Farage's New Party

[drfchound]

I use tv and radio news bulletins and some things I pick up internet news articles.
Oh, and this forum of course.
However I should say that I don’t spend as much time as you do searching for things to post on here about.
Forgive me for asking, but how do you find time to oversee your business.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I'm a very efficient person Hound. No need to worry on that score.

[BillyStubbsTears]

But back to the core issue. I assume you realise that you are picking up information that has been filtered and editorialised?

[Bentley Bullet]

BB

Feel free to point out a single criticism of the Govt that I've made which hasn't been based on, and evidenced by facts.

After you've stopped and thought about the implications of your earlier post.

Take your time.

BST, you have already given me an example of you correcting a fact you previously claimed to be true just six posts back. I was hoping you'd give me some more examples while you were at it.

[BillyStubbsTears]

And that was corrected the moment I realised it was wrong.

And it wasn't a criticism of the Govt.

Other than that, well done!

Any more?

[SydneyRover]

hp and tomato?

[drfchound]

But back to the core issue. I assume you realise that you are picking up information that has been filtered and editorialised?

So are you suggesting that information posted on Twitter etc is the truth just because it hadn’t been filtered.
Having said what you have done though, lots of posters on here quote Guardian articles and expect us to take them to be factual.

[BillyStubbsTears]

No Hound. I'm saying that you can, over time, judge for yourself who is more consistently telling the truth, being consistent and getting calls right.

Hard work though, I grant you.

On the topic of conventional media, there's a similar process required to assess who is trustworthy. Of course all media outlets have editorial policy and that is inevitably influenced by the political position of the particular media source.

There are two very different outputs that media organisations present and  you need to consider the differences when appraising media.

1) Opinion pieces and editorials. These are, by their very nature, biased in certain directions because it is people giving opinions. So you need to think about which direction the bias is likely to be in a given newspaper. You should go into that with your eyes open and be prepared to be critical. Personally, I don't give a great deal of credence to opinion pieces, unless they are very well backed up by clear evidence. Often they are not - they are just the prejudices of the writer.

2) Factual reporting. This is more about the "news". Again, newspapers will choose what news to highlight. But there's a key difference between different papers. Some will deliberately and knowingly misinform readers to suit their political angle. From experience, I don't believe the Guardian, Times or Telegraph do that. They may make mistakes, but I don't believe they deliberately try to misinform. From close up personal experience, I know for a fact that the Mail does. So, personally, I rank mainstream media outlets on a scale from "generally trustworthy on news facts" to "I wouldn't trust a word they say without corroboration."

You need the same approach with Twitter. The difference is that no-one is editorialising Twitter so you can expose yourself to a wide range of sources and angles.

And I do realise I'm being hopelessly  optimistic and that most people won't.

[sha66y]

Talk radio asks questions that I want answers to, and argues the inconsistencies that I would argue...

Alex Belfield is a very clever man who makes me laugh...

And if I want an insight into proper intelligent debate I watch and read Christopher Hitchens

All other media sources are directed by the 13 families of which we should not go their......

[Glyn_Wigley]

Alex Belfield is a very clever man who makes me laugh...

Aye, he's hilarious.

https://www.thatstageyblog.com/post/stop-alex-belfield

[BillyStubbsTears]

Talk radio asks questions that I want answers to, and argues the inconsistencies that I would argue...

Alex Belfield is a very clever man who makes me laugh...

And if I want an insight into proper intelligent debate I watch and read Christopher Hitchens

All other media sources are directed by the 13 families of which we should not go their......

Christopher Hitchens died ten years ago. I assume you mean Peter Hitchens? He was an utter disgrace at the start of the COVID crisis. He blatantly misrepresented the Imperial College predictions of death tolls, with the express intention of undermining confidence in the epidemiologists. He claimed that, within a week, they had changed their predicted death toll from 500,000 to 25,000 and poured scorn on an analysis that could change like that. What he didn't say (and he must have known it) was that one study was about what would happen if the virsu was left unchecked, and the other was the effect of lockdown.

I cannot put into words how much I despise t**ts like that. Using a privileged position of influence to deliberately misinform people. He and his like would be the first in the stocks if I were in charge. They are a cancer.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Alex Belfield is a very clever man who makes me laugh...

Aye, he's hilarious.

https://www.thatstageyblog.com/post/stop-alex-belfield

Christ, that's like reading an unfolding mental breakdown, manifested as insane cyber bullying.

[selby]

Is it similar to yours and your mates mental breakdown on here for the last four and a half years Billy?

[Glyn_Wigley]

Read it and tell us how it is.

[Janso]

Read it and tell us how it is.

Bold of you to assume a bored troll has any interest in doing anything other than trying to wind people up.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Read it and tell us how it is.

Bold of you to assume a bored troll has any interest in doing anything other than trying to wind people up.

Just showing it up, I doubt he even read it in the first place.