nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Off Topic Thread 5.0

[Deleted User]

Thread continued from here https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057835955&page=250

The usual rules apply. Non-rugby talk here. Consider this a social place, but like a pub, things like religion and politics can be divisive, so don't say things here you wouldn't say to someone's face in the pub. Sober

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

sydthebeat

Deleted User wrote: »

That's a pretty weak argument to be honest.

ah here

:D:D

you are in "black is white" territory now.

[Deleted User]

sydthebeat wrote: »

ah here :D:D

you are in "black is white" territory now.

'Everybody thinks' is a weak argument, hence why it's commonly used by the likes of Trump.

[Deleted User]

Everyone has been saying it

sydthebeat

Deleted User wrote: »

'Everybody thinks' is a weak argument, hence why it's commonly used by the likes of Trump.

:rolleyes: ah lets leave it there then as youre not at all arguing the initial point.

... we'll agree to disagree on whether it was good interview or not

Podge_irl

Deleted User wrote: »

The interviewer is not the arbiter of truth and cited no examples, it was entirely an opinion.

An lack of citation does not turn something from a fact to an opinion.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

The interviewer is not the arbiter of truth and cited no examples, it was entirely an opinion.

It was an interview on NZ TV for NZ viewers. The audience would have known what she referred to. Granted if you didn't know that somebody was a flat earther, that opening would have sounded like an opinion too. Wouldn't make it one though.

[Deleted User]

sydthebeat wrote: »

:rolleyes: ah lets leave it there then as youre not at all arguing the initial point.

... we'll agree to disagree on whether it was good interview or not

I've fully engaged with the initial point and despite agreeing with the interviewer 100% I'm still prepared to be objective and critical where the circumstances warrant it.

I think asking loaded questions like "is there anyone you want to apologise to" is poor journalism. I think saying things like "you sold your soul for political purposes" is poor journalism. She is right, but it's not her job as a journalist to be 'right' and just because I'm glad to see another right wing spoofer get a beating on live TV doesn't mean I'm glad to see an 'award winning' journalist turn an interview into a one sided slagging match. You either always have standards or you open yourself open to criticism.

Podge_irl wrote: »

An lack of citation does not turn something from a fact to an opinion.

Part of the problem with modern political discourse is the lack of citation to support 'opinions'. If a neutral observer watches that show they are none the wiser as no actual facts are shared or arguments supported. It was a "no sorry you are wrong" discussion and whilst that is factually correct, it serves no educational or informative service to viewers.

As soon as Ross started talking about this just being 'another flu' the interviewer had a prime opportunity to cite any of the widely available evidence to refute this - but she just put her hand up and said "no you're not saying that".

I dunno - if you want to invite crazy onto your show and then shout them down that's fine, but it seems to me like a waste of everyone's time and it isn't journalism despite the catharsis.

Yeah_Right

She made me proud to be a kiwi with that performance.

Zzippy

Yeah_Right wrote: »

She made me proud to be a kiwi with that performance.

Wait, what? You're a kiwi! I never would have guessed!

:P

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

As soon as Ross started talking about this just being 'another flu' the interviewer had a prime opportunity to cite any of the widely available evidence to refute this - but she just put her hand up and said "no you're not saying that".

You don't 'both sides' bullsh1t. That's a mistake the BBC has made in the interests of 'balance' and all it does is give a semblance of equality and credibility to completely batsh1t nonsense. You're suggesting that the interviewer (even for a moment) entertains the notion that Covid-19 is the same as the flu. We're almost a year into the pandemic and this stuff was shot down in flames a long time ago.

[Deleted User]

prawnsambo wrote: »

You don't 'both sides' bullsh1t. That's a mistake the BBC has made in the interests of 'balance' and all it does is give a semblance of equality and credibility to completely batsh1t nonsense. You're suggesting that the interviewer (even for a moment) entertains the notion that Covid-19 is the same as the flu. We're almost a year into the pandemic and this stuff was shot down in flames a long time ago.

I'm not sure how you took that from my post. He is in the interview - so they are already 'entertaining' his views. I'm saying that rather than just shouting him down, a journalist has a responsibility to disprove what they are saying and it was an open goal for her as there is a staggering amount of evidence available (as you acknowledged).

I'm also not saying she shouldn't have challenged him - I'm saying she should have taken it apart with something more than her held up hand.

The problem with this style of interview is that someone who is equally as misleading but better able to muddy the waters is given free reign in a fact free exchange. People getting wound up by the likes of Farage has allowed him to get away with awful lies over the years - again, here is a good example by Claire Byrne as to how you actually challenge someone in an interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlKX70oRLws&ab_channel=RT%C3%89-IRELAND%E2%80%99SNATIONALPUBLICSERVICEMEDIA

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not sure how you took that from my post. He is in the interview - so they are already 'entertaining' his views. I'm saying that rather than just shouting him down, a journalist has a responsibility to disprove what they are saying and it was an open goal for her as there is a staggering amount of evidence available (as you acknowledged).

I took it from you saying she should have allowed him spout is Covid-denier nonsense in order that she refute it. Having him in the interview is not in any way 'entertaining' his views. She had specific questions for him, starting with asking for an apology for said peddling of disinformation. And obviously (and this is the important bit) an acknowledgment that it was disinformation and lies. That was the point of the interview and is indeed how you deal with people like him. Not (as you seem to be saying) an opportunity for him to double down on his disinfo and start a debate on it to further muddy the waters.

[Deleted User]

I didn't who that Kiwi guy was. Without context, it's a shocking enough interview. She's just berating him. I'd expect better on fox news.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't who that Kiwi guy was. Without context, it's a shocking enough interview. She's just berating him. I'd expect better on fox news.

Yes, but for NZ viewers it has context. Here's an example from Wikipedia:

In late August, Ross and his Advance NZ/NZ Public Party coalition drew controversy after they published a Facebook video alleging that the New Zealand Government had passed legislation forcing citizens to get a COVID-19 vaccine. According to Agence France-Presse's Fact Check, key parts of speeches made by other MPs were cut out and edited to distort what they were saying. The video drew controversy since it violated Parliamentary rules prohibiting the use of parliamentary debate videos for political campaigning

And then there's this:

The parliamentary service investigation substantiated a number of complaints about his behaviour towards staff, including the existence of a "toxic environment", sexualised comments towards female staff members and "lies and mind games". Further investigation also revealed the married MP entered into at least two sexual relationships with his staffers, and that Ross would target a staffer with repeated pressure, controlling behaviour, "incoherent rages" and "brutal sex"

And of course (because birds of a feather) had the 'Bad boys of Brexit' (Wigmore and Banks) on his party's election team.

For context.

[Deleted User]

prawnsambo wrote: »

I took it from you saying she should have allowed him spout is Covid-denier nonsense in order that she refute it. Having him in the interview is not in any way 'entertaining' his views. She had specific questions for him, starting with asking for an apology for said peddling of disinformation. And obviously (and this is the important bit) an acknowledgment that it was disinformation and lies. That was the point of the interview and is indeed how you deal with people like him. Not (as you seem to be saying) an opportunity for him to double down on his disinfo and start a debate on it to further muddy the waters.

I fully agreed with her stopping him on the spot, in the example I provided Claire Byrne did the same, but she also then cited a relevant fact because she's a journalist and that's her job.

The role of a journalist is to report the news, not create the news nor to amplify public opinion. It's certainly not their job to get personal and call people delusional (even if that is the case).

Journalism becoming opinionated, biased and less substantive is a major catalyst for the decline in standards in politics and why it's become a distrusted medium. This type of interview whilst entertaining and agreeable is not a good reflection of journalism and is more a reflection of the interviewers frustration and anger at the interviewee. You could say it's fine because we all disagree with the guy, but I don't see it as a good reflection of journalism at all.

errlloyd

I am with Venjur in principle - but Syd in practice.

I don't love it when our media give niche views unchallenged airtime in the interest of fairness. (I love it even less when private media actively seek out niche views and give them a platform, ah la Joe Rogan). So I appreciate how this host doesn't really give him airtime. 1% of the vote, bat**** crazy views. He doesn't deserve to be there.

On the other hand, when Tucker Carlson uses pretty much the same tactics to strong-arm scientists on his show we have a problem. The host has to be held to the same burden of proof, even when the points are supposedly self evident.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

I fully agreed with her stopping him on the spot, in the example I provided Claire Byrne did the same, but she also then cited a relevant fact because she's a journalist and that's her job.

But this isn't a valid analogy here. There is some nuance and complexity with regard to brexit, law and trade and this often must be explained for context. You don't require context or explanation when talking to somebody who says the earth is flat.

Deleted User wrote: »

The role of a journalist is to report the news, not create the news nor to amplify public opinion. It's certainly not their job to get personal and call people delusional (even if that is the case).

If somebody is delusional, that's a fact. But this guy isn't delusional, he's a liar. You can see an example of one of those lies above. You're taking this out of context because you first saw it out of context. NZ viewers would know exactly what she's doing; getting him to admit he lied and to apologise for it.

Deleted User wrote: »

Journalism becoming opinionated, biased and less substantive is a major catalyst for the decline in standards in politics and why it's become a distrusted medium. This type of interview whilst entertaining and agreeable is not a good reflection of journalism and is more a reflection of the interviewers frustration and anger at the interviewee. You could say it's fine because we all disagree with the guy, but I don't see it as a good reflection of journalism at all.

Again. You're calling a fact an opinion. This is where you are actually distorting the conversation. It is a proven fact that Ross and his party lied and spread disinfo. He was asked to apologise for it and acknowledge it.

Edit: When you have somebody on air who has been proven to have lied publicly in pursuit of public office, the very first thing you do is get them to admit that. You absolutely do not move on to other things or allow them to double down on the lies. You bemoan the loss of journalistic standards, yet this is exactly what got Trump elected and brexit passed. The lies were passed over in pursuit of the next 'dead cat'. Only now are people waking up to the fact that when you allow the lies go unchallenged and continue to give airtime to the liars unchallenged, all credibility is lost.

pickarooney

The thing is in this situation the time for entertaining his ideas is past. He has been proven to have lied, misinformed and bull****ted and the viewers know this. I'm not sure what either party could have expected from this exchange. The guy has already been annihilated politically and can't expect to get back into the game straight away. He wasn't going to show up just to apologise... Bit of a pointless exercise other than to reiterate the point that NZ is not going to entertain these ****e-peddlers any more.

Yeah_Right

Zzippy wrote: »

Wait, what? You're a kiwi! I never would have guessed!

:P

Shut up Buer Zzippy

swiwi_

Zzippy wrote: »

Wait, what? You're a kiwi! I never would have guessed!

:P

No matter how he writes his posts, people always hear an Aussie accent

Yeah_Right

swiwi_ wrote: »

No matter how he writes his posts, people always hear an Aussie accent

Et tu swiwi :eek:

Neil3030

Right wing populism has found a way to thrive and disseminate in a context of civil discourse. So as long as people can't be trusted to act independently as the final filter on information integrity, I'm OK with people taking this presenter's approach. Venjur indeed highlights the risk that they could use (selective edits) of exchanges such as this as evidence to fuel a narrative that the left "shout down anything they don't want to hear". However I think we have enough evidence that it's a risk worth taking.

Bazzo

If swiwi was an Australian living in Austria he'd really struggle to come up with as good a forum alias.

Yeah_Right

Bazzo wrote: »

If swiwi was an Australian living in Austria he'd really struggle to come up with as good a forum alias.

KangaReich maybe??

mfceiling

I'm currently in the middle of a twitter spat with a "journalist" who lived here once but moved abroad. Turns out he's a genius and should have been a political leader here years ago!!

Stheno

mfceiling wrote: »

I'm currently in the middle of a twitter spat with a "journalist" who lived here once but moved abroad. Turns out he's a genius and should have been a political leader here years ago!!

Have you no chores to be doing?

mfceiling

Stheno wrote: »

Have you no chores to be doing?

Done long ago Stheno... early start early finish.

aloooof

Neil3030 wrote: »

Right wing populism has found a way to thrive and disseminate in a context of civil discourse. So as long as people can't be trusted to act independently as the final filter on information integrity, I'm OK with people taking this presenter's approach. Venjur indeed highlights the risk that they could use (selective edits) of exchanges such as this as evidence to fuel a narrative that the left "shout down anything they don't want to hear". However I think we have enough evidence that it's a risk worth taking.

I agree with the sentiment of this, but my impression is that abuses of social media are as much (or more) to blame for the proliferation of right win populism.

(I say this as I'm in the middle of a book called Mindf*ck about Cambridge Analytica. It's great so far, and pretty frightening).

swiwi_

Bazzo wrote: »

If swiwi was an Australian living in Austria he'd really struggle to come up with as good a forum alias.

Says our resident poster from Bahamas whose dad is from Zanzibar and his mum from Oman.

CatFromHue

Neil3030 wrote: »

Right wing populism has found a way to thrive and disseminate in a context of civil discourse.

Outside Ireland that seems to be the case but not so much here.