Trust in the media

[King Nuts]

External Link/Members Only

Ex Guardian editor says in the above link:

Nearly all surveys – pre-Covid and today – show a similar picture. A lot of people still rely on mainstream news, but consistently place journalists as the last people they would place their faith in. It was there in Edelman’s mid-March survey of trust during Covid: journalists bottom of the league. It was there again in the YouGov/Sky News survey of a week ago. It was there in last year’s EuroBarometer survey of trust in newspapers: the UK last.

Answers, of course, has he none. Other than to take a swipe at Murdoch and Fox News, social media, the tabloids and so on, while praising his own newspaper and, naturally, the BBC. The self-regard of the leftist, arugula-munching classes no know bounds.

Here's how he could pick up some points, which may in turn may stop the Grauniad from having to ask for a quid at the end of every article. Start having a pop at the Chinese. Start figuring out where this fucking disaster has actually orignated. Ignore the side-show that is Trump. Dump Afua Hirsch and her shit stirring columns. And George Monbiot with all his dour revisionist nonsense about returning to some pre-industrial society can be put out in a paddock somewhere.

And try to report some actual fucking trustworthy news.

[winkywanky]

With your own specific agenda, you seem frequently keen to lump the BBC in with the Grauniad.

Yet the BBC consistently receives high approval ratings from the public, whether you like it or not. By that, I mean both whether you like the BBC, or whether you like the BBC receiving approval.

So what are your own trusted News sources?


And like a few others on UKP with your drip-drip-drip hatred or dislike of the BBC, you always seem to see it as black and white...people who generally believe in it, respect it or like it, are rabbitfood-munching lefty twats.

[Adoniron]

I trust the media as much as I trust the government.

[winkywanky]

God, it must be lonely...

[lostandfound]

The Guardian and the BBC are trusted around the world. 

[winkywanky]

I think it'as fair to say the Grauniad are very Left-leaning, just as the Telegraph is very Right-leaning.

I suppose ideally you could read both, but then you'd probably just end up really confused.

[ratedj]

With your own specific agenda, you seem frequently keen to lump the BBC in with the Grauniad.

Yet the BBC consistently receives high approval ratings from the public, whether you like it or not. By that, I mean both whether you like the BBC, or whether you like the BBC receiving approval.

So what are your own trusted News sources?


And like a few others on UKP with your drip-drip-drip hatred or dislike of the BBC, you always seem to see it as black and white...people who generally believe in it, respect it or like it, are rabbitfood-munching lefty twats.

I have to concur. Seems to be a specific agenda at hand.

[lostandfound]

I used to always read both websites. But since the Telegraph put up a pay wall I don't bother. Kudos to the Guardian for not doing that IMO.

The Guardian makes no secret of its stance, and commentary is flagged as opinion, mostly left leaning, but I've read commentary from other viewpoints as well.

[King Nuts]

With your own specific agenda, you seem frequently keen to lump the BBC in with the Grauniad.

Yet the BBC consistently receives high approval ratings from the public, whether you like it or not. By that, I mean both whether you like the BBC, or whether you like the BBC receiving approval.

So what are your own trusted News sources?


And like a few others on UKP with your drip-drip-drip hatred or dislike of the BBC, you always seem to see it as black and white...people who generally believe in it, respect it or like it, are rabbitfood-munching lefty twats.

I don't think I am the one who sees this in black and white. I grew up loving and trusting the BBC as much as anyone. But I've seen over the years how the TV news and current affairs departments have become lazy, downgraded, and politically biased. And the drama is unwatchable.

So the BBC gets high approval ratings. Doesn't prove a great deal, other than the fact that residual affection for the BBC takes a long time to fade. The actual viewing figures show a different story though.

As regards trusted news sources, I don't believe there's only one that is solely trustworthy. But some are better than others. The Grauniad, for all its left-skewing ideology, is mostly well-written, and I think their website is up there with the best. The New York Times has a way of really getting into the grit of a story, in a way that British papers used to, and long ago gave ago. Same with the Los Angeles Times.

So for me, the answer is a bit of everything. I also like Unherd, The Economist, and all manner of others. It's the only way to see through all the fog.

[King Nuts]

I have to concur. Seems to be a specific agenda at hand.

I don't have 'an agenda'. I just like to know what the fuck is actually going on out there.

[winkywanky]

I don't think I am the one who sees this in black and white. I grew up loving and trusting the BBC as much as anyone. But I've seen over the years how the TV news and current affairs departments have become lazy, downgraded, and politically biased. And the drama is unwatchable.

I think perhaps you do? "...naturally, the BBC. The self-regard of the leftist, arugula-munching classes no know bounds."

So the BBC gets high approval ratings. Doesn't prove a great deal, other than the fact that residual affection for the BBC takes a long time to fade. The actual viewing figures show a different story though.

You were the one who mentioned surveys about trust in the media 

Of course viewing figures will be less, inevitably youngsters watch very little TV, preferring other, online sources, hence the big worry about Fake News. And even the broader 'legitimate broadcast' landscape which has increased many times over, will reduce its reach. it doesn't mean it's crap or that people don't trust it.

As regards trusted news sources, I don't believe there's only one that is solely trustworthy. But some are better than others. The Grauniad, for all its left-skewing ideology, is mostly well-written, and I think their website is up there with the best. The New York Times has a way of really getting into the grit of a story, in a way that British papers used to, and long ago gave ago. Same with the Los Angeles Times.

So for me, the answer is a bit of everything. I also like Unherd, The Economist, and all manner of others. It's the only way to see through all the fog.

Yes, I'd agree that we should always try to access varied sources, and often those different sources will be more on the ball than bigger more conservative organisations like the BBC which tend to have more inertia.

[The Film Director]

I don't have 'an agenda'. I just like to know what the fuck is actually going on out there.

 

[The High Sparrow]

 The self-regard of the leftist, arugula-munching classes no know bounds.

What the fuck is arugula?

[winkywanky]

A quick Google reveals it to be Rocket, that peppery, salady leaf, much beloved of the trendy, Guardian-reading, metrosexual elite  

[NIK]

A quick Google reveals it to be Rocket, that peppery, salady leaf, much beloved of the trendy, Guardian-reading, metrosexual elite  

I prefer fish n chips! 

[petermisc]

In my experience, those most critical of the BBC tend to be those with an agenda of some kind to push.  Yes, it is far from perfect, but it is still miles better than the alternatives. 

However, it is best not to rely on just one source of news.  I occasionally buy a different newspaper to see what their slant is - if you usually buy The Mail it can be interesting to read The Mirror occasionally, and vice-versa, for example.  I used to occasionally watch Russia Today for their slant on the news, until the MH17 downing when it became all too obvious that it was just pure propaganda and not news.  For a similar reason I do not waste my time with anonymous internet news sites - the wild west of news.

Reading the press section in Private Eye can be quite an eye opener at times.

[Beamer]

In my experience, those most critical of the BBC tend to be those with an agenda of some kind to push.  Yes, it is far from perfect, but it is still miles better than the alternatives. 

However, it is best not to rely on just one source of news.  I occasionally buy a different newspaper to see what their slant is - if you usually buy The Mail it can be interesting to read The Mirror occasionally, and vice-versa, for example.  I used to occasionally watch Russia Today for their slant on the news, until the MH17 downing when it became all too obvious that it was just pure propaganda and not news.  For a similar reason I do not waste my time with anonymous internet news sites - the wild west of news.

Reading the press section in Private Eye can be quite an eye opener at times.

Agreed. Many of the alternatives have their own agenda. Just like some punters on here!!

[NIK]

Agreed. Many of the alternatives have their own agenda. Just like some punters on here!!

We all have an agenda, including you.

[Beamer]

We all have an agenda, including you.

Really?
FWIW....I wasn't aware of my agenda. But others make their agenda(s) fairly obvious.

[NIK]

Really?
FWIW....I wasn't aware of my agenda. But others make their agenda(s) fairly obvious.

Well you seem to want to ensure UKP follows the pc agenda imposed  by the thought police everywhere else.

[King Nuts]

In my experience, those most critical of the BBC tend to be those with an agenda of some kind to push. 

What is this 'agenda' nonsense? I'm not an MP, an activist, or a journalist. I don't have a website, have nothing to plug, and other than on this anonymous board, I keep my views pretty much to myself.

I'm a guy who lives entirely normally, pays his taxes, and mostly keeps himself to himself. I just happen to have opinions about things. But that's not an 'agenda', however much anyone might disagree with said opinions.

Feel free to criticise anyone's opinions, of course, but come up with something a bit more original that 'so and so's got an agenda'. It's all a bit Year 10.

[King Nuts]

I prefer fish n chips! 

NIK, you obviously haven't spent enough time in the Socialist Republic of Islington and Clerkenwell.

[Beamer]

Well you seem to want to ensure UKP follows the pc agenda imposed  by the thought police everywhere else.

what pc agenda?
So, I have my opinion and you have your opinion which IMO is BLX.   

[NIK]

NIK, you obviously haven't spent enough time in the Socialist Republic of Islington and Clerkenwell.

My main memory of Islington is having the shits on one of my many London trips. I’d gone to Islington to have a look around and was taken short. Fortunately in those days there was a Borders bookshop (now like so many things I used to enjoy long gone) which had a toilet, and equally fortunately at the time it had easy immediate access. For some reason Borders later introduced the policy where the customer had to request the toilet key from the counter. Anyway, I spent about an hour going in and out of the toilet.
I have however been to Islington on a couple of other less memorable occasions.
Never punted there as far as I can recall though. 

[NIK]

what pc agenda?
So, I have my opinion and you have your opinion which IMO is BLX.

Ahh the famed liberal tolerance. Whatever happened to ‘hope not hate’?

[Beamer]

Ahh the famed liberal tolerance. Whatever happened to ‘hope not hate’?

No idea, beyond me. But wouldn't the world be an odd place if we all had the same view on everything   

[Ali Katt]

I think it'as fair to say the Grauniad are very Left-leaning, just as the Telegraph is very Right-leaning.

I suppose ideally you could read both, but then you'd probably just end up really confused.

The Torygraph is the Michael Gove of journalism, right leaning sure, but conservative with a small c.

[King Nuts]

Ahh the famed liberal tolerance. Whatever happened to ‘hope not hate’?

Not just that, but whatever happened to reasoned argument and debate?

Beamer was probably in the crapper when that particular stick came round.

[Beamer]

Not just that, but whatever happened to reasoned argument and debate?

Beamer was probably in the crapper when that particular stick came round.

More crap from King nut(ter).

I can't wait for this crisis to be over so that UKP can revert back to reviews as the backbone of this website.
As you haven't reviewed anyone since 2015 your contribution won't be missed.

[winkywanky]

My main memory of Islington is having the shits on one of my many London trips. I’d gone to Islington to have a look around and was taken short. Fortunately in those days there was a Borders bookshop (now like so many things I used to enjoy long gone) which had a toilet, and equally fortunately at the time it had easy immediate access. For some reason Borders later introduced the policy where the customer had to request the toilet key from the counter. Anyway, I spent about an hour going in and out of the toilet.
I have however been to Islington on a couple of other less memorable occasions.
Never punted there as far as I can recall though. 

Have you ever considered that you were parhaps pivotal in their new toilet-policy being introduced Nik? 

[NIK]

Have you ever considered that you were parhaps pivotal in their new toilet-policy being introduced Nik? 

 

They probably didn’t want people spending too long reading their books in the bog!

[King Nuts]

They probably didn’t want people spending too long reading their books in the bog!

Especially if you were putting those books straight back on the shelves.

[winkywanky]

 

 

[King Nuts]

More crap from King nut(ter).

I can't wait for this crisis to be over so that UKP can revert back to reviews as the backbone of this website.
As you haven't reviewed anyone since 2015 your contribution won't be missed.

I don't what to say. You've obviously studied my profile, form and contributions here. I'm almost flattered.

Anyway, I don't think your 'contributions' would be missed even now. I mean, it's not like you post anything original, or even slightly amusing.

Besides which, this section is 'off topic'. We don't all play nicely here. Some even speak their minds. Awful, isn't it.

[willie loman]

Every day you start a thread, but its basically the same thread some rant about the bbc, guardian, left wing establishment, or some crap boasting about flying business class, or how Trump is an original thinker, come on give it a rest.

[Beamer]

I don't what to say. You've obviously studied my profile, form and contributions here. I'm almost flattered.

Anyway, I don't think your 'contributions' would be missed even now. I mean, it's not like you post anything original, or even slightly amusing.

Besides which, this section is 'off topic'. We don't all play nicely here. Some even speak their minds. Awful, isn't it.

Let's hope we see something even remotely worthwhile from you in the future. Rather than the rubbish so far.

[King Nuts]

Let's hope we see something even remotely worthwhile from you in the future. Rather than the rubbish so far.

'Rubbish' that winds you up though, and that you seem to respond to. Not with anything worthwhile, of course. Literally nothing of value, interest, originality or humour. Nothing. Zilch. Fuck-all.

Meanwhile, I post stuff that I think will lead to some sort of grown-up debate, and it mostly works. What do you do, apart from grizzle like a fucking girl?

[King Nuts]

Every day you start a thread, but its basically the same thread some rant about the bbc, guardian, left wing establishment, or some crap boasting about flying business class, or how Trump is an original thinker, come on give it a rest.

Naturally, I am pleased and flattered that you're such a fan of my wit and erudition.

Like brother Beamer though, do you actually have anything original to say yourself? It's just one dour and humourless grizzle after another.

You must be one miserable git to have to sit next to on a plane, or to have a drink with.

[Colston36]

Every day you start a thread, but its basically the same thread some rant about the bbc, guardian, left wing establishment, or some crap boasting about flying business class, or how Trump is an original thinker, come on give it a rest.

Fair do's. Trump certainly IS original if not what you might call a thinker, as over 100,000 dead Americans are going to prove. His lies certainly are in a class of their own.

One problem with journalism today - and I say this as someone who wrote a column for some years - is that the online explosion has made the economics very tricky indeed.

The Guardian's great editor C. P. Scott said "facts are sacred, opinion is free". I cannot imagine where Nuts gets his facts from, but I cannot find a reputable survey where journalists are at the bottom. They are about halfway up in Gallup with people like politicians (e.g. Trump, Johnson, Mitch McConnell, Putin) and used car dealers at the bottom.

Perhaps Nuts operates on the Fox News basis - just plain, flat out lies.   

[willie loman]

Naturally, I am pleased and flattered that you're such a fan of my wit and erudition.

Like brother Beamer though, do you actually have anything original to say yourself? It's just one dour and humourless grizzle after another.

You must be one miserable git to have to sit next to on a plane, or to have a drink with.

You are the internet version of the pub bore.

[King Nuts]

Perhaps Nuts operates on the Fox News basis - just plain, flat out lies.

On the other hand, perhaps I am not quite so dull. I don't believe everything I read, and am always interested in the media's interpretation of common and observable facts and events.

But it seems this place, where once it was filled with interesting, opinionated and controversial posters, has become dominated by some very dull people, who want to create an echo chamber where only people with the same obvious, pre-digested and narrow views are tolerated.

Further, I don't start out by insulting people, but I've been on the receiving end of petty abuse, and it's just....boring. People who can't argue a point, just seem to revert to insults, and not very good ones at that.


This forum is full of threads I have zero interest in. So you know what I do? I don't go there. I don't join in with something I don't like, don't agree with and don't have any interest in. I don't go on there and say 'you're a cunt', 'he's a twat', 'you're just a conspiracy theorist' or whatever.

It's a shame this forum is nothing like what it was.

[King Nuts]

You are the internet version of the pub bore.

Just for once, try something original.

There's an 'ignore' button on here.

[King Nuts]

One problem with journalism today - and I say this as someone who wrote a column for some years - is that the online explosion has made the economics very tricky indeed.

I cannot find a reputable survey where journalists are at the bottom.

So you wrote a column. Hooray. Why didn't you say so before?

If you're looking for a survey where journalists are at the bottom, you'll look in vain. But these links reveal how trust in the media has sunk:

External Link/Members Only

External Link/Members Only

External Link/Members Only

[willie loman]

Just for once, try something original.

There's an 'ignore' button on here.

Given that you claim to have me on your ignore list, its surprising how often you attack or mention me?

[King Nuts]

Given that you claim to have me on your ignore list, its surprising how often you attack or mention me?

Occasionally, I do enemy combatants on here the honour of peering into their comments, hoping against hope that there's some spark of wit or originality in there.

Of course, from you, there never is. I think hope must now be extinguished.

[Beamer]

On the other hand, perhaps I am not quite so dull. I don't believe everything I read, and am always interested in the media's interpretation of common and observable facts and events.

But it seems this place, where once it was filled with interesting, opinionated and controversial posters, has become dominated by some very dull people, who want to create an echo chamber where only people with the same obvious, pre-digested and narrow views are tolerated.

Further, I don't start out by insulting people, but I've been on the receiving end of petty abuse, and it's just....boring. People who can't argue a point, just seem to revert to insults, and not very good ones at that.


This forum is full of threads I have zero interest in. So you know what I do? I don't go there. I don't join in with something I don't like, don't agree with and don't have any interest in. I don't go on there and say 'you're a cunt', 'he's a twat', 'you're just a conspiracy theorist' or whatever.

It's a shame this forum is nothing like what it was.

If you don't like it then you know what to do.

[Doc Holliday]

Meanwhile, I post stuff that I think will lead to some sort of grown-up debate, and it mostly works.

That was what I thought at first and you have raised some interesting topics. I in turn have tried to add to the discussion if it was something I felt I had something to offer.

However ....

This forum is full of threads I have zero interest in. So you know what I do? I don't go there. I don't join in with something I don't like, don't agree with and don't have any interest in.

That is also true as 90% of your posts since your return to posting in early April, are in your own threads and many of the remainder are in a thread started about you. 

Now I personally don't have a problem with any of that in itself. However it may give the impression to many (and I am moving towards that view) that you are using UKP as your own 'personal playground' during lockdown, under the guise of promoting discussion?

Once again that's fine, but you should not be surprised that others will have similar suspicions and inevitably resort to 'ad hominem' attacks.

You are clearly an intelligent guy and I can tell from your posting style and content that you are no stranger to online forums. So if they do attack you personally then you should practice what you preach and ignore them. Instead you are just contributing to the confrontation .. unless of course deliberate confrontation is part of your agenda?

[Beamer]

That was what I thought at first and you have raised some interesting topics. I in turn have tried to add to the discussion if it was something I felt I had something to offer.

However ....

That is also true as 90% of your posts since your return to posting in early April, are in your own threads and many of the remainder are in a thread started about you. 

Now I personally don't have a problem with any of that in itself. However it may give the impression to many (and I am moving towards that view) that you are using UKP as your own 'personal playground' during lockdown, under the guise of promoting discussion?

Once again that's fine, but you should not be surprised that others will have similar suspicions and inevitably resort to 'ad hominem' attacks.

You are clearly an intelligent guy and I can tell from your posting style and content that you are no stranger to online forums. So if they do attack you personally then you should practice what you preach and ignore them. Instead you are just contributing to the confrontation .. unless of course deliberate confrontation is part of your agenda?

Good summation.

[King Nuts]

That was what I thought at first and you have raised some interesting topics. I in turn have tried to add to the discussion if it was something I felt I had something to offer.

However ....

That is also true as 90% of your posts since your return to posting in early April, are in your own threads and many of the remainder are in a thread started about you. 

Now I personally don't have a problem with any of that in itself. However it may give the impression to many (and I am moving towards that view) that you are using UKP as your own 'personal playground' during lockdown, under the guise of promoting discussion?

Once again that's fine, but you should not be surprised that others will have similar suspicions and inevitably resort to 'ad hominem' attacks.

You are clearly an intelligent guy and I can tell from your posting style and content that you are no stranger to online forums. So if they do attack you personally then you should practice what you preach and ignore them. Instead you are just contributing to the confrontation .. unless of course deliberate confrontation is part of your agenda?

Yes, I am here to wind everyone up. The plan is obviously working. 'Personal playground'? Arf. Hardly.

I keep hoping there's going to be someone on here with a sense of humour. Hey, I'll even settle for rigidly controversial opinions. There always used to be people like that here. I tend not to highlight my quips with juvenile emoticons or wacky use of exclamation marks, so I fear many people take everything I say literally. Their call. Makes no odds to me.

Winky makes a decent fist of it, and I admire his Derek and Clive homage.

Very few others though.

[King Nuts]

If you don't like it then you know what to do.

Beamer, I'm sorry but I think I have got you all wrong.

Your urbane, incisive, astute and thought-provoking posts are the very lifeblood of this forum.



Or they would be, in some parallel universe no-one would want to inhabit.