Media Literacy & Bias (interesting website) 🗞️ 📺 📻

Byline Times is fairly neutral too. And no, I have no proof of that, as I don't know what form that would take .

I think Full Facts online is worth consulting when trying to work out if one is being bamboozled by politicians or the media on current affairs.

NanaDana

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our <a target="_blank" rel="noopener" href="https://www.gransnet.com/info/netiquette">Talk guidelines.</a>

How odd

Sometimes when writing in Gransnet or any other social media, lack of paragraphs grammatical errors and even spelling errors (thanks to unwanted predictive script) can occur. Not necessarily the intention of the writer. I like good grammar and accurate spelling myself but perhaps we should be a little less pedantic and a wee bit more tolerant since social media comments are not expected to be the same as reading literature which is edited anyway before being printed.

I would like that, NanaDana and so, I'm sure, would GNHQ

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Foxygloves

Seriously?

Yes foxygloves, very seriously. It was on a now deleted thread. The poster made a perfectly innocuous comment and was told she could be sued. The poster was frightened and distressed. Fortunately, sense prevailed and many other posters reassured her she would not be sued.

Seriously?

A few days ago another poster was honestly scared silly after being told that it was likely that would be sued for saying stuff about Mr Edwards.

‘I hope you are very rich…’ it went.

This was my comment to GNHQ.

I feel the poster jumped to some very angry, and unnecessary conclusions. Her post was, indeed, very professionally written. Thiswas why I wanted to know more about it. I would go as far as to say that I have never seen a piece as well written on GN.

It's quite commonplace on GN for people not to reference sources so it is also commonplace for us to ask for that reference. Nowhere did I suggest she had "plagiarised" nor did I accuse her of any "sins".

I am not sure how I'm supposed to have known she was a professional writer. I have only noticed her name very recently. Had I known she was a writer I would have asked her to explain more rather than asking for the source.

She went on to talk about litigation which I found very frightening. I felt I had done nothing wrong. I had just admired what she had written.

Malcolm X has written in very similar vein. In some cases using exactly the same words. This may have become part of the general language used by people who are interested in the subject. I was certainly not making any accusations.

I have never come across someone repeating a deleteated posts before. It is very common, as I pointed out, for references not to be given in post on GN and very uncommon for them to be professionally written. An assumption that this post was professionally written, along with there being no way I could know the poster - new to me on GN - was a professional writer - was more compliment than criticism. I would not want to feel that the often asked request on GN for sources could not now be asked fear of anger and talk of litigation.

Oreo

It seems obvious to me NanaDana that this is your own comment.Why anyone would think it lifted from another source I can only guess at.

Thank you, Oreo.. Most kind. GN removed my previous response, as I was a wee bit incandescent when I wrote it. My BP has now returned to normal.

MerylStreep

Nanadana
A polite request. I would like to read your posts but could we have some paragraphs 🙏 please?

By all means, Meryl. If I feel that my post is going to be more than a couple of sentences, I tend to write it on "Word" first, then just cut and paste it across to GN. A bit lazy of me, so yes, I'll properly paragraph in future.

Nanadana
A polite request. I would like to read your posts but could we have some paragraphs 🙏 please?

I can’t see any Malcolm X quote either!

It seems obvious to me NanaDana that this is your own comment.Why anyone would think it lifted from another source I can only guess at.

DaisyAnneReturns

NanaDana

I wonder if you could explain why the Malcolm X quote was pertinent and also who the rest of the article is by? It would make it much easier to read if we have context I think. Thank you.

I am unaware of any quote by Malcolm X. Also, as a published author and poet, I strongly object to the inference that I have plagiarised this post, and chosen not to attribute it to some other author. Every single word is mine, and mine alone. As a complainant in a case concerning breach of copyright, I am only too well aware of the sin which you somehow see fit to accuse me of. I find your unwarranted accusation most uncalled for, and deeply insulting as regards both my professionalism as a writer, and my personal integrity. Disappointing.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Good well thought out post NanaDana👏🏻👏🏻

I’ll have a look at this site when I get the time, but childminding calls for now.It does get harder and harder to navigate around political bias.

Doodledog

Do you mean Wikipedia, Freya? If so, you are right not to believe it. Anyone can write (or alter) a wiki page, so they are notoriously inaccurate, particularly where individuals are concerned.

Yes, I did mean that, and you're right. When doing my research for my degree, we were advised not to use it because of that reason.

NanaDana

I wonder if you could explain why the Malcolm X quote was pertinent and also who the rest of the article is by? It would make it much easier to read if we have context I think. Thank you.

Took a quick look and it is a USA group. How much attention is paid to UK and European media?

Doodledog

It’s not bogus - it’s been around for years and is well regarded.

By whom?

The mass media, and now also social media, are both immensely powerful. They have the wherewithal to make the innocent appear guilty, the guilty appear innocent, and to endlessly muddy the waters in between. Also, with the advent of A.I., our ability to differentiate between accurately reported and fake news is already being eroded. As regards media bias, the issue is much wider than mere political, religious or even morality-based leanings. A major bias factor is the drive for increased readership/viewing figures, and hence profit. The media also have a tendency to present gossip, rumour, and speculation as fact, and can always trot out a paid expert to back this up, despite the fact that a different expert can usually be found to refute the first one. So we should never forget that with the mass media the primary bias is more often than not, the drive to improve ratings.. a commercial decision. The position with Social Media is slightly more complex. Here, the influence of personal agendas is very much to the fore, as contributors seek out mass media “facts” (but see above for the problems with that), which support their particular standpoint, and comment accordingly. Those who disagree then have two options. The first is to seek out “facts” which effectively contradict the original argument, or alternatively, to claim that the “rock solid” case which is being presented, is based on the shifting sands of unsupported speculation. In my experience, the latter approach tends to be both more rational and more credible, although there will always be exceptions. As for the “impartiality” of Ad Fontes Media, as I have no knowledge of them, I am unable to comment. However, I would most certainly welcome any intervention which would afford an opportunity for a more balanced presentation of “the news” in general, as that would most certainly help encourage a more open-minded, socially responsible and positive debate about the issues which challenge our society. So good luck with that. They’ll need it, bearing in mind the entrenched power that our mass media have developed over the years, and will not easily give up.

Hello Bijou, I applaud your healthy cynicism, and I hope that you are well

I will never forget that when I was sixteen the History teacher warned us never to believe what I read in the newspapers because they publish a lot of articles to boost sales.
That was in 1930
I never buy newspapers and don’t believe everything I hear on TV