https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/help-41670342


--
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight
and understanding".

Marshall McLuhan

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/help-41670342


Jesus, I think they mean it, too :-)

On 12/07/18 08:52, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/help-41670342


Jesus, I think they mean it, too :-)

"Unemployment down despite Brexit" marked the end for me.

Another Dave

--
Change nospam to techie

On 12/07/2018 08:52, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/help-41670342


Jesus, I think they mean it, too :-)

Like most companies in the UK publishing a "mission statement" like that
gives the management a warm fuzzy feeling and a sense of achieving their
goals. What is blatantly transparent to the public, and often most of
the staff, is that it's complete bull****.




--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

The key phrase is compared to....

Possibly correct, but is the best from a rum bunch of biased news sources
quite the same as impartiality?
There have been surveys done by respected scientists about bias, and nobody
is unbiased, and indeed even systems and software designed by people who try
to remove bias, seldom achieves it.
In the end unfortunately, who is to say what is or is not biased. In order
to tell you have to alot a figure to believability of a source, and thereby
is the rub as they say.
So yes carry on criticising, but how can anyone tell what unbiased is?
In the end we all go for the news feed that reflects our world view. that is
the way it is.
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/help-41670342


--
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight
and understanding".

Marshall McLuhan

On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 12:02:28 +0200, Martin wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 08:52:39 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/help-41670342


Jesus, I think they mean it, too :-)

"Research shows that, compared to other broadcasters, newspapers and online
sites, the BBC is seen as by far the most trusted and impartial news provider in
the UK." Not by DM, SUN etc.

Does 'in the UK' exclude Aljazeera (available in?, based in?).

In article ,
Martin wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 08:52:39 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/help-41670342


Jesus, I think they mean it, too :-)

"Research shows that, compared to other broadcasters, newspapers and
online sites, the BBC is seen as by far the most trusted and impartial
news provider in the UK." Not by DM, SUN etc.

Dunno if you saw John Cleese on Newsnight, but he produced figures on how
well people in EU countries regard their press, and the UK came at the
bottom of the table. But then many would probably have guessed that.

--
*It's a thankless job, but I've got a lot of Karma to burn off

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Martin wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 08:52:39 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/help-41670342


Jesus, I think they mean it, too :-)

"Research shows that, compared to other broadcasters, newspapers and online
sites, the BBC is seen as by far the most trusted and impartial news provider in
the UK." Not by DM, SUN etc.


I never said they weren't convincing :-)

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Martin wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 08:52:39 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/help-41670342


Jesus, I think they mean it, too :-)

"Research shows that, compared to other broadcasters, newspapers and
online sites, the BBC is seen as by far the most trusted and impartial
news provider in the UK." Not by DM, SUN etc.

Dunno if you saw John Cleese on Newsnight, but he produced figures on how
well people in EU countries regard their press, and the UK came at the
bottom of the table. But then many would probably have guessed that.


It may be because British people have become rather cynical. Although
I'm not sure that's a bad thing, of course. I find that the Italian
press (the only other one I see much of) are quite rabid, and they seem
to lap it up.

On 12/07/18 11:02, Martin wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 08:52:39 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/help-41670342


Jesus, I think they mean it, too :-)

"Research shows that, compared to other broadcasters, newspapers and online
sites, the BBC is seen as by far the most trusted and impartial news provider in
the UK." Not by DM, SUN etc.

Whenever you see an unqulaified use of the passive form of a verb, you
should increase the sensitivity of the bull**** meter till it goes off.

Research shows that compared to nuts seeds or frozen pizza, a diet of
worms is preferred ...

....by blackbirds.

--
"If you dont read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."

Mark Twain

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Dunno if you saw John Cleese on Newsnight, but he produced figures on how
well people in EU countries regard their press, and the UK came at the
bottom of the table. But then many would probably have guessed that.

Oh come on !

The question was along the lines of how many people trust what they
read in the press.

The obvious retort to that, which Emily Maitless, as per usual missed
by a mile, is that being rather more sophisticated than people in other
countries, they will naturally take a more cynical view of what they read
in the press.

What the likes of Cleese should be rather more concerned about, are
countries where say 90% of the population believe what they read in the
press.

All the other suspects AFAIAA - Prescott was pursued by the Press
as a result of banging his secretary over the desk (allegedly)
- Hugh Grant as a result of getting the blow job off of the prozzie
in the car (allegedly) - and Steve Coogan as a result of snorting coke
with Courney Love (allegedly) are in favour of press restrictions
as a result of being caught bang to rights.(Allegedly)

So what's Cleese been up to that's got him so upset all of a sudden ?

He hasn't been divorced by this latest wife as well, has he ?


michael adams

....








--
*It's a thankless job, but I've got a lot of Karma to burn off

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 12/07/2018 11:14, Scott wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 12:02:28 +0200, Martin wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 08:52:39 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/help-41670342


Jesus, I think they mean it, too :-)

"Research shows that, compared to other broadcasters, newspapers and online
sites, the BBC is seen as by far the most trusted and impartial news provider in
the UK." Not by DM, SUN etc.

Does 'in the UK' exclude Aljazeera (available in?, based in?).


The problem with the BBC and MSM is that they give biased reporting.
Biased not just in terms of stilted language but probably more
importantly the prominence with which they report stories. News
unfavourable to the preferred bias is either not featured or reported
infrequently and hidden away. Some stories favourable to the bias are
promoted to an insane degree.

Al-Jazeera and the Saudi blockade of Qatar give us a prime example. For
those of you who don't know just over a year ago Saudi Arabia, United
Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Egypt, imposed a "land, sea, and air
blockade" on Qatar. Al-Jazeera appears to be the major motivating factor
for the blockade. The Saudi lead group, demanding that Al-Jazeera is
closed down, have support for the blockade from Trump.

One would think a free press in the Arab region is one of the most
important stories of our time. Much more important than a few people
dying from chlorine gas in Syria.

The BBC News website has done surprisingly little to highlight the Qatar
blockade, apparently journalistic freedom isn't important to the BBC.

"Jim Ericsson" wrote in message
...

The BBC News website has done surprisingly little to highlight the Qatar blockade,
apparently journalistic freedom isn't important to the BBC.

Press freedom aside, I'd imagine many people, the BBC included
are more likely concerned with rather more troubling aspects of
Qatari life

quote

The state of human rights in Qatar is a concern for several
non-governmental organizations. Sharia law is the main source
of Qatari legislation according to Qatar's constitution.[1][2]
Flogging and stoning as forms of punishment are legal in Qatar due to
Sharia law.

According to Human Rights Watch in June 2012, hundreds of thousands
of mostly South Asian migrant workers in construction in Qatar risk
serious exploitation and abuse, sometimes amounting to forced labor.[3]

/quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Qatar

None of which has exactly been a secret, and has been widely reported
ever since Qatar's successful bid to host the 2022 World Cup.


michael adams

....

"Jim Ericsson" wrote in message
...

The BBC News website has done surprisingly little to highlight
the Qatar blockade, apparently journalistic freedom isn't important
to the BBC.

You're having a laugh !

quote

Freedom of expression

Freedom of expression is the political right to communicate one's
opinions and ideas.
A life sentence was handed to critics of government during the
2012 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Qatar to a Qatari
poet Mohammed al-Ajami, also known as Mohammed Ibn al-Dheeb.
Observers were not allowed to enter the court, and al-Ajami
himself was not present at the sentencing

quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Qatar


He's having a laugh ! *



michael adams

© Ricky Gervaise


....

In article ,
Jim Ericsson wrote:
The problem with the BBC and MSM is that they give biased reporting.
Biased not just in terms of stilted language but probably more
importantly the prominence with which they report stories.

Just how important a story is depends on the individual viewing that
programme. Look no further than the World Cup for proof of that.

I was rather appalled to find Newsnight devoting almost the entire prog to
the World Cup last night. Even more so given Trump is in Europe and
spouting even more lies than usual.

--
*If all is not lost, where the hell is it?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 12/07/2018 13:25, michael adams wrote:
"Jim Ericsson" wrote in message
...

The BBC News website has done surprisingly little to highlight
the Qatar blockade, apparently journalistic freedom isn't important
to the BBC.

You're having a laugh !


You don't appear to have understood the point I was making.

If I defended Edward Snowden would you respond by telling me what a bad
man Vlad Putin is, just because Edward Snowden happens to be in Russia?

If you dislike Al-Jazeera and would like to see them banned, feel free
to say why but they are not the Qatari government.

In article ,
michael adams wrote:
Dunno if you saw John Cleese on Newsnight, but he produced figures on how
well people in EU countries regard their press, and the UK came at the
bottom of the table. But then many would probably have guessed that.

Oh come on !

The question was along the lines of how many people trust what they
read in the press.

Is regard really so different to trust?

The obvious retort to that, which Emily Maitless, as per usual missed
by a mile, is that being rather more sophisticated than people in other
countries, they will naturally take a more cynical view of what they read
in the press.

Ah - right. The English are so superior to any foreigner. Says it all
really.

What the likes of Cleese should be rather more concerned about, are
countries where say 90% of the population believe what they read in the
press.

Cleese can be concerned about whatever he wants to be. He is *not* some
politician or spokesman for anything. Just a rather sad old man.

All the other suspects AFAIAA - Prescott was pursued by the Press
as a result of banging his secretary over the desk (allegedly)
- Hugh Grant as a result of getting the blow job off of the prozzie
in the car (allegedly) - and Steve Coogan as a result of snorting coke
with Courney Love (allegedly) are in favour of press restrictions
as a result of being caught bang to rights.(Allegedly)

So what's Cleese been up to that's got him so upset all of a sudden ?

He hasn't been divorced by this latest wife as well, has he ?

The usual let's shoot the messenger. Ignore any message brought.

--
*Money isn't everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 12/07/2018 15:12, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Jim Ericsson wrote:
The problem with the BBC and MSM is that they give biased reporting.
Biased not just in terms of stilted language but probably more
importantly the prominence with which they report stories.

Just how important a story is depends on the individual viewing that
programme. Look no further than the World Cup for proof of that.

I was rather appalled to find Newsnight devoting almost the entire prog to
the World Cup last night. Even more so given Trump is in Europe and
spouting even more lies than usual.


Effective propaganda needs an audience. So MSM has to provide stories
that it thinks will boost its audience, the stories people want to see.

That isn't really relevant to a discussion about the
propoganda/advertising they push at the audience.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
Dunno if you saw John Cleese on Newsnight, but he produced figures on how
well people in EU countries regard their press, and the UK came at the
bottom of the table. But then many would probably have guessed that.

Oh come on !

The question was along the lines of how many people trust what they
read in the press.

Is regard really so different to trust?

The intereview is available on the BBC News website.


The obvious retort to that, which Emily Maitless, as per usual missed
by a mile, is that being rather more sophisticated than people in other
countries, they will naturally take a more cynical view of what they read
in the press.

Ah - right. The English are so superior to any foreigner. Says it all
really.

I'm not sure he was even talking about English people specifically
rather than British people in general but you're not trolling me into
replaying the extract as you'll simply ignore it if I happen to be
correct.



What the likes of Cleese should be rather more concerned about, are
countries where say 90% of the population believe what they read in the
press.

Cleese can be concerned about whatever he wants to be. He is *not* some
politician or spokesman for anything. Just a rather sad old man.

Ah right. So he just so happened to be walking past the Newsnight
studios wherever they are, Newsnight were short of an item, a
member of the editorial team just happened to look out the window
at that very moment and thought "Let's invite John Cleese onto the
programme to talk about whatever he likes." That happens a lot on
Newsnight then does it ? Inviting people in off the street who just
happened to be passing ?


The usual let's shoot the messenger.

Make your mind up. He was just a "rather sad old man" a moment
ago.

Just because you might like watching sad old men chuntering on about
whetever comes into their heads and being given an easy ride by
the likes of Emily Maitlees doesn't mean everyone else should
have to agree with him, or you.



michael adams

....

In article ,
Jim Ericsson wrote:
On 12/07/2018 15:12, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Jim Ericsson wrote:
The problem with the BBC and MSM is that they give biased reporting.
Biased not just in terms of stilted language but probably more
importantly the prominence with which they report stories.

Just how important a story is depends on the individual viewing that
programme. Look no further than the World Cup for proof of that.

I was rather appalled to find Newsnight devoting almost the entire prog to
the World Cup last night. Even more so given Trump is in Europe and
spouting even more lies than usual.


Effective propaganda needs an audience. So MSM has to provide stories
that it thinks will boost its audience, the stories people want to see.

That may well be the case with papers and commercial broadcasters.

That isn't really relevant to a discussion about the
propoganda/advertising they push at the audience.

The trouble with mentioning the BBC in this is they do a vast range of
news programmes. From local news to the World Service. And if you actually
listened to all of them would realise there isn't a BBC 'party line'.

Of course they're going to be more critical of those in power at the time.
The ones making current decisions. What is so sad is this lot making it so
easy to do.

--
*Everybody lies, but it doesn't matter since nobody listens*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Jim Ericsson" wrote in message ...
On 12/07/2018 13:25, michael adams wrote:
"Jim Ericsson" wrote in message
...

The BBC News website has done surprisingly little to highlight
the Qatar blockade, apparently journalistic freedom isn't important
to the BBC.

You're having a laugh !


You don't appear to have understood the point I was making.

If I defended Edward Snowden would you respond by telling me what a bad man Vlad Putin
is, just because Edward Snowden happens to be in Russia?

Eh ?

Subsequent to his disclosures which rendered him liable to arrest by his employers
the US Govt and a possible long term of imprisonment pon conviction, Edward Snowden
has sought and been granted political asylum in Russia. However Russia didn't sponsor
or have any foreknowledge of his activities; his presence in Russia is simply a matter of
convenience for Snowden which keeps him out of a US jail.


If you dislike Al-Jazeera

Oh dear. You really think its all down to "like" and "dislike" do you ?

Unfortunately its a bit more serious than that.

The Al Jazeera is a state-funded news agency, which was originally set up by, and remains
wholly owned by the state of Qatar.

Who to repeat

quote

The state of human rights in Qatar is a concern for several
non-governmental organizations. Sharia law is the main source
of Qatari legislation according to Qatar's constitution.[1][2]
Flogging and stoning as forms of punishment are legal in Qatar due to
Sharia law.

According to Human Rights Watch in June 2012, hundreds of thousands
of mostly South Asian migrant workers in construction in Qatar risk
serious exploitation and abuse, sometimes amounting to forced labor.[3]

/quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Qatar

Given which, its for you to say why anyone should necessarily believe a word
that their state sponsored news network has to say about anything.


michael adams

....

In article ,
michael adams wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
Dunno if you saw John Cleese on Newsnight, but he produced figures on how
well people in EU countries regard their press, and the UK came at the
bottom of the table. But then many would probably have guessed that.

Oh come on !

The question was along the lines of how many people trust what they
read in the press.

Is regard really so different to trust?

The intereview is available on the BBC News website.

Thanks for ignoring the question.

The obvious retort to that, which Emily Maitless, as per usual missed
by a mile, is that being rather more sophisticated than people in
other countries, they will naturally take a more cynical view of what
they read in the press.

Ah - right. The English are so superior to any foreigner. Says it all
really.

I'm not sure he was even talking about English people specifically
rather than British people in general but you're not trolling me into
replaying the extract as you'll simply ignore it if I happen to be
correct.

And that is trying to side step my point.



What the likes of Cleese should be rather more concerned about, are
countries where say 90% of the population believe what they read in the
press.

Cleese can be concerned about whatever he wants to be. He is *not* some
politician or spokesman for anything. Just a rather sad old man.

Ah right. So he just so happened to be walking past the Newsnight
studios wherever they are, Newsnight were short of an item, a
member of the editorial team just happened to look out the window
at that very moment and thought "Let's invite John Cleese onto the
programme to talk about whatever he likes." That happens a lot on
Newsnight then does it ? Inviting people in off the street who just
happened to be passing ?


The usual let's shoot the messenger.

Make your mind up. He was just a "rather sad old man" a moment
ago.

Just because you might like watching sad old men chuntering on about
whetever comes into their heads and being given an easy ride by
the likes of Emily Maitlees doesn't mean everyone else should
have to agree with him, or you.


Thanks for confirming you only take note of things said by people you
approve of in every way.

However, if you actually understood the NewsNight formula, you'd know they
do occasionally have 'novelty' items. And it's up to the viewer to see
what's behind them.

--
*Elephants are the only mammals that can't jump *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
michael adams wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
Dunno if you saw John Cleese on Newsnight, but he produced figures on how
well people in EU countries regard their press, and the UK came at the
bottom of the table. But then many would probably have guessed that.

Oh come on !

The question was along the lines of how many people trust what they
read in the press.

Is regard really so different to trust?

The intereview is available on the BBC News website.

Thanks for ignoring the question.

If you insist then quite obviously the question as to how people
regard their press is totally different to the question as to
whether they trust it or not.

As the question as to how they regard their press, will cover such
topics as to whether they find it interesting or boring, whether
they find it amusing or over-serious, whether they regard it as being
well produced or cheaply produced. None of which have very much
bearing as to the further question as to whether they trust it
or not.


michael adams

....

In article ,
michael adams wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
michael adams wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
Dunno if you saw John Cleese on Newsnight, but he produced figures on how
well people in EU countries regard their press, and the UK came at the
bottom of the table. But then many would probably have guessed that.

Oh come on !

The question was along the lines of how many people trust what they
read in the press.

Is regard really so different to trust?

The intereview is available on the BBC News website.

Thanks for ignoring the question.

If you insist then quite obviously the question as to how people
regard their press is totally different to the question as to
whether they trust it or not.

I'd say you rather unusual if you trust something you have no regard for.

As the question as to how they regard their press, will cover such
topics as to whether they find it interesting or boring, whether
they find it amusing or over-serious, whether they regard it as being
well produced or cheaply produced. None of which have very much
bearing as to the further question as to whether they trust it
or not.


None of which makes any difference to trust.

...






--
*Why is the word abbreviation so long?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

michael adams wrote
Jim Ericsson wrote

The BBC News website has done surprisingly little to highlight the Qatar
blockade, apparently journalistic freedom isn't important to the BBC.

Press freedom aside, I'd imagine many people, the BBC included are more
likely concerned with rather more troubling aspects of Qatari life

And yet you havent actually been able to cite any comments
by the BBC on this undoubted important point about Qatar.

quote

The state of human rights in Qatar is a concern for several
non-governmental organizations. Sharia law is the main source
of Qatari legislation according to Qatar's constitution.[1][2]
Flogging and stoning as forms of punishment are legal in Qatar due to
Sharia law.

According to Human Rights Watch in June 2012, hundreds of thousands
of mostly South Asian migrant workers in construction in Qatar risk
serious exploitation and abuse, sometimes amounting to forced labor.[3]

/quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Qatar

None of which has exactly been a secret, and has been widely reported
ever since Qatar's successful bid to host the 2022 World Cup.

Not by the BBC.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote

None of which has exactly been a secret, and has been widely reported
ever since Qatar's successful bid to host the 2022 World Cup.

Not by the BBC.

Only a very lonely person living in a corrugated shack
in the back of beyond, with only the odd passing kangaroo
for company, could possibly be so desperate as to make
such a statement; which could so easily be demolished
with 2 seconds googling.

Well stand up Bruce, Whatever Your Name is

as you are that person

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/31595500

Which does raise the rather interesting question however,
which I'd previously overlooked as to how much coverage
this topic received on Al Jezeera itself.

Although not so interesting such that I can be bothered
to find out right now.


michael adams

....

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
michael adams wrote:


[Snip]

Cleese can be concerned about whatever he wants to be. He is *not* some
politician or spokesman for anything. Just a rather sad old man.

He's only 6 months older than me!

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 12/07/2018 08:19, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/help-41670342


Radio 4 news today told us a few bad things about Trump (can't remember
exactly what) but omitted that he has done rather well at the NATO talks.

Bill

"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
michael adams wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
Dunno if you saw John Cleese on Newsnight, but he produced figures
on how
well people in EU countries regard their press, and the UK came at
the
bottom of the table. But then many would probably have guessed
that.

Oh come on !

The question was along the lines of how many people trust what they
read in the press.

Is regard really so different to trust?

The intereview is available on the BBC News website.

Thanks for ignoring the question.

If you insist then quite obviously the question as to how people
regard their press is totally different to the question as to
whether they trust it or not.

As the question as to how they regard their press, will cover such
topics as to whether they find it interesting or boring, whether
they find it amusing or over-serious, whether they regard it as being
well produced or cheaply produced. None of which have very much
bearing as to the further question as to whether they trust it
or not.

Indeed. I have that problem with our equivalent of the BBC.

I do trust what they do present but am quite ****ed off about
what they choose not to cover at all. The problem is that I cant
actually find one that I do trust as much that covers the stuff
they don’t bother to cover.

michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote
michael adams wrote

None of which has exactly been a secret, and has been widely reported
ever since Qatar's successful bid to host the 2022 World Cup.

Not by the BBC.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/31595500

That isnt talking about what you raved about, liar.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

I'd say you['re] rather unusual if you trust something you have no
regard for.

Dear me.

Money spent on high production values - the best designers,
the best paper, fewer advertisements - the things by which
it appears superficial people such as yourself judge print
media has no bearing on whether or its trustworthy or not.

All such things tell anyone is that the publishers are willing
to spend a lot of money, possibly more than their competitors
are able to afford, in order to persuade their readers that
they can indeed be trusted.

If such superficial but expensive things - good design, good
paper, fewer advertisements didn't sell more copies then
publishers wouldn't spend all that money on them would they ?

Which is totally divorced from whether they can be trusted
or not.

You just have to be trolling. I can't seriously believe that
anyone can be so naive as you're pretending to be.

Oh and I've just read, which I didn't realise, that Cleese voted
"leave" in the referendum. Another rat making for the exit
then.

Poor old Cleese really jumped the shark after Fawlty a true
masterpiece, which could never be bettered. He should have
seriously considered a change of direction at that point IMO
as Palin managed to do. Either that or got killed in a car crash,
ideally driving into a tree having swerved to avoid a toddler
who'd run out into the road.


michael adams

....

In article ,
michael adams wrote:
I'd say you['re] rather unusual if you trust something you have no
regard for.

Dear me.

Money spent on high production values - the best designers,
the best paper, fewer advertisements - the things by which
it appears superficial people such as yourself judge print
media has no bearing on whether or its trustworthy or not.

Perhaps you do buy things like newspapers based on what they look like.
Others may be more interested in the contents.

--
*Horn broken. - Watch for finger.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
I'd say you['re] rather unusual if you trust something you have no
regard for.

Dear me.

Money spent on high production values - the best designers,
the best paper, fewer advertisements - the things by which
it appears superficial people such as yourself judge print
media has no bearing on whether or its trustworthy or not.

Perhaps you do buy things like newspapers based on what they look like.
Others may be more interested in the contents.

Previously you said people bought newpapers solely on the basis of trust.

Now you're saying that they buy them on the basis of their contents.

So faced with a choice between

a) a newspaper with 20 interesting, amusing and well written articles
and news stories, with colour pictures but none of which most readers
are really sure they can trust.

b) a newspaper with only two articles or news stories which are
very long, very boring and not really very well written, and
with no pictures at all, which neverthess if they ever managed to
read to the end readers know they could trust. Say maybe written
by a very boring relative of theirs, but they're till not going
to read them right to the end

Which newpapaer are most readers most likely to buy, a) or b) ?


michael adams

....

In article ,
michael adams wrote:
Perhaps you do buy things like newspapers based on what they look like.
Others may be more interested in the contents.

Previously you said people bought newpapers solely on the basis of trust.

You trust any product only after previous experience of it. Now I dunno
about you, but most buy a paper for its contents. Not as wallpaper.

--
*Is there another word for synonym?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 13/07/2018 11:41, michael adams wrote:


Which newpapaer are most readers most likely to buy, a) or b) ?


Judging by newspaper sales in the UK - neither.

Facebook is now the main source of unbiased news. You don't have to buy
a newspaper or watched the biased BBC to get a rounded view of the world
without the spin from editors or politicians.

Social media is more likely to influence who wins the next UK general
election than the views of the editor of a newspaper or the BBC news
department who are too **** scared of moving then times of their main
news programs in case it upsets parliament


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

In article ,
alan_m wrote:
Facebook is now the main source of unbiased news.

I take it you're having a laugh?

You don't have to buy
a newspaper or watched the biased BBC to get a rounded view of the world
without the spin from editors or politicians.

Everything you read on Facebook comes from some scribe on an unbiased
planet, does it?

Facebook knows what you like to read and feeds you more of the same.
Anything but a balanced selection.

--
*Errors have been made. Others will be blamed.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman wrote:

Facebook knows what you like to read and feeds you more of the same.

If it's like Google, it only thinks it know what you like, and feeds you
more of that ...

https://adssettings.google.com/authenticated

For me it has my age band, sex and car manufacturer correct, the
remaining "interests" are generally *so* wrong, that I assume the few
that aren't are just by accident ...

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman wrote:

Facebook knows what you like to read and feeds you more of the same.

If it's like Google, it only thinks it know what you like, and feeds you
more of that ...

https://adssettings.google.com/authenticated

For me it has my age band, sex and car manufacturer correct, the remaining
"interests" are generally *so* wrong, that I assume the few that aren't
are just by accident ...

Not accident so much as what you have browsed for whatever reason.
I often see an adv on facebook for something related to a link posted
here that I have chosen to follow. Not so much with youtube stuff tho.

On 13/07/18 15:38, alan_m wrote:
On 13/07/2018 11:41, michael adams wrote:


Which newpapaer are most readers most likely to buy, a) or b) ?


Judging by newspaper sales in the UK - neither.

Facebook is now the main source of unbiased news. You don't have to buy
a newspaper or watched the biased BBC to get a rounded view of the world
without the spin from editors or politicians.


Have you any oidea of how many people on facebook are paid to be there
to give you a biassed POV?


Social media is more likely to influence who wins the next UK general
election than the views of the editor of a newspaper or the BBC news
department who are too **** scared of moving then times of their main
news programs in case it upsets parliament


Thats why all the PR companies are targeting it.



--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
Perhaps you do buy things like newspapers based on what they look like.
Others may be more interested in the contents.

Previously you said people bought newpapers solely on the basis of trust.

You trust any product only after previous experience of it. Now I dunno
about you, but most buy a paper for its contents. Not as wallpaper.


I'll overlook the fact that you've snipped the question I asked you.
And instead concentrate on the paragraph above, which you posted
in response to my claim which you've not denied that you previously
said that people bought newspapers solely on the basis of trust.

Your first sentence:

" You trust any product only after previous experience of it."

has no bearing on the question as whether people buy newspapers
solely on the basis of trust or not.

It's simply a general observation about how people come to trust
things, newspapers included.

While your second sentence :

" Now I dunno about you, but most buy a paper for its contents"

merely re-iterates what you posted before - that people bought
a paper for its contents not necessarily because they trusted it;
which as you are no doubt aware directly contradicts what you
previously said. Which is why I posted the question which you
appear to have snipped for some unaccountable reason.

While your third sentence - "Not as wallpaper" sits rather
uneasily with someone who boasts of taking infinite pains
over some engraved glass panel, showing his number in his
front door. Anyway whatever it was, it wasn't a piece of
cardboard with the number written in marker pinned to the
front door, which would have done just as well, was it ?

While on the subject of front doors, have you put up that
notice next to the bell yet ?


michael adams

....