Straggler

On 22/06/2023 at 09:42, Chindie said:

Solid first episode of Secret Invasion. Not amazing, completely and entirely set up, nice tone shift, not sure the concept is that good, clearly isn't going to do Secret Invasion 'properly' as expected, but not bad.

I found the whole thing a bit boring tbh. I went back and watched the first couple of episodes of Loki as a comparison as I remember them being witty and clever and interesting, all the things this Fury thing lacks. Turns out I'd rather just carry on watching Loki and I'll give Fury the swerve for now.

I had one of these..... The mercury maze. The silver blob at the top is mercury. I spent a while trying to break it so I could touch the silvery blob, but I didn't manage to get in and lost interest.

7 hours ago, The Fun Factory said:

And can we nuke it?

No go I'm afraid, this chap tested it and fridges are nuke proof.

Been to see the new Spidey.  It is freaking awesome.  Stunning to look at, well written, funny and clever.  Definitely requires a second view as there is so much going on.  I didn't think they could get up to the standards of the first one again, but they only went and did it.  For me this is the standard by which I will judge all Super hero movies.

1 hour ago, Genie said:

This can’t be it… can it?

link

 

I thought this had to be a parody article.  I honestly didn't think Johnson could surprise me anymore, but today he managed it.  They handed him a megaphone and he put it to his buthole and sharted.

1 hour ago, blandy said:

It says

 

Ok 3 points on this

1. I completely missed that line when I read the article which may somewhat undermine my argument.  

2. If I can pretend briefly that I had comprehensively read the article I have just spent longer having a go at than reading.... It still doesn't say anything about the credibility of the source.

3. I can't find the quoted line in the article. 

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

The whole argument is well made, but flawed in terms of “sides” for at least 2 reasons. Firstly the same news networks have been reporting Ukraine claims and tagged them the same way (unverified). Secondly the news agencies are there to provide information on the situation, not to serve (only) Ukraine’s interests. Information may and frequently has included “Ukraine says”, or “Russia says” type stuff. To not allow statements or claims from one side is to reduce the level of information available to us, the readers.

Next, there’s essentially no one, not even in Russia, who believes the Russian state. It doesn’t need tagging by the BBC or anyone else as “possible fake news”

Next there’s the nature of the coverage, split between rolling news and then deeper analysis and reporting, including following up on rolling stories such as this one.

Finally there is a wider interest in keeping the war in the news, given its impact on our economy and lives and nation. If news coverage were to omit anything unverified or from either side’s (by definition) biased official channels we’d get next to no coverage. I don’t disagree with your analysis, only the conclusion you draw from it that this should either be tagged as propaganda or not printed at all.

I hope I'm not saying in there that the news should serve Ukrainian interests, it's not my intention, I did describe it as an information war, both sides are fighting it. It should be treated in the same way.  I do however think that the reporting of this specific moment does serve the purpose of the Russians and was designed to do so. 

The purpose of news agencies aggregate and present events without comment is really part of the problem, one I have no idea how to solve. I understand why they exist and the demand for them, but they are being ruthlessly exploited to spread misinformation.

To the no one believes the Russian state. I agree in the main, but the problem is that after all of 10 seconds online it is "the BBC are reporting..." Or "I saw on the news that...." The source of the information becomes irrelevant and the narrative keeps going. If anything it is given credibility by being on the BBC and treated in the same way as other unverified but much more trustworthy sources.

I don't think it should not be printed at all, again I hope I have not advocated for that. I do think it should be reported even when from an aggregator of news as not just unverified but from an untrusted source. In an age when information is used so frequently as a weapon I don't think the news agencies are doing enough. The BBC's article has loads of extra information around what is the current situation in the war, it could easily had a few lines about the credibility or motivation of the origin of the story.

The news moves too fast to retrofit context, it does harm not to do it upfront. Otherwise we just shrug and allow them to manipulate us.

Ok, I’m going to deep dive on my opinion on the state of journalism around this Russian press release. Long post coming up.......

For context I have a degree in history and have spent much of my professional career analysing source material so I have I believe a decent handle on how to do this, but am always up for a debate on my interpretation. Also I’m doing this quickly and without siting sources.

I’m going to do the basics of how to approach analysing source material which goes all the way back to my GCSE days.  Who, What, Where, When, Why and for Whom.

Who:

The Kremlin via (in this one sample via the BBC)

What:

A Ukrainian advance on Russian positions has been halted with massive loss of life and material on the Ukrainian side. No mention of losses on the Russian side other than to say there was “no success”. At this stage the “what” is unverified.

Where:

Global press release. 

When:

Right at the start or possibly just before the start of the much anticipated Ukrainian counter attack.

Why:

The Defence Ministry in Moscow is part of the war effort. A press release from there needs to be viewed from within the context that it is to aid in the Russian objectives and the information war.

For Whom:

It can be safely assumed that this was very much intended for an international audience rather than a release through Russian channels to keep morale up at home.

To dive a bit further into analysis, is the Defence Ministry in Moscow a reliable source?  Simply put, no it is not.  Russia is a known distributor of false information and has a long history of manipulating media globally to advance its own interests (US elections and Brexit referendum).  Whilst elements of truth have been used to give the direct lies credibility, any source directly aligned with the Kremlin needs to be treated with a great deal of scepticism.  The ever-shifting justifications for starting the war in Ukraine are a good example of this (Denazification / defensive war / historical maps / Russia is fighting all of NATO).

So what is the true purpose of this press release?  The biggest impediment to Russian objectives in Ukraine is aid from the west.  Without the significant supply of western weapon, intelligence, training and ammunition, Ukraine would almost certainly be forced into a settlement or simply lose the war over time.  One of Russia’s major objectives has to be to try and stem the flow of this aid.  At the start of the war the main tactic to prevent western involvement was threats.  The threat of nuclear war, the threat of the war spilling into countries like Finland and Sweden and energy security.  With the perception of Russian military might shifting considerably, those threats are now considered empty and are largely discounted.  They certainly are not working from the perspective of the Kremlin.  Therefore a different approach was required.  One of these approaches was simply to wait out, or grind down interest in the west for helping Ukraine. An effort to grind out the war until the help ran out and Russia could proceed unimpeded against an isolated Ukraine.

It is my theory that this press release is in part to aid in this effort.  Ukraine has been dominating the information war in the west.  The atrocities committed by the Russians in Ukraine and the bravery and stout defence mounted has inspired a groundswell of support certainly across NATO countries and much of Europe.  Support both financial and military has been driven for a variety of reasons, be it political expediency, ideological alignment, or simply a strong base of popular support.  The scale of support is significant and can reasonably be assumed to only be available for as long as there is public support.

The impending Ukrainian counter offensive will undoubtably have a major influence on how sustainable that support is.  The build up to this offensive is much anticipated, with expectation that significant gains can be expected and quickly.  The media has been full to overflowing with stories about how much more advance the NATO technology is and that the amounts sent have been impressive.  It could be argued that expectations are already beyond achievable limits, however even conservative estimates expect the counter offensive to make significant gains.  In this environment, should the counter offensive appear to be unsustainable or unsuccessful there could be a shift in international public and political support certainly at the levels that are being applied presently.  The idea of liberating Ukraine and handing a defeat to Russia over a relatively short time has strong public support.  The idea of an apparently endless war of attrition waged at the expense of NATO tax payers over the long term is almost certain to apply pressure to limit the cost or encourage a negotiation that will be more to the benefit of Russian objectives.

To this end a press release that gives the world the impression that the counter offensive is or will fail is a direct benefit to the Russian war objective.  I would argue the recently released announcement is part of this campaign.

For the objective of this press release to work it needs to get the Russian narrative into social media.  To begin the discussion that possibly the counter offensive is or will fail.  This is regardless of the truth of the event used.  Russia has great experience in manipulation of the worlds media, knowing that a press release will be repeated and reported upon with very little to no analysis applied, allowing the discussion to spread even if upon verification the claims were untrue or just an exaggeration.  The design is to have the Russian narrative spread, before the truth can catch up.

To my point that uncritical reporting of source material like this is problematic. To discuss this we need to debate a little what the 4^th Estate is for. 

The term Fourth Estate or fourth power refers to the press and news media both in explicit capacity of advocacy and implicit ability to frame political issues.

Stating the press release of one organization does nothing to frame political issues.  I would argue that to do what the BBC and other news organisations have done today is to actively advance the objectives of the Russian war effort at the expense of the populations they are supposed to be serving the news to.  The very fact that this press release was public and global is very clearly designed to have an impact on global public perception of the war.  The release does nothing to put the clash into context of the war or Ukrainian capability to advance.  It is a snapshot of one moment and it may or may not be true.  The narrative that Ukraine may not be able to push the Russians back is now though irretrievably in the public narrative.

The importance of the role of the fourth estate and the privileges aligned to that role are there to support a service that they are supposed to provide.  To provide not just the words of people in powerful places, but to be able to hold them to account and shine a light on proceedings that impact us all.  To be able to hold the powerful to account it must be possible to identify when the information they are proving is false.  To present false information uncritically or even to present the truth without checking its veracity or context is to fail in the role of the fourth estate. 

I do not expect this level of analysis to be applied and written into every article released, it is not practical to do so.  I do however expect a news organisation to be able to apply some critical thinking like this almost automatically.  This has taken a while to write, but very little time to apply in my head.

I do understand that in the modern age of internet news, the easiest thing to do is to copy and paste a press release and send it out with the minimum of comment.  There is indeed significant pressure to do so, as to not release this “news” as soon as possible is liable to present yourself as not current, to lose traffic and to cease to exist as a news organization.  This is however a reason, not an excuse.

I would conclude that to present the statements of a Kremlin press release without framing it properly is not simply presenting the facts.  It is propagation of propaganda and actively if unwittingly aiding in the objectives of the people releasing the information and therefore the Russian war effort.

8 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

It’s the same in the Guardian or any other reputable news outlet. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/05/russia-claims-to-have-fought-off-major-ukrainian-offensive-in-donetsk
 

If you want your news to say “Russia are making big claims but they are a bunch of liars” You’d probably need to go to a Ukrainian blogger for your news. 

That the standard of journalism is low across the industry doesn't make it good practice. The race to publish is trumping the quality of the work. None of them want to be the outlet that misses out on the clicks. 

Allowing the public to understand the veracity of the information they are being presented should be a huge part of the work of the media. That they are not doing it is shoddy IMO. It is why propaganda is so effective. The same thing happened with Brexit with all the think tanks quoted saying Brexit was a brilliant idea without noting that the think tank was a paid arm of pro Brexit campaigns. 

I don't really understand why you are so determined to allow propaganda to spread so effectively. Is there a problem if the news points out that a source they are using is known to be unreliable?

Just now, trekka said:

Why single out the BBC?

Sky News has similar (and I expect many other major news outlets).

 

 

Because the quotes used came from the BBC. I'm perfectly happy to level the same criticism at Sky.

6 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

You are arguing to abandon fact based journalism in favour of more editorialising based on the ideology of the news outlet. 

I would suggest you have it the opposite way round. More clinical fact based reporting and less emotive editorialising would help with trust in credibility of the media source. 

But what the BBC is doing is not clinical fact based reporting. It is repeating the propaganda of a known deliberate spreader of false news and presenting it in the same way it presents news from trusted sources. 

It would still be factual reporting to point out that the news has come from a source that cannot be trusted. There is nothing emotive about putting context around a statement. This is the same source that said Ukraine is run by Nazi's and that it is purely a defensive war by Russia. This is factual analysis that provides an important service to the public. 

2 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

They are presenting news in a factual way. The Russian ministry has made a claim yesterday. The BBC has said ‘The Russian ministry has made a claim but it cannot be verified’. 

A factual way of presenting news is not good journalism. Presenting the words of a known liar as a valid point of view and surrounding it with other facts gives those lies credibility it does not deserve. Uncritical repetition of press releases presented as news is a big part of what has let us down in modern times. The race to present the latest "news" let's utter bs get the same treatment as facts. 

Good journalism around a Kremlin press release should have some sort of statement about the known history of the veracity of the source of the news. Simply saying it has not been verified implies that it will be. Pointing out that this source has not published anything remotely approaching a fact for the entire war in Ukraine and that this release should be approached with a great deal of scepticism until verified is better journalism.

To my mind if dealing with a known propaganda arm, the press release should not be published until verified. Getting the news out quickly is not the same as doing a good job with the news.

16 hours ago, Genie said:

That’s spending about 3 quarters of the race taking it easy too. 

Yeah, I remember him on the radio complaining that they wouldn't let him go faster. At the time he was half a second a lap quicker than anyone else. 

I'll have the F1 on in the background if I'm at home, but it is far from required viewing now.

Are the BBC really just publishing Russian propaganda now?  The one caveat they add, that the report has not been independently verified is simply not enough. Anything Russia say should come with a massive propaganda health warning or god forbid be verified before publishing. An uncritical repetition of a Kremlin press release is shoddy as hell journalism if you ask me.

3 minutes ago, Genie said:

7 years since the Brexit vote and we still don’t have a plan for managing without European labour.

Brexit wouldn’t have been such a shitshow if there was some joined up planning for being more self-sufficient. 

True, there were different levels of shitshow it could have been. May's red lines really got the ball rolling on the ultimate shitshow experience we are all in now, but it is just different levels of shitshow. 

This is what it looks like when the movable object meets the stoppable force. 

On 21/05/2023 at 14:36, Xann said:

Does that actually exist? 

Asking for a friend.

23 hours ago, bickster said:

They don't think they are racist though

This is an interesting point to me. Do you really believe they don't think they are racist? Or do you think deep down they know that they are, but they also know they can't say what they truly believe out loud any more? 

I personally think that they know and are super frustrated that they can't outwardly be as racist as they would like. 

3 hours ago, mikeyp102 said:

So this morning at work, I overhear a Liverpool fan talking about the game. His only input was that Martinez time wasted and it isn’t in the spirit of the game. If it wasn’t for that then Liverpool would’ve won the game. 
 

Showing why Liverpool fans are hated… no input about us dominating first half, no input how their midfield kicked us all game… it’s just the time waiting.. **** off. As for spirit of the game, has he never seen Salah dive and roll about all over the place 

Liverpool are the club the back pass rule was made for. They used to close out games constantly by the keeper rolling the ball to a defender a yard away, the defender passing it back and the keeper picking it up. They would happily do it for ages. 

Just now, stewiek2 said:

Has Fabinho got dodgy pics of the ref??

Yeah, he has pictures of him reffing.

First time I've been in this thread, is it for oxymorons?

I'm with Ash on this one

1 hour ago, will87 said:

So Wright-Philips has some banter with his dad the other week so the BBC thought it would be hilarious to have them both on the program, nevermind if he's actually any good as a pundit or not.

That was some proper BS nepotism. Amateur hour analysis tonight, makes it worthless watching the show.  May as well just watch the quick highlights on YouTube.

34 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

This part on nhs how ??

The tories been saying this was last 12 years its all good saying this is what you plan to do this? Nothing in there saying increase pay for nursing staff to attract them to sector

The scary bit for me is this....

Use spare capacity in the independent sector to treat NHS patients and bring waiting lists down.

Want to see what privatisation of the NHS looks like under this labour party, here it is. All of the Labour objectives can be completed by leaning on the private sector. 

Equally what I don't see and what screams at me from it's omission is a commitment to keep the NHS in public hands. If the use of the private sector is temporary with the plan to invest in capacity and then move away again they really need to be clear as I suspect this is not the case.

They have instead specifically dropped the commitment to reduce outsourcing. I get in the short term we have a health crisis to navigate, but there needs to be an overarching set of principles for the long term and if Labour can't provide them I'm entirely disappointed.

It's not just the nutjobs in the Tory party though. It's the labour party position too. Starmer set out his 5 point plan and it is goes on and on about the missed opportunities of Brexit. No rejoining the EU, or even the single market, no freedom of movement.

Look upon our politicians and despair.