Trump versus News media.

[Naraic]

I have found the vox pops to be well balanced...frustratingly if you want to hear only your opinion.

The problem is Brexit and Trump supporters do not like other opinions and thus find even one comment against them to be indicative of bias.

IMO.

 

[Frontstep]

As someone who christened Trump the purgative laxative emetic or sick inducer I don't think I could be classed as an ardent fan still,
where is the BBC reports of his achievements which for me is an amateur managing to get up, running and fulfilling pre election pledges whether you like them or not.

The very things their democracy voted for .

Endless anti-Trump reporting from the luvvies awards ceremonies to the losers marches where is the balance ?

 

[Naraic]

As someone who christened Trump the purgative laxative emetic or sick inducer I don't think I could be classed as an ardent fan still,
where is the BBC reports of his achievements which for me is an amateur managing to get up, running and fulfilling pre election pledges whether you like them or not.

The very things their democracy voted for .

Endless anti-Trump reporting from the luvvies awards ceremonies to the losers marches where is the balance ?

Is balance even possible when it comes to Trump?

 

[geraldrobins]

Often when the media want to push an angle they go into the street to interview. It isn't often they will show a balance of opinions from those they speak to. If you believe it everyone in the example town thinks the same.
This can only be seen as a bias, even if the bias changes the next day.

I dont that impression at all and would say they interview people in the street how do they knoow their opinion, however if most comments are toward one point of view that may be how it is and not the BBC editing other views out, or being selective on who they interview.

 

[Craiglxviii]

Is balance even possible when it comes to Trump?

Yes. And accuracy.

Look at the BBC stories about him. Look at the quotes they use.

Then go back to the actual words used by Trump and the context in which they were used.

He was against NATO to start with according to the Beeb this morning. He called it obsolete. Here are his actual remarks:

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/whats-trumps-position-on-nato/

Only if you cherry pick elements of that can you say he's against it. He isn't, he's all for it and what he as bad cop, and Mattis as good cop have achieved this week is the culmination of the work started by those comments made in my link.

 

[Craiglxviii]

I dont that impression at all and would say they interview people in the street how do they knoow their opinion, however if most comments are toward one point of view that may be how it is and not the BBC editing other views out, or being selective on who they interview.

This is how it's done.

http://researchmethodsdataanalysis....leading-questions-yes-prime-minister.html?m=1

 

[Frontstep]

Is balance even possible when it comes to Trump?

Yes why not

 

[prwales]

the latest target of the US press are around him being a draft dodger

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...tfit-criticism-veterans-us-navy-a7609471.html

something that Bill Clinton was attacked for by the Republican Party

 

[Frontstep]

Its an old story spun around the fact he wore the jacket and hat he was given.

The media should criticise Trump by all means but save it for something useful otherwise people will have news fatigue and real stories will be lost in the morass.

 

[Craiglxviii]

BBC reporting accuracy

On the subject of the BBC reporting accurately, I came across this today. THe Shoreham Airshow crash of a Hunter T.7. Tragic.

The BBC reported this twice today on the radio news as being, "... primarily due to pilot error. Here is the news page on it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-39105085

Now here is what the AAIB actually said. I have bolded out some relevant parts.

Summary:
At 1222 UTC (1322 BST) on 22 August 2015, Hawker Hunter G-BXFI crashed on to the A27, Shoreham Bypass, while performing at the Shoreham Airshow, fatally injuring eleven road users and bystanders. A further 13 people, including the pilot, sustained other injuries.

The AAIB investigation considered the circumstances in which the aircraft came to be in a position from which it was not possible to complete its intended manoeuvre, and the reasons for the severity of the outcome.

The AAIB recognises that as well as being enjoyed by large numbers of spectators and participants, flying displays are also considered to provide important economic and educational benefits .

A safe flying display relies on the training and experience of the participating pilots, the airworthiness of the aircraft, and the planning and risk management of the event. Regulations, guidance and oversight provide the framework for these activities.

The aircraft was carrying out a manoeuvre involving both a pitching and rolling component, which commenced from a height lower than the pilot’s authorised minimum for aerobatics, at an airspeed below his stated minimum, and proceeded with less than maximum thrust. This resulted in the aircraft achieving a height at the top of the manoeuvre less than the minimum required to complete it safely, at a speed that was slower than normal.

Although it was possible to abort the manoeuvre safely at this point, it appeared the pilot did not recognise that the aircraft was too low to complete the downward half of the manoeuvre. An analysis of human performance identified several credible explanations for this, including: not reading the altimeter due to workload, distraction or visual limitations such as contrast or glare; misreading the altimeter due to its presentation of height information; or incorrectly recalling the minimum height required at the apex.

The investigation found that the guidance concerning the minimum height at which aerobatic manoeuvres may be commenced is not applied consistently and may be unclear.

There was evidence that other pilots do not always check or perceive correctly that the required height has been achieved at the apex of manoeuvres.

Training and assessment procedures in place at the time of the accident did not prepare the pilot fully for the conduct of relevant escape manoeuvres in the Hunter.

The manoeuvre was continued and the aircraft struck the ground on the northern side of the westbound carriageway of the A27 close to the central reservation with a ground track at a slight angle to the direction of the road. When it struck the ground it broke into four main sections. Fuel and fuel vapour released from the fuel tanks ignited. In its path were vehicles that were stationary at, or in the vicinity of, the traffic lights at the junction with the Old Shoreham Road, and pedestrians standing by the junction.

The pilot did not attempt to jettison the aircraft’s canopy or activate his ejection seat. However, disruption of the aircraft due to the impact activated the canopy jettison process and caused the ejection seat firing mechanism to initiate. The seat firing sequence was not completed due to damage sustained by its firing mechanism during the impact. The seat was released from the aircraft and the pilot was released from the seat as a result of partial operation of the sequencing mechanism. Some of the pyrotechnic cartridges remained live and were a hazard to first responders until they were made safe.

The investigation found that the aircraft appeared to be operating normally and responding to pilot control inputs until it impacted the ground. Defects in the altimeter system would have resulted in the height indicated to the pilot being lower than the actual aircraft height at the apex of the manoeuvre.

Information included in a previous AAIB report indicated that there had been several cases involving the type of engine fitted to this aircraft where an un-commanded reduction in engine speed had occurred and subsequent engineering investigation did not establish a clear cause. This investigation was unable to determine whether a reduction in engine speed recorded during the accident manoeuvre was commanded by the pilot.

The aircraft’s engine was subject to a Mandatory Permit Directive (MPD) which imposed a calendar life on the engine type, and provided an option to extend that life using an Alternative Means of Compliance (AMOC). Proposals for an engine life extension using an AMOC inspection programme had to be approved by the regulator. Related tasks were being conducted by the maintenance organisation, but the regulator had not approved the operator or its maintenance organisation to use an AMOC to this MPD.

The investigation found that defects and exceedences of the aircraft’s operational limits had not been reported to the maintenance organisation, and mandatory requirements of its Airworthiness Approval Note had not been met. During prolonged periods of inactivity the aircraft’s engine had not been preserved in accordance with the approved maintenance schedule. The investigation identified a degraded diaphragm in the engine fuel control system, which could no longer be considered airworthy. However, the engine manufacturer concluded it would not have affected the normal operation of the engine.

The aircraft had been issued with a Permit to Fly and its Certificate of Validity was in date, but the issues identified in this investigation indicated that the aircraft was no longer in compliance with the requirements of its Permit to Fly.

The investigation found that the parties involved in the planning, conduct and regulatory oversight of the flying display did not have formal safety management systems in place to identify and manage the hazards and risks. There was a lack of clarity about who owned which risk and who was responsible for the safety of the flying display, the aircraft, and the public outside the display site who were not under the control of the show organisers.

The regulator believed the organisers of flying displays owned the risk. Conversely, the organiser believed that the regulator would not have issued a Permission for the display if it had not been satisfied with the safety of the event. The aircraft operator’s pilots believed the organiser had gained approval for overflight of congested areas, which was otherwise prohibited for that aircraft, and the display organiser believed that it was the responsibility of the operator or the pilot to fly the aircraft’s display in a manner appropriate to the constraints of the display site.

No organisation or individual considered all the hazards associated with the aircraft’s display, what could go wrong, who might be affected and what could be done to mitigate the risks to a level that was both tolerable and as low as reasonably practicable.

Controls intended to protect the public from the hazards of displaying aircraft were ineffective.

The investigation identified the following causal factors in the accident:

The aircraft did not achieve sufficient height at the apex of the accident manoeuvre to complete it before impacting the ground because the combination of low entry speed and low engine thrust in the upward half of the manoeuvre was insufficient.
An escape manoeuvre was not carried out, despite the aircraft not achieving the required minimum apex height.
The following contributory factors were identified:

The pilot either did not perceive that an escape manoeuvre was necessary, or did not realise that one was possible at the speed achieved at the apex of the manoeuvre.
The pilot had not received formal training to escape from the accident manoeuvre in a Hunter and had not had his competence to do so assessed.
The pilot had not practised the technique for escaping from the accident manoeuvre in a Hunter, and did not know the minimum speed from which an escape manoeuvre could be carried out successfully.
A change of ground track during the manoeuvre positioned the aircraft further east than planned producing an exit track along the A27 dual carriageway.
The manoeuvre took place above an area occupied by the public over which the organisers of the flying display had no control.
The severity of the outcome was due to the absence of provisions to mitigate the effects of an aircraft crashing in an area outside the control of the organisers of the flying display.
The AAIB has published three Special Bulletins (SB) highlighting areas of concern that required timely consideration.

SB 3/2015, published on 4 September 2015, 13 days after the accident, reported initial information about the occurrence.

SB 4/2015, published on 21 December 2015, dealt with the safety of first responders to the accident scene, the maintenance of ejection seats in historic ex-military aircraft and issues regarding the maintenance of ex-military aircraft on the UK civil register. Seven Safety Recommendations were made.

SB 1/2016, published on 10 March 2016, considered the risk management of flying displays, minimum display heights and separation distances, regulatory oversight and piloting standards. It contained a further 14 Safety Recommendations, and was published to inform the air display community ahead of the 2016 air display season.

A further 11 Safety Recommendations are made in this report.

https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aircraft-accident-report-aar-1-2017-g-bxfi-22-august-2015

So the actual report that the BBC article is based on says:

The pilot wasn't trained properly in aerobatics on the Hunter T.7 aircraft.
The organisers of the airshow did not properly understand the risks to the public or consider that those risks may extend beyond the physical boundaries of the airshow.
The aircraft operating company had not maintained the engine properly.
The pilot did not try to eject and save himself, but elected to ride the aircraft in. That means he was trying to minimise ground casualties- and that makes him a hero not a villain.

Notice how the AAIB does not point fingers at the pilot at all, but rather the operator and organisers pretty bluntly. Now compare that with the BBC article.

 

[Frontstep]

The BBC said he didn't remember anything about the accident.

The BBC report he flew too low and too slow 6PM news.

 

[Xtractorfan]

The BBC reported, that it was primarily Pilot error,. The plane was flown too low and too slow, the aaib guy who was interviewed, stated that in their opinion the Pilot was more familiar and used to flying a smaller aircraft, which could have performed the manoeuvre undertaken by the Pilot, so they believe that the Pilot mistakenly thought he was flying a different aircraft... from that I would agree Primarily Pilot error.
Even if he knew the aircraft he was flying, then it could never have completed the manoeuvre at the speed and height it was attempted, so again Pilot error.

 

[Craiglxviii]

Yes there was pilot error. But note the ASIB report which is what the Beeb are reporting on. Note the slew of reasons proximate to the crash before the pilot even stepped into the cockpit. Note the type of aircraft- and if you've never seen inside a Hunter cockpit, have a look online. It is not well laid out for this type of flying. Note that he wasn't adequately trained and was unaware of the manoeuvre limitations of the T.7 in the event of a low & slow condition. Then note that he was not stopped from performing his display in the wrong place. AAIB take account of all of that.

Then compare the BBC report.

Yes the CFIT is pilot error. He started -180' too low and didn't carry enough energy into his vertical translation. But that it was allowed to happen at all and in that particular place is all on the operating company and organisers. And the Beeb don't exactly show that now do they?

 

[Frontstep]

So to simplify it, someone let me do doughnuts in their car and I crashed it.

 

[Craiglxviii]

So to simplify it, someone let me do doughnuts in their car and I crashed it.

Someone let you do doughnuts yes
Mixed in with the public.
Without properly training you.
Without you being fully conversant with how to safely come out of a doughnut in a confined space.
In a car where the special doughnut width measuring instruments are awkwardly placed to see (and awkward to read information from anyway).
Without checking that you were doing them in the right place.
Without considering risk to people being not in the right place.

So that you crashed is your fault. That you crashed into a crowd of people and other cars and killed/ injured them expressly isn't.
But according to the BBC- it was your fault, mainly.

 

[Frontstep]

Trump accuses Obama of tapping his phone, has the mop head lost the plot ?


So easy to prove for Trump and as of yet no denial from Obama,
if true the Democrats Saint Obama is stuffed.
The only thing after that is to tie in Ms Clinton and the mop will be strutting around like a peacock.

Putin must be finding this hilarious, Kim will be Chuckling and the Chinese rolling around the floor.

Still when the mop goes to the Palace Liz will be able to tell him its nothing new in her family.

 

[davemercedes]

Trump accuses Obama of tapping his phone, has the mop head lost the plot ?


So easy to prove for Trump and as of yet no denial from Obama,
if true the Democrats Saint Obama is stuffed.
The only thing after that is to tie in Ms Clinton and the mop will be strutting around like a peacock.

Putin must be finding this hilarious, Kim will be Chuckling and the Chinese rolling around the floor.

Still when the mop goes to the Palace Liz will be able to tell him its nothing new in her family.

Surely that sort of thing would never happen here!
- I mean, it's just not cricket!

 

[prwales]

Surely that sort of thing would never happen here!
- I mean, it's just not cricket!

Robin Cook? Dr David Kelly?

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1327811.0/

 

[Frontstep]

The Trump should put up or go accusations such as this are serious and way beyond knockabout politics during elections.

The response so far that Obama has never authorised taps on any US citizen does sound like an exercise in semantics as America has warrantless surveillance of US citizens for anti terrorist reasons.

 

[prwales]

I am starting to think Trump will just walk away from this; disaster follows foul up, follows catastrophe. He'll walk and blame it on the media using @twitter @realDonaldTrump