Agreed, but I mean in the sense that (inappropriate or not) antibiotic usage “selects” for resistant strains. It’s just semantics - filters out the susceptible would also do, but in doing so, it creates space for the non-susceptible to flourish. As “good” bacteria colonising a surface reduce the available niches for their pathogenic cousins.servodude wrote:yes but only in the sense of a filterGrahamPlatt wrote: Whilst I sort of agree with you, (other than that I’d add the caveat that the vaccine creates a selection pressure) you might be interested in this https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m ... ut-a-brain which suggests that some scientists are re-evaluating the meaning of intelligence.
the evolution/mutation of the virus is arbitrary
- changes in circumstances will render some variants unviable; those changes will not cause viable variants to arise (if they do arise they just won't be selected against)
- sd
Media Manipulation
Forum rules
This is the home for all non-political Coronavirus (Covid-19) discussions on The Lemon Fool
This is the home for all non-political Coronavirus (Covid-19) discussions on The Lemon Fool
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 1734
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:40 am
Re: Media Manipulation
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 7250
- Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Re: Media Manipulation
It's semantics that needs wrapped in layers of caveat to avoid misinterpretation - not just in forums (though I've seen folk posting that the vaccines make the pandemic worse because of some half digested concepts)GrahamPlatt wrote:Agreed, but I mean in the sense that (inappropriate or not) antibiotic usage “selects” for resistant strains. It’s just semantics - filters out the susceptible would also do, but in doing so, it creates space for the non-susceptible to flourish. As “good” bacteria colonising a surface reduce the available niches for their pathogenic cousins.servodude wrote: yes but only in the sense of a filter
the evolution/mutation of the virus is arbitrary
- changes in circumstances will render some variants unviable; those changes will not cause viable variants to arise (if they do arise they just won't be selected against)
- sd
I had colleagues in a genetic algorithms research group that could phrase things in ways that would have made even Lamarck cringe
- fine if you "know" what they thought they meant but all too easy to otherwise get the wrong end of the stick
-sd
-
- The full Lemon
- Posts: 16601
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Re: Media Manipulation
Agreed. But then that entitles you to have a rule that no black people are invited into your home and some might find that offensive or, at least, indicative that you have prejudices.redsturgeon wrote:The person who owns the house makes the rules, is a good rule of thumb.stevensfo wrote: Yes, it is pretty ambiguous. Who makes the decision that a statement is 'considered likely....to provoke...offend'? If I say "Good morning", someone may look at the dark sky and assume that I'm being sarcastic and trying to provoke them.
Pretty much rules out any more conversations with my wife/boss/kids/colleagues etc!
Whilst the BBC likes to market itself as being objective, neutral and fair. So if it removes comments that critique vaccines then it is entitled to do that, but loses its claim to neutrality.
Now I would expect right-wing comments to the Guardian to be removed. That media source makes no claim of objectivity and many of its articles are thinly-disguised ideological hit pieces. The BBC likes to think it has found the holy grail of neutrality but, at least in my view, it has been leaning liberal, if not lefty, for some time now.
PS: This is the only site, blog or social media place where I comment (other than a non-controversial aviation blog) which TLF is free to regard as a compliment.
-
- The full Lemon
- Posts: 11684
- Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Re: Media Manipulation
I think you misunderstand the idea of "neutrality" in relation to the BBC. Sure, the BBC strives to be politically neutral, to not "take sides" (I think it succeeds - I notice many of the more right-wing don't. Good!). But there should be no "neutrality" over facts. Following a David Attenborough programme the BBC does not host a 'debate' on Evolution with Intelligent Design proponents. Following a Brian Cox programme on The Universe there is no follow up 'discussion' with Young Earth advocates. Nor should there be. Nor is there any need to.Lootman wrote:Whilst the BBC likes to market itself as being objective, neutral and fair. So if it removes comments that critique vaccines then it is entitled to do that, but loses its claim to neutrality.redsturgeon wrote:The person who owns the house makes the rules, is a good rule of thumb.
If I may just quote the words of CP Scott, the Prewar editor of The Guardian(!): "Comment is free… but facts are sacred"
Unfortunately, when it comes to the pandemic and also to vaccines, there are many people out there with un-evidenced and unfounded, even crazy, notions. Surely you know this?
I do not (as you sometimes appear to me to) believe all opinions are somehow equivalent, equally valid. I believe we know (i.e. as currently understood) some things are FALSE and some things are NOT FALSE.
I believe we are looking at a summary of your political prejudices.Lootman wrote:Now I would expect right-wing comments to the Guardian to be removed. That media source makes no claim of objectivity and many of its articles are thinly-disguised ideological hit pieces. The BBC likes to think it has found the holy grail of neutrality but, at least in my view, it has been leaning liberal, if not lefty, for some time now.
I have no idea how all this relates to the BBC's moderation of the OP's comment. My bet, neither do you.
Last edited by XFool on November 29th, 2021, 1:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- The full Lemon
- Posts: 16601
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Re: Media Manipulation
Applying your own distinction between facts and opinions (assuming that people agree which is which, and I doubt that entirely) then I would assert that all opinions are equally valid as opinions, precisely because they are not facts. Whilst facts may or may not be valid or, more likely, there is a range of opinions about which facts are valid and which are not.XFool wrote:I do not (as you often appear to me to) believe all opinions are somehow equivalent, equally valid. I believe we know (i.e. as currently understood) some things are FALSE and some things are NOT FALSE.Lootman wrote: Whilst the BBC likes to market itself as being objective, neutral and fair. So if it removes comments that critique vaccines then it is entitled to do that, but loses its claim to neutrality.
Facts can also be notoriously cherry-picked and phrased to be prejudicial.
Taking that all together then an objective media source should allow all opinions, at least that do not break a law. A non-objective media source need not and can be arbitrary.
Applying that to Covid then, as I have pointed out many times, the facts of the virus may reasonably be considered to be less controversial. However what to do about Covid varies a lot depending on your priorities and values. I am big supporter of people getting vaccinated and indeed think the UK should go further in terms of requiring proof of vaccination for certain public activities. I also accept that others may disagree.
But I would not regard as objective any media source that suppressed the expression of doubt about vaccines. When smug certainty goes unchallenged then it morphs mindlessly into dogma.
-
- The full Lemon
- Posts: 11684
- Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Re: Media Manipulation
Left like that then there are no "facts". What is there beyond meaninglessness - intellectual nihilism?Lootman wrote:Applying your own distinction between facts and opinions (assuming that people agree which is which, and I doubt that entirely) then I would assert that all opinions are equally valid as opinions, precisely because they are not facts. Whilst facts may or may not be valid or, more likely, there is a range of opinions about which facts are valid and which are not.
Yes they can and often are - usually by those pursuing some kind of political agenda.Lootman wrote:Facts can also be notoriously cherry-picked and phrased to be prejudicial.
In some philosophically purist, uber-idealistic Ayn Rand wonderland, no doubt - it sounds a very fashionable view among self declared adherents of nouveau 'liberalism' . But back in the 'real world' what I want is reliable, reality based information.Lootman wrote:Taking that all together then an objective media source should allow all opinions, at least that do not break a law. A non-objective media source need not and can be arbitrary.
Then you haven't being paying attention online! (If you do only use TLF, this is more understandable)Lootman wrote:Applying that to Covid then, as I have pointed out many times, the facts of the virus may reasonably be considered to be less controversial.
I would regard any media that does not "challenge" nonsense and fake information about vaccines (or anything else) as not useful or reliable.Lootman wrote:However what to do about Covid varies a lot depending on your priorities and values. I am big supporter of people getting vaccinated and indeed think the UK should go further in terms of requiring proof of vaccination for certain public activities. I also accept that others may disagree.
But I would not regard as objective any media source that suppressed the expression of doubt about vaccines. When smug certainty goes unchallenged then it morphs mindlessly into dogma.
-
- The full Lemon
- Posts: 16601
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Re: Media Manipulation
No, there are facts. It is more that facts do not drive decisions - they are merely inputs into decisions. Decisions derive from values and principles as much, if not more than, facts.XFool wrote:Left like that then there are no "facts". What is there beyond meaninglessness - intellectual nihilism?Lootman wrote:Applying your own distinction between facts and opinions (assuming that people agree which is which, and I doubt that entirely) then I would assert that all opinions are equally valid as opinions, precisely because they are not facts. Whilst facts may or may not be valid or, more likely, there is a range of opinions about which facts are valid and which are not.
You might desire that but to achieve that you have to allow the clash of views about what that information is. Suppressing some views and not others won't get you there.XFool wrote:in the 'real world' what I want is reliable, reality based information.Lootman wrote:Taking that all together then an objective media source should allow all opinions, at least that do not break a law. A non-objective media source need not and can be arbitrary.
There are at least three parts to what the media should do:XFool wrote:I would regard any media that does not "challenge" nonsense and fake information about vaccines (or anything else) as not useful or reliable.Lootman wrote:However what to do about Covid varies a lot depending on your priorities and values. I am big supporter of people getting vaccinated and indeed think the UK should go further in terms of requiring proof of vaccination for certain public activities. I also accept that others may disagree.
But I would not regard as objective any media source that suppressed the expression of doubt about vaccines. When smug certainty goes unchallenged then it morphs mindlessly into dogma.
1) Present views from various sources that are competitive candidates
2) Editorialise to a reasonable extent by seeking to demonstrate why some candidates may be superior to others
3) Allow commentary and feedback so that any errors and biases in (1) and (2) can be exposed.
You need to do all that before you can reasonably offer your own opinion about what is and is not "fake". Not surprisingly people may draw different conclusions from even the same facts, let alone different facts.
-
- The full Lemon
- Posts: 11684
- Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Re: Media Manipulation
Bad facts, bad decisions.Lootman wrote:No, there are facts. It is more that facts do not drive decisions - they are merely inputs into decisions. Decisions derive from values and principles as much, if not more than, facts.XFool wrote: Left like that then there are no "facts". What is there beyond meaninglessness - intellectual nihilism?
Completely true! If there is a "clash" between views that are equally valid - in the sense that they are based on rational, informed opinions and reasonable and accurate information. Not when it is the crazies and conspiracy theorists versus rationality.XFool wrote:in the 'real world' what I want is reliable, reality based information.Lootman wrote:Taking that all together then an objective media source should allow all opinions, at least that do not break a law. A non-objective media source need not and can be arbitrary.Lootman wrote:You might desire that but to achieve that you have to allow the clash of views about what that information is. Suppressing some views and not others won't get you there.
I am unsure if you understand this point which I keep returning to, not all views or 'information' are valid. Possibly, if TLF is truly your only substantial contact with the Internet, you are simply unfamiliar with my concerns?
I can only feel this does imply a surprising innocence of outlook.Lootman wrote:There are at least three parts to what the media should do:XFool wrote: I would regard any media that does not "challenge" nonsense and fake information about vaccines (or anything else) as not useful or reliable.
1) Present views from various sources that are competitive candidates
2) Editorialise to a reasonable extent by seeking to demonstrate why some candidates may be superior to others
3) Allow commentary and feedback so that any errors and biases in (1) and (2) can be exposed.
You need to do all that before you can reasonably offer your own opinion about what is and is not "fake". Not surprisingly people may draw different conclusions from even the same facts, let alone different facts.
-
- The full Lemon
- Posts: 16601
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Re: Media Manipulation
Not necessarily, since the decision is at least partially influenced by factors other than the facts. So you can still have a bad decision even if you think your facts were "good". And then of course your facts may not be as "good" as you think they are are precisely because you closed your mind off from some sources which you were biased against.XFool wrote:Bad facts, bad decisions.Lootman wrote: No, there are facts. It is more that facts do not drive decisions - they are merely inputs into decisions. Decisions derive from values and principles as much, if not more than, facts.
XFool wrote:Completely true! If there is a "clash" between views that are equally valid - in the sense that they are based on rational, informed opinions and reasonable and accurate information.Lootman wrote: You might desire that but to achieve that you have to allow the clash of views about what that information is. Suppressing some views and not others won't get you there.
But it is that "clash" that leads to the insight as to what is valid. You cannot reasonably pre-decide that, and certainly not on behalf of others which is what the BBC sought to do here.
There is comfort in certainty, I feel sure, but also danger.
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 9101
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:06 am
Re: Media Manipulation
Moderator Message:
Remember this is the coronavirus board. You two have now drifted way off topic. No more off topic posts here please.
Remember this is the coronavirus board. You two have now drifted way off topic. No more off topic posts here please.