I think I might be able to help you both here. The long typed bit with several paragraphs, under the title, is the article. This is the part that's written by the newspaper. The bit underneath the advertisements at the bottom of the article, under the heading, "comments", are comments written by readers. These aren't written by the newspaper.
Fair point Rob. If you wanna talk about the content of the papers we can. Which ones are strongly feminist or PC? I assume that before we start we can put The Express, The Mail (most visited news website in the world) and The Sun (still the most popular newspaper in Britain?) to one side? Now what about the others? I dunno for sure myself cos it's been a while since I lived in the UK but are any of The Times, Telegraph, Mirror now notable for how they push feminist propoganda?
Anyway! I must not come back to this thread! When it comes to me asking if The Telegraph has gone all militant feminist it's time to call it a day. Just one last thing though. Rob: you do acknowledge now that the BBC article on a survey that was published about women's experiences of sexual harassment was not biased because it focused on women, right? People will find you much more persuasive if you show that you alter your assertions and opinions when presented with new facts.
Also about half my comment was about the editorial slant of the actual papers. Do try to remember to notice the facts that do not support your current theories as well as the ones that do.
I barerly read newspapers, so I don't really know what they say tbh. I note however, that in selecting a newspaper article to try to demonstrate media bias against womens' rights etc, Powerspurs selected above an article from the notoriously most right wing mainstream newspaper in the UK, which complained about the alleged maltreatment that a woman had suffered. Far from being biased in any way at all against womens' rights, it appeared to present the item in a neutral and reasonable way. If this is the example of a bias against womens' rights and 'pc issues', then it would suggest that - at the very least - no such bias exists. Furthermore, whilst I can't identify particular newspapers, we have seen earlier in this discussion, examples of newspapers reporting on items such as the saatchi case and the proudman case, where vehemently pro feminist tweeters and bloggers have been quoted within published articles, without even the most rudimentary analysis or criticism. In fact, such stories tend only to exist because of the publication by mass media of online tweets etc, and making them the subject of articles, which create the news items. It's news, made by the news, and the stories in this subject area are consistently identifying allegations of mistreatment etc of women. What we dont see in the news, are the far more frequent success stories. It's manufactured news. Another example was the passport faisco last yar that hit the headlines after womens rights group complained that the new passport desin did not include enough historical figures who were women. The fact that this ridiculous issie was even brought to the public attention was absurd, and it's the news makers who are again responsible. I highlighted earlier an example of apparent BBC bias, and they strike me as a regular culprit on all aspects of this that I've identified in this post. Although not a broadcaster, a regular offender of utter garbabge pro pc stories / articles is Linkedin, which regularly highlights in its global recommended reading section, faricially pro pc articles. I saw one only yesterday that alinkedin focused on. The heading of the article accused employers of subsconsicously favouring white candidates. In fact, the data in the article itself, indicated that black people are not as good as maths or english as asian or white people. I have no idea whether this data was inaccurate, or if it was accurate what the causes were. But, the text of the article - as well as the heading - contrived to invalidly portray the data as indicating that recruiters were sublimally racist. The data did no such thing, but this didnt stop the author claiming it or Linkedin publishing it and recommending it to a global audience. This is a typical example, of journalism that not only makes invalid accusations of racism/sexism, but also perpetuates stereotyping itself, and undermines genuine cases of discriminatio, trivialsises the whole issue, and patronises those who it claims to argue in favour of. This is a regular problem, and part of the problem is, that feminism and the like, has actually become its own industry, which advertises itself by making its own 'news stories". That's a very dangerous situarion. It actually perpetuates discriminatatiin, adversarialism and a divide in socoety, rather than preventing it, which it claims is its purpose for being.
Did we ever get to the bottom of rachel riley getting her job due to her being discriminated against btw ?
Wouldn't have surprised me! The lazy tosser's been convicted today though, so there won't be any meeting or mating for us in the foreseeable future, I'm afraid. I think it's a bit odd that it's taken so long to lock him up, though. Considering that a big chunk of the report talks about unreported harassment, I think it would be obvious. If women are told that unwanted sexual jokes are banter and to ignore it, then what do you think men are told? If nothing else, including men in the survey would've given it something to compare the figures to. Wouldn't that show a more accurate picture of any harassment or discrimination? As the survey does makes the basic error of starting out with it's conclusion and working backwards, I doubt they were that interested. They got what they came for and that was enough for them, basically.
Completely agree with that. Also, the point made about the article being about harassment of women, doesnt explain why the paragraph about men reporting repeatedely declining sexual advances of individual women, was included in the first place and then removed. If I'm stupid for not realising what the article was about, how stupid does that make the journalist who wrote it ?
There is loads of research that supports the idea that people have a high tendency to have subconscious bias. This is hardly a surprising result as we are all formed by our experience. Most of the research I've seen suggests that there is little difference between men and women in this regard but the reason that it is a problem is that it is still the case that the vast majority of decision makers in the UK are white men, so the subconscious bias is almost inevitably going to have a negative effect on women and other racial groups This is a simple introduction https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/avoiding-unconscious-bias.htm I happen to think that the reason the Saatchi chairman was sacked was that his comments pretty much showed he wasn't aware of this stuff which is really poor in a senior level person
Just when you think that the Campaign That Keeps On Giving has dried up, old Donnie makes another balls up. Having sacked his campaign manager in late June, as the guy couldn't stop the bewigged one from saying stupid ****, he's now had to do it again. It turns out that the replacement, one Paul Manafort, may actually be a Russian agent! The Ukrainians have tied him to massive, multi-million cash payments from a pro-Russia group in that country. Those payments were then allegedly funneled on to lobbying firms in the US, in an attempt to influence public opinion there. Various intelligence agencies want a word, apparently. Oops! To be fair to Trump, it's not like he could've seen this coming. It's not like Manafort has a history of working with total and utter ****bags or anything. Ferdinand Marcos was a lovely bloke and that arms deal for political cash thing in France was a misunderstanding, clearly.
What a ****ing farce! The scary thing is, the American public might just buy it! Un-****ing-believable!.....
The ironic thing is that the president installed after the coup in Ukraine against this guy's man, was apparantly a CIA agent.
So, that epitome of tolerance and understanding (and intelligence) Nigel Farage has been chosen to help Trump kickstart his campaign. Interesting choice for someone looking to direct his image away from being a redneck bigot!! However, the worrying thing is listening to the Republican Trump supporters aligning themselves with Farage as a conqueror of the establishment and having won back his country. ****ing frightening!!
The thing is, if Trump had the background/nous/demeanour of Farage, Clinton would probably be a dead candidate walking. That Trump is trying to suggest he is the USA equivalent of Farage shows the depth of his deluded mind.
I think (and seriously hope) Trump would need more than to be a Farage-clone to be the next President - but he is either as deluded as you suggest, or a Democratic plant!!! Maybe he is the ultimate HIAG wummer
After spending three decades railing against how foreigners meddle with the way our country is governed, he flies out to the US to meddle with how their country is governed.
I watched the Farage speech, and it was well-delivered. But none of it is vaguely applicable to Trump. If Farage was never a "man of the people" because he was a "markets" trader etc, then Trump is 1000 times less so (the "system" he has played that gave him the joys of "Chapter 11" etc when the "little man" businesses would have died a death and so on) .
