Trump interview with Piers Morgan

[looney]

Of course, your examples that the most well respected broadcast organisation in the world is really a tool of the Trotskyite left have been sourced from peer reviewed academic texts and journals beyond suspicion of any kind of partiality? Or are they from:

1) Migrantwatch,
2) Breitbart,
3) You, &
4) The Israeli Government.

You are, to rational debate, what David Dunn is to the Rabona.

Your losing it arn't you?

It doesn't matter how esteemed an organisation is if faced with examples of bias you either have to refute them or accept there is a case to answer. It really as that simple, not ad hominem attacks on DGs, myself, not baseless claims that Govenors would have sorted out bias if their was. you would need to show here the level of influence at editorial level.

As the BBC rather ironicly values it "Independence" that kind of oversight is going to be minimal to non-existant. But proove me wrong.Debunk my examples of bias, show that DGs etc tried to root out bias but didn't find any.

Its time for you to either shit or get of the pot.
Its not rocket science, well OK it is to you.

 

[looney]

A science graduate?

I'm not sure what relevance that has to the fact that you've made a total fool of yourself in this argument and failed miserably to prove your incorrect point but no, I'm neither science graduate nor postman/street cleaner.

If I were any of the above though, you'd still be wrong.

Claiming someone is wrong doesn't make it so.That would be evidence, what I have provided and neither you or stato have. So I was right for no science background as they would look for evidence. You dont need any it seems, so are you a high priest or a magician then? I'm guessing circus is nearer the mark.

 

[Stato]

Okay Looney, although I know this will be like trying to teach Norwegian to a duck, lets give it a go.

I don't have a science degree, but you may be surprised to learn that supporting your argument with evidence is also required when studying most subjects. In fact, at degree and postgraduate level, examiners are quite particular that candidates not only use evidence, but also source it and challenge it's credibility & reliability. The best kind of evidence would be primary source material. This is evidence gained from your own research. Research methods would have to be explained. Although first hand observation could be acceptable, its choice as a research method would probably need to be given more qualification and explanation than saying something like 'I was watching the BBC with these lefties and they were embarrassed.' So we'll put this 'evidence' to one side shall we?

In fact almost everything you have provided would not be considered evidence in academic terms. It would be considered opinion and hearsay. The only referenced piece of evidence you have provided is the link to Breitbart. This is a piece of secondary evidence. Academically, secondary material has to be treated more carefully, as it is subject to the interpretation of the person delivering the information. The most acceptable kind of secondary evidence would be that which has been published and subject to peer review. Candidates would still be expected to consider potential for bias or misinterpretation in the evidence they are relying upon to make their argument. It would not be acceptable to provide evidence from a source such as Breitbart without stating that it was established as a voice for the right and is liable to interpret news accordingly.

Which brings us to your link. This piece intends to make the argument that the BBC is culpable in bias because a drama it was involved in funding discussed the facts about emigration in a way that would encourage emigration. Here is the link to the producer's description of the drama, which obviously gives a different spin on the drama's intent than that given by the article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/where-we-work/africa/somalia/youth-radio-drama

To argue that bias was apparent, it would be necessary to consider the tone of the piece rather than cherry pick lines of fictional piece that support your point of view. Breitbart fails to do this, instead selecting one piece of dialogue which portrays a character offering advice to another character. This selection is given no context and it is not made clear whether the drama sees the advice being acted upon and, if so, what consequences are shown. The article offers no evidence other than the author's interpretation to suggest that the section is intended to promote emigration. The author, Nick Hallett, is apparently, a former research fellow of the Young Britons' Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Britons'_Foundation. He is working for and has a history of working for organisations that intend to promote right wing agendas and view points. Whilst it would be acceptable to use this piece as evidence, it would not be advisable to do so without providing this background information as it suggests a very strong potential for bias. In short, as a piece of evidence, the article is fairly worthless. It does not show evidence of bias, only the suggestion from Mr Hallett, whose motives should be questioned, that bias could be one interpretation. Furthermore it's subject is actually a drama rather than the BBC's news coverage.

I'll leave it to you to decide which of us "Is very good at this," but the University that awarded me an MBA with distinction seemed to think that I had submitted work that showed some understanding of the process.

 

[LlcoolJ]

Claiming someone is wrong doesn't make it so.That would be evidence, what I have provided and neither you or stato have. So I was right for no science background as they would look for evidence. You dont need any it seems, so are you a high priest or a magician then? I'm guessing circus is nearer the mark.

Before attempting to demean the standard of education of others it would probably be a good idea to get a basic grasp of English.

Oh and you're still wrong even with the "'evidence' what you have provided" (eh?). Keep digging though, it's funny.

 

[looney]

Before attempting to demean the standard of education of others it would probably be a good idea to get a basic grasp of English.

Oh and you're still wrong even with the "'evidence' what you have provided" (eh?). Keep digging though, it's funny.

Before attempting to demean the standard of education of others it would probably be a good idea to get a basic grasp of Dyslexia.

I only had to alter one word in your sentence to make you look a tool but keep on digging.

Here is todays BBC leftyism.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-35944803

Is it OK for white people to have dreadlocks?

Yes its the new racism of cultural appropriation. What the BBC forgot to mention it only applies to whites as the majority oppressor culture, its ok if blacks crib from white culture.

A more even handed title would be is CA Racist? But being a bunchof lefties they only see one kind of racism and thats from white people.

Its like how they ignore article 14 from Blacklivesmatter's constitution(so does the rest of the Media ATM), that all black men should be freed from prison.Bias is more often omitting to say things rather than what is said.

 

[looney]

Okay Looney, although I know this will be like trying to teach Norwegian to a duck, lets give it a go.

I don't have a science degree, but you may be surprised to learn that supporting your argument with evidence is also required when studying most subjects.

In fact almost everything you have provided would not be considered evidence in academic terms. It would be considered opinion and hearsay. The only referenced piece of evidence you have provided is the link to Breitbart. .

OK i'm going to break this down into 2 posts given the level of Obfusion you like to endulge in

Okay Looney, although I know this will be like trying to teach Norwegian to a duck, lets give it a go.

I don't have a science degree, but you may be surprised to learn that supporting your argument with evidence is also required when studying most subjects.

.

Those examples I posted are supporting evidence.If they are invalid the onus is on you to refute them. Referencing articles are part and parcel of research it doesn't matter if it Bretbart, the beano or the forteen times. You need to address this issue of the examples/evidence instead of looking for underhand smears all the way which leads me to.

In fact almost everything you have provided would not be considered evidence in academic terms. It would be considered opinion and hearsay. The only referenced piece of evidence you have provided is the link to Breitbart. .

Yes it would, by Opinions and hearsay(rhetoric) you mean conjecture and hypothesis. Which I did. Its up to you to show why my evidence is invalid..

Let me sow you how this works.

The example given in one of your links of rightwing bias is that business leaders get more airtime than Union leaders. Now to respond to this in a scientific mannerwould be such.

There are more business leaders than union leaders so would garner more airtime. A lot of inovation is in non unionised areas sosuch a claim is spurious. Then theres the argument of why workers groups need as much airtime vis consumer groups. Some Business airtime may not be relevent to Labour market issues

You see what ive done here? I showed you what science is and how it works.

 

[Albion my Albion]

What actually is wrong with Trumps policies?

He has no idea how to implement any of his poloicies.

 

[LlcoolJ]

Before attempting to demean the standard of education of others it would probably be a good idea to get a basic grasp of Dyslexia.

I only had to alter one word in your sentence to make you look a tool but keep on digging.

Great stuff, well done. Enjoy the high five with yourself.

However, it was you who brought up education sunshine so I'll let others decide who "looks like a tool" when it's backfired on you so spectacularly that you've had to pull out the last resort disability card (surely a tactic so low, obvious and desperate only a "sniveling leftie" schoolboy would attempt to employ it).

Enjoy your smug sense of superiority though. You're clearly far more intelligent than anyone else on here which is why nobody agrees with you. Just because of that of course. Not because you talk total bollocks. Not that. At all.... #keepthefaith

No more troll food from me btw so you are welcome to the last (illiterate) word sweetie. [emoji8]

 

[looney]

Which brings us to your link. This piece intends to make the argument that the BBC is culpable in bias because a drama it was involved in funding discussed the facts about emigration in a way that would encourage emigration. Here is the link to the producer's description of the drama, which obviously gives a different spin on the drama's intent than that given by the article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/where-we-work/africa/somalia/youth-radio-drama

To argue that bias was apparent, it would be necessary to consider the tone of the piece rather than cherry pick lines of fictional piece that support your point of view. Breitbart fails to do this, instead selecting one piece of dialogue which portrays a character offering advice to another character. This selection is given no context and it is not made clear whether the drama sees the advice being acted upon and, if so, what consequences are shown. The article offers no evidence other than the author's interpretation to suggest that the section is intended to promote emigration. The author, Nick Hallett, is apparently, a former research fellow of the Young Britons' Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Britons'_Foundation. He is working for and has a history of working for organisations that intend to promote right wing agendas and view points. Whilst it would be acceptable to use this piece as evidence, it would not be advisable to do so without providing this background information as it suggests a very strong potential for bias. In short, as a piece of evidence, the article is fairly worthless. It does not show evidence of bias, only the suggestion from Mr Hallett, whose motives should be questioned, that bias could be one interpretation. Furthermore it's subject is actually a drama rather than the BBC's news coverage.

I'll leave it to you to decide which of us "Is very good at this," but the University that awarded me an MBA with distinction seemed to think that I had submitted work that showed some understanding of the process.

Firstly I posted the link to contrast the type of article written on Bretbart with theBBCbut whatever.It has absolutley nothing to do with the "tone" or whatever other kind of magic you wish to bring into this argument.The Devil is in the Detail. If a play is giving out tips how to bend the rules or act illegally then it should have been picked up on by producers and editors, the fact it wasn't shows either a deliberate or Unconscious bias.

You have a MBA? cor wow, I bet it is not in science though.

I have an MA in Experimental Economics.
A fundamental aspect of the subject is design of experiments. Experiments may be conducted in the field or in laboratory settings, whether of individual or group behaviour.Or in my words testing the underlying assumptions of economic theories which tend to be based on human behaviour. This means evaluating various research methods for various bias and flaws, to develop or modify models to remove the problems.Involves a far bit of experiment psycology and universal application.

This isn't going to end well for you.

 

[looney]

Great stuff, well done. Enjoy the high five with yourself.

However, it was you who brought up education sunshine so I'll let others decide who "looks like a tool" when it's backfired on you so spectacularly that you've had to pull out the last resort disability card (surely a tactic so low, obvious and desperate only a "sniveling leftie" schoolboy would attempt to employ it).

Enjoy your smug sense of superiority though. You're clearly far more intelligent than anyone else on here which is why nobody agrees with you. Just because of that of course. Not because you talk total bollocks. Not that. At all.... #keepthefaith

No more troll food from me btw so you are welcome to the last (illiterate) word sweetie. [emoji8]

If you really want to find out who agrees with whom then start a poll on survey monkey. If you want help designing it I may be of assistance. I am quite possibly the most intelligent person you have come across which explains how uncomfortable you have become. If the people around you are not pulling you up on your bullshit, may i suggest you aquire a smarter circle of friends?

 

[Maldini]

I stood a few feet away from Trump in the Trump Tower New York a few years ago as he was chatting away to a few people.Never thought I could be standing next to a future American President. To those who don't think he can do it,they also would never have thought he could have got this far either so who knows what might happen.Probably America isn't really intending on making him President and will settle for dreary and bland Clinton.Miss Establishment who like all the dreary politicians we have says and does the right thing without a hint of ever being controversial.Trump might not win the Presidency but by getting this far he without doubt has the last laugh on everyone regardless on what happens next.Although I don't agree with the UK media's total obsession with covering everything and anything that happens in the states Trump at least has made the coverage regards the nominations interesting.

 

[looney]

He has no idea how to implement any of his poloicies.

Thats what advisers are for. Quite often these policy wonks spend a fair bit of time telling the elected incumbent politely where they can shove their flights of fancy.

 

[LlcoolJ]

If you really want to find out who agrees with whom then start a poll on survey monkey. If you want help designing it I may be of assistance. I am quite possibly the most intelligent person you have come across which explains how uncomfortable you have become. If the people around you are not pulling you up on your bullshit, may i suggest you aquire a smarter circle of friends?

[emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] Proper LOL. Thanks. [emoji1]

 

[Stato]

Its been fun Looney, but given the latest incomprehensible drivel you have provided in response to me and to LlcoolJ, its obvious that you are incapable of, or unwilling to, understand the debate you are attempting to engage in. Read back through your own posts and ask yourself what evidence you have actually provided and this may give you a pointer as to why I am giving up trying to engage with your hubristic, delusional ramblings.

No my MBA isn't in science. Unsurprisingly its in Business Administration: that's what the BA in MBA stands for. I hate to tell you, but your MA is not a science qualification either. If it were, it would be an MSc (Master of Science), not an MA (Master of Arts).

Bye then. I'll let you get on with claiming victory on the basis that I can't be bothered to waste any more time on you.

 

[KT17]

oh dear god, you either:

a) haven't been paying attention to anything except one interview
b) do not know what the word 'statemanlike' means
or c) have a vastly different interpretation of the word's meaning than i do

american politics is a mess and americans have a long history of voting against their own best interests but even they can't **** this one up.

You might want to check out the meaning of the word 'more'.

 

[GingerBeerMan]

If you really want to find out who agrees with whom then start a poll on survey monkey. If you want help designing it I may be of assistance. I am quite possibly the most intelligent person you have come across which explains how uncomfortable you have become. If the people around you are not pulling you up on your bullshit, may i suggest you aquire a smarter circle of friends?

You're so intelligent that you've yet to master basic rules of English grammar. Definitely a wind up account, not even a subtle one at that.

 

[beorhthelm]

You have a MBA? cor wow, I bet it is not in science though.

I have an MA in Experimental Economics.

an economist that doesnt know what a MBA is

 

[The Spanish]

The fact that every side believes that the BBC is biased against them is evidence that they actually do their job properly.

That gets trotted out from time to time but doesnt make it fact.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

That gets trotted out from time to time but doesnt make it fact.

Quite, it also doesn't in any way constitute 'evidence' that they are impartial.

 

[beorhthelm]

Quite, it also doesn't in any way constitute 'evidence' that they are impartial.

it sort of does: if you're upsetting everyone then you are not favouring anyone. the problem is people wont accept this in the whole, they'll come up with a number of examples that prove their perceived bias is there, in an individual peice, programme or series. you cant or shouldnt expect every single peice of output to be compeletly impartial and with out any bias, it would make for very convulted content that missed the important points to constantly present counterpoints. whats important is overall balance and impartiality.