Media Coverage of COVID -19

[MikeWM]

The difference is that the restrictions on “A” in this case are for a purpose, not part of some grand plan to control us.

What starts off as one thing often changes over time into something else entirely.

Also, abusers do generally have a clear purpose, and usually can 'justify' what they are doing as being in the supposed interests of the abused.

 

[VauxhallandI]

I don’t deny it - I simply refuse point blank to give that grifter the benefit even of one “view” in his feed. In any case, it is not the data that matters but the interpretation of it.

Its all historical data so therefore fact. Its not a matter for interpretation

 

[Yew]

His qualifications being? Meanwhile, he’s proven to have lied repeatedly about Covid, so is in no way a trustworthy source.

Can't the same be said for Professor Fergurson?

 

[kristiang85]

Can't the same be said for Professor Fergurson?

Indeed. I was looking at a list of predictions made by Ferguson the other day that the government have cited in their various policy decisions, which later turned out to be very wrong - it was an incredibly long list (and this wasn't including the ones on bird flu, swine flu, BSE, foot and mouth, etc.). It's a pity I can't remember where I saw it now.

Don't forget that according to the last report, we were meant to be sitting on 100,000 cases today.

 

[DustyBin]

It is getting to that position, though with significant challenges, but it wasn't when the decisions were taken. My understanding is that herd immunity for Covid with the Delta variant is at c.85% of the total population fully vaccinated, on which basis continuing restrictions for the extra month to 19th July wasn't an unreasonable call.

So again, why did Hancock et al allow a four week delay to be announced? They should have told the PM that they needed more time, and the PM should have done the right thing and explained the situation to the public. This wasn't a minor or insignificant decision. I know we disagree generally on Covid related matters (or more specifically Covid restrictions), but I get the impression you simply don't grasp how damaging this is. These restrictions may come at little or no cost to yourself but they are catastrophic for others, and highly damaging to society as a whole. It's not normal or acceptable to maintain these restrictions out of caution "just in case". As I said previously, the bar is, or was, set extremely high and for good reason.

You've been accused of supporting a zero Covid agenda, something you deny. In that case, what is it you do want to achieve? How will you respond to the next round of scare mongering as we approach the 19th of July? Will a further delay be acceptable because of another variant, or lower than expected vaccine take up? These are arguments that will be put forward, I'll be amazed if they're not. Maybe this is where we fundamentally differ; I simply do not trust the government or their advisors. I've no political axe to grind, I'm a Tory voter, but I'm not so tribal as to simply overlook the appalling actions of this government and it's apparent determination to prolong restrictions on our freedom.

 

[MikeWM]

Indeed. I was looking at a list of predictions made by Ferguson the other day that the government have cited in their various policy decisions, which later turned out to be very wrong - it was an incredibly long list (and this wasn't including the ones on bird flu, swine flu, BSE, foot and mouth, etc.). It's a pity I can't remember where I saw it now.

Don't forget that according to the last report, we were meant to be sitting on 100,000 cases today.

It is amazing how much flak those who criticise the current approach (whatever that is meant to be; does anyone even know anymore?) get if they get even a single thing wrong.

Compare that to the treatment of those people who job it is to get these things right - like Ferguson but there are seemingly a whole army of similar people in SAGE and at various universities - who have been proven wrong again and again and again, and yet the media continue to hang on their every word and never mention or question why they were previously so wrong so many times.

 

[kristiang85]

It is amazing how much flak those who criticise the current approach (whatever that is meant to be; does anyone even know anymore?) get if they get even a single thing wrong.

Compare that to the treatment of those people who job it is to get these things right - like Ferguson but there are seemingly a whole army of similar people in SAGE and at various universities - who have been proven wrong again and again and again, and yet the media continue to hang on their every word and never mention or question why they were previously so wrong so many times.

I know. Obviously the principle of modelling is that it is never right, but it is the way the most pessimistic scenarios are always used - and generally our analysis on these forums, as laymen, tends to be closer to the actual outcome!

 

[35B]

So again, why did Hancock et al allow a four week delay to be announced? They should have told the PM that they needed more time, and the PM should have done the right thing and explained the situation to the public. This wasn't a minor or insignificant decision. I know we disagree generally on Covid related matters (or more specifically Covid restrictions), but I get the impression you simply don't grasp how damaging this is. These restrictions may come at little or no cost to yourself but they are catastrophic for others, and highly damaging to society as a whole. It's not normal or acceptable to maintain these restrictions out of caution "just in case". As I said previously, the bar is, or was, set extremely high and for good reason.

Perhaps because the announcement was already delayed by a week, and something had to be done in the run up to what was massively overhyped as "freedom day"? As it happened, I read the announcement last week as precisely what you suggest - a deferral of the decision for 4 weeks, possibly less, depending upon the data. I do grasp that the restrictions are extremely serious, not least from what I read of the obvious pain that the current situation is causing a number on here, and will be delighted to be able to live normally. But I also grasp the way that this country has simultaneously tried to "protect the economy" and had some of the worst figures worldwide, and draw the conclusion that hoping things will be ok is not a good strategy, and has made things worse - in blood and treasure - than it need have been.

You've been accused of supporting a zero Covid agenda, something you deny. In that case, what is it you do want to achieve? How will you respond to the next round of scare mongering as we approach the 19th of July? Will a further delay be acceptable because of another variant, or lower than expected vaccine take up? These are arguments that will be put forward, I'll be amazed if they're not. Maybe this is where we fundamentally differ; I simply do not trust the government or their advisors. I've no political axe to grind, I'm a Tory voter, but I'm not so tribal as to simply overlook the appalling actions of this government and it's apparent determination to prolong restrictions on our freedom.

Very simply, I want the restrictions over, and permanently so. I work with colleagues in India; I'd like to be able to go for a drink with them again - here or there. I'd like to see an old friend living in Oz for the first time in years. I'd like my son (year 11) to do his A-Level course in confidence that he'll actually study the whole syllabus, unlike his GCSEs. To do that means case numbers, hospitalisations, and deaths being at low enough levels for the public as a whole to tolerate and not perceive Covid as being an excessive risk to them.

I observe the pattern of data being reported, and agree that it is showing trends that are better than appeared to be the case even a week ago. I also observe that no intelligent commentators are suggesting that we are well below the level of vaccination required to achieve herd immunity, we don't know what effect time will have on individuals' immunity, and the ability of the NHS to "cope" with the two surges in cases has been at enormous cost in terms of both delayed/missed treatments and exhaustion of the highly trained and experienced staff we most rely on to deliver those treatments.

Like you and others, I am frustrated that the "official" modellers have a tendency to make excessively pessimistic assumptions - while also noticing that sensible observers (I find the analyses by James Ward consistently interesting) are also very conscious of the very fine lines between success and failure. Unlike you, though, I believe that these differences and the policies that follow them are based on people acting in good faith, trying to respond to extremely demanding circumstances under massive pressure - not a determination to prolong restrictions.

So, what of my reaction if there are stories about something disrupting progress towards the release of restrictions in July? Given the data that's steadily emerging, I do believe the burden of proof is shifting from "can we justify relaxation" to "can we justify extension". I fully expect there to be a variety of voices, and that those voices will - as ever - consist of a varied mix of self interest, ideologically motivated positioning, and good sense, frequently mixed in the same individual. I also fully expect that there will be voices on here throwing their teddies and threatening all sorts of consequences at any suggestion that we don't get freedom NOW.

But I don't, never have, and never will accept the grotesque views of some that the restrictions are a deliberate strategy to limit our freedoms in the long term, or are not justified in terms of trying to deal with the pandemic as it has actually affected this country, or even that Covid is a real medical problem. There have been mistakes; in March 2020, in the autumn, travel from India are high on that list. But those are questions of competence, not malice.

 

[big_rig]

Perhaps because the announcement was already delayed by a week, and something had to be done in the run up to what was massively overhyped as "freedom day"? As it happened, I read the announcement last week as precisely what you suggest - a deferral of the decision for 4 weeks, possibly less, depending upon the data. I do grasp that the restrictions are extremely serious, not least from what I read of the obvious pain that the current situation is causing a number on here, and will be delighted to be able to live normally. But I also grasp the way that this country has simultaneously tried to "protect the economy" and had some of the worst figures worldwide, and draw the conclusion that hoping things will be ok is not a good strategy, and has made things worse - in blood and treasure - than it need have been.

Very simply, I want the restrictions over, and permanently so. I work with colleagues in India; I'd like to be able to go for a drink with them again - here or there. I'd like to see an old friend living in Oz for the first time in years. I'd like my son (year 11) to do his A-Level course in confidence that he'll actually study the whole syllabus, unlike his GCSEs. To do that means case numbers, hospitalisations, and deaths being at low enough levels for the public as a whole to tolerate and not perceive Covid as being an excessive risk to them.

I observe the pattern of data being reported, and agree that it is showing trends that are better than appeared to be the case even a week ago. I also observe that no intelligent commentators are suggesting that we are well below the level of vaccination required to achieve herd immunity, we don't know what effect time will have on individuals' immunity, and the ability of the NHS to "cope" with the two surges in cases has been at enormous cost in terms of both delayed/missed treatments and exhaustion of the highly trained and experienced staff we most rely on to deliver those treatments.

Like you and others, I am frustrated that the "official" modellers have a tendency to make excessively pessimistic assumptions - while also noticing that sensible observers (I find the analyses by James Ward consistently interesting) are also very conscious of the very fine lines between success and failure. Unlike you, though, I believe that these differences and the policies that follow them are based on people acting in good faith, trying to respond to extremely demanding circumstances under massive pressure - not a determination to prolong restrictions.

So, what of my reaction if there are stories about something disrupting progress towards the release of restrictions in July? Given the data that's steadily emerging, I do believe the burden of proof is shifting from "can we justify relaxation" to "can we justify extension". I fully expect there to be a variety of voices, and that those voices will - as ever - consist of a varied mix of self interest, ideologically motivated positioning, and good sense, frequently mixed in the same individual. I also fully expect that there will be voices on here throwing their teddies and threatening all sorts of consequences at any suggestion that we don't get freedom NOW.

But I don't, never have, and never will accept the grotesque views of some that the restrictions are a deliberate strategy to limit our freedoms in the long term, or are not justified in terms of trying to deal with the pandemic as it has actually affected this country, or even that Covid is a real medical problem. There have been mistakes; in March 2020, in the autumn, travel from India are high on that list. But those are questions of competence, not malice.

This is a lot of words to say ‘until nobody feels scared anymore’ as your only justification to support every single extension of restrictions (all of which have been perfect and could not possibly have been removed one single day previously). So much for the data mastery and analysis I’m sure you have a number of case numbers, hospitalisation and deaths in mind which we have not yet reached though that you can share.

 

[Darandio]

As we already knew, the wealthy doing very well out of all of this.

Millions become millionaires during Covid pandemic

Soaring stock markets and property prices help boost the wealth of the wealthy, research suggests.

www.bbc.co.uk

More than five million people became millionaires across the world in 2020 despite economic damage from the Covid-19 pandemic.

While many poor people became poorer, the number of millionaires increased by 5.2 million to 56.1 million globally, Credit Suisse research found.
In 2020 more than 1% of adults worldwide were millionaires for the first time.
Recovering stock markets and soaring house prices helped boost their wealth.
Wealth creation appeared to be "completely detached" from the economic woes of the pandemic, the researchers said.
Anthony Shorrocks, economist and author of the Global Wealth Report, said the pandemic had an "acute short term impact on global markets", but added this was "largely reversed by the end of June 2020".
"Global wealth not only held steady in the face of such turmoil but in fact rapidly increased in the second half of the year," he said.

However, wealth differences between adults widened in 2020, and Mr Shorrocks said if asset price increases, such as house price rises, were removed from the analysis, "then global household wealth may well have fallen".
"In the lower wealth bands where financial assets are less prevalent, wealth has tended to stand still, or, in many cases, regressed," he said.
"Some of the underlying factors may self correct over time. For example, interest rates will begin to rise again at some point, and this will dampen asset prices."
Total global wealth grew by 7.4%, the report said.
Since the start of the 21st century, the number of people with wealth between $10,000 and $100,000 had more than tripled in size from 507 million in 2000 to 1.7 billion in mid-2020.
They said the increase reflected the "growing prosperity of emerging economies, especially China, and the expansion of the middle class in the developing world".
Nannette Hechler-Fayd'herbe, chief investment officer at Credit Suisse, said: "There is no denying actions taken by governments and central banks to organise massive income transfer programmes to support the individuals and businesses most adversely affected by the pandemic, and by lowering interest rates, have successfully averted a full scale global crisis."
She added: "The lowering of interest rates by central banks has probably had the greatest impact.
"It is a major reason why share prices and house prices have flourished, and these translate directly into our valuations of household wealth."
But she added that these interventions "have come at a great cost".
"Public debt relative to GDP has risen throughout the world by 20 percentage points or more in many countries.
"Generous payments from the public sector to households have meant that disposable household income has been relatively stable and has even risen in some countries."
Ms Hechler-Fayd'herbe said a "major reason" why share prices and house prices had "flourished" was due to the lowering of interest rates by banks, which, she added, translated "directly into our valuations of household wealth".

 

[kristiang85]

I had to laugh at this...

Trust in news has grown in the UK during pandemic, research suggests

Appetite for reliable reporting has increased but trust still below pre-Brexit levels, report says.

www.bbc.co.uk

Trust in news coverage has grown in the UK with the public appetite for reliable reporting increasing during the pandemic, research suggests.
The Reuters Institute Digital News Report, conducted in January this year, found 36% of people in the UK "trust most news most of the time".
That figure is up from 28% in January 2020, before the pandemic began.
But it is still 14 percentage points down on where it was prior to the Brexit vote in 2016.
The report found strictly regulated impartial broadcasters such as BBC, ITV, Sky News, and Channel 4 remained the most trusted, followed by national broadsheet newspapers.
It also showed trust in particular brands often split along both political and/or generational lines.
"We also find that political partisans from both sides feel that UK media coverage has been unfair to them," the report said.
The UK was just one of 46 media markets around the world that were surveyed on the topic of trustworthiness. About 92,000 people were involved, including more than 2,000 in the UK.
Many young people - especially young women - it suggested, felt that media coverage was less fair to them than it is to other groups.
In the US, three-quarters of those who self-identified as being on the right, politically-speaking, felt that media coverage of their views was unfair, compared with just a third of those on the left.

 

[Bantamzen]

I had to laugh at this...

Trust in news has grown in the UK during pandemic, research suggests

Appetite for reliable reporting has increased but trust still below pre-Brexit levels, report says.

www.bbc.co.uk

Trust up from 28% to 36%. Hardly a commendation, if it were a Amazon review you'd give them all a swerve....

 

[TPO]

It is amazing how much flak those who criticise the current approach (whatever that is meant to be; does anyone even know anymore?) get if they get even a single thing wrong.

Compare that to the treatment of those people who job it is to get these things right - like Ferguson but there are seemingly a whole army of similar people in SAGE and at various universities - who have been proven wrong again and again and again, and yet the media continue to hang on their every word and never mention or question why they were previously so wrong so many times.

Indeed. And if you point such facts out (e.g. about how Ferguson got it wrong) on comments pages of (say) the Graun, you get banned from commenting .

TPO

 

[nlogax]

Indeed. And if you point such facts out (e.g. about how Ferguson got it wrong) on comments pages of (say) the Graun, you get banned from commenting .

TPO

You got banned from commenting in the Graun? That's actually surprising. Generally it's less about what you say and more the manner in how you say it that gets their ban-hammer going.

 

[kez19]

I had to laugh at this...

Trust in news has grown in the UK during pandemic, research suggests

Appetite for reliable reporting has increased but trust still below pre-Brexit levels, report says.

www.bbc.co.uk

Impartial? Can I also change word from trust to fear then yes we are onto a winner right there!

Also strictly regulated? By whom OFCOM? Yes we all know that too, they have just rolled over and let them run whatever without any real question!

Its similar to social media where they say that some things aren't facts then weeks later it becomes... fact, so as far as for my opinion on the media highlighted in this its a no for me i'm out.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jun 2021 ==

Trust up from 28% to 36%. Hardly a commendation, if it were a Amazon review you'd give them all a swerve....

Also....

Co-author of the report, Simge Andi, said: "The lack of strong journalistic presence could make those relying on these networks particularly vulnerable to misinformation.

Well the BBC are good at dismissing an anti-lockdown protest and labelling them all conspiracy theorists or on the other not actually covering it so in a way no wonder, the mainstream media are really scoring in their own goal than away but still we must trust them though.

Also I should add even when it comes to the briefings be from the UK or devolved governments - the questioning at times could well be laughable.


On the media questioning side of this report but I may as well throw something in, how much has the mainstream media made in revenue out of this so far? Now this would be interesting to find out? Who has made profits OR losses?

 

[35B]

Impartial? Can I also change word from trust to fear then yes we are onto a winner right there!

Also strictly regulated? By whom OFCOM? Yes we all know that too, they have just rolled over and let them run whatever without any real question!

Its similar to social media where they say that some things aren't facts then weeks later it becomes... fact, so as far as for my opinion on the media highlighted in this its a no for me i'm out.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jun 2021 ==




Also....



Well the BBC are good at dismissing an anti-lockdown protest and labelling them all conspiracy theorists or on the other not actually covering it so in a way no wonder, the mainstream media are really scoring in their own goal than away but still we must trust them though.

Also I should add even when it comes to the briefings be from the UK or devolved governments - the questioning at times could well be laughable.


On the media questioning side of this report but I may as well throw something in, how much has the mainstream media made in revenue out of this so far? Now this would be interesting to find out? Who has made profits OR losses?

I’m not sure what figures are out there, but we certainly know that advertising spend fell off a cliff in spring 2020, and that this seriously hurt at least ITV - and probably all other media businesses that rely on advertising.

 

[kez19]

I’m not sure what figures are out there, but we certainly know that advertising spend fell off a cliff in spring 2020, and that this seriously hurt at least ITV - and probably all other media businesses that rely on advertising.

Yet isn’t there a government article stating some sort of funding? (my wording may not be right here), called COVID-19

 

[35B]

Yet isn’t there a government article stating some sort of funding? (my wording may not be right here), called COVID-19

I'm not sure what you refer to, but the government have made funding available to a wide range of businesses to mitigate the effects of Covid.

Ultimately, the media focus on what they think is of interest to most people, and they have a tendency to get into a loop as they focus on that thing ever more minutely until something else comes up and the focus changes. They always have, and always will. But that's not about whether that thing is in their financial interest to amplify*, but about their assessment of news values.

* - I'm over-simplifying; individual media organisations may well focus individual stories on what are in their interests. The latest Private Eye, for example, is interesting about which media companies reported (or didn't report) which facets of the Daniel Morgan report. But we confuse their ability to indulge in groupthink with something more deliberate at our peril; that just isn't how they work.

 

[kez19]

I'm not sure what you refer to, but the government have made funding available to a wide range of businesses to mitigate the effects of Covid.

Ultimately, the media focus on what they think is of interest to most people, and they have a tendency to get into a loop as they focus on that thing ever more minutely until something else comes up and the focus changes. They always have, and always will. But that's not about whether that thing is in their financial interest to amplify*, but about their assessment of news values.

* - I'm over-simplifying; individual media organisations may well focus individual stories on what are in their interests. The latest Private Eye, for example, is interesting about which media companies reported (or didn't report) which facets of the Daniel Morgan report. But we confuse their ability to indulge in groupthink with something more deliberate at our peril; that just isn't how they work.

Possibly this, https://www.investorschronicle.co.u...ds-from-government-s-covid-advertising-drive/

I’m sure the UK Gov has its own page in which I’m trying to refer to

However I have found the Scottish Gov's own take on spend: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202100157043/

example: 1) How much money have the Scottish Govt spent in total on any form of advertising Covid19 be that radio, TV or newspapers since the pandemic started eg. The wearing of masks, social distancing, the vaccine, furlough etc?

Answer: Communications is a fundamental part of a successful exit from the covid-19 pandemic. It is required to ensure that people from across Scotland are reached with the information, advice and support required. This includes the clear communication of the guidelines and restrictions the public should follow. This advertising helps the Scottish Government to support the required behaviours that we need the public to display in order to stop the spread of the virus and save lives. All advertising is placed through Scottish Government approved agencies and at all times the activity is evaluated to access maximum value for money and effectiveness.

Between 1 March 2020 and 31 January 2021, the Scottish Government public engagement spend has been £15,236,501. During this period 99.5% of the adult population (4.59m adults) has been reached over 510 times on average with multiple potential life-saving messages.

So if we go from Feb 2021 to present that £15 grand will be alot more now, so what the Governments are ploughing into their ads is revenue towards press media (Scottish Gov example seems to be the easier one (for a change) I can understand where spending on this part has gone.)

 

[35B]

Possibly this, https://www.investorschronicle.co.u...ds-from-government-s-covid-advertising-drive/

I’m sure the UK Gov has its own page in which I’m trying to refer to

However I have found the Scottish Gov's own take on spend: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202100157043/

example: 1) How much money have the Scottish Govt spent in total on any form of advertising Covid19 be that radio, TV or newspapers since the pandemic started eg. The wearing of masks, social distancing, the vaccine, furlough etc?



So if we go from Feb 2021 to present that £15 grand will be alot more now, so what the Governments are ploughing into their ads is revenue towards press media (Scottish Gov example seems to be the easier one (for a change) I can understand where spending on this part has gone.)

You’d need to quote the passage in question, I can’t access the Investors Chronicle without setting up an account.

I’m sure there has been advertising from government, and it’s been of value to media companies. But you also need to consider what they’ve lost from other advertisers, and the effect that’s had.

If that’s at the level of the figures provided by the Scottish Givernment for Covid 19 public engagement, I’d stretch £15.2m a bit - that covers 10 months, and it’s another 4 full months since those figures end, so pro rata that suggests another c.£6m, giving c. £21m in total. That really, really, is not a lot of money in the media industry, and certainly not enough to support the claim that the media are exploiting Covid for profit.

 

[kez19]

You’d need to quote the passage in question, I can’t access the Investors Chronicle without setting up an account.

I’m sure there has been advertising from government, and it’s been of value to media companies. But you also need to consider what they’ve lost from other advertisers, and the effect that’s had.

If that’s at the level of the figures provided by the Scottish Givernment for Covid 19 public engagement, I’d stretch £15.2m a bit - that covers 10 months, and it’s another 4 full months since those figures end, so pro rata that suggests another c.£6m, giving c. £21m in total. That really, really, is not a lot of money in the media industry, and certainly not enough to support the claim that the media are exploiting Covid for profit.

I found the Scot gov as the alternative I found. I apologise on the investors site I scrolled on phone initially but I now see the issue apologies

Regarding the profit but then you also have to add revenue from their sites and links but whether there is more to that I don’t know.

I’ll throw this in (just opinion), but didn’t the likes of Sky get more subscribers since COVID began or streaming services?

I still find it then weird then why the drive for keeping COVID a top story but yet there could be other issues we do or don’t know that aren’t covered.

 

[gnolife]

Possibly this, https://www.investorschronicle.co.u...ds-from-government-s-covid-advertising-drive/

I’m sure the UK Gov has its own page in which I’m trying to refer to

However I have found the Scottish Gov's own take on spend: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202100157043/

example: 1) How much money have the Scottish Govt spent in total on any form of advertising Covid19 be that radio, TV or newspapers since the pandemic started eg. The wearing of masks, social distancing, the vaccine, furlough etc?



So if we go from Feb 2021 to present that £15 grand will be alot more now, so what the Governments are ploughing into their ads is revenue towards press media (Scottish Gov example seems to be the easier one (for a change) I can understand where spending on this part has gone.)

That's not 15 grand - that's 15 million

 

[Bikeman78]

like Ferguson but there are seemingly a whole army of similar people in SAGE and at various universities - who have been proven wrong again and again and again

Remember 50,000 deaths in Sweden if they didn't have a lockdown? Total currently stands at 14,500.

 

[35B]

I found the Scot gov as the alternative I found. I apologise on the investors site I scrolled on phone initially but I now see the issue apologies

Regarding the profit but then you also have to add revenue from their sites and links but whether there is more to that I don’t know.

I’ll throw this in (just opinion), but didn’t the likes of Sky get more subscribers since COVID began or streaming services?

I still find it then weird then why the drive for keeping COVID a top story but yet there could be other issues we do or don’t know that aren’t covered.

No worries, it's easily done. More generally, I don't know how numbers on streaming services have changed, but the likes of Netflix don't invest in news - there are a variety of ways that companies profit (or not) from events. Which is why I commented on advertising revenues falling at the likes of ITV as advertisers weren't willing to spend money. early last year.

So, taking your last question, news media see Covid as a story that people are interested in, so they keep investing in reporting it. Not out of ulterior motives, but an editorial judgement. Not because they're told to by the owners, but because they believe it's what they ought to be covering.

 

[kez19]

That's not 15 grand - that's 15 million

my mistake thanks for pointing that out!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jun 2021 ==

No worries, it's easily done. More generally, I don't know how numbers on streaming services have changed, but the likes of Netflix don't invest in news - there are a variety of ways that companies profit (or not) from events. Which is why I commented on advertising revenues falling at the likes of ITV as advertisers weren't willing to spend money. early last year.

So, taking your last question, news media see Covid as a story that people are interested in, so they keep investing in reporting it. Not out of ulterior motives, but an editorial judgement. Not because they're told to by the owners, but because they believe it's what they ought to be covering.

Last point you make, however then they will start covering issues when they see relevant though that’s the problem, was it not a few weeks ago the media spoke of mental/physical health issues during all this but then it seems again it’s gone under radar?

So in turn why are the media not asking more questions in terms of other health matters other than COVID? It might not be a motive but for me personally speaking I wouldn’t mind knowing when I can see a doctor face to face again, but as I say it’s seems to me the media don’t want to ask those questions?

 

[35B]

my mistake thanks for pointing that out!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jun 2021 ==



Last point you make, however then they will start covering issues when they see relevant though that’s the problem, was it not a few weeks ago the media spoke of mental/physical health issues during all this but then it seems again it’s gone under radar?

So in turn why are the media not asking more questions in terms of other health matters other than COVID? It might not be a motive but for me personally speaking I wouldn’t mind knowing when I can see a doctor face to face again, but as I say it’s seems to me the media don’t want to ask those questions?

A very good question, but never discount the role of laziness.

 

[brad465]

Trust up from 28% to 36%. Hardly a commendation, if it were a Amazon review you'd give them all a swerve....

I'd go so far as to describe the media collectively as the most unpatriotic group in this country right now (although some other entities are not far behind). Their divisive rhetoric and sensationalising of reporting has not only influenced policy in unwanted areas, but for useful information it has, from what I've heard, put some people off reading the news altogether for the sake of their mental health, which risks depriving them of essential facts/advice. The divisions sown have also been counterproductive in getting a coordinated response with a large majority working towards a common good.

 

[kez19]

I'd go so far as to describe the media collectively as the most unpatriotic group in this country right now (although some other entities are not far behind). Their divisive rhetoric and sensationalising of reporting has not only influenced policy in unwanted areas, but for useful information it has, from what I've heard, put some people off reading the news altogether for the sake of their mental health, which risks depriving them of essential facts/advice. The divisions sown have also been counterproductive in getting a coordinated response with a large majority working towards a common good.

This I agree with, I have been put off by it, at first it was fine but its went OTT for me plus with the headlines more recent with variants as a classic example it makes you wonder if even the media themselves are having a field day with their sensationalist claptrap.

I as I said before possibly in this thread, I would feel I can defend the BBC more to the likes of Sky as an example but my trust in all of them, BBC(BBC Scotland)/STV(ITV)/Sky etc I just don't have time for them now I just avoid the lot of them (same with printed media, may on the odd occasion read the Express or the local but have totally avoided).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jun 2021 ==

A very good question, but never discount the role of laziness.

Why are the media being lazy then?
If we are going to say they are lazy then whats the reason behind it?

It feels like there is more questions to this and we need answers to it.

 

[Jimini]

A smidgen of light-hearted amusement for the group

 

[35B]

Why are the media being lazy then?
If we are going to say they are lazy then whats the reason behind it?

It feels like there is more questions to this and we need answers to it.

"The media" are lazy, because humans are lazy. They - we - get stuck in ruts and frequently don't actively seek different answers. That's not about it being done for a reason, but that journalists and editors are following in the groove of an existing story, and will do so until another story breaks that draws their attention and focus.

It's very easy to dismiss the "MSM" and focus on their failings, but if we stop at the likes of the BBC homepage, we miss a hell of a lot that is out there. There are good reporters out there who provide good commentary - I'm a Times reader, and have been impressed by Tom Whipple (their science correspondent) and his ability to draw out some of the underlying science; others will prefer other journalists. Other, less visible but also influential journalism is in weekly magazines like the Economist or some of the newer news websites - I've started seeing Tortoise News and seen some good stuff. Finally here are also interesting commentaries on other social media from people with reasonable insight - I find Meaghan Kall and James Ward pretty interesting on the data and modelling, while Christopher Snowdon is quite a bracing read when it comes to some of the nonsense from Covid denialists like Cummins.

But in all of this, the lack of definitive answers is frequently part of the challenge. We need to go back to the government's line that they're "following the science". That science is rapidly evolving, as understanding and facts change, while science can't answer value judgements.

So, there are lots of questions, and answers would be nice. But many of those answers aren't going to come quickly or clearly, and we need to accept that those answers will be shaded, not black/white. Personally, I find the rigid certainties of the extremists wearying and depressing; neither allow for nuance or the possibility that other views are out there and presented in good faith.