Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

    • davemorton
    • By davemorton 30th Nov 18, 11:43 AM
    • 27,218Posts
    • 325,371Thanks
    Elite: Is this table taken please?
    • #1
    • 30th Nov 18, 11:43 AM
    Elite: Is this table taken please? 30th Nov 18 at 11:43 AM
    Just looking for a spare quiet table in the corner of the arms for a few exiled elite to chat, is this table free please?
    “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
    Juvenal, The Sixteen Satires
Page 602
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 18th Oct 19, 8:44 PM
    • 21,480 Posts
    • 270,301 Thanks
    Was on the news I use this shop alot
    Originally posted by bubbs
    But are we to believe it?
    I think we are on this occasion, unfortunately.

    But - even on this topic - I had have a news report some months back that gave me a misleading impression from its rolling headline throughout the day only for me later to discover what I thought was the truth, from more detailed information, but then I discovered the more detailed information was in fact the misleading thing and the original headline had been true. They had quoted a job loss number for an organisation - a completely different one to this report now - but failed to make clear it included job losses already announced several months ago (so I thought they were announcing that day the total to be lost rather than a cumulative figure) - the original report referred to a specific department of the organisation and suggested only jobs in that area were going - in fact the figure was for the organisation as a whole, so it was not so limited although the figure for the organisation (there were obviously more jobs going than just those in one of the sections of the organisation) turned out to be correct, even though some of it had been already announced. I thought I had been misled, got the truth, but then found that "truth" wasn't true and I had been misled: I reverted to the original position, as the figure it gave was correct although it was across the organisation and some of those losses had already been announced - the interim report (the one in between the first and third airings - the third of which, added to the others, finally I believe gave me the full truth) in between gave me the impression they had all been announced that day when this was not true.

    It therefore took the whole day (breakfast to after eleven p.m.) for the News Channel to inform me, by its third report late at night, that it's first reporting, throughout the daytime was correct, and via additional information that only broadcast mid-evening (and it was not a developing story through the day) that gave me a very different impression in revealing in fact other jobs in the organisations were also being lost. And I discovered the job losses announced several months ago (and now included in the cumulative total to be lost) only by my own further research on a different news outlet online that I only did when the second report's information came to light - without this I wouldn't even have checked what the position really was.

    To clarify, I am also someone who tends to keep the news on all day (as part, no doubt, of an autistic specialist interest of mine and doesn't get bored with the repetition of it except on rare occasions that probably go well beyond most people's tolerance - they would have switched off within a few hours, I keep going for days on end and only occasionally does something bore me enough to switch off) so sometimes the news that people see at parts of the day would not make them aware of the facts (in fact often the news that gets through to BBC One (and I assume ITV and Channel 4 and 5 News too) is the worst on that; only by watching the News Channel outside of this, which fewer people do, do you get a proper picture of the truth rather than, it seems to me, a somewhat simplistic and misleading picture on the mainstream news away from the special reports. So I would ask you to bear that in mind, especially in an election campaign later on, in your views on politicians, especially those that use simple slogans (no names mentioned here) that are superficial and will turn out not to be the truth. This is partly why our democracy, in my view, is being threatened by the public voting for falsehoods as a result of their concentration on a simple overall picture and failure to pay attention to the detail as people generally are just bored and not interested in the important matters. The tactic is pick a simple one-line slogan, often one that is actually untrue, and repeat and repeat for weeks and months on end as people then come to believe it as they come to say it in their heads. I am trying to counteract such misinformation - and I am failing, because my corrections do not have wide circulation).

    So it can be more complicated than these news articles sometimes - and I don't know what is or isn't true in what is stated in the article, though I imagine the information is correct. Sooner or later, based on me, we'll all become more circumspect about articles and what information we see (and then won't know what is true and what isn't).

    And, back on the politicians, without our politicians being corrected prominently on air and being called out, the incentive is to lie as not all things are called out even by the opposition. The High Court found that politicians in public aren't proven to be making claims in a public office so can't be prosecuted for misconduct in public office, and the impression I got from earlier news reporting was that the court said that their claims were made in public so there was therefore no misconduct (as that's something you try and hide) - I will have to go and read the actual case to find out if that was correct - but, if it is, that makes it even worse to me as the lies are therefore in public and circulated to an even greater audience and are not going effectively challenged or people are simply allowed to disagree with the truth - they ought to have their microphones shut off and not allowed to untruthfully claim what a journalist has said is true is false. Mr Duncan-Smith did this some while ago, when the Statistics Authority pulled him up over a claim but he was then simply allowed to claim the Statistics Authority was wrong. In my view, whilst political speech is seriously important, counteracting a correction and thus being able to get your incorrect information still out to the audience - by at least sowing doubt as to whether the journalist is correct when in fact they are - is unacceptable and there is no right to lie as misleading information is not protected and runs contrary to democratic society. But then I say this under my own democratic rights and people may disagree.
    Last edited by Savvybuyer; Today at 9:23 PM.
    • tweets
    • By tweets 18th Oct 19, 8:53 PM
    • 33,831 Posts
    • 445,839 Thanks
    Was on the news I use this shop alot
    Originally posted by bubbs
    I do I bought 2 jumpers last time I was in town . Such a shame.
    Lost 3st-9.5lb
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,472Posts Today

6,019Users online

Martin's Twitter