|
Post by racechick on Feb 19, 2017 8:28:56 GMT
I'm going to post any news I get of the Paris riots in here. Not because it's terrorists, but because it fits here better than any other thread. I'm doing it because you won't get any news on MSM. BBC and ITV still haven't acknowledged it. Not sure whether you're getting anything in the states?
The background to this spate of violence and riots is complex. There is the general social unrest. The haves and have nots. France are traditionally very socialist but still there is social deprivation. France also, because of their history, have a large Muslim population. This has resulted in ghettos in some of the big cities. Marseille, Lyon and Paris are some of them. These ghettos have become no go areas for police and women cannot go into bars and cafes in these suburbs by themselves. So already there was a partial loss of police control.
Move on now to last year. The migrants at the Calais jungle were moved and the Jungle dismantled. Many of these migrants moved to the streets of Paris and set up camps in the boulevards which were tourist areas.
Hollande has been woeful in his dealing with this situation.
The spark for the rioting came about five days ago when a black guy was allegedly sodomized by a policeman with his truncheon. The guy is in hospital. The rioting is spreading to more areas of Paris, its out of the ghettos now and in the city and near the Euro hub at Gare du Nord.
The army are now on the streets of Paris.
I came across this , this morning. Poor police guy in that car. He was on his own in there. He could easily have been killed.
With French elections imminent this is all playing into the hands of Marine Le Pen.
|
|
|
Post by racechick on Feb 19, 2017 9:47:09 GMT
Sorry this is French, but I think you'll get the gist.
|
|
|
Post by racechick on Feb 19, 2017 9:47:37 GMT
Sorry this is French, but I think you'll get the gist.
|
|
|
Post by racechick on Feb 19, 2017 10:42:57 GMT
Hmmmm, picture didn't work in that tweet. It's this picture..
|
|
|
Post by racechick on Feb 19, 2017 13:06:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stonemonkey on Feb 19, 2017 13:14:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by racechick on Feb 19, 2017 14:17:43 GMT
Could be, there were riots last year after the Paris terrorist attack. But It was on twitter this morning. It was just the first one I came across. I'll try to get the dates better. Best I guess are the Ines posted from people actually there seeing it.
you can't trust anyone these days. Everyone tells lies and just pursues their own agenda.
|
|
|
Post by stonemonkey on Feb 19, 2017 14:59:57 GMT
I think with fake news being a thing at the moment there might be some playing silly buggers, anyone can take a video off YouTube and claim they just shot it or make up/edit a graphic.
Check the date.
I'm not saying there isn't anything going on but be careful what you believe, especially around the likes of Alex jones and his followers.
|
|
|
Post by racechick on Feb 19, 2017 15:38:44 GMT
I used to believe everything people said, didn't cross my mind to question really, especially with institutions like the BBC, it was something you grew up trusting, but they're biased, they have an agenda. You know what I was like, even on here, Miss gullible. I'm not going to be anymore.
|
|
|
Post by RyRy on Feb 20, 2017 0:50:50 GMT
The only form of "news" I trust (not fully) is reddit's news subreddits and that's because a majoirty of the junk gets downvoted out of sight or called out in the comments.
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Feb 20, 2017 15:18:24 GMT
Could be, there were riots last year after the Paris terrorist attack. But It was on twitter this morning. It was just the first one I came across. I'll try to get the dates better. Best I guess are the Ines posted from people actually there seeing it. you can't trust anyone these days. Everyone tells lies and just pursues their own agenda. I think that you can trust but you do want to verify. If you get your news from one source, you're only getting their POV which can often be their corporate or government agenda. There's quite a lot of this going on.
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Feb 20, 2017 17:16:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Hammer on Feb 21, 2017 8:06:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Hammer on Feb 21, 2017 8:06:55 GMT
I believe anything which comes with a receipt and legit company number.
|
|
|
Post by racechick on Feb 21, 2017 10:30:23 GMT
Yes. It's very easy to be deceitful if that's your intention. And sometimes it's easy to miss things that have been slipped in, not check dates etc. But one doesn't expect it from such an institution as the BBC. They're supposed to be factual and unbiased. They aren't. I'll bore you with a few examples, there are many! 1. BBC are not supposed to accept money from organisations. It's to keep them unbiased. They get billions from licence fees. But they have accepted MILLIONS from the EU. So no surprise that they are pro EU. And this whilst they were covering the referendum. It was only revealed when they were pursued through FOI. They'd hidden it under 'other income'. They eventually revealed 3 million and said it was for research ( which is allowed) but it was way more than that and used for World Service. A few links about the EU funding the BBC ( some old) www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/eu_fundingwww.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84760www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/12059280/BBC-has-received-2m-in-EU-funding-in-run-up-to-referendum-fueling-accusations-of-bias.html2. Biased reporting by omission or selection. The example I have given of no news on TV about the Paris riots ( you can find a few written articles if you dig around.) but lead story on every TV news , six o clock news, news at 10 , news night, is the war criminal Tony Blair calling for a second referendum. 3. Subtle emotive words to predispose the listener to think a certain way. Example1: if the BBC are talking about the political right, they will generally call it the far right. If they are talking about the political left they won't use the word 'far'. Example 2 : qualifying words like 'only' , 'just'. Recently the BBC talked about Britains food production in relation to leaving the EU. They said Britain 'only' produces 50 something % of their own food. Why the word 'only' . Why not just say, on leaving the EU, the U.K. Will have to increase its food production to the levels it was at before joining the EU ( which was 70 something %) 4. They way guests are introduced. Again to predispose the listener to think if the guests in a favourable or unfavourable way. Example. Last week in Newsnight the presenter had two journalists on radio link from the US. ( sorry I can't remember their names) He introduced one and Said , 'she writes for the Washington post.' He he introduced the 2nd saying ' she writes for papers like Brietbart and (Hills ?) Why the word 'like' ? Why the disapproval before the woman has spoken? But it gets worse. Sadly for the Newsnight presenter he lost contact with 'nice' lady from the Washington post. So 'suspect' lady was able to correct his false introduction. 'I've never written for Breitbart' , she said. ' I worked for fifteen years at the Wall Street Journal'. Ok I'll stop now. But I see this ALL THE TIME nnow that I've noticed it. RyRy Its why I said I like what Trump said about the BBC. Not that I like Trump note...that I like what he said about the BBC. Because in just 3 words he cut throu the hypocritical PC bullshit and said , I know your game. Look how long it's just taken me to explain the BBC's game.
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Feb 21, 2017 13:16:59 GMT
Have you heard about the immigrant terrorist attacks in Sweden? Trupts responses are all over the news but the media seems to have been covering up the actual Terrorist attacks.
Clearly there's Fake news (misinformation) and then there are errors and shoddy journalists. They're not the same thing. There's also the fact that news agencies print retractions or corrections, extremists websites tend to double down on the bat shit.
|
|
|
Post by racechick on Feb 21, 2017 14:50:13 GMT
Sweden, rape capital of the world. Yes I've heard about the attacks, though I haven't heard Trump speak about them. Recently , in the last couple of days there was an anti immigration march in Sweden. The largest in their history apparently. But reports on it vary. Nothing on BBC.
With the BBC, its not so much shoddy journalism. Because to be fair to them they're rarely shoddy. It's subtle bias. Always subtle. And hypocrisy. The change in the BBC has happened slowly, imperceptibly, as PC has become the norm. And I think people are just waking up now.
I realise extreme news sites also have their own agendas and will twist facts to suit.
I'm in France at the moment and trying to read the French newspapers to get a different take on things. It's mainly about their up and coming presidential election.
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Feb 21, 2017 15:06:29 GMT
What is news thought? How much of it can be reported? What is relevant? What is specifically chosen? Does it make you feel any better that there's nothing being reported of that here?
News not being reported is not fake news though, There's a certain sensationalist value that has to come along with it or else it's not reported. Like Like thousands of people dying in Africa is not equivalent to a dozen people being kill in the EU somewhere.
Does it bother you that Trump then turns nothing in Sweden into a justification for his very selective Muslim immigration ban here? The point is that news doesn't have to be fair it has to report on facts. Say for example when you bring in a climate change denier and a scientist to speak about the causes or the impact of the climate and whether or not it's man made/affected. There is no point in bringing a denier to that conversation because there science is the science. So being fair in letting the one side that's providing misinformation speak is doing the audience a disservice.
We don't have fake news, what we have is facts and alternative facts. One doesn't belong on the air.
Like George Carlin would say; Think about how dumb the average person is, and then think about the fact that half of people are dumber than him.
|
|
|
Post by Hammer on Feb 21, 2017 15:52:53 GMT
Like George Carlin would say; Think about how dumb the average person is, and then think about the fact that half of people are dumber than him. Interesting. When I thought of the average person, I immediately assumed in my head there're a LOT more dumber people out there than there are those who are smarter. Like a 70/30 ratio.
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Feb 21, 2017 17:59:35 GMT
You're putting your demarcation on smart and up average is still average. If I recall, 100 IQ is deemed average, 80 is deemed as learning disabled or mental retardation. 135 is what it takes to get into Mensa which is the 95th percentile.
|
|