I think that personally he needs psychological help or at the least someone who might audit the acceptability of all that he says
Anyone in media who is to state so many comments which in todays standards are unacceptable can not expect to maintain existing respect or even a position as a commentator or host of any presentation.
If he thinks that how he is acting is attracting attention, well then he is correct. All he needs to realise now is the acceptability of that attention seeking actions and comments.
I would have thought that most public commentators would learn by the public rejection and the cancelling of contracts caused by certain comments.
Mike Harding said
02:12 PM Jan 23, 2023
RickJ wrote:
I think that personally he needs psychological help or at the least someone who might audit the acceptability of all that he says
Then I fear he and I will need to share shrinks :)
I suspect you did not read the Unherd article but there is a comment which states that if he were to run for parliament he'd win hands down; I suspect it is correct.
RickJ said
05:42 PM Jan 23, 2023
Mike Harding wrote:
RickJ wrote:
I think that personally he needs psychological help or at the least someone who might audit the acceptability of all that he says
Then I fear he and I will need to share shrinks :)
I suspect you did not read the Unherd article but there is a comment which states that if he were to run for parliament he'd win hands down; I suspect it is correct.
Mike, I will own up I only speed read about half the article.
While I was reading I had in my mind thoughts of what he had previously said about the Royal Markles.
It still appears to me that he is the cause of his own demise with so many jobs.
I have now speed read the remaining half and yes I tend to agree, he would be ideal as a replacement Aussie Prime Minister.
-- Edited by RickJ on Monday 23rd of January 2023 05:45:10 PM
dorian said
07:07 PM Jan 23, 2023
Mike Harding wrote:
And, as usual with Unherd, the comments are worth reading too.
Sites like Unherd and Spiked! promote confirmation bias by restricting comments to paid subscribers. I haven't read too much of Unherd, but Spiked! is a right wing web site which naturally attracts like-minded subscribers with their like-minded comments. Personally, I've always thought that the Top Gear trio were just pretentious tossers, with Clarkson being the worst of the bunch.
Mike Harding said
07:21 PM Jan 23, 2023
dorian wrote:
Personally, I've always thought that the Top Gear trio were just pretentious tossers, with Clarkson being the worst of the bunch.
Apparently Top Gear is the most popular programme world wide the BBC have ever produced so there must be a great many pretentious tossers around the planet, yourself and your ilk excluded of course Dorian.
Magnarc said
09:29 AM Jan 24, 2023
Jeremy Clarkson is a larrikin who suffers from Foot and Mouth disease.
Free speech is defined in the Oxford dictionary thus; "The right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint."
"I fear that free speech is going the same way as common sense. If someone is perceived to have stepped over the line there is always recourse to the courts.
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The above is credited to Voltaire but there is some doubt about that in academic circles.
I can take or leave Jeremy CLarkson, but tv shows that he has appeared in were big money spinners so there must be a lot of people out there who do like his work. I am far from happy at the way our society seems to be heading but, at the tender age of 85, I guess that I will not have to worry about it for too much longer.
In the words of that great sage who resides in the aluminium teepee,
Just sayin'.
peter67 said
09:59 AM Jan 24, 2023
dorian wrote:
Mike Harding wrote:
And, as usual with Unherd, the comments are worth reading too.
Sites like Unherd and Spiked! promote confirmation bias by restricting comments to paid subscribers. I haven't read too much of Unherd, but Spiked! is a right wing web site which naturally attracts like-minded subscribers with their like-minded comments. Personally, I've always thought that the Top Gear trio were just pretentious tossers, with Clarkson being the worst of the bunch.
+1
Mike Harding said
01:46 PM Jan 25, 2023
I'll just provide two easy links in order people may make up their own minds as to whether these are "Right Wing websites" as Dorian insists or, as I see them, intelligent analysis and discussion of topical issues:
Spike is clearly conservative and right wing. They praise up conservative pollies and bash the lefties and wokies. But they do it intelligently, so that's why I read their opinion pieces. I get an insight into how the other side think without having to endure the rednecks and retards in Murdoch's outlets.
Cuppa said
03:23 PM Jan 25, 2023
Mike Harding wrote:
I'll just provide two easy links in order people may make up their own minds as to whether these are "Right Wing websites" as Dorian insists or, as I see them, intelligent analysis and discussion of topical issues:
Spiked seems to fit well with Dorian's right wing description to me. I was put off as soon as I saw their demeaning & disrespectful dogwhistle headline about someone whom I consider was a beacon of human-ness in a politically dark world. Intelligent analysis doesn't begin with sarcastic name calling. That is not the province of intelligence used for good.
Unherd - I read an article there - intelligent perhaps, but intelligence with a strong bias used cleverly to do what? Yep you guessed it to blame & to identify failings without presenting the full picture whilst pretending that it was. Lacking in honesty & integrity. Cleverly constructed criticism without adding anything useful or positive. Only negatives & plenty of emotive language. According to Unherd's mission statement they are not taking sides & want folk to believe they are presenting new ways of looking at long standing insurmountable problems which we face in modern life. Sadly the article I read served only to cleverly entrench the views which maintain stuckness presenting the problems by essentially victim blaming without even acknowledging the root cause. Labelling them left or right was a little more difficult, because of the clever construction. If they publish stuff like that I think intelligent analysis would suggest that Unherd cannot be trusted.
Mike Harding said
03:54 PM Jan 25, 2023
Cuppa wrote:
If they publish stuff like that I think intelligent analysis would suggest that Unherd cannot be trusted.
So... which sites would you say could be trusted?
Cuppa said
05:30 PM Jan 25, 2023
Mike Harding wrote:
Cuppa wrote:
If they publish stuff like that I think intelligent analysis would suggest that Unherd cannot be trusted.
So... which sites would you say could be trusted?
Hard to say in these times. I guess the best answer I could give is to read a good variety of differing views with a cynical outlook, but it's hard work & it's tiring. We, the people, are at the mercy of the spin doctors, & the outcome from this is that most folk gravitate toward the spin which suits them best & anything even vaguely contentious becomes politicised, which is dangerous because many people cease thinking for themselves & simply adopt views along tribal lines.
It's lazy, but it's also understandable when it's hard to know what & who to believe. When websites purport to say they are different, there is a small chance they might be honest & refreshing, but they probably deserve an extra dose of cynicism by the reader or listener. One of the criteria I often try to apply is whether something is all criticism, or whether criticism is tempered with possible solutions. Not infallible, but it helps. What irks me the most in many of the tribal disagreements, both here & elsewhere, is that there is always a great deal of criticism, but having one's tribe prevail becomes the overriding goal, & the issue at hand just a vehicle for that, so much so that when possible solutions are raised they are often completely ignored, not discussed, not even considered & rejected, simply ignored in favour of just more criticism. It happens with just about everything which today can vaguely be labelled left or right. So much so that talking in terms of human-ness, kindness etc is just dismissed as namby pamby drivel, yet it is these things which are at the core of so many of our modern ills. The culture instead of trying to find ways of being together is instead trying to win at the expense of others. In my view any right (as in correct, worthy etc) view is one which seeks to include, not to exclude.
There are even bizarre compartmentalised exceptions where human-ness, kindness & caring are lauded as worthy, as they should be, by folk who's views on any other things is quite the opposite. I won't point to examples here on the forum because it will just result in another flame war, but it's not confined to forums. A broad example - hopefully without offending anyone directly is the historical & ongoing association between religions which preach love of ones fellow man but whom are also used to justify war & killing. God is on our side. There are many & varied tribes vying for unspoken memberships, & many happy to join, even to the extent that so many individuals believe everyone else is on one side or the other. I would go as far as saying that perhaps our 'saviours' will be those who manage somehow not to be labelled. Such individuals are an extreme rarity today.
Take the above rambling back to your question of who to trust & I think there are a few points which address the issues around that?
-- Edited by Cuppa on Wednesday 25th of January 2023 06:01:53 PM
dorian said
05:45 PM Jan 25, 2023
I read Al Jazeera to get the Middle Eastern and Islamic view of the world, particularly as it affects the West. I do this in full awareness that the news outlet is under the control of the Qatari government. So I suppose I could say that I read sources that I don't trust, but I do so with a measured approach. I notice also that Al Jazeera is more likely to portray a realistic view of the war in Ukraine, whereas western analysts seem to paint a more optimistic picture.
Stewart said
06:09 PM Jan 25, 2023
the rednecks and retards in Murdoch's outlets. Absolutely love that quote
Are We Lost said
06:32 PM Jan 25, 2023
dorian wrote:
...... So I suppose I could say that I read sources that I don't trust, but I do so with a measured approach. ......
An excellent approach in my opinion. So are ABC, Sky and Fox on your agenda to help balance your point of view? I made a point in a separate thread today that we really need to get our news from a variety of sources, with differing points of view. If you don't you don't realise how much you have been indoctrinated. I doubt that any media outlet is free of bias. I too watch Al Jazeera and their perspective is often quite different.
However when you denigrated Murdoch sites without doing the same for ABC you lost credibility from my perspective ... particularly when you use the terms "rednecks and retards". If you can't make reasonable comments, then your opinion carries a lot less weight.
Back to Mike's question on Spiked and Unherd. I was familiar with Spiked, but not Unherd. I agree with Mike's assessment of being intelligent analysis and discussion although I doubt they would have much left leaning content (Mike please correct me if you think that is wrong). But from the articles I looked at the bias is not strong, and they are based more on fact than the typical opinion from most media outlets. And I am sure they choose their interviewees carefully.
So many articles, so little time. Singling out one example, I picked the Unherd video "The scientific case against face masks". I picked that one because I have been an advocate for mask wearing in the past. So this did not align with my thinking, although that opinion has lessened progressively. In Australia, there is no longer any pressure either way from political parties on their effectiveness, so not a hot topic. I was interested in an intelligent discussion to see what I thought of something that differed from my opinion. Would they change my mind?
True to Mike's words, it was an intelligent discussion, where the interviewees gave their analysis on various studies that had been undertaken in differing countries. In the end, the opinion was that masks could help, but not the basic mask typically being worn in the haphazard manner that we usually see. If I wanted to research further, I could follow up and find the studies they referenced to appreciate the points made.
Cuppa's comments seem to be more on rejecting the sites because they are right wing, yet not really acknowledging the depth of content.
Mike asked the question on which sites can be trusted. I think that is a good challenge if you want analysis vs just opinion. I can't think of any sites that have such intelligent discussions while referencing the facts behind what they say.
So thanks for the links Mike.
-- Edited by Are We Lost on Wednesday 25th of January 2023 06:47:25 PM
Cuppa said
06:49 PM Jan 25, 2023
Are We Lost wrote:
Cuppa's comments seem to be more on rejecting them because they are right wing, yet not really acknowledging the depth of content.
-----------------------------------
I am intrigued as to how you have surmised that from my answer to Mike above. My left leanings are no secret, but in my answer to Mike I cannot see how you might extrapolate that. Dorian essentially advocated the same as me, but you thought that excellent.
I chose not make specific reference to content in order not to draw fire.
I don't believe I rejected anything other than 'tribalism'. Tribalism comes in many differing flavours & having a leaning in any direction does not mean one subscribes to any particular tribe - it all about personal integrity.
Are We Lost said
07:48 PM Jan 25, 2023
Cuppa, you may be surprised that I do agree with a fair amount of what you said, and include the tribalism part.
To come back to your question, I made that comment because your first reaction was to dismiss the site immediately due to a headline that you consider unfairly represented someone you consider "a beacon of human-ness". I am guessing you are referring to "Good riddance to Saint Jacinda" article. Personally, I have no issue with it, regardless of political affiliation. I believe it is fitting. She was hailed like a saint 2 years ago but has been in a downward spiral for a long time. I am sure many of the New Zealand population would have stronger words than that headline. I wonder if you would take similar exception if similar words had been used about our previous PM.
Or, there is an article about Prince Andrew.... what if the headline was "Good riddance to Saint Andrew"? Would you be equally offended? Anyway, I don't want to make it a discussion about politics. I only covered this to answer your question.
So, moving on, you chose to state that an article you read was "Lacking in honesty & integrity." If you make such a statement can you justify that comment with specifics of the article and the content that they lied about?
-- Edited by Are We Lost on Wednesday 25th of January 2023 07:59:12 PM
Cuppa said
09:39 PM Jan 25, 2023
Are We Lost wrote:
Cuppa, you may be surprised that I do agree with a fair amount of what you said, and include the tribalism part.
To come back to your question, I made that comment because your first reaction was to dismiss the site immediately due to a headline that you consider unfairly represented someone you consider "a beacon of human-ness". I am guessing you are referring to "Good riddance to Saint Jacinda" article. Personally, I have no issue with it, regardless of political affiliation. I believe it is fitting. She was hailed like a saint 2 years ago but has been in a downward spiral for a long time. I am sure many of the New Zealand population would have stronger words than that headline. I wonder if you would take similar exception if similar words had been used about our previous PM.
Or, there is an article about Prince Andrew.... what if the headline was "Good riddance to Saint Andrew"? Anyway, I don't want to make it a discussion about politics.
So, moving on, you chose to state that an article you read was "Lacking in honesty & integrity." If you make such a statement can you justify that comment with specifics of the article and the content that they lied about?
-- Edited by Are We Lost on Wednesday 25th of January 2023 07:56:10 PM
Well you certainly read me right on the 'Saint Jacinda' thing & I take your point that some would have worse to say about her. My thinking however was that if a site publishes headlines like that it is trying to make a virtue out of name calling. If an article about Scott Morrison similarly personalised their headlines I would dismiss it in the same way. If either article had been entitled something like 'Gone & & best forgotten' I'd probably have read it (not necessarily agreed with it of course).
I certainly believe I could justify the comment I made on the article I read on Unherd, but to do so would be not only be a great deal of effort, (it was a long article on the NHS), but it would doubtlessly be an invitation to another forum bun fight about something which is of little interest to most Australians. so I'm not going to try. It was of interest to me because I used to work for the NHS.
Are We Lost said
10:41 PM Jan 25, 2023
Sorry Cuppa, but if you make the statement that they are lacking in honesty and integrity and are not prepared to specify what, then you lose all credibility in my eyes.
Cuppa said
05:42 AM Jan 26, 2023
If you feel my comment lacks credibility feel free to read the article and post the basis of your opinion if you can justify the time & effort involved. I cant. However the article is not relevant to Australia, so I doubt it would be worthwhile if you did bother. There is a significant difference between you questioning the credibility of a comment (which if you read back you will see that I have included a brief opinion on why I thought as I did) and questioning my credibility as a person. The latter seems to me no more than just having a go for the sake of it. At best it is just your opinion which I dont share.
peter67 said
11:41 AM Jan 26, 2023
Stewart wrote:
the rednecks and retards in Murdoch's outlets. Absolutely love that quote
I'll vote for that one too.
Ivan 01 said
01:45 PM Jan 26, 2023
Well there ya go then,
Some people are just never wrong.
Mike Harding said
01:51 PM Jan 26, 2023
Ivan 01 wrote:
Some people are just never wrong.
I thought I was wrong once... but it turned out I was mistaken.... :)
Ivan 01 said
01:52 PM Jan 26, 2023
Mike Harding wrote:
Ivan 01 wrote:
Some people are just never wrong.
I thought I was wrong once... but it turned out I was mistaken.... :)
Jeremy Clarkson and the changing? face of England:
Link to Unherd
And, as usual with Unherd, the comments are worth reading too.
Clarkson's 11 most inappropriate comments
Anyone in media who is to state so many comments which in todays standards are unacceptable can not expect to maintain existing respect or even a position as a commentator or host of any presentation.
If he thinks that how he is acting is attracting attention, well then he is correct. All he needs to realise now is the acceptability of that attention seeking actions and comments.
I would have thought that most public commentators would learn by the public rejection and the cancelling of contracts caused by certain comments.
Then I fear he and I will need to share shrinks :)
I suspect you did not read the Unherd article but there is a comment which states that if he were to run for parliament he'd win hands down; I suspect it is correct.
Mike, I will own up I only speed read about half the article.
While I was reading I had in my mind thoughts of what he had previously said about the Royal Markles.
It still appears to me that he is the cause of his own demise with so many jobs.
I have now speed read the remaining half and yes I tend to agree, he would be ideal as a replacement Aussie Prime Minister.
-- Edited by RickJ on Monday 23rd of January 2023 05:45:10 PM
Sites like Unherd and Spiked! promote confirmation bias by restricting comments to paid subscribers. I haven't read too much of Unherd, but Spiked! is a right wing web site which naturally attracts like-minded subscribers with their like-minded comments. Personally, I've always thought that the Top Gear trio were just pretentious tossers, with Clarkson being the worst of the bunch.
Apparently Top Gear is the most popular programme world wide the BBC have ever produced so there must be a great many pretentious tossers around the planet, yourself and your ilk excluded of course Dorian.
Jeremy Clarkson is a larrikin who suffers from Foot and Mouth disease.
Free speech is defined in the Oxford dictionary thus; "The right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint."
"I fear that free speech is going the same way as common sense. If someone is perceived to have stepped over the line there is always recourse to the courts.
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The above is credited to Voltaire but there is some doubt about that in academic circles.
I can take or leave Jeremy CLarkson, but tv shows that he has appeared in were big money spinners so there must be a lot of people out there who do like his work. I am far from happy at the way our society seems to be heading but, at the tender age of 85, I guess that I will not have to worry about it for too much longer.
In the words of that great sage who resides in the aluminium teepee,
Just sayin'.
+1
I'll just provide two easy links in order people may make up their own minds as to whether these are "Right Wing websites" as Dorian insists or, as I see them, intelligent analysis and discussion of topical issues:
Spiked
Unherd
I had never heard of these sites before.
Spiked seems to fit well with Dorian's right wing description to me. I was put off as soon as I saw their demeaning & disrespectful dogwhistle headline about someone whom I consider was a beacon of human-ness in a politically dark world. Intelligent analysis doesn't begin with sarcastic name calling. That is not the province of intelligence used for good.
Unherd - I read an article there - intelligent perhaps, but intelligence with a strong bias used cleverly to do what? Yep you guessed it to blame & to identify failings without presenting the full picture whilst pretending that it was. Lacking in honesty & integrity. Cleverly constructed criticism without adding anything useful or positive. Only negatives & plenty of emotive language. According to Unherd's mission statement they are not taking sides & want folk to believe they are presenting new ways of looking at long standing insurmountable problems which we face in modern life. Sadly the article I read served only to cleverly entrench the views which maintain stuckness presenting the problems by essentially victim blaming without even acknowledging the root cause. Labelling them left or right was a little more difficult, because of the clever construction. If they publish stuff like that I think intelligent analysis would suggest that Unherd cannot be trusted.
So... which sites would you say could be trusted?
Hard to say in these times. I guess the best answer I could give is to read a good variety of differing views with a cynical outlook, but it's hard work & it's tiring. We, the people, are at the mercy of the spin doctors, & the outcome from this is that most folk gravitate toward the spin which suits them best & anything even vaguely contentious becomes politicised, which is dangerous because many people cease thinking for themselves & simply adopt views along tribal lines.
It's lazy, but it's also understandable when it's hard to know what & who to believe. When websites purport to say they are different, there is a small chance they might be honest & refreshing, but they probably deserve an extra dose of cynicism by the reader or listener. One of the criteria I often try to apply is whether something is all criticism, or whether criticism is tempered with possible solutions. Not infallible, but it helps. What irks me the most in many of the tribal disagreements, both here & elsewhere, is that there is always a great deal of criticism, but having one's tribe prevail becomes the overriding goal, & the issue at hand just a vehicle for that, so much so that when possible solutions are raised they are often completely ignored, not discussed, not even considered & rejected, simply ignored in favour of just more criticism. It happens with just about everything which today can vaguely be labelled left or right. So much so that talking in terms of human-ness, kindness etc is just dismissed as namby pamby drivel, yet it is these things which are at the core of so many of our modern ills. The culture instead of trying to find ways of being together is instead trying to win at the expense of others. In my view any right (as in correct, worthy etc) view is one which seeks to include, not to exclude.
There are even bizarre compartmentalised exceptions where human-ness, kindness & caring are lauded as worthy, as they should be, by folk who's views on any other things is quite the opposite. I won't point to examples here on the forum because it will just result in another flame war, but it's not confined to forums. A broad example - hopefully without offending anyone directly is the historical & ongoing association between religions which preach love of ones fellow man but whom are also used to justify war & killing. God is on our side. There are many & varied tribes vying for unspoken memberships, & many happy to join, even to the extent that so many individuals believe everyone else is on one side or the other. I would go as far as saying that perhaps our 'saviours' will be those who manage somehow not to be labelled. Such individuals are an extreme rarity today.
Take the above rambling back to your question of who to trust & I think there are a few points which address the issues around that?
-- Edited by Cuppa on Wednesday 25th of January 2023 06:01:53 PM
An excellent approach in my opinion. So are ABC, Sky and Fox on your agenda to help balance your point of view? I made a point in a separate thread today that we really need to get our news from a variety of sources, with differing points of view. If you don't you don't realise how much you have been indoctrinated. I doubt that any media outlet is free of bias. I too watch Al Jazeera and their perspective is often quite different.
However when you denigrated Murdoch sites without doing the same for ABC you lost credibility from my perspective ... particularly when you use the terms "rednecks and retards". If you can't make reasonable comments, then your opinion carries a lot less weight.
Back to Mike's question on Spiked and Unherd. I was familiar with Spiked, but not Unherd. I agree with Mike's assessment of being intelligent analysis and discussion although I doubt they would have much left leaning content (Mike please correct me if you think that is wrong). But from the articles I looked at the bias is not strong, and they are based more on fact than the typical opinion from most media outlets. And I am sure they choose their interviewees carefully.
So many articles, so little time. Singling out one example, I picked the Unherd video "The scientific case against face masks". I picked that one because I have been an advocate for mask wearing in the past. So this did not align with my thinking, although that opinion has lessened progressively. In Australia, there is no longer any pressure either way from political parties on their effectiveness, so not a hot topic. I was interested in an intelligent discussion to see what I thought of something that differed from my opinion. Would they change my mind?
True to Mike's words, it was an intelligent discussion, where the interviewees gave their analysis on various studies that had been undertaken in differing countries. In the end, the opinion was that masks could help, but not the basic mask typically being worn in the haphazard manner that we usually see. If I wanted to research further, I could follow up and find the studies they referenced to appreciate the points made.
Cuppa's comments seem to be more on rejecting the sites because they are right wing, yet not really acknowledging the depth of content.
Mike asked the question on which sites can be trusted. I think that is a good challenge if you want analysis vs just opinion. I can't think of any sites that have such intelligent discussions while referencing the facts behind what they say.
So thanks for the links Mike.
-- Edited by Are We Lost on Wednesday 25th of January 2023 06:47:25 PM
Cuppa, you may be surprised that I do agree with a fair amount of what you said, and include the tribalism part.
To come back to your question, I made that comment because your first reaction was to dismiss the site immediately due to a headline that you consider unfairly represented someone you consider "a beacon of human-ness". I am guessing you are referring to "Good riddance to Saint Jacinda" article. Personally, I have no issue with it, regardless of political affiliation. I believe it is fitting. She was hailed like a saint 2 years ago but has been in a downward spiral for a long time. I am sure many of the New Zealand population would have stronger words than that headline. I wonder if you would take similar exception if similar words had been used about our previous PM.
Or, there is an article about Prince Andrew.... what if the headline was "Good riddance to Saint Andrew"? Would you be equally offended? Anyway, I don't want to make it a discussion about politics. I only covered this to answer your question.
So, moving on, you chose to state that an article you read was "Lacking in honesty & integrity." If you make such a statement can you justify that comment with specifics of the article and the content that they lied about?
-- Edited by Are We Lost on Wednesday 25th of January 2023 07:59:12 PM
Well you certainly read me right on the 'Saint Jacinda' thing & I take your point that some would have worse to say about her. My thinking however was that if a site publishes headlines like that it is trying to make a virtue out of name calling. If an article about Scott Morrison similarly personalised their headlines I would dismiss it in the same way. If either article had been entitled something like 'Gone & & best forgotten' I'd probably have read it (not necessarily agreed with it of course).
I certainly believe I could justify the comment I made on the article I read on Unherd, but to do so would be not only be a great deal of effort, (it was a long article on the NHS), but it would doubtlessly be an invitation to another forum bun fight about something which is of little interest to most Australians. so I'm not going to try. It was of interest to me because I used to work for the NHS.
I'll vote for that one too.
Well there ya go then,
Some people are just never wrong.
I thought I was wrong once... but it turned out I was mistaken.... :)