Donate SIGN UP

Answers

21 to 40 of 120rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Apc2604. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//If we had had the modern journalist profession in 1940, we would have lost the war.
:
:
The British people however would not have listened to them then, just as we don’t read them now. Newspapers are going out of business. They deserve to. // - that's the last paragraph, once again, bang on.
I'd rather live in a world where the media is excessively critical than excessively praising. I don't doubt that on occasion they're overdoing it, but still. Speaking truth unto power often comes across as negativity.
jim, I'd like the journos to concentrate on extracting useful information not bore me with the same bilge for days at a time designed to make a name for themselves by tripping up a minister. They all want to be David Frost or Robin Day but carry on like Dennis Pennis. They latch on to what is the flavour at the time, it's PPE at the moment, the whole kin world is trying to get it and 100,000 bits last a couple of days, so stop making out that Hancock is hiding it in his garage to flog down portobello road when this is over! Err indoors switched it over yesterday when I shouted obscenities at Laura Klueless for yet another stupid question about PPE, aaaarrrrrggggghhhh!
Indeed overoptimism on the part of government spokespersons been one of the main causes for grievances. Wild promises on testing, on PPE etc, raising false hopes and expectations.
You know that quote from John Cleese in Clockwork ...
Question Author
Tora, I sometimes wonder if my OH has secretly joined AB with an assumed name of TTT or Retro! ;o)
he sounds like a very sensible chap!
that must be a contender for BA at 15:48!
Question Author
I agree!
The idea that journalists only ever speak the truth is as ridiculous as saying polititians only ever tell us lies. Journalism thrives on controversy, and journalists will seek out the contrary position wherever possible - and they will always find an 'expert' to back it up.
Jim,//The very slight problem with the WWII analogy is that we *did* sack our Prime Minister in the middle of it: after the disaster at Norway//

You've misunderstood. She talked about potentially sacking Churchill for Dunkirk not sacking a prime minster for Narvik. The analogy works.
In the same paragraph it talks about Narvik; "They [the media] would have complained about the disastrous mistakes at Narvik." Well, they should have, and they did, and Chamberlain, rightly, paid for it. Even in War, politicians and leaders need to be held accountable.
Also just to add that this doesn't mean I believe that Johnson, or Hancock, or any other Cabinet members, should be sacked. All I'm saying is that if we want to trust that our Government is doing the right thing then we must continually ask them to justify their actions.
Jim, //In the same paragraph it talks about Narvik//

I know - but you misunderstood it. The analogy that you said doesn't work ... does.
Jim, //All I'm saying is that if we want to trust that our Government is doing the right thing then we must continually ask them to justify their actions. //

How would you 'know' if they're doing the right thing? You wouldn't.
I don't see it that way.

As to the last: we can tell by results, can we not? The Government's policy began with a "Contain" phase. Well, that clearly wasn't successful, since the spread of the virus has manifestly not been contained.
Still, even supposing I misunderstood the point, the gist of my criticism still stands. Holding governments to account is vital, even and especially in times of crisis. I don't claim for a moment that I'm the person to do that, but in principle it's clear that criticism where appropriate is a key part of ensuring that they do the job we need them to do.

"Wild promises on testing" those TARGETS (not promises)have not yet run out of time
Indeed. But capacity for testing is currently 40,000, and there have been around 20,000 tests daily for the last week or so. Sometimes less. Capacity needs to more than double in a week, and testing needs to more than quintuple. That's still doable, presumably, and let's hope it turns out to be achieved.
What a totally stupid question.
The simple fact is the UK has has nearly 4 times the number of deaths than Germany (a country of similar population) has had. There must be a reason for why 19,000 brits have died, and only 5,000 Germans.
It is not negativity to question why we have had such carnage, and other countries haven’t.

I think the press have reported this ongoing corona story wrong, not be cause they have been negative, but because they have been afraid of asking the right, serious questions about why it has all gone terribly so wrong.
Well worth consideration. ∆∆∆∆

21 to 40 of 120rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

There Are A Chosen Few On Ab That Should Take Nore Of This.........

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.