Diablo

Knowing more about insolvency and restructuring than the average person, and knowing a fair bit about the MG Rover story (historical and current) I was quite stunned by the inacuracies and misleading comments made on both BBC and ITV last night about the MG Rover situation.

So much so, that I stopped watching because it was so bad it was laughable.

Clearly, if they can get this wrong, they can get anything wrong.

Still, if the Minister for Trade & Industry can't get either the terminology, or the actual point in question right, what chance has anyone?

I've never completely trusted anything I've heard, watched or read in the news but last night it brought it home.

I recon most of what is reported is at best innaccurate and and worse dangerously misleading.

Not good.

D

warrenm2

for instance?

Jer

The War with Iraq

astraboy

The news isnt the news anymore, its propaganda.
Especially so in the upcoming weeks.
Dont watch, you'll be better off in the long run.
astraboy.

Iain Young

I've given up watching the news. At least until late May

jasey

Yep - I get all the info I need from ScoobyNet.


Clearly it's all down to the Pikeys

Hanslow

News has been propaganda for a long time. Every report has some sort of bias on it and they give you the info they want you to know. It's been done for years and will continue to be the same.

I stopped reading papers and taking a real interest in the news many years ago. I prefer the biased views given on here

MarkCSC

I heard on the news that Rover had gone in to receivership. In fact they had asked some accountants on the available options.

Going into receivership means you are insolvant, Rover are still solvant (just).

Brendan Hughes

C'mon D - the guy is not only a politician, he's a minister. And you expect the accurate views of an expert? Wakey wakey...

For the rest, it can be a bit scarey when you look at it. I barely know anything about journalism, but I start to become aware that the big names have very vested interests (Murdoch - Sky, Times, etc etc) and it makes you think twice. I don't understand the Beeb with its governors and whatever status of independence it has this week. But also news is a private industry like any other, so if it ain't spiced up and made a bit shocking, most punters will turn off as it's boring.

This was the Independent's big thing when they started - beholden to no-one. They're part of the Mirror Group now, as they were so unsuccessful. So much for unbiased truth (if it ever was) - not enough of the public want it.

You could always phone and offer your services as a pundit?

jasey

Ms Hewitt might not like that

Brendan Hughes

As I said I don't see the news much

Drunken Bungle Whore

I suppose I turst the news to give me a basic idea of major events - i.e. the pope has died, there's been eathquakes in Sumatra. Then if I want to know more I'll dig out a specialist publication.

I'm often accused of sitting on the fence, but I absolutely hate the idea that people and situations are judged by the media for exactly the reasons you've mentioned - unless you know a person or situation personally, then you really don't know what's going on.

TopBanana

Whenever I've had inside knowledge about something in the news, the press coverage has shocked me.

Boost II

iTrader: (1)

LOL when I watch science stories Often way too over simplified or even competely misunderstood by the reporters. Most of these chav's did media degrees and started out writing 'cat up a tree' stories for local rags. They don't understand a damn thing. Probably the average member of the public could explain it to the newsreader better. They should just get some random bloke down the pub type to come and read the news stories.

The one that really gets me mad with its propaganda is "Tonight with Chavver MacDonald" Every story they run is biassed hype full of inaccuracies beyond belief.

imlach

MRSA is one such subject that the media don't understand!! The reality of the situation is far different from that portrayed. Trouble is, 'man in the street' believes all of it, and hence why they get a misleading picture and are 'scaremongered'.

Spoon

Digressing slightly but on a similar vein.

I was in Crown Court last Friday to listen to the sentencing of a fraudster. A case which had lasted 3 years gathering evidence from several people, several times over the period.

This huge amount of evidence gathered over the 3 years finally had it's chance to be aired.

Very little was actually put forward and what evidence was put forward was innacurate on more than 4 occassions. Yes the judge had a bit of time beforehand to read the case with the correct details, and all credit to him, he appeared to grasp the gist of it very well, but who could possibly read 3 years worth and the devastation resulting, in say a few hours?

Therefore you largely depend on what barristers put forward and if that is innacurate, then what?