Had to laugh yesterday: I was busy sending emails to customers and one was called Franzia Eckhoff. Her email address is f.eckhoff@xxxx. I guess she gets comments all the time.
Seems I may have been right about Trump's people being 'incidentally intercepted' while the US security services were monitoring Russians. This isn't going to turn out well for Trump, as he's more or less admitted people on his team were communicating with the Russians. Someone will have a field day with this and his ego will eventually get the better of him.
I'm a tad confused about this airplane cabin laptop ban. Surely a laptop going through a passenger security check with you means it gets much closer inspection than if it's in hold luggage that isn't actually opened? You have to take your laptop out of your cabin baggage and open it (although no always). I just can't see the point of it. Perhaps hold luggage does get closer inspection after all. And why only on certain flights - can't terrorists board planes in Europe or the USA? If I were asked, I'd say Mr May is slavishly following Trump's illogical agenda.
Whenever I put on a clean top, Hay always makes comments, such as; "Ah, a clean canvass for you to do your work on by the end of the day." I have to admit that I do seem to attract a lot of muck to whatever I'm wearing and light colour are anathema to me ever hoping to put something clean on in the morning and go out in the same clothing in the evening. Hay's convinced that Pig Pen from the Charlie Brown cartoons was modeled on me.
Seems I may have been right about Trump's people being 'incidentally intercepted' while the US security services were monitoring Russians. This isn't going to turn out well for Trump, as he's more or less admitted people on his team were communicating with the Russians. Someone will have a field day with this and his ego will eventually get the better of him.
I'm a tad confused about this airplane cabin laptop ban. Surely a laptop going through a passenger security check with you means it gets much closer inspection than if it's in hold luggage that isn't actually opened? You have to take your laptop out of your cabin baggage and open it (although no always). I just can't see the point of it. Perhaps hold luggage does get closer inspection after all. And why only on certain flights - can't terrorists board planes in Europe or the USA? If I were asked, I'd say Mr May is slavishly following Trump's illogical agenda.
Whenever I put on a clean top, Hay always makes comments, such as; "Ah, a clean canvass for you to do your work on by the end of the day." I have to admit that I do seem to attract a lot of muck to whatever I'm wearing and light colour are anathema to me ever hoping to put something clean on in the morning and go out in the same clothing in the evening. Hay's convinced that Pig Pen from the Charlie Brown cartoons was modeled on me.
The question of BBC bias is in the news, yet again. The BBC regularly comes out in studies as being close to centre, if slightly left. That's hardly surprising when you consider the people who work there are usually of graduate quality and there's a distinct correlation between educational level and political leanings. Bias can never be eliminated, yet the fact both the left and the right complain about BBC bias suggest to me that the BBC has it just about right.
What the BBC should never be is a mouthpiece for the government of the day. The BBC also regularly comes out in studies as being harder on the government than the opposition - which again is hardly surprising, given government calls the shots and needs to be more accountable.
There's no denying that the further to the right or left you are, the further away from your position you're going to see anything centrist. Those that complain most about the BBC seem to come from the extremities, not the centre.
The total elimination of bias, by giving the breath of legitimacy to ridiculous stories, is not in the best interests of news reporting either. There is a creeping 'balance' being given to news, which is counter to investigative journalism and the search for truth. One only needs to think about the MMR scandal.
Talking of the MMR scandal, one thing I take issue with in journalism is science reporting. A single study may show something new but, until several studies corroborate that finding, it's not consensus - it's merely an hypothesis - yet the news media report it as hard fact. This is why we get conflicting stories about what's good for us and what's bad for us. It's not the fault of the science, it's the undue weight given to single studies by the media. The Daily Mail had a field day with Andrew Wakefield and must have thought Christmas, Easter and several birthdays had come at once; a story about kids, science and vaccines - what a crowd puller. The fact kids died through not having measles vaccinations can be laid directly at the feet of the DM and its pitifully poor science reporting.
What the BBC should never be is a mouthpiece for the government of the day. The BBC also regularly comes out in studies as being harder on the government than the opposition - which again is hardly surprising, given government calls the shots and needs to be more accountable.
There's no denying that the further to the right or left you are, the further away from your position you're going to see anything centrist. Those that complain most about the BBC seem to come from the extremities, not the centre.
The total elimination of bias, by giving the breath of legitimacy to ridiculous stories, is not in the best interests of news reporting either. There is a creeping 'balance' being given to news, which is counter to investigative journalism and the search for truth. One only needs to think about the MMR scandal.
Talking of the MMR scandal, one thing I take issue with in journalism is science reporting. A single study may show something new but, until several studies corroborate that finding, it's not consensus - it's merely an hypothesis - yet the news media report it as hard fact. This is why we get conflicting stories about what's good for us and what's bad for us. It's not the fault of the science, it's the undue weight given to single studies by the media. The Daily Mail had a field day with Andrew Wakefield and must have thought Christmas, Easter and several birthdays had come at once; a story about kids, science and vaccines - what a crowd puller. The fact kids died through not having measles vaccinations can be laid directly at the feet of the DM and its pitifully poor science reporting.
No comments:
Post a Comment