Jump to content

Trust The 'News'?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, altus said:

But apparently not the impacts of the prioritisation of government subsidies.

 

You'll find plenty of people on here do understand the technology.

Can't see any reference to 'the impacts of the prioritisation of government subsidies' in that report.

6 minutes ago, butlers said:

Reuters news agency did a survey last year and BBC. News  was scored higher by Americans than any of the US national broadcasters

That doesn't surprise me at all - have listened to some American news recently?

Edited by RollingJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Star Tribune and Cincinnati Inquirer and Oregonian.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, butlers said:

Yes Star Tribune and Cincinnati Inquirer and Oregonian.

 

 

Quality reporting, was it?

 

Sorry,  you replied before my edit hit - I changed it to 'listened to some American news recently' as that was more relevant - I catch the odd bit on the BBC Parliament channel and marvel at its banality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Can't see any reference to 'the impacts of the prioritisation of government subsidies' in that report.

That'll be because it wasn't specifically referenced. Anybody who understands the technologies and the economic environment the telecoms providers operate under would realise their importance.

 

It's notable that you've gone from suggesting in post 23 that "there are those - who doesn't understand the differences in the technologies, would possibly read it as meaning if you don't have on, you can't have the other." to claiming in post 33 "Strange - it must be a Sheffield thing, because I posted the same query on another forum, and saw it already posted on another one I visit, and my point was accepted on both. But there again, both of these other forums are used by individuals who actually understand technology." So people who don't understand technology will get confused but people who do understand it will get confused. Whilst I can forgive confusion in the former group, the latter group need to take a break from focusing the technical details and look at it from a wider (i.e. economic) perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, altus said:

That'll be because it wasn't specifically referenced. Anybody who understands the technologies and the economic environment the telecoms providers operate under would realise their importance.

 

It's notable that you've gone from suggesting in post 23 that "there are those - who doesn't understand the differences in the technologies, would possibly read it as meaning if you don't have on, you can't have the other." to claiming in post 33 "Strange - it must be a Sheffield thing, because I posted the same query on another forum, and saw it already posted on another one I visit, and my point was accepted on both. But there again, both of these other forums are used by individuals who actually understand technology." So people who don't understand technology will get confused but people who do understand it will get confused. Whilst I can forgive confusion in the former group, the latter group need to take a break from focusing the technical details and look at it from a wider (i.e. economic) perspective.

Bolded bit - so how was it relevant in view of what was specifically referenced? You seen the full 'interview' or transcript of that discussion?

 

Non-bolded bit - the 'wider (i.e.  economic) perspective was not discussed in that report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Bolded bit - so how was it relevant in view of what was specifically referenced? You seen the full 'interview' or transcript of that discussion?

 

Non-bolded bit - the 'wider (i.e.  economic) perspective was not discussed in that report.

Rural telecoms infrastructure is rarely economic. Without government subsidies most of it wouldn't get built. That government funding inevitably distorts what gets provided and when because governments have their own priorities. It's also implicit in any discussion of rural telecoms infrastructure because without it the only thing to discuss was why there isn't any. Without it neither patchy mobile signals nor poor broadband provision will get fixed.

 

If you want to argue the financing of telecoms infrastructure is irrelevant to it's provision then please do. I doubt you'll be convincing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, altus said:

Rural telecoms infrastructure is rarely economic. Without government subsidies most of it wouldn't get built. That government funding inevitably distorts what gets provided and when because governments have their own priorities. It's also implicit in any discussion of rural telecoms infrastructure because without it the only thing to discuss was why there isn't any. Without it neither patchy mobile signals nor poor broadband provision will get fixed.

 

If you want to argue the financing of telecoms infrastructure is irrelevant to it's provision then please do. I doubt you'll be convincing.

Agree on the economic downside of rural telecoms - but as I seem to have to keep repeating, that was not part of the BBC report, which is why I keep asking for its relevance to the actual content of that report,  and the point of my original post was that Mr. Bakers parting shot (as reported) was, to say the least, disingenuous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Agree on the economic downside of rural telecoms - but as I seem to have to keep repeating, that was not part of the BBC report, which is why I keep asking for its relevance to the actual content of that report,  and the point of my original post was that Mr. Bakers parting shot (as reported) was, to say the least, disingenuous.

If you'd been arguing that the report did a poor job of helping readers understand Mr Baker's comments by providing some context I'd have agreed with you. For all we know he may have mentioned economic issues but the report omitted that.

 

Instead, you have been arguing that the report was inaccurate and Mr Baker's final comment was disingenuous. You haven't yet demonstrated either. If you still want to argue those points I suggest you try doing so. Just repeating that the report doesn't mention something that you have agreed is essential to any rural telecoms provision doesn't do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don’t have “news” anymore - we have a rolling feed of a myriad of issues that affect the world presented to us 24 hours a day.

 

The broadcasters preference for the issues are prioritised for us.

 

It’s a slippery slope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, makapaka said:

We don’t have “news” anymore - we have a rolling feed of a myriad of issues that affect the world presented to us 24 hours a day.

 

The broadcasters preference for the issues are prioritised for us.

 

It’s a slippery slope.

You mean like in the 1930's and the Daily Mail's support for the Blackshirts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Longcol said:

You mean like in the 1930's and the Daily Mail's support for the Blackshirts?

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So explain the difference. Pretty sure the Mail prioritised its owners agenda then - and still does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.