BBC to set up team to debunk 'fake news' stories

[Beskamir]

The best solution to fake news is educating the masses so that they won't believe every piece of shit they see on the internet and actually consider for (preferably) more than a min whether or not what they are looking at would even make sense to be real.

[Delicieuxz]

1 hour ago, jaggysnake57 said:

WTF you on about. it has to be independent inits news and is not allowed by the government to show bias one way or the other. it has programs that openly challenge the government, people like andrew marr, david dimbleby, jeremy paxman, i mean jesus paxman is famous for it. i know there is a K in our name but we aint north Korea 

(emphasis added)

 

That's token PR, and a part of the BBC's propaganda to give the impression that it's impartial.

 

The BBC is not independent, because the BBC is run by the BBC Trust, formerly the Board of Governors, which is a board of 13 people, who are appointed directly by the government. It is impossible for the BBC to not have bias, when the appointees are selected by the government, on the basis that the government approves of what the people they select say, think, and are willing to do. The foundation of the BBC is government selection, so it's impossible that there would be no bias.

 

The BBC is also funded by the government, through a "license fee" which is a federal tax, which anyone in the UK who watches TV, or browses BBC online mandatorily has to pay.

 

On geopolitical issue, the BBC actually pretty much is North Korea propaganda-level BS.

 

 

 

 

All the BBC's reporting concerning issues in the Middle East, and wherever Russia is involved (such as regarding Crimea), is incredibly one-sided - it's not even a full one-sided, but more like one side of one side, so quarter-sided, if that.

 

One of the hosts on RT, I don't recall who it was who said this, but they used to work at BBC, and they said that at BBC they would always have to do hours of pre-show prep work to make sure that what they were going to talk about, or who they were going to have on the air would not run afoul of government positions on certain issues. They also said that at RT there's none of that, and nobody tells them who they can talk to on the air, or what they can or can't talk about.

 

 

[Mr.Meerkat]

19 hours ago, Wolther said:

Read this not gonna have a discussion about it here, but if you don't believe there is a pay gap then.. yeah 

Become a female Asian, problem solved  

 

Jokes...hee hee hee. but it is true...

[ivan134]

10 hours ago, stconquest said:

My slant is that I have enjoyed my life here on earth thus far and have some knowledge as to what allows me to have this experience here on earth. 

 

Unfortunately we are still at a stage in our earthly development whereas the guys with the biggest guns make the rules.  Your apocalypse is still a very real prospect.  A prospect that I deplore to the upmost degree.  I enjoy the fact that I have never needed to walk around carrying a gun to feel safe.  I wish more people across the world had this opportunity to live this way. 

 

Some of the reasons I have had this experience is at the expense of others, I get that.  The point being is that is more correlation than causation.  I don't control everything that affects me.

 

There will be a way out.  It won't be an apocalypse.  The resource economy will survive.  I hope these are just growing pains.  Sadly, I probably won't be around to see the hard work of more intelligent people than myself pay off.  I was kind of hoping it would come sooner than later.  We don't get to choose our time here.

 

The very least I can do is not be part of the problem, the problem of causing despair.

 

Kyle is someone I have grown to like:

 

 

Kyle is great. David Pakman is good too. If you haven't checked out The Humanist Report check him out too. Although I don't think he's on par with Kyle and David, but still not bad.

[stconquest]

9 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Kyle is great. David Pakman is good too. If you haven't checked out The Humanist Report check him out too. Although I don't think he's on par with Kyle and David, but still not bad.

Kyle and Corin started doing weekly talks I believe.

[Trik'Stari]

[ivan134]

15 minutes ago, stconquest said:

Kyle and Corin started doing weekly talks I believe.

Cool. Thanks for letting me know. I should check my YouTube feeds more often

[stconquest]

12 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Cool. Thanks for letting me know. I should check my YouTube feeds more often

Ah darn, I mixed up channels.  Them beards all look the same

 

Mike Figueredo is the T.H.R. guy.  I do watch T.H.R. from time to time.

[HughMungusCynicalAnarch]

On 2017-01-14 at 11:17 AM, CoeGunnell said:

 

BBC to set up team to debunk 'fake news' stories

What are people's thoughts on the BBC trying to stop all the fake news on the internet?

 

>>> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/bbc-team-debunk-fake-news-stories-media-james-harding-a7525686.html?cmpid=facebook-post

Probably leftist bullshit where they'll talk about how great the migrants are and that anyone saying they leech welfare, cause crime, and support sharia law are just a bunch of racists.

 

On 2017-01-15 at 5:36 AM, Citadelen said:

I dare you to find a more honest and principled politician than Jeremy Corbyn.

The guy is a massive cuck that supports mass immigration of welfare leeching parasites and thinks everything to do with men is sexist and that womynz be oppressed.

[Citadelen]

3 minutes ago, HughMungusCynicalAnarch said:

-snip-

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-will-not-die-in-a-ditch-for-the-sake-of-freedom-of-movement-a7528116.html

 

Well, this is embarrassing...

[Mug]

11 hours ago, Citadelen said:

I dare you to find a more honest and principled politician than Jeremy Corbyn.

I'll start this reply by saying I'm a Labour party member.

 

I have objections to the "honest" and "principled" parts of your sentence, such words never should be used to describe Jeremy Corbyn.

 

Jeremy Corbyn's honesty debunked

Remember train gate? He sat on the floor to record a message about the train being too full because he didn't want to sit next to someone. Now, I'm all for a sensible approach to rail nationalisation but this is ridiculous. He lied to support his policy. That's not right. It's not even a subjective matter, he fucked up.

 

Jeremy Corbyn's 'principledness' debunked

Following the Brexit vote, Jeremy's cabinet fell out. Why? Because he didn't really support the EU, as the leader of a pro-EU party he should've been out there communicating the party message. Meanwhile, he was saying that he supported the eu "7/10". That might have been the most honest thing he ever said but look what it got us.

When you're the leader of a political party, you have to communicate the party line as if it's gospel. Like with David Cameron, do you think he really wanted to make all those cuts? Fuck no, it's basically politically impossible. If he acted in self-interest there he'd have spent like many a government before had. You know what? before the EU referendum, David Cameron was critical of the EU (he even founded a eurosceptic MEP group). However, during the campaign he was the main force on the pro-EU side. Why? Because despite his qualms, he had to support it because it was the right thing to do. Jeremy Corbyn on the other hand stuck to his guns that it was ehh. Like for fuck's sake, my parents' local back bench labour MP did more in the campaign than Corbyn. Remember, it was the big Labour regions that voted out. It was his job to communicate that the EU would work for the working classes but instead he said sod all.

Now, how does this make him unprincipled? Well, remember that following his cabinet fallout, he just said that he did support the EU and all that to keep his party together? Now he's saying that we can do well without the EU and the single market. Like fuck him, I'm voting lib dem if it's still him in charge in 2020. Tim bloody Farron would make a better PM than Corbyn.

 

In short: he's the same as every other politician.

[Mooshi]

Trusting the BBC to get rid of fake news is like trusting Jered to give your kid a $5 foot long. 

[Citadelen]

2 hours ago, Mug said:

-snip-

In regards to TrainGate, I'm not sure what to believe, but I've read both accounts, and it seems like Virgin taking an opportunity to damage the PR of someone who'd take away their train services.

 

In regards to the EU referendum, I've listened to all of Corbyn's speeches on the matter, and he's given the most down to earth arguments I've heard on the matter, saying how he doesn't like it's neo-liberal elements, but how he wants to remain to change it for better. Another thing to note was that news outlets reported on Conservative sources for the referendum over Labour sources several times over. In regards to Brexit blaming it on Corbyn is both rediculous and refuses to look at the facts, remain to leave ratio of voters was similar in Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP, two of which fanatically support the EU. Finally in regards to the singal market what he's saying is he wants British businesses to retain full access to it, but for Britain to reject the liberal and privitising elements tied in with it. 

 

In future I advise you to read up on topics like this more closely, as the media is heavily biased against Corbyn. There's a lot more to a story than its misleading headline. As for voting I too will be voting Lib Dem, not because of any shortcomings of Labour, but that the Lib Dems have a much higher chance of taking North Devon than Labour does.

[HughMungusCynicalAnarch]

12 minutes ago, Citadelen said:

In regards to TrainGate, I'm not sure what to believe, but I've read both accounts, and it seems like Virgin taking an opportunity to damage the PR of someone who'd take away their train services.

 

In regards to the EU referendum, I've listened to all of Corbyn's speeches on the matter, and he's given the most down to earth arguments I've heard on the matter, saying how he doesn't like it's neo-liberal elements, but how he wants to remain to change it for better. Another thing to note was that news outlets reported on Conservative sources for the referendum over Labour sources several times over. In regards to Brexit blaming it on Corbyn is both rediculous and refuses to look at the facts, remain to leave ratio of voters was similar in Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP, two of which fanatically support the EU. Finally in regards to the singal market what he's saying is he wants British businesses to retain full access to it, but for Britain to reject the liberal and privitising elements tied in with it. 

 

In future I advise you to read up on topics like this more closely, as the media is heavily biased against Corbyn. There's a lot more to a story than its misleading headline. As for voting I too will be voting Lib Dem, not because of any shortcomings of Labour, but that the Lib Dems have a much higher chance of taking North Devon than Labour does.

Corbyn is a virtue signalling white Knight Moron.

[Mug]

41 minutes ago, Citadelen said:

Another thing to note was that news outlets reported on Conservative sources for the referendum over Labour sources several times over

Probs because there was actual noise coming from the conservative party whereas there was minimal campaigning from Labour.

Like trust me, I was trying to organise something with my local MP at the time (I've moved out of his constituency but he's now campaigning to be metro mayor) and Labour put no funds forward. Like I'm actually willing to believe those whistleblower MPs that came forward saying that Corbyn sabotaged the campaign.

46 minutes ago, Citadelen said:

remain to leave ratio of voters was similar in Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP, two of which fanatically support the EU

It really depends which areas you look at.

Like near where my parents live is a staunch labour seat  with one of the largest majorities in the country. Do you think that people would have been receptive to a strong tory campaign? Fuck no. It was the mediocre campaigning that lost it for labour, Corbyn's team couldn't give two shits about the EU. It was the same with the SNP's campaign, Nicola Sturgeon probably wanted us out of the EU so that it would make indyref2 more likely. What was Corbyn's motivation? Well, I don't think he likes the EU at all. He doesn't like the way it's dominated my conservatives, he doesn't like the way it undercuts people in this country, decreasing the bargaining power of labour and therefore making his party and the trade unions weaker. Like I know exactly what he means, those are some of the reasons that I don't like the EU. Trouble is that he was spineless, he should have just come out and said it. Free market capitalism and globalisation is bad for the working class and good for the middle class. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out.

56 minutes ago, Citadelen said:

the media is heavily biased against Corbyn

No it isn't. How? Care to give examples?

 

Like if you read any paper owned by newscorp, the telegraph or the express it's going to be anti-corbyn. If you read any paper owned by trinity mirror, the guardian or the independent, it's clearly pro-corbyn. Television news legally has to be unbiased (feel free to complain to ofcom if you think it is).

People always criticise media bias against their side. Perhaps it's because they can't stand any opinion other than their own and instead just stick to online echo chambers where their views get reaffirmed.

[divided_throwaway]

They should just change it to op eds instead. All news is just that these days.

[Mug]

2 hours ago, Citadelen said:

In regards to TrainGate, I'm not sure what to believe, but I've read both accounts, and it seems like Virgin taking an opportunity to damage the PR of someone who'd take away their train services.

Bloody hell... He even admitted to walking past spare seats because he wanted to sit next to someone so he sat on the floor. This was really dishonest of him, he said in the video that it was "ram-packed" suggesting that there were no seats. In reality, there were loads of seats, just he's too much of a snob to sit next to a member of the public. It's nothing to do with PR; if someone slandered your company you'd want to prove that they're wrong.

 

Besides, how much profit do you really think Virgin Trains actually makes? The public is so misinformed, thinking that the TOCs are making serious dollar when in reality they don't.

[jaggysnake57]

20 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

(emphasis added)

 

That's token PR, and a part of the BBC's propaganda to give the impression that it's impartial.

 

The BBC is not independent, because the BBC is run by the BBC Trust, formerly the Board of Governors, which is a board of 13 people, who are appointed directly by the government. It is impossible for the BBC to not have bias, when the appointees are selected by the government, on the basis that the government approves of what the people they select say, think, and are willing to do. The foundation of the BBC is government selection, so it's impossible that there would be no bias.

 

The BBC is also funded by the government, through a "license fee" which is a federal tax, which anyone in the UK who watches TV, or browses BBC online mandatorily has to pay.

 

On geopolitical issue, the BBC actually pretty much is North Korea propaganda-level BS.

(snipped vids)

 

 

All the BBC's reporting concerning issues in the Middle East, and wherever Russia is involved (such as regarding Crimea), is incredibly one-sided - it's not even a full one-sided, but more like one side of one side, so quarter-sided, if that.

 

One of the hosts on RT, I don't recall who it was who said this, but they used to work at BBC, and they said that at BBC they would always have to do hours of pre-show prep work to make sure that what they were going to talk about, or who they were going to have on the air would not run afoul of government positions on certain issues. They also said that at RT there's none of that, and nobody tells them who they can talk to on the air, or what they can or can't talk about.

 

 

seriously i nearly wet my self laughing....those vids are hilarious, the production on the articles that were ment to bb BBC news pieces was laughable. and as for the charlie hebdo piece, even blanks would kill at that range.........let me guess your another one that thinks we faked the moon landing and 911 and the world is flat.......hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

9 hours ago, HughMungusCynicalAnarch said:

Probably leftist bullshit where they'll talk about how great the migrants are and that anyone saying they leech welfare, cause crime, and support sharia law are just a bunch of racists.

and your evidence that all of what you said is true is what exactly?

[HughMungusCynicalAnarch]

1 minute ago, jaggysnake57 said:

seriously i nearly wet my self laughing....those vids are hilarious, the production on the articles that were ment to bb BBC news pieces was laughable. and as for the charlie hebdo piece, even blanks would kill at that range.........let me guess your another one that thinks we faked the moon landing and 911 and the world is flat.......hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

and your evidence that all of what you said is true is what exactly?

whats true? that worthless leeching migrants are all what i said they are or that the bbc calls anyone racist if they point it out?

[jaggysnake57]

1 minute ago, HughMungusCynicalAnarch said:

whats true? that worthless leeching migrants are all what i said they are or that the bbc calls anyone racist if they point it out?

prove that they

1. leech welfare
2. cause crime
3. support sharia law 

[Misanthrope]

27 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

And another problem is that many people, being human beings, suffer from personal prejudice. They double down on certain things when provided evidence to the contrary, and now that "evidence" isn't always dependable, I don't know what to do. There are also cases like Joe Arpaio, who claim that there are many inconsistencies in Obama's birth certificate. Nobody so far has posted a rebuttal or explained why those inconsistencies exist, and if this is real, does this mean that Obama's presidency is null and void in retrospect ?

I don't think those inconsistencies can be explained: record keeping was just shit back then. It seriously has caused my relatives tons of legal problems because of it but of course, they aren't running for office so they haven't bothered to correct them unless some sort of legal proceeding brings it up.

[Unhelpful]

On 1/14/2017 at 11:22 AM, Kek Ops said:

 

Worth mentioning that this video was uploaded before CNN lost credibility during the election. 

 

They lost credibility loooooong before the election. 

[Citadelen]

13 hours ago, Mug said:

-snip-

Corbyn made the most appearances of any Labour politician, and was the 7th most appearing MP, 123 appearances, of which only 6.1% were reported on, it's easy to see why people would be angry about him being silent when there's a media blackout on him. Not a single Lib Dem even made the top 30... As for your anecdotal evidence, a number of reasons could've been the cause, to suggest that Corbyn was trying to sabotage the remain campaign is pure conspiracy theorising. Nicola Sturgeon knows that Scotland would never be readmitted to the EU should they become independent, Spain wouldn't want to further inflame nationalist sentiments in Galicia, Vasconia and Catalonia. 

 

As for news bias, the only newspaper I've read that is consistently objective on Corbyn would be the Independent. I've read both the Guardian and Observer many a time, and to claim they report positively on Corbyn is an outright lie, they're wedded to the Blarites, the Mirror told Corbyn to leave during the leadership elections. For him to be replaced by Owen Smith? Owen Smith is less interesting than a hoover... What these newspapers are saying (Times, Sun, Daily Express, Daily Mail, Telegraph), isn't just critical, it's antagonistic and outright lying, that they try and link him to Hezbollah, IRA, Hamas etc, is ridiculous.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-media-bias-labour-mainstream-press-lse-study-misrepresentation-we-cant-ignore-bias-a7144381.html

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/08/bbc-biased-against-jeremy-corbyn-look-evidence

 

As for the BBC, it usually misquotes him and gives voices to his critics rather than his supporters.

 

[corrado33]

On 1/14/2017 at 9:20 AM, dalekphalm said:

You can't stop it from happening. The best you can do is to educate viewers on why a fake news story is fake (Eg: provide evidence that disproves the subject, or clarify misleading titles/statements, etc).

 

CBC has been doing this lately too. They just released an article with a "quiz" that featured 10 random news story titles, half of which were real and half were fake news.

Unfortunately, this doesn't work. Most people who watch fox news take it as 100% truth, despite any evidence to the contrary. They refuse to accept arguments against it, and they refuse to do any research of their own. They LIKE that news, so that's what they believe. Interestingly, those same people often see the bible as 100% truth. 

 

 

On 1/14/2017 at 9:30 AM, Sky Daddy said:

I just want a news station dedicated to uplifting/good news instead of the hate/fear mongering media we get fed now.

Ignoring the problems of the world does not make them go away.

 

 

On 1/14/2017 at 10:25 AM, Memories4K said:

Gender wage gap (in this context) is a myth, don't meme yourself.
This is called an EARNINGS GAP, women don't EARN as much as men.
It's not women not being paid the same wage for the same qualifications, work, hours, etc.

Not quite. There is a very small pay gap in many professions (a few %) for men and women working the same job. The US report (that I can't seem to find at this moment) on this stated that it could be due to men asking for more money when they go for the interview, or women taking time off due to pregnancies, etc. Or, it may not be statistically relevant. I very much apologize that I can't find that report now. Note, in some jobs the pay gap is the opposite. Women, for example, get paid more than equal men at nursing jobs. (Again, a few %)

 

The oft quoted "80%" is the median income of men and women of a certain age for ALL jobs. So that counts the housekeepers and the CEOs. Since more men than women tend to be CEOs (and women tend to take lesser paying jobs (teachers, etc.)) men, on average, make more than women, because of DIFFERING JOB CHOICES, not because women are paid 20% less at the same jobs. That is what the SJW would like you to believe, but it is not true. 

 

None of this takes into account hours worked. Since, in this day and age, women are still the dominant "stay at home parent," they work (for pay), on average, less hours than men. Women are more likely to take part time jobs than full time jobs, generally because of children. 

 

Much of this is changing, and there ARE some problems. But none of them are that women get paid less at the exact same job with the same experience working the same amount of hours. 

 

 

[Memories4K]

1 minute ago, corrado33 said:

Not quite. There is a very small pay gap in many professions (a few %) for men and women working the same job. The US report (that I can't seem to find at this moment) on this stated that it could be due to men asking for more money when they go for the interview, or women taking time off due to pregnancies, etc. Or, it may not be statistically relevant. I very much apologize that I can't find that report now. Note, in some jobs the pay gap is the opposite. Women, for example, get paid more than equal men at nursing jobs. (Again, a few %)

 

The oft quoted "80%" is the median income of men and women of a certain age for ALL jobs. So that counts the housekeepers and the CEOs. Since more men than women tend to be CEOs (and women tend to take lesser paying jobs (teachers, etc.)) men, on average, make more than women, because of DIFFERING JOB CHOICES, not because women are paid 20% less at the same jobs. That is what the SJW would like you to believe, but it is not true. 

 

None of this takes into account hours worked. Since, in this day and age, women are still the dominant "stay at home parent," they work (for pay), on average, less hours than men. Women are more likely to take part time jobs than full time jobs, generally because of children. 

No, i know the report you're talking about but yes negotiating salaries does contribute to the percentage (it being subjective, everyone negotiates differently, and the fact men negotiate for higher salaries and negotiate more often)

I don't understand though, i've said all this already earlier in the thread, what do you mean not quite?
It sounds like you're not really challenging anything i've said hahaha