Brussels Bombing
-
<p>So we're back to the issue of whether those particular studies actually prove anything. For the reasons given by 3 posters above, I'd say they don't do anything of the sort.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>As mentioned, you could probably apply the same methodology to Fox News and get the same result. Would that then make Fox News fair and balanced? Of course it wouldn't.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="568674" data-time="1459407470"><p>As mentioned, you could probably apply the same methodology to Fox News and get the same result. Would that then make Fox News fair and balanced? Of course it wouldn't.</p></blockquote><br>If you applied the same methodology as that in question to Fox News it might well show that they spend <em>'significantly more time to one side of politics during elections'</em>. Or not. It's just one among many measures listed in the Guardian article, don't get hung up about it as if it's the only one. It's not.
-
<p>I'm not getting hung up about it, I just think it's a really flawed method of testing bias.</p>
-
<br><br><blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="568630" data-time="1459397654"><p>Good post until, the last sentence.I You make it sound like science and research should be above continued debate and discussion. It has not ended for many people because they believe the research is shonky an the system profiting from it is corrupt.</p></blockquote>
<br><br>
I don't think science is above further discussion. That is the very nature of science - it is not a destination, it is a journey.<br><br>
There's a difference, because bias is perception and opinion, that cannot be empirically measured. <br><br>
And at the risk of jangling Winger's spider senses, if you're swimming against the current of research on climate change, and all the observable facts and evidence compiled, then best of luck to you. <br><br>
Debate the degree of effect on this topic by all means, because that is where the science is moving.<br><br>
I think shonky climate science is probably going to be a metric shit load cheaper than shonky fossil fuel dealings, based on the evidence. <br><br>
In any case, their capitalist leanings should be applauded, right? -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="568670" data-time="1459406970">
<div>
<p>Yeah I know that...<br>
<br><br>
As well as anyone has proved anything about media bias relating to the ABC. Admittedly there's not a lot of studies that look at it, but the problem is the ones that have been done don't show the bias people complain about.<br><br>
So we come back to the issue of cognitive bias when decrying the alleged partisanship - just because they're giving your politician a grilling doesn't make them biased. Particularly when you'd expect that Government Ministers would be interviewed more often and held accountable.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Way to miss the point yet again. The studies dont show a lack of the bias people accuse them of either. That study shows nothing useful at all in relation to the bias people were accusing the ABC of having, yet you decided to share it anyway, presumably so you had a convenient straw man or could obfuscate.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And is cognitive bias your phrase of the week that you dont understand?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="568684" data-time="1459408434">
<p>I'm not getting hung up about it, I just think it's a really flawed method of testing bias.</p>
</blockquote>
<p> <br>
Certainly if it was the only one and that was the start and finish of it. It measures the time during an election because outside of it it is common sense that they would devote more time to the incumbent party than the opposition. So you'd ask are they spending vastly more time on one party than the other? Does it make a difference which party has formed government? Is that coverage obsequious for one party and consistently negative for another regardless of which party is in power?<br>
<br>
That's why the article has more than one measure. The dissonance inherent in watching a political figure or party you support prevented from using the interview as a political platform as opposed to the political figure who isn't taken to task enough... If we're honest that's something we all suffer from to varying degrees.<br>
</p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="568695" data-time="1459412633">
<p>Way to miss the point yet again. The studies dont show a lack of the bias people accuse them of either. That study shows nothing useful at all in relation to the bias people were accusing the ABC of having</p>
</blockquote>
<br><p>Which study? The <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.andrewleigh.org/pdf/MediaSlant.pdf'>Gans and Leigh one</a>? Hahaha holy fuck. As for the article in response to the claims that the ABC, as a publicly funded broadcaster, isn't balanced or impartial: '<em><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.daimenhutchison.com/rugby/index.php/topic/41856-brussels-bombing/page-3#entry568031'>Same with ABC in Australia. If a commercial media player wants to go left or right I couldn't give a shit. But when a publicly funded broadcaster refuses to be balanced then that is a disgrace.</a>'</em><br><br>
The article actually lists a range of measure to test whether it it biased:</p>
<ul class="bbc"><li>time spent covering different political parties</li>
<li>public trust as a proxy</li>
<li>complaints, and</li>
<li>media slant.</li>
</ul><p>Certainly more than you've offered.<br>
</p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
<p>And is cognitive bias your phrase of the week that you dont understand?</p>
</blockquote>
<br><p>Is transference your new coping mechanism?</p> -
<p>You just keep repeating the same diversions.</p>
<p>That study does refute in any way the claim that the ABC is biased in the context that people were talking about in this thread. </p> -
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78431210/spying-without-a-warrant-spy-agencies-utilise-new-power-under-antiterror-legislation'>http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78431210/spying-without-a-warrant-spy-agencies-utilise-new-power-under-antiterror-legislation</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>I made the mistake of reading some of the Stuff comments on this article. Some of these people are living in a fucking fantasy world, where they think the Government should do <em>no</em> surveillance on anyone as nothing bad will ever happen in NZ.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This comment gained many likes: "East Germany wasn't even close to what we all live under now in terms of Global State mass spying technology and we are 'claiming' to be a free and democratic country with liberties and rights!"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>That's absolutely fucking ridiculous. A colleague at work knows people from East Germany and they said when they peeled back the wallpaper on their flat, it was littered with bugs (I.E. the police listening in on their conversations at home). NZ is fucking nothing like that.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I just don't think these people really understand how in the dark we are about potential threats that the government need to deal with on a regular basis. I was privy to a tour of the Spark NOC fairly recently and the guy showed us a map that gave a visual representation of all the cyber attacks that were happening in the world. Basically every country was absolutely hammering each other with thousands of attempts per second to hack into each others systems. There's a fucking massive cyber war going on every second of every day that nobody has any idea even exists.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It is noticeable how much Obama has aged since taking office. I can't imagine the decisions he would have to make on a daily basis based on information collected by intelligence agencies.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Given the increasing frequency of terror (don't like that word) attacks and the fact that NZ has not had any I think I'm willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt on this.</p> -
<p>The surveillance state that is now the UK tends to polarise views. There is the oft quoted "but we must fight terrorism in any way we can and only we know how to do this", which on the face of it seems sensible. Obviously terrorism= bad. But now there are cameras up all over the bloody place. Terrorism? Really? The bloody CCTV footage can't even provide a good enough image to a allow for a prosecution when some poor soul gets assaulted or raped but it can read your car registration from 100 yards away. There have been instances, and I'm not joking here, where local councils have installed surveillance equipment under the terrorism excuse/budget and have then used them to spy on people for putting their rubbish bins out on the wrong day.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>You may want to give your Government the benefit of the doubt on this but I wouldn't go that far over here.</p> -
Yeah, London is the most "watched" city in the world with all the CCTV footage, and I can see how it can be taken too far and used for the wrong reasons. I can't really comment on England obviously, but NZ is one of the least corrupt countries in the world however listening to the seemingly growing number of idiots over here you'd think we were all living under an oppressive dictatorship of the evil John Key who is personally listening to your every word and will swoop in and have you detained if you say the wrong thing. It's so far from reality but these people seem to have convinced themselves otherwise, I really do wonder how their brains operate. They just live for a conspiracy.
-
<p>Well there's the problem NQ. Just think how stupid the average person is and then think that 50% of the population is even more stupid.</p>
-
The new meme amongst the leftards is that because there's so much hopelessness out there and people feel disenfranchised ( benefits and the minimum wage were raised today, record low interest rates) that violence against politicians is to be expected. Paula Bennett seems to be the most popular target. <br><br>
Btw am I the only one that switches off when someone uses words like holistic , disenfranchised and empowerment in s sentence ? -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Catogrande" data-cid="569003" data-time="1459500043"><p>
Well there's the problem NQ. Just think how stupid the average person is and then think that 50% of the population is even more stupid.</p></blockquote>
<br>
I'm going to borrow that quote off you , nice work there. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="No Quarter" data-cid="568969" data-time="1459498351">
</p>
<div>
<p>Yeah, London is the most "watched" city in the world with all the CCTV footage, and I can see how it can be taken too far and used for the wrong reasons. I can't really comment on England obviously, but NZ is one of the least corrupt countries in the world however listening to the seemingly growing number of idiots over here you'd think we were all living under an oppressive dictatorship of the evil John Key who is personally listening to your every word and will swoop in and have you detained if you say the wrong thing. It's so far fron reality but these people seem to have convinced themselves otherwise, I really do wonder how their brains operate. They just live for a conspiracy.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>A story recounted to me from some time back when the first public CCTV became operational within a certain jurisdiction in Australia. Important people are within the control room and they witness the first crime captured by the system. The Commissioner (IIRC) points at the screen and says <em>"that's excellent. Now does anyone know who the fuck that person is?"</em></p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Catogrande" data-cid="569003" data-time="1459500043">
<div>
<p>Well there's the problem NQ. Just think how stupid the average person is and then think that 50% of the population is even more stupid.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Gotta love George</p>
<p> -
Talking of surveillance this was in the news a couple of weeks back and it does seem a big ott<br>
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://i.stuff.co.nz/national/77885546/council-puts-secret-listening-device-on-couples-property'>http://i.stuff.co.nz/national/77885546/council-puts-secret-listening-device-on-couples-property</a> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Catogrande" data-cid="568962" data-time="1459497599">
<div>
<p>The surveillance state that is now the UK tends to polarise views. There is the oft quoted "but we must fight terrorism in any way we can and only we know how to do this", which on the face of it seems sensible. Obviously terrorism= bad. But now there are cameras up all over the bloody place. Terrorism? Really? The bloody CCTV footage can't even provide a good enough image to a allow for a prosecution when some poor soul gets assaulted or raped but it can read your car registration from 100 yards away. There have been instances, and I'm not joking here, where local councils have installed surveillance equipment under the terrorism excuse/b<strong>udget and have then used them to spy on people for putting their rubbish bins out on the wrong day.</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>You may want to give your Government the benefit of the doubt on this but I wouldn't go that far over here.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>To be honest I'm OK with that. I don't think they were specifically put in for that (that would have been farcical) but once they are in you have people doing shit that they've been asked not to & negaitively impacts why not ping them? </p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="569004" data-time="1459500156">
<div>
<p>The new meme amongst the leftards is that because there's so much hopelessness out there and people feel disenfranchised ( benefits and the minimum wage were raised today, record low interest rates) that violence against politicians is to be expected. Paula Bennett seems to be the most popular target.<br><br>
Btw am I the only one that switches off when someone uses words like holistic , disenfranchised and empowerment in s sentence ?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I switch off when i hear a politician say '<em>fair</em>' it is just meaningless.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gollum" data-cid="569013" data-time="1459501634">
<div>
<p>To be honest I'm OK with that. I don't think they were specifically put in for that (that would have been farcical) but once they are in you have people doing shit that they've been asked not to & negaitively impacts why not ping them? </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>But that's it isn't it? The things were purportedly put in for a saintly and good reason and then are just used for petty shit. It's just using the sensible laws (anti-terrorism) to spend a shed load of money and use the technology to crack a walnut with a fucking sledgehammer. I mean I live in a small city in Devon. Devon for fucks sake. How has terrorism impacted on bloody Devon? Oh I know there was the time a mentally retarded bloke embraced Islam and detonated a home made bomb in the bogs of a cafe in the city centre. He didn't even harm himself let alone do any bloody damage. But we still have loads of "anti-terrorism" cameras dotted around the place which have no real usage and are operated by incompetents.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm really looking forward to the annual, above inflation, increase in my council tax. I'm thinking that all those "security" camera might be able to ensure I get a fine for driving my car in a haphazard manner as I try to avoid all the potholes in the road that my fucking council won't mend.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>fluffybunnies.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Catogrande" data-cid="569025" data-time="1459506674">
<div>
<p>But that's it isn't it? The things were purportedly put in for a saintly and good reason and then are just used for petty shit. It's just using the sensible laws (anti-terrorism) to spend a shed load of money and use the technology to crack a walnut with a fucking sledgehammer. I mean I live in a small city in Devon. Devon for fucks sake. How has terrorism impacted on bloody Devon? Oh I know there was the time a mentally retarded bloke embraced Islam and detonated a home made bomb in the bogs of a cafe in the city centre. He didn't even harm himself let alone do any bloody damage. But we still have loads of "anti-terrorism" cameras dotted around the place which have no real usage and are operated by incompetents.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm really looking forward to the annual, above inflation, increase in my council tax. I'm thinking that all those "security" camera might be able to ensure I get a fine for driving my car in a haphazard manner as I try to avoid all the potholes in the road that my fucking council won't mend.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>fluffybunnys.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Yes, but you are are assuming they wanted to catch petty shit & lied when they put them in. I'm assuming they put them in for a valid reason but then figured "What the hell, we have footage of people doing shit they shouldn't, should we just ignore it?". From my viewe thats great, the've spent the money I'd be fucking outraged if they weren't using them. It'd be like anti-terrorist cops ignoring robberies happing in front of them because they are not technically terror attacks.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I just don't see the down side, I'm not committing crime - even petty crime, so there's no issue for me. And if I get mugged I'd be hoping the guy might get caught cause he's on camera. Because there is ZERO chance of him getting caught any other way. Add to that people might actually commit less crime knowing they are on camera. The UK has a massive surveillance network - far bigger than almost any other country. And we've also got a shit ton of Jihadis. And yet almost no attacks. If the price for that is someone with zero thought for others having a hissy fit over getting fined for littering I'm all on board. </p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gollum" data-cid="569827" data-time="1459762817">
<div>
<p><strong>Yes, but you are are assuming they wanted to catch petty shit & lied when they put them in.</strong> I'm assuming they put them in for a valid reason but then figured "What the hell, we have footage of people doing shit they shouldn't, should we just ignore it?". From my viewe thats great, the've spent the money I'd be fucking outraged if they weren't using them. It'd be like anti-terrorist cops ignoring robberies happing in front of them because they are not technically terror attacks.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I just don't see the down side, I'm not committing crime - even petty crime, so there's no issue for me. And if I get mugged I'd be hoping the guy might get caught cause he's on camera. Because there is ZERO chance of him getting caught any other way. Add to that people might actually commit less crime knowing they are on camera. The UK has a massive surveillance network - far bigger than almost any other country. And we've also got a shit ton of Jihadis. And yet almost no attacks. If the price for that is someone with zero thought for others having a hissy fit over getting fined for littering I'm all on board. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Thank you for putting it better than I ever could. :whistle:</p>