[News] Nigel Farage and Reform

[BadFish]

Because if I had to fact check every article I read id be spending more time fact checking than reading the news

Yep. That's what you need to do.

They are all biased to some degree. The only way to get to the truth is to use the citations in the article to get to the truth.

Then you have to check those sources are decent, have no conflicts of interest or biases.

If they ain't using citations or decent sources of evidence, they ain't worth shit.

The truth is out there' but it's hidden.

 

[BadFish]

I sometimes find it easier to get the answers I'm looking for through a debate rather than reading through lots of information, I admit I can be guilty of misreading the room but do so with no ill intent

I appreciate it when people clarify or have helped me with something I've misunderstood

I apologise for my mistrust and tone, I am happy to help if I can.

 

[TomandJerry]

Yep. That's what you need to do.

They are all biased to some degree. The only way to get to the truth is to use the citations in the article to get to the truth.

Then you have to check those sources are decent, have no conflicts of interest or biases.

If they ain't using citations or decent sources of evidence, they ain't worth shit.

The truth is out there' but it's hidden.

I don't understand why people would want to muddy the truth, it seems, at least to me that it makes no sense.

It makes reading the news hard work, I just want a reliable news outlet that has clear articles of information that can be relied upon and don't need extra digging around because it's all there - clearly the Telegraph isn't that. (Which has been demonstrated to me, on here)

Again, I've been looking at the FT. What's your opinion on them?

 

[BadFish]

I don't understand why people would want to muddy the truth, it seems, at least to me that it makes no sense.

It makes reading the news hard work, I just want a reliable news outlet that has clear articles of information that can be relied upon and don't need extra digging around because it's all there - clearly the Telegraph isn't that. (Which has been demonstrated to me, on here)

Again, I've been looking at the FT. What's your opinion on them?

I don't really have an opinion on them, if I read anything they print I fact check it.

A lot of media is owned by billionaires they muddy the truth to make more money for themselves and other billionaires.

Some are better than others of course but eben with good journalism you are only getting a journalist's take on things.

I find that this lot (here is Australia anyway) are usually good at including references and citation in their articles.

The Conversation UK is your most reliable trusted news. Written by academics.

Curated by professional editors, The Conversation offers informed commentary and debate on the issues affecting our world. Plus a Plain English guide to the latest developments and discoveries from the university and research sector.

theconversation.com

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Normally I'm right behind you @Harry Wilson's tackle, but I think you have misread the room on this occasion, they seem to be playing us for fools, not just asking questions.

We'll see.
I'm not too bothered about the room.
More about the man in the room.
If I am being unjustifiably accommodating and find I am being played I will of course recant.
I have gone harsh too soon before and am . . . trying to learn . . .despite the length of my teeth

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

Because if I had to fact check every article I read id be spending more time fact checking than reading the news

 

[TomandJerry]

Thanks for the input

 

[abc]

I was appalled by Starmer’s immigration speech, for its content but even more the rhetoric used. Will those Labour supporters on here who (quite rightly) have condemned Farage and Reform for being racist now call out Starmer and Labour for the same?

Or are a party only racist if you don’t support them?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I don't understand why people would want to muddy the truth, it seems, at least to me that it makes no sense.

It makes reading the news hard work, I just want a reliable news outlet that has clear articles of information that can be relied upon and don't need extra digging around because it's all there - clearly the Telegraph isn't that. (Which has been demonstrated to me, on here)

Again, I've been looking at the FT. What's your opinion on them?

I absolutely understand your bemusement.
To me it is like vandalism.

There are two reasons for it.
One is ignorance. People get things wrong.
But you would not expect this to happen in an 'authoritative' publication,
such as the Times, Telegraph and BBC.
But....they do make mistakes.

The other is malice. People have agendas.
Going back to the Times....at one time it became intoxicated with Thatcher.
The owner was Murdoch and the editor in chief (of the Sunday version) was Andrew Neill.
Neill got excited by new technology ('sunrise' industry).
Private Eye magazine mocked his hubris, dubbing his paper the 'Sunset Times'.

Further down the media food chain, the Sun, also owned by Murdoch, had few scruples.
In their loathing of 'the left' they cooked up a wheeze.
Someone would phone a London borough council late on a Friday afternoon and ask:
(for example - this one is real) "We understand your council is banning Baa Baa Black Sheep for racism. Comment?"
The poor sap in the office, knowing nothing about this (because the Sun just made it up),
would then diplomatically say that "I'm sure the council made a careful assessment before making any decision".
Bosh. The headline the next day:
"Labour council defends the banning of Baa Baa Black Sheep".

This is an example of grotesque political manipulation in the media.

At the other end of the spectrum, the leftish Guardian has often got science issues wrong when pursuing their
green environmental anti-exploitation agenda. Well meaning folly? Perhaps. Folly nevetheless.

So how can you determine what to trust?
I'm afraid that you really must fact check. But not everything.....rule of thumb:
If the issue matters to you, it is important to not be duped. Check the facts.
But if the issue does not matter to you, for your sanity, just ignore it.
And, if I may, please don't start a thread on something that doesn't matter to you.

I personally find that chatting about 'stuff' on NSC is fun.
There is a large bank of posters who have shown over the years that they have excellent insight
and judgement about certain issues.
There is another lot who are less reliable;
many are well-meaning but under-informed, but most are willing to discuss and are fair minded.
And there are a few who are simply pursuing a particular agenda. I have a few dozen of these on ignore.

 

[SouthSaxon]

I don't understand why people would want to muddy the truth, it seems, at least to me that it makes no sense.

It makes reading the news hard work, I just want a reliable news outlet that has clear articles of information that can be relied upon and don't need extra digging around because it's all there - clearly the Telegraph isn't that. (Which has been demonstrated to me, on here)

Again, I've been looking at the FT. What's your opinion on them?

A couple of things I try to keep in mind:

1) Journalists are not always, or even often, experts in the subject matter they’re reporting on. Many are as prone to misinterpreting data as anyone else (data analysis is part of my job, I can’t tell you how wildly people draw the wrong conclusions from simple data)
2) A news report is just that - it’s an account of something that has happened. In this case, a think tank has released a paper, the journalist has reported on the content of it. They don’t tend to analyse deeply - one of the great failings of modern media.

That’s why all outlets carry stories that can be misleading. The publication bias often comes through the selection of stories to publish, which is the job of the editors, not the journalists. The editors are chosen by the owners, who are unlikely to select someone with a vastly different ideology to theirs.

Nobody has time to fact check everything, but I try to do that on issues I care about. It doesn’t take long to Google the name of the study being cited (lack of links from articles is another bugbear) and there are simple questions like who funded this that help to identify bias. Also, multiple sources - it’s good that you try to get a spectrum of reporting.

 

[darkwolf666]

I absolutely understand your bemusement.
To me it is like vandalism.

There are two reasons for it.
One is ignorance. People get things wrong.
But you would not expect this to happen in an 'authoritative' publication,
such as the Times, Telegraph and BBC.
But....they do make mistakes.

The other is malice. People have agendas.
Going back to the Times....at one time it became intoxicated with Thatcher.
The owner was Murdoch and the editor in chief (of the Sunday version) was Andrew Neill.
Neill got excited by new technology ('sunrise' industry).
Private Eye magazine mocked his hubris, dubbing his paper the 'Sunset Times'.

Further down the media food chain, the Sun, also owned by Murdoch, had few scruples.
In their loathing of 'the left' they cooked up a wheeze.
Someone would phone a London borough council late on a Friday afternoon and ask:
(for example - this one is real) "We understand your council is banning Baa Baa Black Sheep for racism. Comment?"
The poor sap in the office, knowing nothing about this (because the Sun just made it up),
would then diplomatically say that "I'm sure the council made a careful assessment before making any decision".
Bosh. The headline the next day:
"Labour council defends the banning of Baa Baa Black Sheep".

This is an example of grotesque political manipulation in the media.

At the other end of the spectrum, the leftish Guardian has often got science issues wrong when pursuing their
green environmental anti-exploitation agenda. Well meaning folly? Perhaps. Folly nevetheless.

So how can you determine what to trust?
I'm afraid that you really must fact check. But not everything.....rule of thumb:
If the issue matters to you, it is important to not be duped. Check the facts.
But if the issue does not matter to you, for your sanity, just ignore it.
And, if I may, please don't start a thread on something that doesn't matter to you.

I personally find that chatting about 'stuff' on NSC is fun.
There is a large bank of posters who have shown over the years that they have excellent insight
and judgement about certain issues.
There is another lot who are less reliable;
many are well-meaning but under-informed, but most are willing to discuss and are fair minded.
And there are a few who are simply pursuing a particular agenda. I have a few dozen of these on ignore.

Having started this thread nearly 5 years ago, I would have thought that @TomandJerry might have worked this one out for himself by now. What I can't work out is if they are ill-informed, super inquisitive but a little slow to take in information, or just plain and simply fishing/trolling.

Like you, I am a bit long in the tooth (the ones I have left anyway) and probably don't suffer fools as well as I should.

Turn the other cheek paahhh!

 

[nicko31]

I was appalled by Starmer’s immigration speech, for its content but even more the rhetoric used. Will those Labour supporters on here who (quite rightly) have condemned Farage and Reform for being racist now call out Starmer and Labour for the same?

Or are a party only racist if you don’t support them?

TBH I'm more concerned about Labour's action than the dog whistle rhetoric

Stopping care workers visas and extending leave to remain to a decade, its all pretty grubby and unhelpful.

Our birth rate is 1.57, we need honest conversations about immigration, not knee jerk reactions to a racist party led by a pound shop Trump.

 

[SouthSaxon]

TBH I'm more concerned about Labour's action than the dog whistle rhetoric

Stopping care workers visas and extending leave to remain to a decade, its all pretty grubby and unhelpful.

Our birth rate is 1.57, we need honest conversations about immigration, not knee jerk reactions to a racist party led by a pound shop Trump.

It’s also seems like very incoherent policy. The care sector has been a key driver of immigration in recent years, which has partly been driven by budgetary pressures and subsequent decay in wages in what was already an underpaid sector.

So how are care organisations going to cope with lower numbers of immigrant workers who will accept lower wages, and encourage more domestic workers to take those jobs when there’s no money to increase salaries?

It seems to me that every problem Britain faces comes back to the fact that there’s no money - to improve the lot of British people, or to build new facilities and infrastructure to cope with higher migration.

 

[TomandJerry]

Having started this thread nearly 5 years ago, I would have thought that @TomandJerry might have worked this one out for himself by now. What I can't work out is if they are ill-informed, super inquisitive but a little slow to take in information, or just plain and simply fishing/trolling.

Like you, I am a bit long in the tooth (the ones I have left anyway) and probably don't suffer fools as well as I should.

Turn the other cheek paahhh!

The thread started 5 years ago based on Mr Farage leaving LBC !

And that is the correct one

 

[nicko31]

It’s also seems like very incoherent policy. The care sector has been a key driver of immigration in recent years, which has partly been driven by budgetary pressures and subsequent decay in wages in what was already an underpaid sector.

So how are care organisations going to cope with lower numbers of immigrant workers who will accept lower wages, and encourage more domestic workers to take those jobs when there’s no money to increase salaries?

It seems to me that every problem Britain faces comes back to the fact that there’s no money - to improve the lot of British people, or to build new facilities and infrastructure to cope with higher migration.

Starmer is about to be gifted with a huge fall in immigration numbers...

a) No Ukraine migrant spike
b) No HK migrant spike
c) No post Covid student spike
d) Tougher rules from Sunak

Just dumb, McSweeney needs to go

 

[Guinness Boy]

I was appalled by Starmer’s immigration speech, for its content but even more the rhetoric used. Will those Labour supporters on here who (quite rightly) have condemned Farage and Reform for being racist now call out Starmer and Labour for the same?

Or are a party only racist if you don’t support them?

Oh, I'm absolutely disgusted with Labour chasing Reform voters and resorting to their rhetoric. They should be leading from the left, not aping the right. And, I have, on here, called out the racist anti-Semitic comments of devoted Corbynistas.

There are, however, around five other threads discussing the merits of the current government. Perhaps we could keep this one for Reform?

As my mum always says, two wrongs do not make a right. And, as is regularly pointed out on here, to resort to whataboutery is to lose the argument.

 

[SouthSaxon]

Back on topic then, I hope Rupert has some good sunglasses because he’s seeing the light real bright these days..

Ex-Reform MP Rupert Lowe says Farage ‘must never be PM’ as CPS rules out charges

MP accuses ex-colleagues of attempt to silence him as CPS says it will not charge him over allegations of verbal threats

www.theguardian.com

 

[mile oak]

gave two tier Lieboring a tough questioning in PM question time today.

 

[WATFORD zero]

gave two tier Lieboring a tough questioning in PM question time today.

And in English ?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Back on topic then, I hope Rupert has some good sunglasses because he’s seeing the light real bright these days..

Ex-Reform MP Rupert Lowe says Farage ‘must never be PM’ as CPS rules out charges

MP accuses ex-colleagues of attempt to silence him as CPS says it will not charge him over allegations of verbal threats

www.theguardian.com

I wonder if he would be tempted to start his own party to split the right wing vote?