BBC 2 tonight 9-30

[waylander]

I agree with Winfam, Aldo Kane is a bit more contrite in his explanations in this documentary, its a pity that the original programme did not used this more balanced view point when it was originally aired, but at least some of the negativity regarding drones was retracted in this interview.

nuff said
Waylander

 

[Scubadiver1944]

Hi All

I,m late to this thread, but I all so watched the BBC's misconceived Drone bashing documentary, and would like to have my rant please.

The BBC is staffed by lefty liberals, as are most political organisations, forget what colour their neck ties or button hole badges proclaim. Lefty Liberalism is what is ruining the UK.

Not that i'm a Comrade Putin fan but I think he nailed the problem on the head, the powers that be, institutions and the government fall over backwards to protect the rights of minorities, to legislate for minorities, all to the determent of the vast majority of the people. (see link for article).

Putin Tells FT: 'The Liberal Idea Has Become Obsolete'

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said he believes liberalism has "outlived its purpose" and "become obsolete."

www.rferl.org

For example, in the UK you can't say Good boy or Good girl to a child in school because it "gender stereotypes the child", and for the same reason they advocate mixed toilets for kids, what a load of BS.

This is where Liberalism has led, is it any wonder that in most European countries there is a strong tide towards the far right wing in political spheres.

God help us......

Waylander

Is this a serious forum for drone users or a vehicle for right-wing, neo-liberal, Trump/Putin/Boris Johnson cheerleading, b*llsh*t propaganda?

 

[sar104]

Is this a serious forum for drone users or a vehicle for right-wing, neo-liberal, Trump/Putin/Boris Johnson cheerleading, b*llsh*t propaganda?

It's a recurrent, and inaccurate theme that the BBC is left wing. Objective studies show that it is almost neutral on the left/right scale and, in any case, it's a strange leap of imagination to posit that anti-drone equals left-wing. As often noted, a symptom of the problem that, in the current political climate, facts tend to have a liberal bias, unfortunately.

 

[jagraphics]

It's a recurrent, and inaccurate theme that the BBC is left wing. Objective studies show that it is almost neutral on the left/right scale and, in any case, it's a strange leap of imagination to posit that anti-drone equals left-wing. As often noted, a symptom of the problem that, in the current political climate, facts tend to have a liberal bias, unfortunately.

I agree, having done some work with the beeb and have seen their criteria for reporting, fact checking and bias elimination. The BBC is neutral and independent. I don't think there is another TV station like that anywhere in the world.

One of the problems is some biased TV stations EG Fox claim to be neutral and most of their viewers take that as a fact So Fox TV viewer use Fox as the centreline when judging left/right. Almost anything is going to be left wing compared to Fox.

 

[sar104]

I agree, having done some work with the beeb and have seen their criteria for reporting, fact checking and bias elimination. The BBC is neutral and independent. I don't think there is another TV station like that anywhere in the world.

One of the problems is some biased TV stations EG Fox claim to be neutral and most of their viewers take that as a fact So Fox TV viewer use Fox as the centreline when judging left/right. Almost anything is going to be left wing compared to Fox.

The problem with FOX is not their news reporting per se, which is mostly okay, it's the modern tendency to fail to distinguish news reporting from their very extensive editorializing, and the apparent inability of viewers/readers to tell the difference. Some of the more liberal-slanted US news outlets, such as CNN, do the same thing. The BBC doesn't really editorialize at all.

 

[gnirtS]

I agree, having done some work with the beeb and have seen their criteria for reporting, fact checking and bias elimination. The BBC is neutral and independent. I don't think there is another TV station like that anywhere in the world.

I disagree with that - even Newswatch and other audits have waded in stating BBC is not neutral any more. Maybe previously but certainly not now.
Thats without leaked mails telling correspondents what line to take on things such as brexit, their top political pundits being former communist party members etc (Marr and so on).
Maybe years ago the BBC was fairly neutral. These days it most definitely isn't. Its in the entertainment business like everyone else.

 

[sar104]

I disagree with that - even Newswatch and other audits have waded in stating BBC is not neutral any more. Maybe previously but certainly not now.
Thats without leaked mails telling correspondents what line to take on things such as brexit, their top political pundits being former communist party members etc (Marr and so on).
Maybe years ago the BBC was fairly neutral. These days it most definitely isn't. Its in the entertainment business like everyone else.

Maybe you could go to the BBC News website and find some examples of politically biased reporting. Or cite some actual research that indicates a lack of neutrality. Then we would have something to discuss other than unsupported assertions.

 

[gnirtS]

You could try newswatch to start - as they wrote the report. And the Ofcom complaints which are still being studied.
Im not spoonfeeding you if you're too lazy to actually go to source when i even listed it.

 

[sar104]

You could try newswatch to start - as they wrote the report. And the Ofcom complaints which are still being studied.
Im not spoonfeeding you if you're too lazy to actually go to source when i even listed it.

You cited nothing. You mentioned Newswatch, which is a BBC TV program. Did you mean News-Watch, a website dedicated for the last 20 years to alleging EU bias in BBC coverage, or were you referring to something else entirely?

 

[waylander]

Is this a serious forum for drone users or a vehicle for right-wing, neo-liberal, Trump/Putin/Boris Johnson cheerleading, b*llsh*t propaganda?

Uhm... well it seems from the number of posts submitted ( 109 ) that many drone pilots are interested in the on going commentary, perhaps it is you who is out of step.
Again with the personal attacks, hey... get over it the UK voted to leave, end of.
Waylander

 

[jagraphics]

You cited nothing. You mentioned Newswatch, which is a BBC TV program. Did you mean News-Watch, a website dedicated for the last 20 years to alleging EU bias in BBC coverage, or were you referring to something else entirely?

Despite people, usually both sides of any argument and at the same time, alleging BBC bias it is VERY rare any equirey find the BBC is biased. OFComm has found RT biased so they do bite if there is any evidence......

What has caused a problem over the last 2 to 3 years is the BBC reporting accurately on the Brexit fiasco and half the UK not liking it.

 

[Scubadiver1944]

Maybe you could go to the BBC News website and find some examples of politically biased reporting. Or cite some actual research that indicates a lack of neutrality. Then we would have something to discuss other than unsupported assertions.

You cited nothing. You mentioned Newswatch, which is a BBC TV program. Did you mean News-Watch, a website dedicated for the last 20 years to alleging EU bias in BBC coverage, or were you referring to something else entirely?

Exactly correct. News-watch is a propaganda outfit of the Boris Johnson-loving wing of the British Conservative Party's climate-change denial and more deranged wing, slightly to the left of Genghis Khan. Take them as an authoritative source at your peril!

 

[Scubadiver1944]

Uhm... well it seems from the number of posts submitted ( 109 ) that many drone pilots are interested in the on going commentary, perhaps it is you who is out of step.
Again with the personal attacks, hey... get over it the UK voted to leave, end of.
Waylander

The validity of my response to you still stands.

 

[Scubadiver1944]

The validity of my response to you still stands. And I don't know you & have never met you. It's an attack on the beliefs & positions you espouse. If you can't tell the difference that's your hard luck.

 

[MavicFT1P]

wow 6 pages. Now I really do feel bad about posting t'other day as a seperate thread ?

 

[jagraphics]

Exactly correct. News-watch is ..... slightly to the left of Genghis Khan. Take them as an authoritative source ...!

So you agree they are a Left Wing organisatin that you take as an authoritive source.....


I could have had a career as a feature writer for the News of the World pity they closed
NotW motto: NEVER let the facts get inthe way of a good story.

On a serious note "The Hack" is worth watching. A documentary on Netflicks about how Cambridge Analytical affected both the 2016 US Election and Brtexit inthe UK. It is absolutly facintating on who it works and how they target groups of people. Then you will realise that the BBC is about as independant and unbiased as a news service as you will get.

 

[jagraphics]

Uhm... well it seems from the number of posts submitted ( 109 ) that many drone pilots are interested in the on going commentary, perhaps it is you who is out of step.
Again with the personal attacks, hey... get over it the UK voted to leave, end of.
Waylander

"The Hack" is worth watching. A documentary on Netflicks about how Cambridge Analytica affected both the 2016 US Election and Brtexit in the UK. It is absolutly facintating on how it works and how they target specific groups of people. A lot of people in the UK voted leave on the fake news they were specifically targeted with. This is why the less well educated voted leave in far higher numbers than educated professionals. They were specifically targeted as easier to influence.

There were many things used that were not actually about Brexit. eg Austerity, Turkish immigrants, and a lot of false information hence "don't trust the experts" tag with a lot of Brexit stuff which is why there is the ongoing comment that a lot who voted for Brexit did not know what they were voting for. They were sold lies by CA.

In one election in Africa CA ran two campains one to boost their clients voters and another to target a demographic that mainly voted for the other candidate to not vote at all. The swing was enought for the CA's candidate to win.

CA said that inthe 2016 US election by hitting targeted certain groups in targetted locations in swing states they could get a 6% swing. Enough for a win for their candidate. They said the same about Brexit. 6% swing is enough to change the course of history. In the UK the Brexit win was by less than 2%.

This isn't "party political" as organisations on all sides of any election/vote/debate use similar to some extent. Though in the case of Brexit it was very much one-sided. It is however an orthogonal problem on how anyone can trust any information inthe internet. This comes back to the BBC attempting to be as unbiased as possible. They do work hard at it but with companies like CA targeting people with fake news it is difficult

It is getting very difficult to work out the reality from the fake on the internet these days,

 

[MavicFT1P]

"The Hack" is worth watching. A documentary on Netflicks about how Cambridge Analytica affected both the 2016 US Election and Brtexit in the UK. It is absolutly facintating on how it works and how they target specific groups of people. A lot of people in the UK voted leave on the fake news they were specifically targeted with. This is why the less well educated voted leave in far higher numbers than educated professionals. They were specifically targeted as easier to influence.

There were many things used that were not actually about Brexit. eg Austerity, Turkish immigrants, and a lot of false information hence "don't trust the experts" tag with a lot of Brexit stuff which is why there is the ongoing comment that a lot who voted for Brexit did not know what they were voting for. They were sold lies by CA.

In one election in Africa CA ran two campains one to boost their clients voters and another to target a demographic that mainly voted for the other candidate to not vote at all. The swing was enought for the CA's candidate to win.

CA said that inthe 2016 US election by hitting targeted certain groups in targetted locations in swing states they could get a 6% swing. Enough for a win for their candidate. They said the same about Brexit. 6% swing is enough to change the course of history. In the UK the Brexit win was by less than 2%.

This isn't "party political" as organisations on all sides of any election/vote/debate use similar to some extent. Though in the case of Brexit it was very much one-sided. It is however an orthogonal problem on how anyone can trust any information inthe internet. This comes back to the BBC attempting to be as unbiased as possible. They do work hard at it but with companies like CA targeting people with fake news it is difficult

It is getting very difficult to work out the reality from the fake on the internet these days,

I didn't read all that but i read today that apparently the fake news spreads quicker than the real too.
But maybe that was Fake?
Lol, Seems to be a vicious cycle.

Every web page asks you to turn off your ad blocker now too. Force you to tune in.
At some point ppl are just going to tune out i think.

Perception will be Like Cave diving in a monsoon. ??

People might have to go outside and use word of mouth...?

 

[jagraphics]

I didn't read all that but i read today that apparently the fake news spreads quicker than the real too.
But maybe that was Fake?

It is true that fake news spreads faster.

This is because fake news is usally targeted at people pre-disposed to believe it. It is written/graphics that are very easy and quick to take in and reinforce what you "know". Therefore the targets accept it gladly and pass it around their group and friend as more proof that they are right. Some politicians* Tweets and one liners are a good example of this. They know their followers. When some one looks at it critically and spots the errors the followers say: "they would say that wouldn't they? They are they are brainwashed by [the other side]" that is something very difficult to counter.

*Actually a LOT of politicians not just the obvious one(s)

A similar sort of technique is used to sow discontent with a reliable source. eg the BBC. Cambridge Analytical are good at this too. Though the example in The Hack was in Africa where credibility in an election and the process was used to stop people (from one demographic) voting. There were suggestions about Brexit but there was not direct evidence presented that they had done the same to the BBC.

But we are getting way of topic here and it is difficult to discuss the techniques, especiually with any examples without it getting "political"

For Drones the news papers need to sell copies so the more exciting /dangerous the better, the more revelations the better. So they are always looking for a sensational angle.

 

[MavicFT1P]

It is true that fake news spreads faster.

This is because fake news is usally targeted at people pre-disposed to believe it. It is written/graphics that are very easy and quick to take in and reinforce what you "know". Therefore the targets accept it gladly and pass it around their group and friend as more proof that they are right. Some politicians* Tweets and one liners are a good example of this. They know their followers. When some one looks at it critically and spots the errors the followers say: "they would say that wouldn't they? They are they are brainwashed by [the other side]" that is something very difficult to counter.

*Actually a LOT of politicians not just the obvious one(s)

A similar sort of technique is used to sow discontent with a reliable source. eg the BBC. Cambridge Analytical are good at this too. Though the example in The Hack was in Africa where credibility in an election and the process was used to stop people (from one demographic) voting. There were suggestions about Brexit but there was not direct evidence presented that they had done the same to the BBC.

But we are getting way of topic here and it is difficult to discuss the techniques, especially with any examples without it getting "political"

For Drones the news papers need to sell copies so the more exciting /dangerous the better, the more revelations the better. So they are always looking for a sensational angle.

Exactly.
And what's a Brexit?