Politics in France
Discussion
ATG said:
Digga said:
I think the media agenda with these little nuggets of data is fairly clear.
There are plentiful of papers like the Mail and Express that are saying "Look! That lot are calling you thick!" Thing is, they're taking out of their arses as per usual.The Economist too. I finally unsubscribed from that.
Digga said:
Quite, I accept that. It's just sad that the FT has turned itself into a purveyor of similar, if differently motivated dross.
The Economist too. I finally unsubscribed from that.
So two papers that you used to like but disagree with you are now . . . . dross? The Economist too. I finally unsubscribed from that.
Have you found papers that agree with you for some confirmation bias reading?
El stovey said:
Digga said:
Quite, I accept that. It's just sad that the FT has turned itself into a purveyor of similar, if differently motivated dross.
The Economist too. I finally unsubscribed from that.
So two papers that you used to like but disagree with you are now . . . . dross? The Economist too. I finally unsubscribed from that.
Have you found papers that agree with you for some confirmation bias reading?
They both used to be good, even though I disagreed with a lot of their general politics, but - and I'm not alone in thinking this - they're no longer the publications they once were. Online news and the need for stories to be clickable is, potentially, as much to blame as a lowering of journalistic standards, but I resent being fed propaganda, no matter what the colour.
With too many publications, finding real stories amongst the mass of fake/clickbait is like picking peanuts out of poo.
Digga said:
El stovey said:
Digga said:
Quite, I accept that. It's just sad that the FT has turned itself into a purveyor of similar, if differently motivated dross.
The Economist too. I finally unsubscribed from that.
So two papers that you used to like but disagree with you are now . . . . dross? The Economist too. I finally unsubscribed from that.
Have you found papers that agree with you for some confirmation bias reading?
They both used to be good, even though I disagreed with a lot of their general politics, but - and I'm not alone in thinking this - they're no longer the publications they once were. Online news and the need for stories to be clickable is, potentially, as much to blame as a lowering of journalistic standards, but I resent being fed propaganda, no matter what the colour.
With too many publications, finding real stories amongst the mass of fake/clickbait is like picking peanuts out of poo.
Joking and opinions aside, a brief trawl of online news shows all is far from well in France now. They have their own breed of "democracy is not fair" protest, but this time it's backed up by the unions who are never backward at making their feelings known. Macron has merely won the first key battle, but what will follow is anyone's guess.
General unrest in France seldom works out well for the UK, either.
General unrest in France seldom works out well for the UK, either.
Digga said:
ATG said:
Digga said:
I think the media agenda with these little nuggets of data is fairly clear.
There are plentiful of papers like the Mail and Express that are saying "Look! That lot are calling you thick!" Thing is, they're taking out of their arses as per usual.The Economist too. I finally unsubscribed from that.
The FT graph was data, not an opinion piece. Still unsure how you can qualify data as dross.
jjlynn27 said:
Digga said:
ATG said:
Digga said:
I think the media agenda with these little nuggets of data is fairly clear.
There are plentiful of papers like the Mail and Express that are saying "Look! That lot are calling you thick!" Thing is, they're taking out of their arses as per usual.The Economist too. I finally unsubscribed from that.
The FT graph was data, not an opinion piece. Still unsure how you can qualify data as dross.
I think the implication is that by posting a graph on its own linking education to voting they are suggesting education was an important factor in the way people voted, if it was just one graph amongst many graphs then I would agree that it is just one part of the many socio economic factors in an election.
By continually focusing on education and linking it to voting, the reporter is linking that voter preference to education. By saying people who voted for Le Pen were uneducated, they are suggesting that the voters are a bit thick. That the FN is the party for the uneducated. Why not just post data about what was the favourite colour of FN voters or how often they go to the toilet?
Characteristics such as old and uneducated or less well off are unattractive to many people. The paper is linking those parties to factors that people find unattractive and perhaps don't want to be associated with.
It's like if you see adverts for clothes but they're on old fat people. You might think, if I buy that, perhaps I'm like those old fat people. You see a brand that has fit young people (possibly who look educated and interesting) you might want to be associated with that brand more.
jjlynn27 said:
Murph7355 said:
Papers don't just publish "data". There's always a reason behind it. Usually to support an editorial opinion.
So, in order not to offend, they should just not publish breakdowns of vote patterns? 
Given the pause, and the flatlining/increase in piracy since 2000 an even better correlation should be observed. I think I need a grant, but will probably investigate piracy in the fiji region, not Somalian coast...
El stovey said:
It's like if you see adverts for clothes but they're on old fat people. You might think, if I buy that, perhaps I'm like those old fat people. You see a brand that has fit young people (possibly who look educated and interesting) you might want to be associated with that brand more.
k, something that might fit!, where is the website addr'.
jjlynn27 said:
So, in order not to offend, they should just not publish breakdowns of vote patterns?
Not at all. Publish data if there is a clear objective behind it and you are transparent about what that objective is. I am all for offending people, just have the balls to feckin do it rather than insinuate in a snide way.
ATG noted publishing that data is not intended to insinuate people are "thick" who didn't vote for Macron. I think that's a touch naive. It's clever people thinking they are clever by throwing data out there but with semi-plausible deniability as to what they would like people to take from it.
Either that or I'm a touch too cynical/Northern/spent too long earning a living from stats and data analysis
If it were genuinely just throwing the data out there for s
ts and giggles, where is the chart against hair colour? Or supermarket patronised? Or model of car driven? Etc. paulrockliffe said:
Eddie Strohacker said:
The trend I see is the FN trying & failing to win power in fifty years & smart cookie Macron doing it in one. Snapshot that for the domino effect.
This is just bks dressed up as a pretty picture. Give those countries a referendum rather than a proxy vote on the EU and we'll get a true picture. Again, our last election in 2015 was a majority for a pro-EU Government, nothing changed in the following 12 months. How do you explain that without breaking your equivalence narrative?
///ajd said:
Does that mean France is better educated than the UK?
Could be true!
No. Which you could have found out with 5 seconds of googling.Could be true!
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/F...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff