PPRuNe Forums


Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 31st Jan 2017, 13:14   #81 (permalink)
Cunning Artificer
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 70
Posts: 3,046
There's no such thing as a "neutral" news provider, one has to view several different sources to get a broad view - and each of us carries our own personal bias. Personally, as a Conservative, I am aware of my own right of centre bias, but I watch BBC, ITN, C4, RT and Al Jazeera to try and balance my world view.

In any case, the BBC is much more than just a news service so I believe we do get good value for money.
Blacksheep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st Feb 2017, 18:19   #82 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Here
Posts: 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cornish Jack View Post
Yellowtriumph
"I suspect most citzens of the UK don't have a lot of daily time to gather together numerous sources of news and infomation and collate them together to ruminate on - thats why our PSB broadcasters, which are highly viewed and listened to in the UK, are so tightly run from a news governance perspective on the basis that people must believe what the PSB broadcasters are telling them."
Were it not for a number of the responses above, I would find it difficult to believe that we were in 'the age of enlightenment' 'Believe nothing of what you read/hear and only half of what you see' - a paraphrase from the distant past which still holds good. Let's just make it nice and simple and forum relevant ... Which news source, in your esrtimation, has ACCURATELY reported ANY aircraft incident in recent memory??? Which news interview, with a politician, has produced a direct answer to any of the questions posed??
Apropos other recent topics about making America grate again, has nobody else read Aesop's tale of the Emperor's new clothes?
Sorry not to have replied sooner, I have been away. In answer to your first question I'm afraid I am not related to aviation other than as a passenger, so I can't give any sort of meaningful reply to your question.

In regard to your second question, politicians accept a media interview request to push their own agenda not the interviewers. Whether they choose to answer any particular question obviously depends on whether it suits their agenda to do so. To think otherwise tends to encourage somewhat useless encounters such as the famous Jeremy Paxman and Michael Howard encounter on Newsnight.

If I scroll down a google search page and see a link to a website with a story entitled ' Astonishing news - Donald Trump has 3 testicles' I'd probably think that's load of testicles. If however, I was to switch on the main BBC news and have Huw Edwards read out to me as the first headline - Donald Trump has 3 testicles - I'd tend to believe it. That's what what I mean when I say the media regulators have it as an absolute 'given' that PSB television and radio has to be trusted without question, but I think it is a difficult line to hold.

But is it always so? How often have we seen on UK TV news reports about Alleppo where the reporter has said words to the effect 'unconfirmed reports suggest that XX people have been affected by a chemical weapon dropped by the Assad regime'. That's not reporting fact, that's not even reporting opinion, thats' reporting rumour - and in my view there's too much of it going on. Not lies, but suggestive manipulation and I think it has to stop with otherwise trusted, impeccable sources.
yellowtriumph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st Feb 2017, 19:44   #83 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bedford, UK
Age: 64
Posts: 1,172
....Their main influence is in deciding what to lead with, a decision made by an editorial committee early in the day. At the moment they seem to be giving weight to anything that is negative for Trump, oh and the odd Facebook crowd shout.
Mr Optimistic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st Feb 2017, 20:35   #84 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: 50'11N 004' 16W
Posts: 274
Either the BBC now see themselves as the official opposition in parliament or they have adopted an atatitude of "**** it...what have we got to lose".
They appear to be more deliberately anti-establishment by the day. They don't even attempt to hide their bias now. Listen to how the male reporters voices change to a high-pitched haughty cadence when discussing Trump for example.
Us licence payers are paying for reporters to report from protests in London about a leader of a foreign nation and are given: "So why are you here protesting?"..."Well er...he is a nasty man and er..hates lesbians....we want to show solidarity etc..."
Not once were any of the assertions challenged.
The BBC is scraping the barrel and strikes me as if they know something we do not - like the licence fee will be binned.

The BBC lie by ommision. They don't lie directly - they just dont report facts that do not conform to their agenda. Take the presidential elections for example - they stopped updating their website live update after it became apparent Hillary was losing. They then started scraping the barrel citing emojis were "trending" in disgust at how the vote had gone.

It needs binning. except Emily Maitlis - who incidentally had her arse handed to her on a plate yesterday on Newsnight when trying to interview Trump's spokesman and trip him up.

Last edited by ex_matelot; 1st Feb 2017 at 20:47.
ex_matelot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st Feb 2017, 20:47   #85 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: se england
Posts: 984
The BBC has its faults and biases but isnt abit of left wing bias a good thing in the UK to counteract the Evil empire of Murdoch , the Daily Nazi (mail and the Sexpress)

As someone wrote it would be unwise to just treat one source of news as gospel and the internet is a big help in getting several perspectives (as is reading what other countries say about your own) ,

The BBc is a national institution though and much of its alleged bias is perceived (indeed bias is often perceived rather than tru) -it has excellent websites covering not just news but much about the culture of the country and it is still highly regarded abroad (although i realise on JB foreigners are untermensch and their views are either wrong or dont count) .

It should be kept in a modernised digital world focussed form if for no other reason than to frustrate Murdochs ambitions to ensure he controls the politicians in his key markets
pax britanica is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st Feb 2017, 20:49   #86 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: 50'11N 004' 16W
Posts: 274
I find R24 the most balanced. Or even France24 (Apologies to Monseuir Drapuier)
ex_matelot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st Feb 2017, 21:01   #87 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: se england
Posts: 984
I think the answer is that there is very big difference

If you stand say in the centre of your angular field of view then the angle between the line of sight the aircraft enters and the line of sight where it leaves is constant.

Therefore a bit of geometry can calculate the distance flown between the entry at exit pontss at low level and high level .

if we are talking the about altitudes of 500 ft and 50,000 feet (100 times further away) then the distance flown at the high level will be many many times the low level distance whereas the maximum speed at high level is only of the order of twice the low level speed . therefore the higher speed or mach number at altitude is nothing like enough to compensate for the great distance flown.

Indeed this is a reason for military aircraft from WW2 onwards attacking at low level so ground based guns and missiles and their crews just cannot react quickly enough while the aircraft is in their line of fire
pax britanica is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st Feb 2017, 21:38   #88 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 52
Posts: 2,413
Very interesting Pax but what has that got to do with BBC perceived bias?
TURIN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st Feb 2017, 21:42   #89 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 52
Posts: 2,413
Quote:
The BBC lie by ommision. They don't lie directly - they just dont report facts that do not conform to their agenda. .
Who's agenda would you like them to report? yours?

All news outlets lie by omission, the difference is that the BBC are held to account. The press are not and if Faux news is anything to go by then Sky will be the same.
TURIN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st Feb 2017, 23:05   #90 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bedford, UK
Age: 64
Posts: 1,172
Remind me, who are the BBC held accountable to? You need to think this one through. A few posts earlier someone is sounding off about evil empires and Nazis. The danger arises within each of us and it is the assumption that we know the truth that is the problem. Just take the simple step of questioning yourself before rattling off a quick answer to a post. You may just be wrong.
Mr Optimistic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st Feb 2017, 23:45   #91 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Bay area, CA USA
Posts: 143
"Which news source, in your estimation, has ACCURATELY reported ANY aircraft incident in recent memory???

As some of the information given to us in "aviation" stories is cringe-worthy, you need to understand the reporter is usually a non-pilot.


Much as I wish the BBC and others would run these stories by a pilot or two...it is not going to happen. There are deadlines to make.

Last edited by jack11111; 2nd Feb 2017 at 01:07.
jack11111 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd Feb 2017, 13:23   #92 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 61
Posts: 584
jack11111
It isn't that the facts aren't reported correctly, it is the speculation that follows that tends to cause issues with pilots and those knowledgeable about aviation.

Most incidents have relatively mundane causes, or a chain of minor events leading to tragedy, the Swiss cheese scenario. That just doesn't make for an interesting story.

The biggest problem is that the speculation is frequently accorded the same prominence as the facts without a clear demarkation between the two. You need at least some specialist knowledge to appreciate which is which. But that applies to most press reports covering complex subjects, it all gets dumbed down and then sensationalised to sell the product, which is what makes up the news.

The media have a vested interest in gaining your attention for as long as possible in order to benefit from advertising revenue generated by page clicks, newspaper and magazine sales, and so on. Even the BBC has a commercial arm whose sole purpose is to maximise income from sales of BBC spinsored products.
G0ULI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd Feb 2017, 13:52   #93 (permalink)
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 846
" Which news source, in your estimation, has ACCURATELY reported ANY aircraft incident in recent memory???

As some of the information given to us in "aviation" stories is cringe-worthy, you need to understand the reporter is usually a non-pilot
.

Sounds remarkably similar to the "experts" that surface from their PC's on" R n N" whenever an incident / accident occurs.
Krystal n chips is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd Feb 2017, 18:42   #94 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: se england
Posts: 984
Turin
As you have probably gathered its an answer to another thread how it got posted on two seperate ones I don't know because it is on the one it is meant to be.

However it has got me thinking that I assumed the aircraft in question was transiting left to right which some JB readers may feel is unfairly biased against people who naturally assume the aircraft in question is flying from right to left. As the aircraft in question is a RAF Tornado they may also feel that it shouldnt become involved in any such discussion anyway
PB
pax britanica is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd Feb 2017, 18:59   #95 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: 50'11N 004' 16W
Posts: 274
The BBC are not very keen to report today's sentencing of another "grooming gang" in Rotherham. I wonder why? If someone so much as farts in the general direction of one of the BBC's 'sacred cows' it headlines for a few days and the reporters voices get high pitched.
ex_matelot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd Feb 2017, 00:00   #96 (permalink)
Resident insomniac
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 73
Posts: 1,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by ex_matelot View Post
The BBC are not very keen to report today's sentencing of another "grooming gang" in Rotherham. I wonder why? If someone so much as farts in the general direction of one of the BBC's 'sacred cows' it headlines for a few days and the reporters voices get high pitched.
Rotherham sex abusers shout ?Allah akbar? as judge jails | UK | News | Express.co.uk
G-CPTN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd Feb 2017, 20:05   #97 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bedford, UK
Age: 64
Posts: 1,172
The BBC has gone from believing what it believes in to worrying about what it should believe in. In doing that it has lost confidence and has no moral compass.
Mr Optimistic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd Feb 2017, 22:47   #98 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: On the beach with a cerveza.
Posts: 1,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Optimistic View Post
The BBC has gone from believing what it believes in to worrying about what it should believe in. In doing that it has lost confidence and has no moral compass.
I'd rather it didn't believe in anything and just reported the frigging News..
Jet II is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 4th Feb 2017, 00:00   #99 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 52
Posts: 2,413
Quote:
"Which news source, in your estimation, has ACCURATELY reported ANY aircraft incident in recent memory???
When the Lauda Air 767 went down over Thailand (I think) the Independent did an in-depth report about the incident and an explanation of how a thrust reverser works. It was so good I thought it had been written by an aircraft engineering instructor.

The Indy is the only paper I have trusted since. Not much though.


Quote:
Remind me, who are the BBC held accountable to? You need to think this one through. A few posts earlier someone is sounding off about evil empires and Nazis. The danger arises within each of us and it is the assumption that we know the truth that is the problem. Just take the simple step of questioning yourself before rattling off a quick answer to a post. You may just be wrong.
The public, the government and anyone in between. Likewise, the people complaining about so-called BBC bias need to take a long look in the mirror and think about their own bias. Bias that is accountable to no-one.
TURIN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th Feb 2017, 00:05   #100 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: On the beach with a cerveza.
Posts: 1,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by TURIN View Post


The public, the government and anyone in between. Likewise, the people complaining about so-called BBC bias need to take a long look in the mirror and think about their own bias. Bias that is accountable to no-one.
But most people dont expect the taxpayer to fund their bias
Jet II is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 06:24.


1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1