Re: Coronavirus
 

"Partly spot on" surely - something's either spot on or it's not. :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

US finally paying the price for choosing to base its oil price on its own domestic measures rather than the one used by the rest of the entire world...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Kind of shows how a decision taken decades ago can impact an economy in the future and the difficulty in linking economic performance to individual regimes.

Re: Coronavirus
 

This article, from a right of centre blogger, make a few good points but it is principally aimed at shutting down dissent and debate. The message is clear: "Shut up and clap when you are told to". Holding your Government to account is the basis of democracy and pieces like this, thankfully consigned to the oddball corners of the Internet, are naive at best and sinister at worse.

In wheeling out the old favourite wartime trope to justify the argument, what the author fails to point out is that the WII Government, although led by the Conservative Party, included leaders from the Labour and Liberal parties as well. This meant that decisions were made on a basis of broad political consensus and not just by one Party.

The media has a duty of responsibility to hold the Government to account when and if it is clearly making the wrong decisions.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Was thinking last night and there is a problem with perception on the whole COVID-19 issue that is also true of most politics.

Politics. science, statistics deal with populations and big numbers. They would have to wrestle with how many deaths, how much the cost, global/national/regional impacts. If we spend money on this and not that what happens. If we support this project in the long term that is beneficial to the nation/region etc more so than keeping things aside for this eventuality. If we send stuff to this country to help them, we get good will to benefit in the future and so on. If we lock down hard now, spend lots on testing then what is long term impact on economy, NHS, morale; if we don't then ...

We deal with the people level, it's Auntie Maud, brother, sister, Nurse Claire, PC Bob. The big picture isn't important when it's someone you know. You don't tell a grieving relative that their loved one died so that some unknown business could better secure a contract. It's not like a war where risks are better known and there is more clear line between a death and it's benefits. (Not that saying we should be careless to our service personnel and use them simply as cannon fodder or being ill equipped either).

It's getting the balance right, reminding the big picture people that it impacts actual real people so they do keep that in mind. That job shouldn't be easy and divorced from individual reality.

Just wondering if down the line we get headlines like "my Suzie died from <nasty disease> because research was stopped during COVID-19" or other permutations however things pan out.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm not surprised you don't like this article, because it says what many people think and you are in the minority on this one.

People in the main accept that the press and the opposition parties are there to hold the government to account. What people object to is people criticising for the sake of it. I really don't think you would be making all these negative comments if it was Labour that was taking these measures. More objectivity would be nice.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Wrong as usual. I would be making the same points if Labour made the same mistakes.

---------- Post added at 13:08 ---------- Previous post was at 13:02 ----------

Denmark applies a moral perspective in governing this crisis:

Denmark Blocks Firms Registered in Tax-Havens From State Aid

If only this government would follow suit ..

Re: Coronavirus
 

I am having difficulty living with the knowledge that several of my friends and relative are working on the front line and living away from their loved ones because they are desperate to protect us. I have already lost 3 friends to the virus and and have 2 more in hospital. One of them is now in ICU.

This blog just about sums up most of my thoughts over the last few weeks and the following is a prime example.I have found despair washing over me at the level of stupidity shown by some people, the shear sensationalism that seems to be driving most journalists and that people seem to revel in their perceived negativity of how Covid-19 has been managed.

I have no problem with discussions what I do have a problem with is the kangaroo court attitude that I see being shown by people who I thought better of. People who would rather argue over small issues , over and over again, trying to convince others they have some 'inside information' or are so more intelligent than any of the actual experts.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Sounds like one or two on here.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You need to differentiate between the click-bait articles that just want to generate attention and the more serious ones that have objective points to raise. BTW, the same "kangaroo court attitude" applies to those who shout down legitimate criticism ...

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don't think anyone is "shouting down" legitimate criticism.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don't think this is a fair summary either of the aim of the blog, or the role of the Press.

Published news media has a function in democratic debate, insofar as it permits the public to challenge their elected representatives via journalists who are (in print at least) free to be partisan, unruly and in many ways unbounded by the restrictions and conventions that affect politicians. They can be a useful, disruptive influence on the whole process. Their privileged access, however, is predicated on the assumption that they are providing a service for those who cannot be there directly (as there are just too many of us). The market-led nature of non-broadcast media is supposed to ensure that the angles journalists pursue are influenced by their readers' interests (as measured by what they will actually pay for). The reality, with the disruptive influence of online news that is now much more reliant on headline grabbing, ad-revenue-generating clicks, rather than subscriber loyalty, is that there is a widening disconnect between what journalists instinctively want to do and what their readers want them to do.

The blogger's main point is absolutely, demonstrably correct. Most journalists are instinctively treating this as a business-as-usual political crisis, and asking all the usual tick-box questions about day to day competence, as a prelude to deciding if and when to run the standard 'under pressure' 'questions asked' and 'should resign' articles they all keep a template for in their desk drawer. They are also, to be fair to them, doing exactly what they were trained to do, and (in the blogger's words) skim-reading medical journals before writing features and analysis in which they effectively pass themselves off as experts. Such an approach, however, utterly fails to grasp the size, complexity or novelty of this situation.

For whole chunks of what we normally take for granted in our national life, we are in the middle of an existential crisis. Yes, the politicians making the decisions must be scrutinised, but there are other tasks befitting journalists. The stuff all of them did week in, week out when they started out on local or regional titles, and which they clearly now think is beneath them, such as championing the good stuff that's going on and trying to put a human face on events.

I think the blogger's most prescient point was in her reference to Captain Tom. If we discovered he had come down with Covid-19 we would all say he was a fighter. It would be a perfectly normal expression of hope for his recovery. Yet when Dominic Raab used the same perfectly common expression, opining that Boris would come through his illness because he is 'a fighter', he was savaged by more than a few hacks for supposedly implying that those who die of Covid-19 were somehow weak and lacking courage or vitality.

Yes, the Press should be scrutinising our leaders at this time, but that is not what they are doing. They are preoccupied with the business-as-usual game of assuming everything is a matter of basic competence and hoping to be first to claim a scalp, and unfairly judging those in power who dare to express the hope or optimism that the public desperately needs to feel right now.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well said Chris :tu: :tu:

... and there you have an example of what I mean. You assume that only you are capable of having the ability to differentiate between good and bad journalism and that legitimate criticism is the same as no evidence

Quote:

Kangaroo Court. An unofficial court held by a group of people in order to try someone regarded, especially without good evidence, as guilty of a crime or misdemeanour.

I now back away from this thread about Covid-19 as I do not wish to sidetrack it with any more of my off-topic posts.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I assume nothing of the sort. I merely pointed out the important distinction, something that you failed to highlight in your original post.

---------- Post added at 16:32 ---------- Previous post was at 16:24 ----------

Again you choose to focus on the media pieces that fit your narrative and in doing so try to prove a universal truth that nearly all journalists are prioritising unwarranted attacks over objective truth. Of course the real world is different to your perception. There will always be journalists in both camps but you insult a lot of professionals to imply that the vast majority are in the former.