xbl Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 So, pension figures reynard? Im still waiting for you to "humiliate" me when3n you produce the figures. Did you use 2010 figures? Even after I pointed out that I used more up to date figures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 On what criteria would you judge "balance"? Would YOU describe the bbc and telegraph as balanced? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jambo-rocker Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 No it isn't. If you have one side pumping out lie after lie, and the other side rolling over and meekly accepting it, then what you have is people saying "no smoke without fire". Having even a small voice prepared to fight back stops the liars having it all their own way. Ill be interested to see ad libs list of falsehoods. This is most certainly is beyond the rolling over and taking it. This is getting up and making a cheap shot to the groin and calling it fair. Both sides of course do this and I'm not saying that BT's Blair McDougall should be without any less criticism as I see him as a cuntwumpkin of the highest order. I get that Wings has it's place in calling out bullshit, but it does it in the extreme and tedious fashion, from both ends, which I find are cheap, petty pointscoring points. You seem to be of the opinion that heaven forbid Wings takes any criticism when you know fine well that it has it's flaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrysnotter Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Would YOU describe the bbc and telegraph as balanced? Depends in the criteria being used, hence why I asked for clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davi3j Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 On what criteria would you judge "balance"? I dont see the relavance when talking about a pro indy wedsite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davi3j Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Depends in the criteria being used, hence why I asked for clarification. soooo, you dont know the meaning of the word balance??? it would mean having a similar amount of articles form both sides viewpoint **hint** try dictionary.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Depends in the criteria being used, hence why I asked for clarification. I asked your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 This is most certainly is beyond the rolling over and taking it. This is getting up and making a cheap shot to the groin and calling it fair. Both sides of course do this and I'm not saying that BT's Blair McDougall should be without any less criticism as I see him as a cuntwumpkin of the highest order. I get that Wings has it's place in calling out bullshit, but it does it in the extreme and tedious fashion, from both ends, which I find are cheap, petty pointscoring points. You seem to be of the opinion that heaven forbid Wings takes any criticism when you know fine well that it has it's flaws. I said last night that I don't agree with every wings article. However, a lot of it is spot on, and im glad there is at least something that is willing to fight back against the combined unionist press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrysnotter Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 I dont see the relavance when talking about a pro indy wedsite? You didn't ask about a pro-Indy website, you asked about BBC, STV and national newspapers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 You didn't ask about a pro-Indy website, you asked about BBC, STV and national newspapers. And I asked your opinion. Do you think they are balanced, in your opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrysnotter Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 soooo, you dont know the meaning of the word balance??? it would mean having a similar amount of articles form both sides viewpoint **hint** try dictionary.com At no point have I asked about the meaning of "balance". I asked about the criteria being used to assess the term, given the various possibilities. A dictionary would not provide that information. Personally, in this context, I would not consider that to achieve balance a news organisation has to give each side of the debate equally supportive coverage in terms of both time and prominence. Achieving balance should take cognisance of merit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davi3j Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 You didn't ask about a pro-Indy website, you asked about BBC, STV and national newspapers. lolwut no i didnt errm...goalposts and shifting??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrysnotter Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 And I asked your opinion. Do you think tgey are balanced, in your opinion? I would consider BBC and STV to be fairly well balanced, on the whole. The telegraph I don't read but I suspect it is less so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 At no point have I asked about the meaning of "balance". I asked about the criteria being used to assess the term, given the various possibilities. A dictionary would not provide that information. Personally, in this context, I would not consider that to achieve balance a news organisation has to give each side of the debate equally supportive coverage in terms of both time and prominence. Achieving balance should take cognisance of merit. So do you think they are balanced in your opinion? This is not a hard question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davi3j Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 At no point have I asked about the meaning of "balance". I asked about the criteria being used to assess the term, given the various possibilities. A dictionary would not provide that information. Personally, in this context, I would not consider that to achieve balance a news organisation has to give each side of the debate equally supportive coverage in terms of both time and prominence. Achieving balance should take cognisance of merit. ok, so what would you consider it to be, ffs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 I would consider BBC ...to be fairly well balanced, on the whole. The telegraph I don't read but I suspect it is less so. :lol: And you can join your fellow unionists in credibility free corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrysnotter Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 lolwut no i didnt errm...goalposts and shifting??? You people really need to start paying attention to what is written in black and white. You're inability to follow discussions does you no favours. For convenience, the quote I replied to: Is the BBC neutral? Are STV neutral? Are the majority of newspapers neutral? or balanced?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrysnotter Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 ok, so what would you consider it to be, ffs Look at my last sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davi3j Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 You people really need to start paying attention to what is written in black and white. You're inability to follow discussions does you no favours. For convenience, the quote I replied to: Ahem...try paying a bit more attention...thie original point was about wings over scotland Balance isn't neutrality. Reverse bias at best brings balance (and extreme reverse bias doesn't even do that). It doesn't bring neutrality. That is why Wings is counter-productive to our campaign. And his bigoted views openly expressed on social network sites display an ugly kind of politics that the independence movement should want no connection with whatsoever. WTF??? Why does it have to be neutral? Is the BBC neutral? Are STV neutral? Are the majority of newspapers neutral? or balanced?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Bully Posted August 28, 2013 Author Share Posted August 28, 2013 But that's fine if you are on the nationalist side and you enjoy inhaling the aroma of gigantic turds. Only one side is allowed to misrepresent things, make up facts, and act like utter c***s, in terms of the debate. If the other side does it then it's faux outrage. Just logged on to catch up, and saw this. Well done sir for posting that and getting away with it. You must have been expecting an explosion when you lobbed it in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.