Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Tue Jul 16, 2013 7:25 am  

JerryChicken wrote: ... You have to ask yourself why - why do seemingly sensible reporters and editors take a decision to extrapolate tiny chunks of data from huge and complex reports and present them in a sensational manner, making a story where a story does not exist in order to score political points for a party currently in power - is this another example of an extremely compliant media doing the governments propaganda work - and making a bloody good job of it in the process, far better than any government press office could do ? Yes. This is what the bulk of current media owners want. Therefore this is what their employees are told to do. I had a conversation with a bloke on Twitter over the last 48 hours, after he had been retweeted by someone I follow, essentially claiming similar kinds of things about the NHS. Couldn't back it up at all when challenged. On Cameron's "no more top-down reorganisation of the NHS" lie, he lamely suggested that 'perhaps it was worse than they thought until they got in'. To which I said that that meant that he was saying that the figures were flawed/deliberately misleading. He refused to respond to that. Then (and you may recognise the debating 'technique') he tried to change the tack to: 'well not all the world is in love with with the NHS'. Who said it was? 'Look, look' ... "here's what Australia thinks." (Note use of quote marks) Not what one person in Australia – or even 'a lot of Australians' or 'some Australians' or 'X% of Australians' think, but what a country as a whole thinks. "What Australia thinks", apparently, was summed up in a brief snippet from an interview with Osborne in the Murdoch-owned Australian. And this is someone who clearly considers themselves as intelligent. Mind, when I rubbished The Dirty Digger, he did get sniffy, claim that all businesses do dodgy things in the hunt for profit (we're not "Care Bears") and refuse to comment when I asked what he thought should be done about this, and when he ignored this, suggested that he had no ethics – to which he still refuses to comment. I really do sometimes want to despair at the sheer gullible nitfuckery from supposedly intelligent and educated people. I blame the education system. Too much of it for people who haven't the intellectual capacity to cope. PS: I've added that link to the comments below the Telegraph report. I've also posted this one too (don't know ho long it will stay up) on Telegraph collusion with private healthcare companies etc: http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2012/ ... -colludes/

JerryChicken wrote: ... You have to ask yourself why - why do seemingly sensible reporters and editors take a decision to extrapolate tiny chunks of data from huge and complex reports and present them in a sensational manner, making a story where a story does not exist in order to score political points for a party currently in power - is this another example of an extremely compliant media doing the governments propaganda work - and making a bloody good job of it in the process, far better than any government press office could do ? Yes. This is what the bulk of current media owners want. Therefore this is what their employees are told to do. I had a conversation with a bloke on Twitter over the last 48 hours, after he had been retweeted by someone I follow, essentially claiming similar kinds of things about the NHS. Couldn't back it up at all when challenged. On Cameron's "no more top-down reorganisation of the NHS" lie, he lamely suggested that 'perhaps it was worse than they thought until they got in'. To which I said that that meant that he was saying that the figures were flawed/deliberately misleading. He refused to respond to that. Then (and you may recognise the debating 'technique') he tried to change the tack to: 'well not all the world is in love with with the NHS'. Who said it was? 'Look, look' ... "here's what Australia thinks." (Note use of quote marks) Not what one person in Australia – or even 'a lot of Australians' or 'some Australians' or 'X% of Australians' think, but what a country as a whole thinks. "What Australia thinks", apparently, was summed up in a brief snippet from an interview with Osborne in the Murdoch-owned Australian. And this is someone who clearly considers themselves as intelligent. Mind, when I rubbished The Dirty Digger, he did get sniffy, claim that all businesses do dodgy things in the hunt for profit (we're not "Care Bears") and refuse to comment when I asked what he thought should be done about this, and when he ignored this, suggested that he had no ethics – to which he still refuses to comment. I really do sometimes want to despair at the sheer gullible nitfuckery from supposedly intelligent and educated people. I blame the education system. Too much of it for people who haven't the intellectual capacity to cope. PS: I've added that link to the comments below the Telegraph report. I've also posted this one too (don't know ho long it will stay up) on Telegraph collusion with private healthcare companies etc: http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2012/ ... -colludes/

Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Tue Jul 16, 2013 7:43 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

... You have to ask yourself why - why do seemingly sensible reporters and editors take a decision to extrapolate tiny chunks of data from huge and complex reports and present them in a sensational manner, making a story where a story does not exist in order to score political points for a party currently in power - is this another example of an extremely compliant media doing the governments propaganda work - and making a bloody good job of it in the process, far better than any government press office could do ?...

There must be regimes around the world who have to control their own propaganda and would just love to have such a compliant printed media section, to all outward appearances a free press (and thereby gaining unwarranted credence) but in reality almost always happy to support the same wing of politics over the other.

When it comes to stats and science, our newspapers almost always love to splash an unprovable headline rather than write a balanced piece looking at the possibilities that the raw data might support.
As an example, I'd point at the MMR vaccine story which has been running for decades now (started by one man who faked his data) that the papers have backed-up by nothing more than bad science, wilful misinterpretation of stats and outright scaremongering, just to sell more copies ... to the point where there are still many thousands of people out there who have believed the stories and who, even now, simply will not immunise their children, putting the whole status of mass-immunisation at risk.
And all because the papers either don't employ anyone who actually understands statistics and probabilities or just won't let them anywhere near such a lovely screamer of a story.

Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:00 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

... As an example, I'd point at the MMR vaccine story which has been running for decades now (started by one man who faked his data) ...

Given how much public health policy, here and in the US, has been influenced over decades by one man who lied about his research date, Ancel Keyes ...

Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Tue Jul 16, 2013 11:40 am  

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jul/16/report-nhs-hospitals-claims-care Sir Bruce Keogh has his moment in the news media - he seems to have learned from the trousering he took at Leeds - and dismisses media speculation and indeed the whole methodology of the data analysis as "meaningless". I wonder if the newspapers will have this as their headlines tomorrow ? I wonder if the current incumbent government will pay heed or get their media dogs to publish more lies ? EDIT @ 12.45 Interestingly the Telegraph, who were leading with the "13000 unnecessary deaths" over the weekend do not yet seem to have caught up with Bruce Keogh's "meaningless stats" comments, or are ignoring them, the fact that they are reporting the comments he made about understaffing suggests that they have read his press release but have chosen not to report on the fact that he completely rubbished their earlier reporting and have not backtracked on the "13000 deaths" at all. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10181920/NHS-crisis-low-staffing-to-blame-for-high-hospital-mortality-rates.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jul/16/report-nhs-hospitals-claims-care Sir Bruce Keogh has his moment in the news media - he seems to have learned from the trousering he took at Leeds - and dismisses media speculation and indeed the whole methodology of the data analysis as "meaningless". I wonder if the newspapers will have this as their headlines tomorrow ? I wonder if the current incumbent government will pay heed or get their media dogs to publish more lies ? EDIT @ 12.45 Interestingly the Telegraph, who were leading with the "13000 unnecessary deaths" over the weekend do not yet seem to have caught up with Bruce Keogh's "meaningless stats" comments, or are ignoring them, the fact that they are reporting the comments he made about understaffing suggests that they have read his press release but have chosen not to report on the fact that he completely rubbished their earlier reporting and have not backtracked on the "13000 deaths" at all. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10181920/NHS-crisis-low-staffing-to-blame-for-high-hospital-mortality-rates.html

Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Tue Jul 16, 2013 12:37 pm  

When the BBC's Chief Political Correspondent was head of the Conservative Association at university, it's a reach to expect their coverage to be in any way impartial.

Having seen the dismantling of the NHS and education, clearly Auntie is too scared to report the truth lest it be next on the ideological chopping block.

Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Tue Jul 16, 2013 1:08 pm  

Andy Gilder wrote:

When the BBC's Chief Political Correspondent was head of the Conservative Association at university, it's a reach to expect their coverage to be in any way impartial.

Having seen the dismantling of the NHS and education, clearly Auntie is too scared to report the truth lest it be next on the ideological chopping block.

The ultimate head of the Beeb, Lord Patten, also has private financial interests in a venture capital company that has interests in private health care. Coincidence, of course.

Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Tue Jul 16, 2013 6:18 pm  

And you still get the thicko's stating the Beeb is a left wing bastion.
Like fook it is!

Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Tue Jul 16, 2013 7:23 pm  

Take a look at who's alongside Hunt when he makes his statement, Anna Soubry is the only recognisable MP. There's not another cabinet colleague within a bus stop of him.

The tories also wheeled out Priti (and I really mean this) Patel on the Daily Politics show to answer questions on the Keogh report. Where were all the big guns?

Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Tue Jul 16, 2013 7:34 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

The tories also wheeled out Priti (and I really mean this) Patel on the Daily Politics show to answer questions on the Keogh report. Where were all the big guns?

Heads straight to I-player in a hurry.

Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Tue Jul 16, 2013 7:46 pm  

WIZEB wrote: And you still get the thicko's stating the Beeb is a left wing bastion. Like fook it is! By thicko's you mean former BBC news directors.... http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/ju ... mmigration

WIZEB wrote: And you still get the thicko's stating the Beeb is a left wing bastion. Like fook it is! By thicko's you mean former BBC news directors.... http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/ju ... mmigration