#COVID19 | Page 156 | Vital Football

#COVID19

Forest-England said:
I want people to think for themselves and don't just read the headlines. They don't notice the very small apology on page 12. Once the lie told that's it.

What I want is a bbc that holds govt to account. Instead of propping up the govt. If people can't see how the bbc is being biased. Then we all need to give in.

The only way to get in power is to sell your soul to Murdoch & others.
Click to expand...

First you say you want the media holding the government to account, so I show you that sections of it are but suddenly you don't want people reading it?

Also that isn't the BBC's job in any shape or form, nor do they prop up the government.

There's a reason why right and left wing nut nuts alike think the BBC is biased against them...
 
da fuq said:
Again like I knew you would you have chosen minuscule parts - you are embarrassing

I could go through and do the same as before and provide the evidence from that which out weighs what you have deemed to give you some kind of victory 🤣🤣🤣

Like basic stuff they estimate that if Fox News hadn't existed, the Republican presidential candidate’s share of the two-party vote would have been 3.59 points lower in 2004 and 6.34 points lower in 2008.

For context, that would've made John Kerry the 2004 popular vote winner, and turned Barack Obama's 2008 victory into a landslide where he got 60 percent of the two-party vote.

These are big effects, with major societal implications. The authors find that the Fox News effect translates into a 0.46 percentage point boost to the GOP vote share in the 2000 presidential race, a 3.59-point boost in 2004, and a 6.34-point boost in 2008; the boost increases as the channel's viewership grew. This effect alone is large enough, they argue, to explain all the polarization in the US public's political views from 2000 to 2008.


Also this from another

" This paper studies the impact of media bias upon voting. We consider one of the most dramatic changes in the U. S. media in recent years, the sudden introduction and expansion of the Fox News cable channel from 1996 to 2000. We exploit the natural experiment induced by the timing of the entry of the Fox News channel in local cable markets. We find a significant effect of exposure to Fox News on voting. Towns with Fox News have a 0.4 to 0.7 percentage point higher Republican vote share in the 2000 presidential elections, compared to the 1996 elections. A vote shift of this magnitude is likely to have been decisive in the 2000 elections. We also find an effect on vote share in Senate elections, which Fox News did not cover, suggesting that the Fox News impact extends to general political beliefs. Finally, we find evidence that Fox News increased turnout to the polls. Based on this evidence and on microlevel audience data, we estimate that exposure to Fox News induced a substantial percentage of the non-Republican viewers to vote for the Republican party, 3 to 8 percent according to the more inclusive audience measure, and 11 to 28 percent according to the more restrictive measure. These estimates are consistent with field, laboratory, and survey evidence of media effects on political beliefs and voting. We interpret the persuasion effect as a temporary learning effect for rational voters or a permanent effect for voters subject to nonrational persuasion. These results suggest that the media can have a sizeable political impact. This paper leaves a number of open questions. First, while we analyze the extensive margin of voting, we do not consider the effect on the intensity of political convictions of Republican voters. In ongoing research, we study the impact on the intensive margin of campaign contributions. Second, we have not directly examined the impact on policy-making. While a vote shift toward Republicans is likely to induce a change in policy [Lee, Moretti, and Butler 2004], direct evidence documenting this effect would 1228 QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS be interesting. Finally, we hope that more evidence on the effect of other sources of media bias, such as local papers and radio talk shows, will complement the evidence in this paper. "


So back to my earlier point about Murdochs son

You going to answer that?

Or are you going to pipe down now because i'm only firing the first salvo and am really holding back at the moment
Click to expand...
I answered your point about Murdoch's son two posts ago and about a year ago. I'm not sure what more you want.

As for the article, yes, I read it. You are "proving me wrong" about oranges when I have been talking about apples. You are literally talking about something very different to what I am.

I have never said that right wing media doesn't have an effect on voting. In fact, I have said repeatedly that it does.

My central point though has always been that media barons like Murdoch make their money by reflecting the opinions that their audience are already likely to hold. This is a large reason why the sun changes political position when it does. Yes, I'm sure Murdoch has reasons to favour one over another.

But he grows huge right wing trees in ground that is already fertile for those ideas.

If he tried to plant his right wing shit with an audience that was overwhelmingly left wing he would lose money. But if he took over a money making left wing outlet he would produce left wing content.

Right wing press's greatest achievement has been to turn an already nationalistic audience into one that suddenly were willing to die for Brexit. But when he had an audience that liked the EU and favoured remain (Times, Scottish Sun) he did no such thing.

Nothing in that article proves me wrong or contradicts the above. I have read it. Of course I have picked out a couple of quotes; that is what you do when you cite a source. The contradictory quotes you have picked do nothing to prove me wrong.

They are about voting specifically; not something I have especially ventured into. The media of course have an effect on voting, but their choices tend to be ones that their audience are likely to approve of anyway.

So yes, I'm sure Fox news has an effect on voting. It's interesting they say "non republican voters". What that means is simply voters who are not members of the Republican party. It is not claiming that it is turning democrats into Republicans (although is possibly does swing some on the right of that party) but that it is making non republican members, who in fairness may well have voted republican many times in their lives (or simply not voted very often at all) into republican voters, at a rate that was just enough to swing the closest vote in living memory in 2000.
 
Away from the constant Murdoch conspiracy theories, I think we as a species have learnt a few things in recent weeks


1. We aren’t as powerful as we believed.
2. We aren’t so different.
3. No holy man or woman can help us.
4. Healthcare workers are more important than footballers.
5. Almost everyone can do an office job from home.
6. We don’t need junk food.
7. We can all be cleaner.
8. The planet can regenerate if we let it.
9. You should not take the shops for granted

& finally & most importantly;

10. That bitch Carole Baskin murdered her husband.
 
Mappred said:
Why? I was there, along with loads of my mates. I know for a fact we weren’t involved, nor the thousands of Forest fans around us. I know you like to be controversial sometimes, but don’t talk bollocks.
Click to expand...
I don't think he means on the day, I think he is talking about general fan behaviour of the era, which led to police reacting in a way that emphasised control over safety
 
Mappred said:
Why? I was there, along with loads of my mates. I know for a fact we weren’t involved, nor the thousands of Forest fans around us. I know you like to be controversial sometimes, but don’t talk bollocks.
Click to expand...

I'm not, the why is because football fans as a whole played a part in creating a hostile atmosphere which ultimately lead to the decisions made that cost lives.

We were fighting them before the game, we were fighting them after the game. If you think the decisions made weren't impacted in any shape or form by the culture of the day that we played a part in then you're talking bollocks.
 
radfordinlondon said:
I hope you're not all too busy taking lumps out of each other to notice an oxford prof express 80% hope for a vaccine by sept?

This would be remarkable and would mean the end of the virus crisis.

A nice bit of hopeful news amongst the other carnage.
Click to expand...
It's been a pretty good and amicable debate Radford. As far as I'm concerned anyway.

It's unlikely the whole population could get a vaccine this year. Production and distribution are harder than we think
 
Calvin Plummer said:
I'm not, the why is because football fans as a whole played a part in creating a hostile atmosphere which ultimately lead to the decisions made that cost lives.

We were fighting them before the game, we were fighting them after the game. If you think the decisions made weren't impacted in any shape or form by the culture of the day that we played a part in then you're talking bollocks.
Click to expand...

Well I certainly was not fighting with them before the game; I was in Town drinking with the same bunch of Liverpool supporters we met the previous year.

As for the Police decision making; they did not take such a heavy handed approach at the semi final 12 months prior when there was very little trouble, if any.

I fully understand the point you make about "we" being a major contributory factor in the greater malaise at that time, but the facts are that the Police failed to put in place the ticket checks on Lepping's Lane (that were in place 12 months prior); the Scousers fully aware of that, charged the gates, and the Police fucked up their response and then covered up the facts.

They can have another 500 public inquiries and that truth will not change, because that is what happened; although it might not be the truth that people on Merseyside want to hear.
 
Woanz said:
Away from the constant Murdoch conspiracy theories, I think we as a species have learnt a few things in recent weeks


1. We aren’t as powerful as we believed.
2. We aren’t so different.
3. No holy man or woman can help us.
4. Healthcare workers are more important than footballers.
5. Almost everyone can do an office job from home.
6. We don’t need junk food.
7. We can all be cleaner.
8. The planet can regenerate if we let it.
9. You should not take the shops for granted

& finally & most importantly;

10. That bitch Carole Baskin murdered her husband.
Click to expand...

How is Baskin Robbins chap?

I found the ones in the US most delightful as a child.

Imagine they aren't doing too well now though.
 
mao tse tung said:
Well I certainly was not fighting with them before the game; I was in Town drinking with the same bunch of Liverpool supporters we met the previous year.

As for the Police decision making; they did not take such a heavy handed approach at the semi final 12 months prior when there was very little trouble, if any.

I fully understand the point you make about "we" being a major contributory factor in the greater malaise at that time, but the facts are that the Police failed to put in place the ticket checks on Lepping's Lane (that were in place 12 months prior); the Scousers fully aware of that, charged the gates, and the Police fucked up their response and then covered up the facts.

They can have another 500 public inquiries and that truth will not change, because that is what happened; although it might not be the truth that people on Merseyside want to hear.
Click to expand...

There was a huge amount of trouble, Liverpool came looking for revenge because they were turned over.

I appreciate not everyone was involved in that side of things but the vast majority played their part in creating a hostile atmosphere. The culture of the day played a part in the decisions on that day.

That's not to absolve Liverpool fans or anyone else...
 
Calvin Plummer said:
I'm not, the why is because football fans as a whole played a part in creating a hostile atmosphere which ultimately lead to the decisions made that cost lives.

We were fighting them before the game, we were fighting them after the game. If you think the decisions made weren't impacted in any shape or form by the culture of the day that we played a part in then you're talking bollocks.
Click to expand...
Ok, apologies. As soon as I see anything about Hillsborough, my hackles immediately go up because I don’t want to be reminded of that day and the innocence that those fans claim. I read it wrong, and it annoyed me.
 
Calvin Plummer said:
First you say you want the media holding the government to account, so I show you that sections of it are but suddenly you don't want people reading it?

Also that isn't the BBC's job in any shape or form, nor do they prop up the government.

There's a reason why right and left wing nut nuts alike think the BBC is biased against them...
Click to expand...

If the media were actually doing the job that they should be doing especially in journalism they would be holding this govt to account

Are they in your opinion?

They are predominately not even the so called liberal side of the media are not IMHO

It is pretty much common knowledge that our media is held as being untrustworthy we are not near the top of any list of press freedoms, integrity or truth scales

And you honestly think the BBC are not biased? and why do you always try and shut down or stifle debate by saying people are nut nuts or deranged or unhinged etc when their is so much evidence to prove that they are biased?

I mean it's not like you don't come off unhinged at times, have your moments or follow your stalker tendencies so i find it very strange that you throw that accusation around a lot
 
Pope John XXIII said:
I answered your point about Murdoch's son two posts ago and about a year ago. I'm not sure what more you want.

As for the article, yes, I read it. You are "proving me wrong" about oranges when I have been talking about apples. You are literally talking about something very different to what I am.

I have never said that right wing media doesn't have an effect on voting. In fact, I have said repeatedly that it does.

My central point though has always been that media barons like Murdoch make their money by reflecting the opinions that their audience are already likely to hold. This is a large reason why the sun changes political position when it does. Yes, I'm sure Murdoch has reasons to favour one over another.

But he grows huge right wing trees in ground that is already fertile for those ideas.

If he tried to plant his right wing shit with an audience that was overwhelmingly left wing he would lose money. But if he took over a money making left wing outlet he would produce left wing content.

Right wing press's greatest achievement has been to turn an already nationalistic audience into one that suddenly were willing to die for Brexit. But when he had an audience that liked the EU and favoured remain (Times, Scottish Sun) he did no such thing.

Nothing in that article proves me wrong or contradicts the above. I have read it. Of course I have picked out a couple of quotes; that is what you do when you cite a source. The contradictory quotes you have picked do nothing to prove me wrong.

They are about voting specifically; not something I have especially ventured into. The media of course have an effect on voting, but their choices tend to be ones that their audience are likely to approve of anyway.

So yes, I'm sure Fox news has an effect on voting. It's interesting they say "non republican voters". What that means is simply voters who are not members of the Republican party. It is not claiming that it is turning democrats into Republicans (although is possibly does swing some on the right of that party) but that it is making non republican members, who in fairness may well have voted republican many times in their lives (or simply not voted very often at all) into republican voters, at a rate that was just enough to swing the closest vote in living memory in 2000.
Click to expand...


You have bored me into submission

I give up you are right about everything as usual

It is amazing you have never been wrong about anything ever and know everything about everything
 
Woanz said:
Away from the constant Murdoch conspiracy theories, I think we as a species have learnt a few things in recent weeks


1. We aren’t as powerful as we believed.
2. We aren’t so different.
3. No holy man or woman can help us.
4. Healthcare workers are more important than footballers.
5. Almost everyone can do an office job from home.
6. We don’t need junk food.
7. We can all be cleaner.
8. The planet can regenerate if we let it.
9. You should not take the shops for granted

& finally & most importantly;

10. That bitch Carole Baskin murdered her husband.
Click to expand...
Brilliant!
 
Pope John XXIII said:
Some slightly better news

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-deaths?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Samsung_Internet

We are now set for 37,000 deaths rather than 66,000. Given current numbers, that looks right on.

Given we had a two week headstart, there needs to be the inquiry of all inquiries when this is over. Not just about blame, but to establish how the government should be reacting to major crises and when
Click to expand...
Two week head start over Italy, and the UK is following the exact curve ... !!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.