No they don't. They mean suitably qualified.

Which I would rather trust than someone who isn't. Which is often who the unedited media claim are experts. So do you.

Even experts make wrong predictions. That's the thing with predictions. You only know if they are accurate later.

When the press then concentrate on worst case scenarios, and write them up to suggest they are the inevitable outcome, then we do have a problem, but that's not the expert's fault.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

'Unedited media'.

Classic.

As for the rest of your post it's just your usual apologist tripe.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I think I'll take his 30 years in the NHS, which no doubt involved many contracts over your say so.

The sense in which you seem to think people are stupid is that all honest people know the reality of what happens to staff who talk against their employers positions.....that's far more real than warm worded 'guidance' that can be interpreted any which way, any day of the weak.

Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Dec 2021 7.12pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Yeah, editors or lawyers are the very hallmark...the very zenith of truth and honesty aren't they......not.

You're are so elitist and corporate that you should check your arse for a watermark.

While it's true that alt media is no guarantee of truth.....a major difference is that by the very nature of its independence you aren't going to get the 'approved line'....on how the mainstream want you to think.

And history has shown that....if you're discerning....that access to something nearer the truth is far more likely that way.

The mainstream is about what they want you to think....truth is incidental. There are so many examples, so many parallels....look at the Wall Street crash and how that was initially reported.... Look at the war in Afghanistan....the media and government were lying about how that war was going for years...decades....Yet the truth came from the troops on the ground who were saying a very different story......but that wasn't transmitted to the mainstream.

Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Dec 2021 7.31pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Ok, latch on to some precise wording while ignoring the general point if it makes you feel better.

That the MSM have positions and spin stories is totally different to inventing things, which is often all you get on the "alt-media". The editors will check that the direction of the story is in line with its position. The lawyers will ensure no-one is libelled or defamatory claims made that will cost them. No such controls exist in the "alt-media", where completely unsubstantiated claims get made without any comebacks.

You write as though the MSM is one homogeneous group, but it just isn't. Look at the Mail, Sun and Telegraph and compare it with the Guardian or Indy. Compare Fox with almost anything else.

Some, of course, are free of proprietorial influence. The public service broadcasters are where I go to get my information. You, of course, with your prejudices, believe they are biased. They aren't.

I could argue with you long and hard over your opinion about the reporting on Wall St, and in particular on Afghanistan, where I believe that your opinion (which I accept is now a commonly held one) to be wrong. It's a very complicated issue, which I am not going to get diverted into, but suffice to say I believe Blair has been given a very unfair press over this.

Of course, the troops on the ground told a different story. They were at the sharp edge and neither in the UN, nor in Whitehall or the security forces advising them.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.