The EU debate - Part III

It's about filling your empty existence.

 

You can apply the same to most outlets. The response should be to argue the issues, not simply dismiss them because of where they're from.

 

I'd disagree where The Excess is concerned.

They have a long, less than glorious history, of publishing non factual, sensationalist garbage.

It leads me, and most others of reasonable intellect, to dismiss anything they write that isn't straightforward news reporting.,

 

We should all learn from history. History tells me that articles published in the Fail or Express can safely be ignored as they are biased rubbish.

 

And many find the BBC to do the same on certain issues. Sometimes it's interesting to see why some topics are covered, as well as how they're covered.

 

and some would argue a fair amount on the BBC can fall into the same category. Have a look at the politics on many of the comedy shows as one example.

Neither is an excuse to avoid discussion of the issues.

 

The only 'issue' with The Excess is the untruthful, sensationalised garbage they print.

Apart from that, there's nothing to discuss...

 

Love the new sig Kustard. Stan is clearly occupying your tiny little mind. It's the kind of hysteria a kid would come out with

 

Then it should be easy to deconstruct the points they raise, and enlighten everyone to the wider issue., as people do with biased reports in other media outlets.

 

Anybody with a quarter of a brain know the wider issue.

Deconstructing the rubbish they write would be a good exercise for advance primary school kids. Far too easy for anybody else..

 

The Beeb, whilst having a slight leftward bias, do not indulge in the hysterical scaremongering that rags like The Fail & Excess do...

 

The more dishonest discrete bias of other outlets is simple enough to highlight too, but takes a lot more time and is equally meaningless.

People accept the media are dishonest, so it's simply not an argument to dismiss ones that are biased against your view, but not dismissive of the ones that support your view.

The solution is to not rely on the media for support of your views, but as a way of considering what the issues could be, and then getting a wider view before forming your own opinion.

It's reducing, but there are still too many that rely on media sound bites for their opinions.

 

I disagree. The bias in the state funded beeb is shameful. You only have to look at their coverage of brexit and the US elections.

 

There will always be an element of bias as journalists are regular people.

The constant use of the words "remoaners" and "lefties" by The Express is in no way closely replicated by other mainstream media outlets, regardless of their political leanings!

 

I'm very happy to discuss the issues, the facts behind them and people's own interpretation of them. I'm not interested in biased reporting from any source as that just obfuscates all of the above.

 

2 things firstly why not follow your own advice, and if you're going to post an article pass comment on it, that's generally how a debate works

Secondly, post the links, as the source IS a valid issue as the author and publication adds context, again, that's how it ****ing works

 

Anything you dont like you say is biased

 

Anything you don't like, you just label loony left wing, you ****ing bobble head.

 

So 8000 pages in and we are still working out how debate works?

 

Maybe they wouldn't have claimed it was "tax dodging" but they would have described it as "aggressive tax avoidance". It's quite clear when these schemes are offered and it is quite clear what the risks are. I never get involved in them because HMRC could view it as tax dodging.