What is little short of astonishing is the fact that the BBC are not covering this at all. I can understand them not liking Trump. I can understand that occasionally a preference for a Democrat administration will be apparent in their biased reporting. But apart from aggregated personal preferences (i.e. hundreds of UK Oxbridge left wing staff thinking in broadly the same way) how do they actually benefit from suppressing this? They use Twitter every day. They have corporate policies regarding its use.
It seems to be getting harder and harder to avoid the "paranoid" conspiracy theories. A few years ago they were evidence of madness and the "echo-chamber" effect. Now they are looking increasingly like the only credible explanation.
Sam - it certainly is getting harder to avoid conspiracy theories. They can make sense though, because there is bound to be a media culture and there is certainly a public sector culture.
Both have their perceived interests and those interests are not likely to align with the interests of the public they supposedly serve. Something which seems to have been made considerably sharper by the internet. Twitter could make it sharper still.
It puzzles me that the exertions of vested interest groups should be interpreted as conspiracy theory. Except by apologists? Or the intellectually feeble?
4 comments:
What is little short of astonishing is the fact that the BBC are not covering this at all. I can understand them not liking Trump. I can understand that occasionally a preference for a Democrat administration will be apparent in their biased reporting. But apart from aggregated personal preferences (i.e. hundreds of UK Oxbridge left wing staff thinking in broadly the same way) how do they actually benefit from suppressing this? They use Twitter every day. They have corporate policies regarding its use.
It seems to be getting harder and harder to avoid the "paranoid" conspiracy theories. A few years ago they were evidence of madness and the "echo-chamber" effect. Now they are looking increasingly like the only credible explanation.
Sam - it certainly is getting harder to avoid conspiracy theories. They can make sense though, because there is bound to be a media culture and there is certainly a public sector culture.
Both have their perceived interests and those interests are not likely to align with the interests of the public they supposedly serve. Something which seems to have been made considerably sharper by the internet. Twitter could make it sharper still.
It puzzles me that the exertions of vested interest groups should be interpreted as conspiracy theory. Except by apologists? Or the intellectually feeble?
Tammly - yes, it's a label intended to suppress awkward sceptics. One rung above "bighead" I suppose.
Post a Comment