OT: Am I just TOO sceptical?

Many of us suspect that the media doesn't always tell us the truth. Maybe that's a bit of an understatement. But here's an example that's of little real importance in itself but maybe indicates how they deceive us with never a second thought.

There are all sorts of programmes in which people have to 'achieve' something. Maybe they have to complete an archaeological dig, or bring an old barn-found car to pristine condition, or transform the home of a disabled person. And there's always a time limit, and almost always it's entirely spurious. Imposing a fake time limit and then banging on about it as if it's the inviolable Law of God Almighty is misleading and utterly false. It gives the whole programme a dimension that distorts everything. But I suppose compared to the many straight lies and half-truths and the lies by omission the media foists on us, it's nothing really. In a way it's good, because it serves as a warning.

When I was a little kid my mam warned me that adverts in the paper might not be wholly truthful; the implication being that the editorial matter in the Daily Mirror was as good as Gospel. Once I was old enough to have independent knowledge of events reported in the press I started to realise that reporting was often distorted by the ignorance and laziness of the reporter and by the bias of the proprietor. Now, sixty-odd years later, I have lost, almost completely, any faith in the veracity of media reports. Am I over-sceptical, or is it best these days to treat every story as a ?version?, maybe containing grains of truth, but maybe also coloured almost beyond recognition by bias and ignorance?

Reply to
Bill Wright
Loading thread data ...

No it's not just you Bill, i think pretty muchthe same.

I guess it's the benefit of age and experience that makes us all sceptical and it's no bad thing.

Reply to
Tufnell Park

Realising that most of what we once believed in is in reality bull is one of the challenges of life. Many respond in ways that don't help them any.

NT

Reply to
tabbypurr

My attitude now is that in the world of broadcasting, there are no facts, only opinions and propaganda.

Reply to
Dan S. MacAbre

Archeologists digging in a field are just that, archeologists digging in a field. There is no structure there to turn into a TV programme. Set them an artificial time limit and you have a "story" with tension which will keep viewers watching, hopefuily to the end. TV is primarily about entertainment. Programmes with at least some element of entertainment will always attract a bigger audience that purely factual programmes. In fact sinece the demise of OU broadcasts* I doubt there's been a single purely factual programme of TV. most of which nowadays built around personalities.

*This is the early morning ones. Not trivia like "Coast"

In addition the real world is messy unlike the requirements of TV sheduling.

There is no such thing as the whole unvarnished truth. The different participants in any event may never agree on what actually happened.

This applies equally well to what happened yesterday as it does to events in history.

So that even with the benefit of hindsight and access to piles of evidence nearly all the events of history from yesterday to 4000 BC may still be subject to endless speculation, controversy and revision.

Unfortunately journalsts working to a deadline don't have that luxury. T

Although in the interest of social cohesion its always preferable for people to believe that at least someone knows what going on. Or at least to feed them a "story" with "heroes" they can identify with, and "villains" they can shake their proverbial fists at.

And it was ever thus.

michael adams

...

Reply to
michael adams

In message <q2mpl3$1kp5$ snipped-for-privacy@gioia.aioe.org>, Bill Wright snipped-for-privacy@f2s.com writes

Over sceptical? No. These days, with online newspapers, I find the best way to get to the heart of a story is to read several reports from, say, BBC, Guardian and Telegraph, all of whom will have their own slant with, hopefully, the truth (or perhaps a kernel of the truth) somewhere in the middle.

Reply to
Graeme

I like to get my news from Chunky Mark, the politico aquarellist and taxi driver. This morning he is talking about the media and what they haven't reported:

formatting link

Reply to
TimW

Bill Wright pretended :

No, you are right to be very sceptical - all news which makes for a better story if exaggerated, is exaggerated. Reporter and channels tend to add their own slant. Many of the factual type programs like Time Team time limit applied on the dig and an element of a race to complete

- simply to ad some excitement. The race element is unnecessary and a turn off for me, Baldrick looks so silly rushing around a dig. I used to watch the early programs, before they introduced 'the rush', but not now, it has limited appeal.

Coast I do quite enjoy (Michael Adam's comment) - no race element, some interesting background facts and a bit of scenery. I am not an avid TV watcher, I do prefer the factual stuff, but don't go out of my way to watch any.

Reply to
Harry Bloomfield

Nothing new about that, Bill. As Mark Twain said, and is sometimes quoted here in people's sigs,?If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed.? And He died in 1910!

Reply to
Chris Hogg

+1 It's not just you.

The need to fill a 24 hour news slot means that the small grains of facts associated with a major incident results in a whole range of experts being dragged out to speculate on what has happened. The speculation is often presented as fact but based on absolutely nothing.

Is anyone old enough to remember "Saturday morning pictures" where the latest episode of a serial would terminate in a cliff-hanger ending but in the following week the lead in to the next episode would be different to the ending from the previous week? It's much like some modern documentaries with a cliff-hanger leading up to the advert break but resulting in a complete non-event when the programme resumes.

Reply to
alan_m

In message snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net>, alan_m snipped-for-privacy@admac.myzen.co.uk> writes

Cue 'Misery' :-)

Reply to
Graeme

There was a programme shown recently on Quest, set in Russia's Nevz train factory:

formatting link

There was the usual emphasis on jeopardy, and technical terms were somewhat mangled. The bogie which was at the centre of much of the narrative managed to flip between primer and finish paint several times as the tale progressed.

There is an interestingly direct bit of shop floor discussion following the discovery of what appeared to be a cracked traction motor connection box.

Chris

Reply to
Chris J Dixon

Am I over-sceptical, or is it best these days to treat

Doesn;t it depend on what you read and how you interpete it.

I mean last week there was a blood red moon apparently but I never got to see it 'live' so I have to belief the reports on it. But why does it only happen once in a blue moon which occurs more often.

I blame Brexit.

Reply to
whisky-dave

Question: If tehnmedia haven't reported an event, how does he know about it?

Reply to
charles

But, do you remember the blue sun?

Reply to
charles

I buy the DVD's secondhand and watch it myself. It can make an interesting filler.

I call the programme "trivia" because you don't know what you'll be watching from one moment to the next.*

Unlike proper OU programs. I still don't understand why its linked to the OU at all.

*At least that was true for the first two series. From series three onwards at the start of each programme you get a "this week we'll be seeing blah blah and blah blah blah

In the first two series the overhead shots lasted around 3 seconds maximum. And then moved on to something else possibly totally unrelated. Which became very irritating as it seemed as if they were following an iron rule.

Series three seems a bit better in that respect at least, although I'm not too happy about the way Neil Oliver seems to have taken over most of the programme with the others only getting an occasional look in. Whether I'll ever make it as far as series 8 is another matter.

michael adams

,,,

Reply to
michael adams

Because they ignore anything that doesn't fit in with their own agenda.

You need to ignore the first half of the printed papers and look at the items that might only get a few column inches. I used to read things in the Inde, never anywhere near the front page, that I never see in the other papers.

Reply to
Andrew

One might argue that having some kind of time limit is useful, in so much as the job might actually get finished! But yup, most of it is there for dramatic effect. Most of these programs are intended to entertain rather than truly inform, so perhaps that is not surprising.

We live in a world of easy access to data, but ironically it has made seeking the truth far harder.

One also has to accept that ones world view becomes less "black and white" as you age.

ISTM the best you can do is attempt to establish which sources are more reliable on which topics, but ultimately accept that any truth will never be absolute. You only need to read a report on something mildly technical about which you have some domain expertise, to realise that a lot of what passes as informed commentary is at best a stab in the right direction.

Its a bit like reading USENET ;-)

Reply to
John Rumm

I always assumed the time-limit thing was because they would only afford camera crew for that amount of time.

Reply to
Dave W

Actually I agree which is why I try to find as many different versions of whatever it is before going on about it. We are all biased either deliberately or just because of how we was brought up, so expecting others not to be seems naive to me. One of the big problems is this. In the olden days to reinforce ones view, we only had to contend with biased press and buy the paper we thought best. Now however the ability to filter news coming to us to comply with our biased view is so complete that the extremist view can easily become mainstream belief due to people never seeing the alternative. If something ever does get through the filter its said to be fake news, no often its not fake, its another biased persons take on the news, nothing more nothing less.

The snag is that its become a drug. The bias reinforcement even has advertisers who can now manipulate the public view via the filters as well.

We are in danger of becoming like little sub districts with completely different views to our neighbours and nobody seems to be able to stop it, as the shout about freedom of choice and free speech comes up every time. How do you even produce an unbiased view if people are involved? Even the machines we make have built in bias after all. What would a self driving car do if faced with running over a prime minister or aa nameless member of the public?

Perhaps to be democratic it should run them both over. Brian

Reply to
Brian Gaff

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.