45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. Vol 2
Discussion
turbobloke said:
jmorgan said:
Greg66 said:
Funkycoldribena said:
He banned the BBC,that's good enough for me.
Why?With £zillions of a deficit pension invested in failing green blob ventures, and a staff stuffed with liberals for whom global warming is the last straw to clutch at (as pointed out by Labour's Lord Donoughue) it's best not to inhale around the BBC's information pollution, and definitely not a good idea to swallow it.
Greg66 said:
turbobloke said:
The research is flawed.
Nobody can re-run a presidential election with names in a different order on the ballot paper. That's nonsensical and quite clearly will never happen. So, we don't know what difference a change in order would make.
If researchers stage a fake ballot then sample-size volunteer groups won't be asked to mark two versions of the ballot paper, and if they were, the change in order would be so obvious as to render the exercise pointless. Volunteers are just as likely to norm to whatever perceived expectation they had of the researchers' perceived motive. Equivalence is once again lost.
Also with nothing whatsoever hanging on the outcome, any fake ballot staged in any controlled manner fails to replicate the psychology a genuine presidential election vote, and equivalence is lost.
Carp opinion, not fake news.
Perhaps the experimental models are better than that. They've had a bit longer than an hour to think of something, after all. Nobody can re-run a presidential election with names in a different order on the ballot paper. That's nonsensical and quite clearly will never happen. So, we don't know what difference a change in order would make.
If researchers stage a fake ballot then sample-size volunteer groups won't be asked to mark two versions of the ballot paper, and if they were, the change in order would be so obvious as to render the exercise pointless. Volunteers are just as likely to norm to whatever perceived expectation they had of the researchers' perceived motive. Equivalence is once again lost.
Also with nothing whatsoever hanging on the outcome, any fake ballot staged in any controlled manner fails to replicate the psychology a genuine presidential election vote, and equivalence is lost.
Carp opinion, not fake news.
If there was a valid response to the valid points I made, you would surely have made it rather than offer more carp opinion.
How can a presidential election be re-run to view the effect of a change in order of names on the ballot paper? It cannot, so we will never know.
How can a pretend election staged in any controlled manner in a research project (whatever the methodology) mimic the same intrinsic voter psychology as a real presidential election where the result actually matters? It cannot, so we will never know.
By all means try to find some basis for dismissing these truths, and the best of luck to you as we both know you cannot.
Carp opinion is carp opinion.
jmorgan said:
turbobloke said:
jmorgan said:
Greg66 said:
Funkycoldribena said:
He banned the BBC,that's good enough for me.
Why?With £zillions of a deficit pension invested in failing green blob ventures, and a staff stuffed with liberals for whom global warming is the last straw to clutch at (as pointed out by Labour's Lord Donoughue) it's best not to inhale around the BBC's information pollution, and definitely not a good idea to swallow it.
thanks.It's funny seeing all the far right wing stone throwers.
They can't actually support Trump's increasingly odd behaviour so they just drone on with the same boring predictablity about Obama and the BBC all the time.
Poster A "Trumps banning sections of the media"
Turbodogma "Yeah but Blair leaked news to the Guardian and climate change isn't real"
They can't actually support Trump's increasingly odd behaviour so they just drone on with the same boring predictablity about Obama and the BBC all the time.
Poster A "Trumps banning sections of the media"
Turbodogma "Yeah but Blair leaked news to the Guardian and climate change isn't real"
jmorgan said:
Greg66 said:
Funkycoldribena said:
He banned the BBC,that's good enough for me.
Why?So if it was excluded for a different reason (anti-Trump reporting for ex) your view is that doesn't matter: the end justifies the means, right?
turbobloke said:
That's it? Perhaps?
If there was a valid response to the valid points I made, you would surely have made it rather than offer more carp opinion.
How can a presidential election be re-run to view the effect of a change in order of names on the ballot paper? It cannot, so we will never know.
How can a pretend election staged in any controlled manner in a research project (whatever the methodology) mimic the same intrinsic voter psychology as a real presidential election where the result actually matters? It cannot, so we will never know.
By all means try to find some basis for dismissing these truths, and the best of luck to you as we both know you cannot.
Carp opinion is carp opinion.
I like the way your non-expert opinions on your speculative metholodgy are now "truths". If there was a valid response to the valid points I made, you would surely have made it rather than offer more carp opinion.
How can a presidential election be re-run to view the effect of a change in order of names on the ballot paper? It cannot, so we will never know.
How can a pretend election staged in any controlled manner in a research project (whatever the methodology) mimic the same intrinsic voter psychology as a real presidential election where the result actually matters? It cannot, so we will never know.
By all means try to find some basis for dismissing these truths, and the best of luck to you as we both know you cannot.
Carp opinion is carp opinion.
turbobloke said:
People offer rational critiques without a twitch. The knee-jerk pro-biased-beeb replies then follow.
With £zillions of a deficit pension invested in failing green blob ventures, and a staff stuffed with liberals for whom global warming is the last straw to clutch at (as pointed out by Labour's Lord Donoughue) it's best not to inhale around the BBC's information pollution, and definitely not a good idea to swallow it.
This Labour Lord. Is he an expert? Or is his name dropping just an appeal to authority?With £zillions of a deficit pension invested in failing green blob ventures, and a staff stuffed with liberals for whom global warming is the last straw to clutch at (as pointed out by Labour's Lord Donoughue) it's best not to inhale around the BBC's information pollution, and definitely not a good idea to swallow it.
This Fake News thing.
(Articles based on 'expert' opinions/anecdotally collected observations like the BBC one above, or anything the Daily Mail has said in the last 10 years that could be linked with cancer, for example, do not help...)
However, it seems that people really, REALLY do not understand what fake news is.
Newspapers and journalists have to have a legitimate source but can then write an article in a cosmopolitan way to evoke an emotive response in the reader; it is why we have the Daily Mail and the Guardian. They both do the same thing from fairly opposite ends of the political spectrum.
This does not mean it is fake news. You could claim it may be misleading, but it is not necessarily fake. Frankly, and perhaps ironically, Beirtbart and Fox are arguably FAR worse than CNN, the New York Times and the BBC with regards to this sort of news, but Trump protaganists seem to be happy to ignore this.
What concerns me about Trump is that he appears to be deliberately misleading the American public to blur this distinction, and it is a pretty big threat to free speech and the freedom of the Press. Overall I think that, with both left and right leaning news services the press are able to do a fairly decent job of holding Policians, public figures and so on to account (In the US and UK, at least). As Eric alludes to above, Trump seems to be seeking to deliberately destroy this for his own ends, which I find quite scary.
I think this is backed up further by his comment this morning that Journalists should not be ALLOWED to print a story without an actual NAMED source. For obvious f
king good reasons journalists sources are protected, and yet it is another example of Trump trying to silence or bully those who dare to voice criticism, or god forbid leak anything negative about Team Trump!
That's without even considering the irony in calling everything 'fake News' while repeatedly misleading and lying.
(Articles based on 'expert' opinions/anecdotally collected observations like the BBC one above, or anything the Daily Mail has said in the last 10 years that could be linked with cancer, for example, do not help...)
However, it seems that people really, REALLY do not understand what fake news is.
Newspapers and journalists have to have a legitimate source but can then write an article in a cosmopolitan way to evoke an emotive response in the reader; it is why we have the Daily Mail and the Guardian. They both do the same thing from fairly opposite ends of the political spectrum.
This does not mean it is fake news. You could claim it may be misleading, but it is not necessarily fake. Frankly, and perhaps ironically, Beirtbart and Fox are arguably FAR worse than CNN, the New York Times and the BBC with regards to this sort of news, but Trump protaganists seem to be happy to ignore this.
What concerns me about Trump is that he appears to be deliberately misleading the American public to blur this distinction, and it is a pretty big threat to free speech and the freedom of the Press. Overall I think that, with both left and right leaning news services the press are able to do a fairly decent job of holding Policians, public figures and so on to account (In the US and UK, at least). As Eric alludes to above, Trump seems to be seeking to deliberately destroy this for his own ends, which I find quite scary.
I think this is backed up further by his comment this morning that Journalists should not be ALLOWED to print a story without an actual NAMED source. For obvious f
king good reasons journalists sources are protected, and yet it is another example of Trump trying to silence or bully those who dare to voice criticism, or god forbid leak anything negative about Team Trump!That's without even considering the irony in calling everything 'fake News' while repeatedly misleading and lying.
Greg66 said:
Is this the new favourite word for those who prefer knee jerk uninformed reactions over considered evidence based opinions (the answer is yes, BTW, for those not yet in the know)?
The inverted snobbery directed towards the intelligentsia/the experts/the elite (take your pick, depending on the context) hasn't ended well historically. Thus, the evidence suggests it won't end well this time.
Very true. It is a very dangerous path to embark upon. Those who set such a train into motion don't always themselves live long enough to see its ultimate outcome.The inverted snobbery directed towards the intelligentsia/the experts/the elite (take your pick, depending on the context) hasn't ended well historically. Thus, the evidence suggests it won't end well this time.
turbobloke said:
Greg66 said:
turbobloke said:
The research is flawed.
Nobody can re-run a presidential election with names in a different order on the ballot paper. That's nonsensical and quite clearly will never happen. So, we don't know what difference a change in order would make.
If researchers stage a fake ballot then sample-size volunteer groups won't be asked to mark two versions of the ballot paper, and if they were, the change in order would be so obvious as to render the exercise pointless. Volunteers are just as likely to norm to whatever perceived expectation they had of the researchers' perceived motive. Equivalence is once again lost.
Also with nothing whatsoever hanging on the outcome, any fake ballot staged in any controlled manner fails to replicate the psychology a genuine presidential election vote, and equivalence is lost.
Carp opinion, not fake news.
Perhaps the experimental models are better than that. They've had a bit longer than an hour to think of something, after all. Nobody can re-run a presidential election with names in a different order on the ballot paper. That's nonsensical and quite clearly will never happen. So, we don't know what difference a change in order would make.
If researchers stage a fake ballot then sample-size volunteer groups won't be asked to mark two versions of the ballot paper, and if they were, the change in order would be so obvious as to render the exercise pointless. Volunteers are just as likely to norm to whatever perceived expectation they had of the researchers' perceived motive. Equivalence is once again lost.
Also with nothing whatsoever hanging on the outcome, any fake ballot staged in any controlled manner fails to replicate the psychology a genuine presidential election vote, and equivalence is lost.
Carp opinion, not fake news.
If there was a valid response to the valid points I made, you would surely have made it rather than offer more carp opinion.
How can a presidential election be re-run to view the effect of a change in order of names on the ballot paper? It cannot, so we will never know.
How can a pretend election staged in any controlled manner in a research project (whatever the methodology) mimic the same intrinsic voter psychology as a real presidential election where the result actually matters? It cannot, so we will never know.
By all means try to find some basis for dismissing these truths, and the best of luck to you as we both know you cannot.
Carp opinion is carp opinion.
I'm not the person to ask. Ask the author. He's 58, apparently, apparently been in academia his life, so I'd estimate he has 30-35 years experience of this.
It is possible (in a Schroedinger's cat sort of way) that you've identified in an hour or so all the possible experimental techniques that have been developed to test these sorts of things, but personally I doubt it.
Anyway, email him and ask him. Report back. Until you do your "carp opinion" warbling is (politely) uninformed opinion.
turbobloke said:
Naughty but nice confirmation of my point thanks.
On a serious note, I do watch the news on the BBC, I can weed out the stuff I can see is from a slant. For example reporting on tree down in a storm vs a scientific finding, discovery etc. thanks.However it is one source, against many I can draw on. As the watcher, it should be left up to me to make my mind up. Stopping them from attending pressers is not really going to change anything.
Dimski said:
This Fake News thing.
(Articles based on 'expert' opinions/anecdotally collected observations like the BBC one above, or anything the Daily Mail has said in the last 10 years that could be linked with cancer, for example, do not help...)
However, it seems that people really, REALLY do not understand what fake news is.
Newspapers and journalists have to have a legitimate source but can then write an article in a cosmopolitan way to evoke an emotive response in the reader; it is why we have the Daily Mail and the Guardian. They both do the same thing from fairly opposite ends of the political spectrum.
This does not mean it is fake news. You could claim it may be misleading, but it is not necessarily fake. Frankly, and perhaps ironically, Beirtbart and Fox are arguably FAR worse than CNN, the New York Times and the BBC with regards to this sort of news, but Trump protaganists seem to be happy to ignore this.
What concerns me about Trump is that he appears to be deliberately misleading the American public to blur this distinction, and it is a pretty big threat to free speech and the freedom of the Press. Overall I think that, with both left and right leaning news services the press are able to do a fairly decent job of holding Policians, public figures and so on to account (In the US and UK, at least). As Eric alludes to above, Trump seems to be seeking to deliberately destroy this for his own ends, which I find quite scary.
I think this is backed up further by his comment this morning that Journalists should not be ALLOWED to print a story without an actual NAMED source. For obvious fking good reasons journalists sources are protected, and yet it is another example of Trump trying to silence or bully those who dare to voice criticism, or god forbid leak anything negative about Team Trump!
That's without even considering the irony in calling everything 'fake News' while repeatedly misleading and lying.
I agree. Well said. (Articles based on 'expert' opinions/anecdotally collected observations like the BBC one above, or anything the Daily Mail has said in the last 10 years that could be linked with cancer, for example, do not help...)
However, it seems that people really, REALLY do not understand what fake news is.
Newspapers and journalists have to have a legitimate source but can then write an article in a cosmopolitan way to evoke an emotive response in the reader; it is why we have the Daily Mail and the Guardian. They both do the same thing from fairly opposite ends of the political spectrum.
This does not mean it is fake news. You could claim it may be misleading, but it is not necessarily fake. Frankly, and perhaps ironically, Beirtbart and Fox are arguably FAR worse than CNN, the New York Times and the BBC with regards to this sort of news, but Trump protaganists seem to be happy to ignore this.
What concerns me about Trump is that he appears to be deliberately misleading the American public to blur this distinction, and it is a pretty big threat to free speech and the freedom of the Press. Overall I think that, with both left and right leaning news services the press are able to do a fairly decent job of holding Policians, public figures and so on to account (In the US and UK, at least). As Eric alludes to above, Trump seems to be seeking to deliberately destroy this for his own ends, which I find quite scary.
I think this is backed up further by his comment this morning that Journalists should not be ALLOWED to print a story without an actual NAMED source. For obvious f
king good reasons journalists sources are protected, and yet it is another example of Trump trying to silence or bully those who dare to voice criticism, or god forbid leak anything negative about Team Trump!That's without even considering the irony in calling everything 'fake News' while repeatedly misleading and lying.
Greg66 said:
jmorgan said:
Greg66 said:
Funkycoldribena said:
He banned the BBC,that's good enough for me.
Why?So if it was excluded for a different reason (anti-Trump reporting for ex) your view is that doesn't matter: the end justifies the means, right?
jmorgan said:
Apols if I confused the issue. BBC seems to be a divisive name. I get the impression it is just a hate thing, maybe wrong here. and perhaps used the wrong example but it seemed to fit.
Actually, the fault is mine. I thought your reply was from FCR. Longsightedness and an iPhone screen don't make a happy couple. I'll get me iPad.
ETA: there will now be a short intermission while I hope Scotland and Wales both find a way to lose.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 25th February 14:04
jmorgan said:
turbobloke said:
Naughty but nice confirmation of my point thanks.
On a serious note, I do watch the news on the BBC, I can weed out the stuff I can see is from a slant. For example reporting on tree down in a storm vs a scientific finding, discovery etc. thanks.However it is one source, against many I can draw on. As the watcher, it should be left up to me to make my mind up. Stopping them from attending pressers is not really going to change anything.
My own view is that any attendance ban at White House PO briefings isn't worth the minimal effort it takes to keep certain people out. Trump won't listen to my opinion, but fwiw I don't agree with it. I also disagree with the exaggerated accounts that misrepresent or misdescribe what the effects of it will be.
Blair, Mandelson and Campbell did similar things in different ways and there was by no means a similar outcry. There is a deliberately staged outrage involved in this case, where calling Trump names is pretty much all his opponents can muster. It didn't work in the election and it won't do better now Trump is in office.
No matter what the disappoitment levels are with the election result in certain quarters, his opponents must wait for the real ammunition to emerge - if there is to be any - and plenty of us who didn't/couldn't/wouldn't vote for a US or UK Trump will be there to see it, assuming we're spared the requisite time on this planet!
turbobloke said:
They can still add their right/left bias, with an air of aggrieved indignation on the side.
Snip.Problem is for president Trump, take them out the press room, they go digging else where.
If I were running the press room, don't bar anyone. Take them on, take the questions on, don't flinch. Banter and joke with them. Faux outrage at an edgy question then answer it. Give them no where to go with it.
The place is now tainted.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff