OT: Apparently Irma's "graphics have been created to make it look like the ocean's having an exorcism"

In the UK, it is traditional that 3 years into its reign the government accuses the BBC of being biassed against it. That is true for /all/ governments, /both/ left wing and right wing. Most people quite reasonably take the view that implies the BBC is getting it Just About Right.

I wouldn't want to comment on NPR, but perhaps it is A Good Thing to have some balance to Fox/Limburger etc.

When I've been in the states it has seemed that you could make the same statement about most media - provided you replaced "liberal fanatics" with "right wing fanatics".

Most people here who have lived in the US make disparaging comments about US news "services", which are horrifyingly parochial and ignorant. E.g. "foreign news" == news from a different state, not country.

I think it's impossible to be totally unbiased, but NPR and BBC (as far as reporting US news) is fairly close. They don't have the usual sensationali sm that standard news networks need to draw in listeners, and they do stori es that are sometimes 5, 10 minutes long which would be unheard of on netwo rk news....that is, unless, it's something major like the hurricane which N BC spent nearly the entire 30 minute Nightly News on yesterday.

It may simply be difficult to get reporters who are extreme one way or anot her to work for NPR and BBC, not that this would be desirable, IMHO.

I'm more familiar with NPR than BBC, and I've heard reporters on NPR say ma ny times during a story something along the lines of "some say this is bein g blown out of proportion, what do you say to that" during some Trump story , for example. I do think NPR attempts to be unbiased, something I can't s ay for some other networks, for example Fox and MSNBC which unabashedly cat er to their own demographic.

Of the incidents of which I speak, no buts were included.

Only what suits their political agenda.

On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 12:25:34 AM UTC+10, snipped-for-privacy@notreal.com wrot e:

rote:

after

edia tamper

with images? And I'm not talking about anyone from either end of the polit ically extreme; I think most do not identify with them.

e or radar images for some ulterior motive is laughable and paranoid.

definition

er in the

that suggests that the current orthodoxy on anthropogenic global warming i s in any way suspect. He's been through the statistics to find examples tha t don't tie up with current news reporting (according to his understanding of what the reporters are saying, which is biased towards finding something he can diagree with). He an ex-TV weather front man, and doesn't seem to h ave any kind of academic qualification - which wouldn't have stopped him le arning enough to have useful opinions if he'd gone to the trouble, not that he seems to have done that.

earch and the LA Times says it's the 2nd strongest, The Daily Beast says it 's stronger than all others in 2017, and The Independent says one of the st rongest. The link you reference refers to IFL Science, a website I'm not f amiliar with.

ar network

iggest Atlantic hurricane ever is noteworthy. It's not like this is of any real significance; it's going to cause great property loss and some loss o f life regardless. And it's not like either political party is going to ga in anything significant weather it is or isn't. Exaggerating crowd sizes, on the other hand, is of obvious political importance.

g it in the article (minus the comments), and not finding it in this thread . But since you asked, this seems quite subjective to me. For example, a house that's damaged could just as well be destroyed if it has to be comple tely torn down and rebuilt.

yed, then

r mark

n adequate explanation. Reporters tend to record more material than makes i t to air, and editors have been known to take out the explanatory bits wher e the reporter might have said that while those house were destroyed, these houses were merely damaged. Explanation is vital, but it doesn't hold the viewer's attention like the image of a well-trashed house

an aerial

truction".

looked "destroyed" as opposed to "damaged"?

sidue down to the foundations and start over. What may still be standing ma y not be in good shape.

A house may look trashed and still be easily repairable?

can distinguish between "damaged" houses and "destroyed" houses in an aeria l view.

on are.

the

eet

not

ial

n"."

saw on a news broadcast. I can appreciate that you don't like the way the m edia sensationalises the news, but spectacularly intense hurricanes do do s ensational amounts of damage.

It's kind of difficult to report spectacular hurricane damage in a way that suits a particular political agenda. The damage tends to throw up images t hat every reporter will grab, no matter what the political implications.

How naive.

So naive you can't resist feeding the troll ?>:-} ...Jim Thompson

-- | James E.Thompson | mens | | Analog Innovations | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at

I'm looking for work... see my website.

Thinking outside the box...producing elegant & economic solutions.

s after

media tamper

d with images? And I'm not talking about anyone from either end of the pol itically extreme; I think most do not identify with them.

ite or radar images for some ulterior motive is laughable and paranoid.

he definition

ever in the

ng that suggests that the current orthodoxy on anthropogenic global warming is in any way suspect. He's been through the statistics to find examples t hat don't tie up with current news reporting (according to his understandin g of what the reporters are saying, which is biased towards finding somethi ng he can diagree with). He an ex-TV weather front man, and doesn't seem to have any kind of academic qualification - which wouldn't have stopped him learning enough to have useful opinions if he'd gone to the trouble, not th at he seems to have done that.

search and the LA Times says it's the 2nd strongest, The Daily Beast says it's stronger than all others in 2017, and The Independent says one of the strongest. The link you reference refers to IFL Science, a website I'm not familiar with.

hear network

biggest Atlantic hurricane ever is noteworthy. It's not like this is of a ny real significance; it's going to cause great property loss and some loss of life regardless. And it's not like either political party is going to gain anything significant weather it is or isn't. Exaggerating crowd sizes , on the other hand, is of obvious political importance.

ing it in the article (minus the comments), and not finding it in this thre ad. But since you asked, this seems quite subjective to me. For example, a house that's damaged could just as well be destroyed if it has to be comp letely torn down and rebuilt.

royed, then

ter mark

an adequate explanation. Reporters tend to record more material than makes it to air, and editors have been known to take out the explanatory bits wh ere the reporter might have said that while those house were destroyed, the se houses were merely damaged. Explanation is vital, but it doesn't hold th e viewer's attention like the image of a well-trashed house

d an aerial

estruction".

t looked "destroyed" as opposed to "damaged"?

residue down to the foundations and start over. What may still be standing may not be in good shape.

? A house may look trashed and still be easily repairable?

e can distinguish between "damaged" houses and "destroyed" houses in an aer ial view.

tion are.

r the

feet

is not

erial

ion"."

u saw on a news broadcast. I can appreciate that you don't like the way the media sensationalises the news, but spectacularly intense hurricanes do do sensational amounts of damage.

that suits a particular political agenda. The damage tends to throw up imag es that every reporter will grab, no matter what the political implications .

Easy to say. Hard to document.

Standard troll one-liner. It is - in fact - an unsupported claim, and not one that Taxed and Spent would remotely capable of supporting, if he had enough sense to realise that it did need supporting.

If he could show that right-wing media (aka Fox News) systematically picked up different images from those exploited by more middle of the road media (like The Guardian) he might have a case, but that's well beyond his powers.

All this is way beyond Jim.

Granting that Taxed and Spent is a troll, and I'm not, Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson has confirmed his condition. Not for the first time.

If Jim had a better grasp of what he was doing, he'd probably qualify as a troll as well.

Tom Gardner wrote on 9/11/2017 2:54 AM:

That is a pretty ignorant comment. In the US we don't have "state" news really. We have local news which is often for the local city and surrounding area and national news. Many states are just as varied as the entire country.

So was the first statement, which makes it naive.

rote:

ays after

he media tamper

red with images? And I'm not talking about anyone from either end of the p olitically extreme; I think most do not identify with them.

llite or radar images for some ulterior motive is laughable and paranoid.

the definition

t ever in the

hing that suggests that the current orthodoxy on anthropogenic global warmi ng is in any way suspect. He's been through the statistics to find examples that don't tie up with current news reporting (according to his understand ing of what the reporters are saying, which is biased towards finding somet hing he can diagree with). He an ex-TV weather front man, and doesn't seem to have any kind of academic qualification - which wouldn't have stopped hi m learning enough to have useful opinions if he'd gone to the trouble, not that he seems to have done that.

ck search and the LA Times says it's the 2nd strongest, The Daily Beast say s it's stronger than all others in 2017, and The Independent says one of th e strongest. The link you reference refers to IFL Science, a website I'm n ot familiar with.

I hear network

he biggest Atlantic hurricane ever is noteworthy. It's not like this is of any real significance; it's going to cause great property loss and some lo ss of life regardless. And it's not like either political party is going t o gain anything significant weather it is or isn't. Exaggerating crowd siz es, on the other hand, is of obvious political importance.

nding it in the article (minus the comments), and not finding it in this th read. But since you asked, this seems quite subjective to me. For example , a house that's damaged could just as well be destroyed if it has to be co mpletely torn down and rebuilt.

stroyed, then

water mark

is an adequate explanation. Reporters tend to record more material than mak es it to air, and editors have been known to take out the explanatory bits where the reporter might have said that while those house were destroyed, t hese houses were merely damaged. Explanation is vital, but it doesn't hold the viewer's attention like the image of a well-trashed house

wed an aerial

"destruction".

hat looked "destroyed" as opposed to "damaged"?

e residue down to the foundations and start over. What may still be standin g may not be in good shape.

be? A house may look trashed and still be easily repairable?

eye can distinguish between "damaged" houses and "destroyed" houses in an a erial view.

uction are.

ter the

ew feet

t is not

aerial

ction"."

you saw on a news broadcast. I can appreciate that you don't like the way t he media sensationalises the news, but spectacularly intense hurricanes do do sensational amounts of damage.

y that suits a particular political agenda. The damage tends to throw up im ages that every reporter will grab, no matter what the political implicatio ns.

Which statement did you mean was "the first statement"? Be specific - quote the statement, when it was posted, and by whom.

I'm not really interested in arguing with a half-wit who can't make it clea r what he (or she) is talking about, though I'm happy to persist in showing him (or her) up as a half-wit.

bye bye Billy!

Nonetheless it is a widespread perception. I have had several (~10) people make similar comments to me over the decades. Most of the people did not know each other and there was significant time diversity, so it is unlikely their statements are based on an echo chamber.

ote:

days after

the media tamper

pered with images? And I'm not talking about anyone from either end of the politically extreme; I think most do not identify with them.

tellite or radar images for some ulterior motive is laughable and paranoid.

ge the definition

est ever in the

ything that suggests that the current orthodoxy on anthropogenic global war ming is in any way suspect. He's been through the statistics to find exampl es that don't tie up with current news reporting (according to his understa nding of what the reporters are saying, which is biased towards finding som ething he can diagree with). He an ex-TV weather front man, and doesn't see m to have any kind of academic qualification - which wouldn't have stopped him learning enough to have useful opinions if he'd gone to the trouble, no t that he seems to have done that.

uick search and the LA Times says it's the 2nd strongest, The Daily Beast s ays it's stronger than all others in 2017, and The Independent says one of the strongest. The link you reference refers to IFL Science, a website I'm not familiar with.

I hear network

the biggest Atlantic hurricane ever is noteworthy. It's not like this is of any real significance; it's going to cause great property loss and some loss of life regardless. And it's not like either political party is going to gain anything significant weather it is or isn't. Exaggerating crowd s izes, on the other hand, is of obvious political importance.

finding it in the article (minus the comments), and not finding it in this thread. But since you asked, this seems quite subjective to me. For examp le, a house that's damaged could just as well be destroyed if it has to be completely torn down and rebuilt.

destroyed, then

h water mark

y is an adequate explanation. Reporters tend to record more material than m akes it to air, and editors have been known to take out the explanatory bit s where the reporter might have said that while those house were destroyed, these houses were merely damaged. Explanation is vital, but it doesn't hol d the viewer's attention like the image of a well-trashed house

howed an aerial

s "destruction".

that looked "destroyed" as opposed to "damaged"?

the residue down to the foundations and start over. What may still be stand ing may not be in good shape.

o be? A house may look trashed and still be easily repairable?

e eye can distinguish between "damaged" houses and "destroyed" houses in an aerial view.

truction are.

after the

few feet

hat is not

an aerial

ruction"."

w you saw on a news broadcast. I can appreciate that you don't like the way the media sensationalises the news, but spectacularly intense hurricanes d o do sensational amounts of damage.

way that suits a particular political agenda. The damage tends to throw up images that every reporter will grab, no matter what the political implicat ions.

uote the statement, when it was posted, and by whom.

clear what he (or she) is talking about, though I'm happy to persist in sho wing him (or her) up as a half-wit.

Mission accomplished.

Ignorance and arrogance don't trump reality.

What did you expect? It's Slowman. He's a waste of bandwidth. Just killfile him.

No, but Trump really has ignorance and arrogance.