Media Bias

[Hermit]

I am getting bored discussing things with people who see the world like this



when almost all of it looks more like this:

[Brian Peacock]

...

So what are you trying to prove Joe? He says it will take years before you can make a comparison but Hermit reckons you can make it now in a pissing up the wall contest. I am not against making comparisons but at this moment in time it is not possible which is what the good prof is saying. So what are trying to prove by agreeing with me. Of course we have to learn from each other but making a pissing up the wall contest is not helpful. What do you achieve by making league tables especially based on data that is accepted as not being trustworthy.

Comparing numbers to produce a league table, particularly one to show the public that you're doing relatively well like the UK govt is doing, is silly and pointless. But epidemiology deals in comparing populations, and information from around the world is being collected, collated, and analysed by scientists, medics, and public health officials every day to help them better understand the expression of the disease in their local populations and yo deal with the situation on the ground. Those comparisons are a normal and necessary part of epidemiological study and the differences between how the disease is expressed and addressed in developed populations, like the South Asian and Australasian countries compared to Europe and the US, is important and informative.

I've said a number of times now that epidemiologists and public health officials know exactly what kind of information they need, where to get it and how to analyse it. You haven't acknowledged that yet.

I've said a number of times that epidemiology as a discipline is an international affair and not something which is practised in isolation in each individual country. You haven't acknowledged that yet either.

I've said a number of times that the information prepared and disseminated to the public for govts PR purposes is qualitatively different to the information health service and public health professionals are relying on, and that those professionals are not passively waiting for govt spin machines to tell them what's going on. That also remains unacknowledged.

I've even given examples from the UK of the tension between the information scientists, medics, and public health officials are feeding into govt and the information the govt is presenting to the public to justify policy and action. Again you have had nothing to say to that.

You originally declared 'the data' unreliable and invalid to deny that Covid-19 was a serious threat to public health, saying the threat was being exaggerated for convenience in order for govts to impose authoritarian control.

You've also declared 'the data' unreliable and invalid to suggest that govts are using it to mislead the public and underplay the extent and/or threat of Covid-19.

You've declared 'the data' unreliable and invalid to say that social restrictions like masks don't work and/or that they actually increase the prevalence of the disease.

You've fixated on declaring 'the data' unreliable and invalid at every turn, doubling down time and again when challenged, while at the same time you cited sources you've previously dismissed as unreliable. Like the circular thinking of a conspiracy theorist your views about 'the data' being unreliable and invalid is a grossly simplified, simplistic outlook, one which neatly negates anyone who challenges your views, one which doesn't even admit that the situation is complex and nuanced but ties the whole thing up in single explanation, and one which declares 'the data' unreliable and invalid as evidence to support a claim that 'the data' is unreliable and invalid.

No doubt you'll take umbrage at everything I've just said here, but honestly Scot this is genuinely the sort of thing I've come to take (and now to expect) from your postings on this issue over the last 10 months.

I'm not trying to misquote or misrepresent you here - I'm trying to reflect back to you what I'm actually getting from you. I'm sure you thought you were right in the early days of the pandemic, but now doubling- and tripling-down on 'the data' being unreliable and invalid has gone far beyond simply saving face and threatens to begin inhabiting the same space as those claiming hospitals are empty while barracking overburdened staff on their way in and out of work, those who claim Covid-19 doesn't exist, and even those who think that the vaccinations are a malign attempt to control people with microchips and 5G.

Your views now seem far closer to the oddball fringe than when you started and quite a way from the serious, reasonable and considered opinion of scientific, medical, and public health experts. How did that happen, and more importantly, why?

[Scot Dutchy]

Incredible. Just incredible. I am just repeating what a professor of statistics was saying and I am asked to give an explanation of the figures. The data has always and is still very suspect. The fact that the children on another thread are using the data to make up league tables when the prof says it was impossible and wont be for months and years does not matter. The article on the BBC:

Coronavirus: Why are international comparisons difficult?

Data around COVID-19 is a mess and here's why that matters

Regarding mask wearing. After the first semi lockdown public places were open with restrictions and no masks) our numbers fell quickly and no extension was required. This time round with extra measures in place (public places closed and masks imposed by shop owners) our numbers are not falling fast enough. The lockdown will continue for an extra two more weeks.

Nobody here as shown the data to be correct as they all quote analyses based on the same source. The same is true of mask wearing when figures fell it was due to masks but a rise was due to other factors.

[L'Emmerdeur]

I think it was already noted that Twitter has blocked Tweetolini's account. Facebook has done the same (including Instagram). Zuckerberg had previously refused to allow Facebook employees charged with tamping down the spread of misinformation to hold Trump to the same standards as other users in that regard.

'Facebook and Twitter Finally Locked Donald Trump's Accounts. Will They Ban Him Permanently?'

Twitter and Facebook imposed their toughest restrictions so far on President Donald Trump on Wednesday evening, after he incited his supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol in Washington in an attempt to overturn his election loss. Both companies temporarily suspended the President from posting on their platforms and removed several of his posts, but stopped short of permanently banning him.

Now we see the anti-conservative bias inherent in the system, eh?

[Cunt]

That round of suspensions doesn't look at all like a media bias.

[Joe]

Joe that load of crap was worthy of a Trump supporter. Your are just pathetic.

Wow, I never thought I'd say this, but Seth was right about something.

Engaging in personal attacks simply shows the weakness of your rhetorical skills and your lack of valid arguments.

BTW. The Prof you claim supports your position appears to see the value of international Covid comparisons in this tweet.



Additionally, this article in the International Journal of Epidemiology argues for such an effort, while acknowledging the difficulties, and makes a comparison similar to Hermit's

The issue was that, although it is difficult to reliably compare COVID-19 population fatality rates between countries, it is also quite clear that some countries (e.g. UK, USA, Italy, Spain, Belgium, France) have markedly higher burdens of COVID-19 mortality than others (e.g. New Zealand, Australia, Singapore, South Korea, Germany). Although one could not say definitively that the UK was the worst in the world, it was performing worse than some countries which had tried alternative control strategies, and there are things that we can learn from that contrast.

Indeed, epidemiology is built on the idea of studying differences between populations. Much of what we have learnt about the causes of disease has had its origins in comparisons of countries.3,4 For example, in the 1950s, it was realized that colorectal cancer risks were high in Europe and low in Africa, possibly due to dietary differences in fibre from fruit and vegetable intake. Similarly, liver cancer was common in Asia, which eventually provided a link to hepatitis B. International differences in cervical cancer incidence and mortality suggested an infectious cause, later established as human papillomavirus (HPV).

COVID-19 is different. The causative agent, SARS-CoV-2, is clear; the task is to learn how to best block the virus’s transmission and to prevent infections from progressing to severe disease and death.

As the pandemic unfolds, there are numerous natural experiments in progress, as countries adopt different approaches. Although international comparisons are often disparaged because of different data quality and fears of the ‘ecological fallacy’, if done carefully they can play a major role in our learning what works best for controlling COVID-19.3 Furthermore, these natural experiments are yielding clear results within weeks or months (e.g. on the success of the Asian approaches). Thus, there needs to be more thoughtful and thorough analyses of country differences, done by experienced epidemiologists, as it is probably the most important and most valid evidence for informing COVID-19 policy in real time.

And after all, what is the alternative? It is impossible or unethical to randomize a lockdown, or other aspects of physical distancing. There could be trials of intensive population testing,5 or prophylactic treatment of household contacts, but few have been launched to date. And all the time, the COVID-19-clock ticks relentlessly on, accumulating more deaths and more survivors with debilitating long-term health problems.

And that's the difference between the approach of professionals and that of dilettantes on the internet. The pro's figure out how to make these comparisons because they must.

I wonder what you'll call me for the temerity of pointing that out.

So what are you trying to prove Joe? He says it will take years before you can make a comparison but Hermit reckons you can make it now in a pissing up the wall contest. I am not against making comparisons but at this moment in time it is not possible which is what the good prof is saying. So what are trying to prove by agreeing with me. Of course we have to learn from each other but making a pissing up the wall contest is not helpful. What do you achieve by making league tables especially based on data that is accepted as not being trustworthy.

What I have proved is what I stated above Scot, and has nothing to do with league tables. Reread Spiegelhalter's tweet and contemplate the meaning of the two words I've bolded.

Polite request to PM and others: please stop using my Guardian article to claim we cannot make any international comparisons yet. I refer only to detailed league tables-of course we should now use other countries to try and learn why our numbers are high

I suggest you show more grace and humility than the British PM, and comply with the request. After all, Hermit hasn't offered up a league table.

[Joe]

I think it was already noted that Twitter has blocked Tweetolini's account. Facebook has done the same (including Instagram). Zuckerberg had previously refused to allow Facebook employees charged with tamping down the spread of misinformation to hold Trump to the same standards as other users in that regard.

'Facebook and Twitter Finally Locked Donald Trump's Accounts. Will They Ban Him Permanently?'

Twitter and Facebook imposed their toughest restrictions so far on President Donald Trump on Wednesday evening, after he incited his supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol in Washington in an attempt to overturn his election loss. Both companies temporarily suspended the President from posting on their platforms and removed several of his posts, but stopped short of permanently banning him.

Now we see the anti-conservative bias inherent in the system, eh?

Help, help! Trump's being repressed!

[L'Emmerdeur]

That round of suspensions doesn't look at all like a media bias.

So we are to assume that the stated reasons are just a cover story for the anti-conservative bias these corporations are expressing toward Trump and other lying fascists who spread toxic misinformation?

[Cunt]

That round of suspensions doesn't look at all like a media bias.

So we are to assume that the stated reasons are just a cover story for the anti-conservative bias these corporations are expressing toward Trump and other lying fascists who spread toxic misinformation?

If you like.

Or you could try science.

I keep tripping at the first step though...getting an agreed 'right' and 'left' issues list, to test whether bans are one-sided.

Lots of lefties don't think their ideas are political, rather they think of them as irrefutable science.

[L'Emmerdeur]

That round of suspensions doesn't look at all like a media bias.

So we are to assume that the stated reasons are just a cover story for the anti-conservative bias these corporations are expressing toward Trump and other lying fascists who spread toxic misinformation?

If you like.

Or you could try science.

I keep tripping at the first step though...getting an agreed 'right' and 'left' issues list, to test whether bans are one-sided.

Lots of lefties don't think their ideas are political, rather they think of them as irrefutable science.

Sounds difficult. I'm supposed to apply science to the question, but I'm likely to fail because my understanding of the concept is clouded by my political opinions. If only I were a clear-eyed leftie like yourself who isn't deceived, and gets so much useful information from people like Crowder and Pool.

[Cunt]

I'm not clear-eyed, nor are you.

So how does one test the political bias of media, especially social media companies?

[Hermit]

That round of suspensions doesn't look at all like a media bias.

Of course it's bias, Daggles. Don't be a stupid cunt. Those companies are biased towards protecting their income stream. They feared losing sponsorships if they did not put Trump on ice until the moral outrage about his recent behaviour has abated.

[L'Emmerdeur]

I'm not clear-eyed, nor are you.

Ah, but Crowder and Pool and so forth are on a different level? They've broken through the veil and can reliably inform a benighted individual like myself about reality? Or is it simply that by contradicting the myopic lefties they regularly hit upon the truth, because lefties are so often completely wrong?

So how does one test the political bias of media, especially social media companies?

Not being a political scientist, I wouldn't presume to claim I have a scientific answer to that. However, you seem to have hit upon a reliable means of discovering political bias, and no doubt it's thoroughly scientific.

[Cunt]

I'm not clear-eyed, nor are you.

Ah, but Crowder and Pool and so forth are on a different level? They've broken through the veil and can reliably inform a benighted individual like myself about reality? Or is it simply that by contradicting the myopic lefties they regularly hit upon the truth, because lefties are so often completely wrong?

No, because they try to be open about their bias.

Also, with both, they are willing to share the mic with people who disagree strongly.

Crowders 'change my mind' segments are much better examples of fair treatment of discussion, than anything I've seen in mainstream comedy or news.

But you could change my mind. Just show me the lefties who allow long-form interviews between both sides.

So how does one test the political bias of media, especially social media companies?

Not being a political scientist, I wouldn't presume to claim I have a scientific answer to that. However, you seem to have hit upon a reliable means of discovering political bias, and no doubt it's thoroughly scientific.

Nope. I can see bias when it is plain, and acknowledged.

Yours is quoted in my signature. It moderates my trust of your writings, because it is SO far from your 'norm'.

If Tim Pool is so wrong, why not say where? I mean, you could always just call him names, and expect everyone to accept your verdict, but I have listened to him, going from leftie to 'politically homeless', and then to rightie. Saw some of the same trend with other lefties, like Rubin.

But I was trying to get at how difficult it is to settle on a test that righties and lefties would agree, that could show political bias in media.

Tough one, with everyone having a tough time settling what the honest differences are.

[Cunt]

Oops, lost track of who I was quoting. Apologies to Lemmy and Hermit.