funding do perfectly well (sport, popular drama, etc).
    BBC is certainly an important part of Brittish influence in the world, since it is very international and people all over the world read it, know its documentaries etc. Without public broadcasting (which is under public control and can thus be changed through elections), you would have various private media owned by oligarchs (such as Koch brothers etc) who all have certain agenda and are not under any control. Especially if you read the Brittish right-wing media, you can see how delusional they are regarding brexit and other topics. They dream about some "Singapore on Thames" and other postimperial fantasies. Be glad for BBC, they are relatively restrained.
    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a6860911.html
    Last edited by Jacck; Jun-17-2020 at 12:59.

  9. Likes TalkingHead, Knorf liked this post
  10. #2122
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    270
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jacck View Post
    BBC is certainly an important part of Brittish influence in the world, since it is very international and people all over the world read it, know its documentaries etc. Without public broadcasting (which is under public control and can thus be changed through elections), you would have various private media owned by oligarchs (such as Koch brothers etc) who all have certain agenda and are not under any control. Especially if you read the Brittish right-wing media, you can see how delusional they are regarding brexit and other topics. They dream about some "Singapore on Thames" and other postimperial fantasies. Be glad for BBC, they are relatively restrained.
    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a6860911.html
    You might guess that I don't agree. However, I'm not going to continue on this particular topic, as we're not really on Covid-19 by this stage.

  11. #2123
    Senior Member TalkingHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    2,178
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MacLeod View Post
    You're spinning where there is nothing to spin. I am not uncritical of the BBC. But on this occasion, I don't believe there is anything in what you insinuated here.
    Bean counters and Spin Doctors, to the guillotine with all of 'em!

  12. Likes MacLeod liked this post
  13. #2124
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    619
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jacck View Post
    BBC is certainly an important part of Brittish influence in the world, since it is very international and people all over the world read it, know its documentaries etc. Without public broadcasting (which is under public control and can thus be changed through elections), you would have various private media owned by oligarchs (such as Koch brothers etc) who all have certain agenda and are not under any control. Especially if you read the Brittish right-wing media, you can see how delusional they are regarding brexit and other topics. They dream about some "Singapore on Thames" and other postimperial fantasies. Be glad for BBC, they are relatively restrained.
    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a6860911.html
    Undergraduate conspiracies here.

    The issue of the day is Covid-19 and Johnson has his work more than cut out for him - not just stopping the Woke Taliban and their tyranny. Who in the world would want to be a Prime Minister, having to deal with all this stress? And for his trouble he actually ended up in hospital with Covid-19, as you will recall.

    I wondered about the impact of stress in lowering the immune system and making a person more susceptible to Coronavirus. We are finding out more about the disease as time goes on and that, for example, it was suggested recently that a certain blood type can make people less susceptible. (I think it was Type O, from memory.) As with AIDS, medical research will more than likely provide a treatment regime for Covid-19 rather than a cure.
    Last edited by Christabel; Jun-17-2020 at 15:47.

  14. #2125
    Senior Member pianozach's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    1,051
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KenOC View Post
    A view from the right:
    -------------------------------------
    Hoover Institution research fellow David Henderson told "The Ingraham Angle" Tuesday that the data he's seen shows that the lockdowns imposed in many U.S. states due to the coronavirus pandemic may have had a more negative impact than the virus itself.

    "The best study so far, believe it or not, is from [University of California] Berkeley. And they found social distancing measures plus harsh shelter-in-place measures saved about 74,000 lives," Henderson told host Laura Ingraham. "And even that's an exaggeration for two reasons.

    "First, we've had a major increase in suicides because it's very hard for people to live this way. And second, there's a study in Germany that says ... a lot of these deaths aren't so much prevented as delayed, because unless the vaccine comes along miraculously in the next month or two, which no one expects, then people are going to die later.”
    Up until the end of this I was at least following along, and then I threw up in my throat a little.

    Taking this line of reasoning a step further, Henderson seem to be suggesting that we should have skipped the lockdowns and just had people hurry up and die; just get it over with, so to speak. "They're going to die anyway." He's suggesting it would have been better to have had more deaths.

    Yeah, I cannot get on board with that sort of thinking.

  15. Likes MacLeod, mountmccabe liked this post
  16. #2126
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    619
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pianozach View Post
    Up until the end of this I was at least following along, and then I threw up in my throat a little.

    Taking this line of reasoning a step further, Henderson seem to be suggesting that we should have skipped the lockdowns and just had people hurry up and die; just get it over with, so to speak. "They're going to die anyway." He's suggesting it would have been better to have had more deaths.

    Yeah, I cannot get on board with that sort of thinking.
    "Deaths aren't prevented but delayed". Yep, everybody is going to die. It's the kind of thing Oscar Wilde would have said!! I didn't interpret that as a desire for more deaths, merely an axiom about the human condition. When you took this line of reasoning a step further you were providing your own thoughts, which you cannot attribute to anybody else.

  17. #2127
    Senior Member Jacck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    4,158
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pianozach View Post
    Up until the end of this I was at least following along, and then I threw up in my throat a little.

    Taking this line of reasoning a step further, Henderson seem to be suggesting that we should have skipped the lockdowns and just had people hurry up and die; just get it over with, so to speak. "They're going to die anyway." He's suggesting it would have been better to have had more deaths.

    Yeah, I cannot get on board with that sort of thinking.
    the whole article is dishonest and one-sided. I don't know what this Henderson is researching, but if the Hoover Institute is one of those ideological think-tanks, then it is likely useless
    Last edited by Jacck; Jun-17-2020 at 16:44.

  18. Likes pianozach liked this post
  19. #2128
    Senior Member science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The Eastern and Northern
    Posts
    18,434
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    51

    Default

    People are going to die later.

    Yes, we all will. And so will everyone we know, and their brother. Hopefully much, much later.

    But we are being told that delaying our own deaths isn't important.

    When people tell you who they are, believe them.
    Liberty for wolves is death to the lambs.

  20. #2129
    Senior Member DaveM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    So. California, USA
    Posts
    3,097
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christabel View Post
    You've certainly got that right!! The BBC is like most of the mainstream media; active participants and political activists. The public trust in this media is right about zero at this time. The fake news is just unbelievable and those organizations think the people are so stupid they don't see through this stuff. Read widely; lots of sources and those you can trust whom you know are reliable and HONEST. That last word is key as there are so few of them around these days. The best information and discussion these days comes from independent blogs and U-Tube shows.
    Well that’s in the realm of a self-fulfilling prophecy. When people rely on particular blogs and YouTube shows, they are likely cherry-picking. Are you really listening to objective sources that may tell you some things you don’t want to hear? I doubt it.
    Last edited by DaveM; Jun-17-2020 at 18:08.

  21. Likes TalkingHead, MacLeod liked this post
  22. #2130
    Assistant Administrator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    10,771
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    This thread is now, unfortunately, closed. We've tried to keep it open through repeated warnings about purely political comments, but the discussions seems destined for such talk.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •