Brussels Bombing

NTA

The survey shows that both major parties got equal air time, or column inches, but without knowing whether they were positive or negative column inches, who can say which way they're biased? 
The problem is, if you analysed those stories, your own bias would skew the results. So you're never going to get a clean result. 
And if you did get as close as possible, there would be a shit load of people who disagree with it anyway. 
Look at climate change or wind farm syndrome. Never ending, because people don't want to agree with the research. They claim conspiracy...

Baron Silas Greenback

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="568628" data-time="1459397238">
<div>
The survey shows that both major parties got equal air time, or column inches, but without knowing whether they were positive or negative column inches, who can say which way they're biased? 
The problem is, if you analysed those stories, your own bias would skew the results. So you're never going to get a clean result. 
And if you did get as close as possible, there would be a shit load of people who disagree with it anyway. 
Look at climate change or wind farm syndrome. Never ending, because people don't want to agree with the research. They claim conspiracy...
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
Good post until, the last sentence.I You make it sound like science and research should be above continued debate and discussion. It has not ended for many people because they believe the research is shonky an the system profiting from it is corrupt.

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="568626" data-time="1459396502">
<div>
Yes... and the info is still just as completely and utterly pointless. Just talking about a side means NOTHING when it comes to content bias. As I said Obama go more air time on Fox last election than his rival. His 'side' got LOTS of coverage. Going by that 'research' Fox has a pro Obama bias.
 
So is Fox biased or not? 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I refer you to my <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.daimenhutchison.com/rugby/index.php/topic/41856-brussels-bombing/page-5#entry568619'>previous post</a> which you seem to have quoted yet not understood. It's difficult to explain this more clearly; that particular test was whether they gave 'significantly more time to one side of politics during elections', not whether the time spent on either side was biased.

Baron Silas Greenback

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="568645" data-time="1459403326">
<div>
I refer you to my <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.daimenhutchison.com/rugby/index.php/topic/41856-brussels-bombing/page-5#entry568619'>previous post</a> which you seem to have quoted yet not understood. It's difficult to explain this more clearly; that particular test was whether they gave 'significantly more time to one side of politics during elections', not whether the time spent on either side was biased. 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
No I got it , you repeating yourself does not make the research any more credible when it comes to deciding bias. And if you understand it as well as you claim, you are doing a piss poor job of showing it.
 
Do you think Fox is biased?

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="568646" data-time="1459403788">
<div>
No I got it 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
No you really didn't. Because if you did you wouldn't be moving the goal posts with your ridiculous follow up question about the 'fair and impartial' Fox News.
 
For the last time: The test in question is not whether they treated with contempt one side of politics and submitting their policies to biased critique whilst putting a halo around the opposition, but if they gave 'significantly more time to one side of politics during elections'.

Baron Silas Greenback

<div> </div>
<div>Yes I got it. My mistake was thinking you were actually trying to make a valid point in relation to my point about bias. You clearly were not. My mistake, I gave you more credit than you deserved.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I thought when you talked of bias in post 119, you were talking about bias in the context discussed in this thread instead you just bought up a topic nobody was discussing and that was completely and utterly irrelevant.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But have fun with your quaint little study that would also show that Fox news is biased towards Obama and Whaleloil is biased towards Labour.. great work.. </div>

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="568651" data-time="1459404750">
Yes I got it. My mistake was thinking you were actually trying to make a valid point in relation to my point about bias. You clearly were not. My mistake, I gave you more credit than you deserved.
</blockquote>
 No, your mistake was thinking this was all about you and your continual and baffling misunderstanding of the link I provided. 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
I thought when you talked of bias in post 119, you were talking about bias in the context discussed in this thread instead you just bought up a topic nobody was discussing and that was completely and utterly irrelevant.
</blockquote>
 That claim may have some validity if no one had mentioned tv outlet bias, <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.daimenhutchison.com/rugby/index.php/topic/41856-brussels-bombing/page-3#entry568031'>specifically</a> <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.daimenhutchison.com/rugby/index.php/topic/41856-brussels-bombing/page-4#entry568450'>the ABC</a>.

Rancid Schnitzel

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="568654" data-time="1459405245">
<div>
No, your mistake was thinking this was all about you and your continual and baffling misunderstanding of the link I provided. 

 That claim may have some validity if no one had mentioned tv outlet bias, <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.daimenhutchison.com/rugby/index.php/topic/41856-brussels-bombing/page-3#entry568031'>specifically</a> <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.daimenhutchison.com/rugby/index.php/topic/41856-brussels-bombing/page-4#entry568450'>the ABC</a>.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I was the one who brought up the ABC. Are you saying that the info you linked to above proves that the ABC does not have a left wing bias?

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="568658" data-time="1459405918">I was the one who brought up the ABC.</blockquote>Yeah I know that... <blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">Are you saying that the info you linked to above proves that the ABC does not have a left wing bias?</blockquote> As well as anyone has proved anything about media bias relating to the ABC. Admittedly there's not a lot of studies that look at it, but the problem is the ones that have been done don't show the bias people complain about. So we come back to the issue of cognitive bias when decrying the alleged partisanship - just because they're giving your politician a grilling doesn't make them biased. Particularly when you'd expect that Government Ministers would be interviewed more often and held accountable.

Rancid Schnitzel

So we're back to the issue of whether those particular studies actually prove anything. For the reasons given by 3 posters above, I'd say they don't do anything of the sort.
 
As mentioned, you could probably apply the same methodology to Fox News and get the same result. Would that then make Fox News fair and balanced? Of course it wouldn't.

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="568674" data-time="1459407470">As mentioned, you could probably apply the same methodology to Fox News and get the same result. Would that then make Fox News fair and balanced? Of course it wouldn't.</blockquote> If you applied the same methodology as that in question to Fox News it might well show that they spend 'significantly more time to one side of politics during elections'. Or not. It's just one among many measures listed in the Guardian article, don't get hung up about it as if it's the only one. It's not.

Rancid Schnitzel

I'm not getting hung up about it, I just think it's a really flawed method of testing bias.

NTA

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="568630" data-time="1459397654">Good post until, the last sentence.I You make it sound like science and research should be above continued debate and discussion. It has not ended for many people because they believe the research is shonky an the system profiting from it is corrupt.</blockquote>
 
I don't think science is above further discussion. That is the very nature of science - it is not a destination, it is a journey. 
There's a difference, because bias is perception and opinion, that cannot be empirically measured. 
And at the risk of jangling Winger's spider senses, if you're swimming against the current of research on climate change, and all the observable facts and evidence compiled, then best of luck to you. 
Debate the degree of effect on this topic by all means, because that is where the science is moving. 
I think shonky climate science is probably going to be a metric shit load cheaper than shonky fossil fuel dealings, based on the evidence. 
In any case, their capitalist leanings should be applauded, right?

Baron Silas Greenback

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="568670" data-time="1459406970">
<div>
Yeah I know that... 
 
As well as anyone has proved anything about media bias relating to the ABC. Admittedly there's not a lot of studies that look at it, but the problem is the ones that have been done don't show the bias people complain about. 
So we come back to the issue of cognitive bias when decrying the alleged partisanship - just because they're giving your politician a grilling doesn't make them biased. Particularly when you'd expect that Government Ministers would be interviewed more often and held accountable.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
Way to miss the point yet again. The studies dont show a lack of the bias people accuse them of either. That study shows nothing useful at all in relation to the bias people were accusing the ABC of having, yet you decided to share it anyway, presumably so you had a convenient straw man or could obfuscate.
 
And is cognitive bias your phrase of the week that you dont understand?

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="568684" data-time="1459408434">
I'm not getting hung up about it, I just think it's a really flawed method of testing bias.
</blockquote>
 
Certainly if it was the only one and that was the start and finish of it. It measures the time during an election because outside of it it is common sense that they would devote more time to the incumbent party than the opposition. So you'd ask are they spending vastly more time on one party than the other? Does it make a difference which party has formed government? Is that coverage obsequious for one party and consistently negative for another regardless of which party is in power? 
 
That's why the article has more than one measure. The dissonance inherent in watching a political figure or party you support prevented from using the interview as a political platform as opposed to the political figure who isn't taken to task enough... If we're honest that's something we all suffer from to varying degrees. 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="568695" data-time="1459412633">
Way to miss the point yet again. The studies dont show a lack of the bias people accuse them of either. That study shows nothing useful at all in relation to the bias people were accusing the ABC of having
</blockquote>
 Which study? The <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.andrewleigh.org/pdf/MediaSlant.pdf'>Gans and Leigh one</a>? Hahaha holy fuck. As for the article in response to the claims that the ABC, as a publicly funded broadcaster, isn't balanced or impartial: '<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.daimenhutchison.com/rugby/index.php/topic/41856-brussels-bombing/page-3#entry568031'>Same with ABC in Australia. If a commercial media player wants to go left or right I couldn't give a shit. But when a publicly funded broadcaster refuses to be balanced then that is a disgrace.</a>' 
The article actually lists a range of measure to test whether it it biased:
<ul class="bbc"><li>time spent covering different political parties</li>
<li>public trust as a proxy</li>
<li>complaints, and</li>
<li>media slant.</li>
</ul>Certainly more than you've offered. 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
And is cognitive bias your phrase of the week that you dont understand?
</blockquote>
 Is transference your new coping mechanism?

Baron Silas Greenback

You just keep repeating the same diversions.
That study does refute in any way the claim that the ABC is biased in the context that people were talking about in this thread.

No Quarter

<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78431210/spying-without-a-warrant-spy-agencies-utilise-new-power-under-antiterror-legislation'>http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78431210/spying-without-a-warrant-spy-agencies-utilise-new-power-under-antiterror-legislation</a>
 
I made the mistake of reading some of the Stuff comments on this article. Some of these people are living in a fucking fantasy world, where they think the Government should do no surveillance on anyone as nothing bad will ever happen in NZ.
 
This comment gained many likes: "East Germany wasn't even close to what we all live under now in terms of Global State mass spying technology and we are 'claiming' to be a free and democratic country with liberties and rights!"
 
That's absolutely fucking ridiculous. A colleague at work knows people from East Germany and they said when they peeled back the wallpaper on their flat, it was littered with bugs (I.E. the police listening in on their conversations at home). NZ is fucking nothing like that.
 
I just don't think these people really understand how in the dark we are about potential threats that the government need to deal with on a regular basis. I was privy to a tour of the Spark NOC fairly recently and the guy showed us a map that gave a visual representation of all the cyber attacks that were happening in the world. Basically every country was absolutely hammering each other with thousands of attempts per second to hack into each others systems. There's a fucking massive cyber war going on every second of every day that nobody has any idea even exists.
 
It is noticeable how much Obama has aged since taking office. I can't imagine the decisions he would have to make on a daily basis based on information collected by intelligence agencies.
 
Given the increasing frequency of terror (don't like that word) attacks and the fact that NZ has not had any I think I'm willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt on this.

Catogrande

The surveillance state that is now the UK tends to polarise views. There is the oft quoted "but we must fight terrorism in any way we can and only we know how to do this", which on the face of it seems sensible. Obviously terrorism= bad. But now there are cameras up all over the bloody place. Terrorism? Really? The bloody CCTV footage can't even provide a good enough image to a allow for a prosecution when some poor soul gets assaulted or raped but it can read your car registration from 100 yards away. There have been instances, and I'm not joking here, where local councils have installed surveillance equipment under the terrorism excuse/budget and have then used them to spy on people for putting their rubbish bins out on the wrong day.
 
You may want to give your Government the benefit of the doubt on this but I wouldn't go that far over here.

No Quarter

Yeah, London is the most "watched" city in the world with all the CCTV footage, and I can see how it can be taken too far and used for the wrong reasons. I can't really comment on England obviously, but NZ is one of the least corrupt countries in the world however listening to the seemingly growing number of idiots over here you'd think we were all living under an oppressive dictatorship of the evil John Key who is personally listening to your every word and will swoop in and have you detained if you say the wrong thing. It's so far from reality but these people seem to have convinced themselves otherwise, I really do wonder how their brains operate. They just live for a conspiracy.

Catogrande

Well there's the problem NQ. Just think how stupid the average person is and then think that 50% of the population is even more stupid.

The Silver Fern

Brussels Bombing