This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Coronavirus and the impact of Lockdown policy
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
  georgenorman  28 Aug 23 6.53am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Completely the opposite is true. They are designed to expose lies. They are more often than not merely designed to support some political (usually left-wing) agenda, twisting the facts so as to show that their view is the right one.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 28 Aug 23 11.16am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
They are more often than not merely designed to support some political (usually left-wing) agenda, twisting the facts so as to show that their view is the right one. They check facts. One by one. That doesn’t involve any twisting to paint a picture to tell a predetermined story. This isn’t journalism. You just want it to be.
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. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| eaglesdare 28 Aug 23 11.25am |
|
|---|---|
|
Who checks the fact checkers? Who pays the fact checkers? What agenda do they have? Why do fact checkers seem to be only woke lefties?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| georgenorman 28 Aug 23 12.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
They check facts. One by one. That doesn’t involve any twisting to paint a picture to tell a predetermined story. This isn’t journalism. You just want it to be. Much of it is just trying to present a respectable facade to distortions and, often, downright lies, a bit like fake shopping websites.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Teddy Eagle  28 Aug 23 1.08pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Meanwhile...
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 28 Aug 23 1.26pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Apparently you shouldn't watch the Rand Paul clip because it's been 'edited'. Coming from the very guy who stated that news should only be trusted if it's been edited and has lawyers checking it before it goes out. Pure clown show. Rand Paul is a highly respected senator from a highly respected family and an actual doctor. Not someone who lives off exploiting people and then dresses it up. In the clip I link to Paul is exposing actual lies so no wonder a certain individual doesn't like him. I would be interested to know just in what context Rand Paul was wrong. Edited by Stirlingsays (28 Aug 2023 1.26pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 28 Aug 23 1.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
They are more often than not merely designed to support some political (usually left-wing) agenda, twisting the facts so as to show that their view is the right one. Yep, it's all about who funds them. All conveniently ignored by certain individuals of course. Until it's something on the right....then all of a sudden who is funding them becomes all he wants to talk about.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 28 Aug 23 2.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Meanwhile... Perhaps, but still valuable and in many ways essential, if we are to conquer the plague of misinformation and conspiracy theories that are infecting opinions. Trying to regulate and improve to ensure confidence can only be a good thing. It’s an established fact that cancer diagnosis suffered during the pandemic. Without the pandemic there would have been no lockdowns so why allocate the blame to them? Lockdowns were the response to the problem. Not the cause of it! Who knows if the impact on the NHS would have been worse without lockdowns? No one does because we didn’t do that but my instinct is that it would have been much worse. It’s bad enough already but assuming it could have been better is disingenuous nonsense.
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. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 28 Aug 23 2.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Yep, it's all about who funds them. All conveniently ignored by certain individuals of course. Until it's something on the right....then all of a sudden who is funding them becomes all he wants to talk about. Ask yourself who benefits from trying to undermine confidence in fact checkers and who is trying to spread distrust in them? Maybe the same people who would benefit from a weakened BBC? Checking facts is an essential service in today’s world. You reject them if you wish so you can continue to live in the parallel reality of misinformation that you seem to inhabit, together with a few others here.
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. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle 28 Aug 23 2.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Perhaps, but still valuable and in many ways essential, if we are to conquer the plague of misinformation and conspiracy theories that are infecting opinions. Trying to regulate and improve to ensure confidence can only be a good thing. It’s an established fact that cancer diagnosis suffered during the pandemic. Without the pandemic there would have been no lockdowns so why allocate the blame to them? Lockdowns were the response to the problem. Not the cause of it! Who knows if the impact on the NHS would have been worse without lockdowns? No one does because we didn’t do that but my instinct is that it would have been much worse. It’s bad enough already but assuming it could have been better is disingenuous nonsense. We know what the impact on the NHS now is record backlogs. As do those who are going to die having missed treatment.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 28 Aug 23 3.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
There is a world of difference between the way a responsible broadcaster, or newspaper, approaches editing and the way a conspiracy theorist making videos does. The MSM will check for accuracy and legality. Those with particular political stances will spin the story in the writing. Those without won’t. It’s the latter which I regard as truthful and trustworthy. Video makers cut and splice. They omit sections and answers that don’t suit their narrative. The only way to determine what was actually said is to watch the whole and not selected portions. You could choose a selection of words from most posts on this board and reassemble them to tell a different story. Rand Paul is not highly respected and nor was his father. He has a history of vaccine opposition and has provided support for some of the most scurrilous any-vax profiteers. He asks loaded questions in the video and demands yes or no answers to questions which cannot be answered in such terms. There’s always more complexity than that. It was just showboating to a particular audience. This was no better, or possibly even worse, than a Brand or Campbell video in the way it attempts to distort, discredit and spread misinformation.
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. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| eaglesdare 28 Aug 23 3.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
There is a world of difference between the way a responsible broadcaster, or newspaper, approaches editing and the way a conspiracy theorist making videos does. The MSM will check for accuracy and legality. Those with particular political stances will spin the story in the writing. Those without won’t. It’s the latter which I regard as truthful and trustworthy. Video makers cut and splice. They omit sections and answers that don’t suit their narrative. The only way to determine what was actually said is to watch the whole and not selected portions. You could choose a selection of words from most posts on this board and reassemble them to tell a different story. Rand Paul is not highly respected and nor was his father. He has a history of vaccine opposition and has provided support for some of the most scurrilous any-vax profiteers. He asks loaded questions in the video and demands yes or no answers to questions which cannot be answered in such terms. There’s always more complexity than that. It was just showboating to a particular audience. This was no better, or possibly even worse, than a Brand or Campbell video in the way it attempts to distort, discredit and spread misinformation. Just like MSM
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.