Government publish official updated guidelines; Box Hill bike shop claims telephoto lens antics forced closure; Brighton gets cycle lane on major A road; Will latest lockdown regs change our riding?; Uttrup Ludwig has a sh*t day + more on the live blog

Simon E wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

Translation: I refuse to challenge my predetermined views by reading anything outside my echo chamber.

That may be true but every time I click a link to a vaguely right wing media source it's either made up of utter drivel, complete bollocks or bare-face lies... or a combination of all three. No-one is really surprised if the Sun and its counterpoint the Mirror are like that, they are aimed at people with little intellect and no interest in facts, but the views expressed in the more 'serious' papers is a geuinely serious problem for democracy.

The headline referred to above is a fair example. I know the Torygraph has long been referred to the Conservative party's in-house newsletter but it stopped being even remotely even-handed in reporting news and current affairs some time ago.

Thanks for saving me the trouble of writing that.  Was it only last week that there was a report about how the British media is the least trusted in Europe?  Strangely not reported by the msm.

Bear in mind that the headline is written by the sub editors and designed to create interest.

The author has nothing to do with it.

I'm not claiming that the Telegraph is unbiased, far from it, but it is an important counterweight to the bias of the Guardian.

If you read them both you can get a reasonable idea if what is actually happening in the world.

If you just stick to one you're basically blinkering yourself to a huge amount of information that is routinely omitted because it doesn't fit the narrative that the editors are promoting.

The Guardian is actually far worse for this than the Telegraph.

Both have their fair share of drivel, bollocks and lies. The challenge is recognising it in your own favoured columns or papers. The only way to do that reliably is to read counterpoints in ideologically different papers.

Refusing to read 'right wing' sources just leaves you vulnerable to manipulation by the 'left wing' papers you choose to read.

Rich_cb wrote:

The Guardian is actually far worse for this than the Telegraph.

How wonderful it must be to be totally, utterly, completely objective and be able to point out the biases of others while having none whatsoever of your own.  Who was it who said that self-delusion is the most powerful force on earth?

Spotting omissions doesn't require you to be free of bias.

It simply requires you to have the ability to read.

If I read the coverage of a subject in the guardian then read the coverage of the same subject in the telegraph it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to notice if there are facts being deliberately omitted from one or both papers.

This happens more frequently in the guardian.

If you refuse to read alternative sources of news then you are just allowing yourself to be manipulated.

Rich_cb wrote:

Spotting omissions doesn't require you to be free of bias. It simply requires you to have the ability to read. If I read the coverage of a subject in the guardian then read the coverage of the same subject in the telegraph it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to notice if there are facts being deliberately omitted from one or both papers. This happens more frequently in the guardian. If you refuse to read alternative sources of news then you are just allowing yourself to be manipulated.

Did Dunning and Kruger acknowledge your contribution to their research?  As a subject obviously.

Are you claiming it's difficult to spot differences between two articles?

It's basic comprehension.

I'm hardly claiming mastery of string theory.

It's still too early to accurately critique any country's approach to the virus, which is going to be around for years. What's going to happen when hermetically-sealed New Zealand wants to open itself up to the rest of the world?  Will Germany's lead on testing make any difference to its death toll in the end?   Should the UK have gone into lockdown earlier?  Should we have applied lockdown only to vulnerable groups?  There is no consensus on this amongst scientists and no consensus amongst the public.  There is no "best way" to deal with an unknown, moving target like Covid-19.

Yes, we all have our own different opinions, but anyone claiming to know what's been done rightly and wrongly by the government of any country is calling the winner of the London marathon at Cutty Sark.

It seems to me that a section of the British public is simply unwilling or unable to make a judgement about how to live their lives. The media largely seems to want a tailored laundry list for every person in the country - anything else is unclear, too muddled.

I'm no fan of Johnson, but you don't need to be a professor of English to understand from Sunday's broadcast that it's time to return to the workplace if you need to be there to do your job, if you can get there safely and stay safe once there, and don't have childcare issues.

Exactly.

I don't think it's that complicated, people just need to take a small amount of personal responsibility.

Rich_cb wrote:

The Guardian is actually far worse for this than the Telegraph.

Is that so?

But is omitting certain items of information the main problem? While I'd not ever be as complacent as to say that the Guardian is 'accurate' the perspective of its owners and editors is one I am far more comfortable with than the billionaires that bankroll (and most certainly steer the perspective of) the Telegraph.

I'd suggest that looking at the subject matter, the emphasis and how they are framed is informative. Do I want to experience a xenophobic world view or an inclusive one? Flag-waving anti-EU royalists trying to protect a system of privilege and inherited wealth? Does my main news source stand up for the rights of people on minimum wage or does it argue for tax cuts for the rich and laws to benefit corporations and supress employees? Does it probe into ministers' international connections or does it gloss over those awkward trade deals and private meetings with dubious characters? I know which one I prefer to use and I'd want it to do that regardless of which party is in power (and to scrutinise the opposition parties equally). 

I don't have the time and energy to read and analyse the coverage from multiple sources; sometimes one is too much.

That just comes across as hopelessly naïve.

You are relying on one source of news leaving yourself entirely ignorant of any information that your chosen source chooses to omit.

Omitting vital pieces of information is incredibly important. Often information will come to light that completely undermines the editorial position. The responsible thing to do would be to include coverage of that information and allow the readers to make up their own minds. What usually happens is that the inconvenient facts are simply ignored.

As I've said previously, in my experience this happens most often and most obviously in the guardian. The telegraph, while clearly still having an editorial line, does appear to allow far more pluralist viewpoints than the guardian.

If you want to be informed you need to read multiple sources.

Try a free trial of the telegraph, read it with an open kind and consider whether it's healthy to have your own preconceptions challenged? Hint: it very much is.

If you really can't abide the telegraph you could do the same with the Economist. You'll often find information in there that concisely dismantles the opinions in the guardian and the telegraph.

brooksby wrote:

So, like pretty much every other time he's spoken to the public.  Or to Parliament.  Or to the media...

And of course, there was the inevitable lie about doing hundreds of thousands of tests a day when they haven't even got to 100,000; unless you count the ones they've posted that is.

eburtthebike wrote:

brooksby wrote:

So, like pretty much every other time he's spoken to the public.  Or to Parliament.  Or to the media...

And of course, there was the inevitable lie about doing hundreds of thousands of tests a day when they haven't even got to 100,000; unless you count the ones they've posted that is.

Turns out there were a lot more lies https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGyPIj0JvnA&fbclid=IwAR3vQt45C5TcxPcVpNe...