|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Apr 20, 2017 8:48:56 GMT
They didn't fail to highlight anything. www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/38690265/some-people-still-blame-sexual-assault-on-short-skirts-a-study-suggestsThe article says this and provides a link to the survey: Figures released by the Fawcett society show that 41% of men aged 18-24 say that a woman who is drunk and wearing a short skirt is "totally or partially to blame" if they are sexually assaulted. . Wrong. "Older women are even more likely to blame sexual assault victims. Among over-65s, 55% of women would blame the victim, versus 48% of men, the study suggests" Wrong again: "The Sounds Familiar report suggests that 30% of women aged 18-34 would also "totally or partially to blame" a drunk woman wearing a short skirt if they were sexually assaulted." That's eleven percentage points between the genders not a couple. The title of your OP is damned ironic given what you've said. EDIT************** And what do you know I've been played for a fool. The BBC and the Fawcett society are lying. The original BBC article says this: Here's the problem the survey they're referring to was from January 2016 and it doesn't ask any questions regarding men and women's attitudes towards rape. Here is a link to the original PDF of the survey www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Sex-equality-state-of-the-nation-230116.pdfSo the question becomes where exactly did the Fawcett society gather this information from that the BBC reported. The answer is apparently is this: So the focus group had a sample size of 42 with 3 men And yet that focus group doesn't ask any questions about rape either. Every link provided doesn't show the poll they are referring to,and I am unable to locate it anywhere else. The only conclusion I can come to is this survey is a lie perpetrated by a feminist organisation with an agenda with either the complicity or ignorance of the BBC. Shocking. Nope to your edit. The Fawcett Society says the following (highlighting is mine): The Survation data can be found in a link at the bottom of this page and the relevant question is number 37. www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/2017/01/sounds-familiar/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2017 10:00:27 GMT
You are correct Eddy it seems that their original link went to a PDF of the reports conclusions which didn't include that question,however after following the link provided to the meta data of their original survey then their figures and methodology are sound. My apologies to the beeb and Fawcett society for questioning their integrity in this era of "fake news" it becomes hard to know who to believe.I will edit my post accordingly,thanks for the correction Eddy.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Apr 20, 2017 18:05:10 GMT
The minute you started reading HuffPo and watching Young Turks. It's not like these being outlets that are highly slanted is a big surprise. He should read The Economist, Reuters, and BBC Excellent advice. The first two, especially.
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Apr 20, 2017 18:07:59 GMT
He should read The Economist, Reuters, and BBC Excellent advice. The first two, especially. Not the BBC?
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Apr 20, 2017 18:10:33 GMT
Excellent advice. The first two, especially. Not the BBC No, I like the BBC for covering US news, where they're not as partisan as most US outlets. I'm given to understand they skew a bit with UK news, but you'd know better than I. Generally I just look for: A lack of histrionic verbiage A lack of click bait headers that don't pan out in the article A decent amount of vetting
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Apr 20, 2017 18:13:29 GMT
No, I like the BBC for covering US news, where they're not as partisan as most US outlets. I'm given to understand they skew a bit with UK news, but you'd know better than I. Generally I just look for: A lack of histrionic verbiage A lack of click bait headers that don't pan out in the article A decent amount of vetting I've not personally experienced a bias with BBC, they could lose their funding if they did. Problem is these days that unless something is reported with an opinion that sways in the same way as the reader, the reader will accuse it of bias.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Apr 20, 2017 21:46:42 GMT
Is 180 people representative of every 18-24 year old man in the country? Are you being serious? No it isn't. There is no reason to suppose that a man who thinks a woman is partly to blame would commit rape. In the same way I think if you walk around Liverpool in a Man Utd shirt, you're asking for trouble, but I wouldn't actually hit anyone because of it. Not really, CNN reported publicly the existence of the document before they bothered to verify it. WSJ. They did a report on Pewdiepie being racist. Basically taking a few jokes out of context and spinning an ant semitic narrative. Amusingly, the reporters involved had made similar jokes on Twitter. If this survey was trying to represent the whole country, is 180/8000 not a fair proportion for 18-24 year old men? If not, what is? Or how many people overall need to be surveyed before the BBC is allowed to report on the results? You're just being disengenuous now. I never said that an 18-24 year old man holding that view was likely to commit rape. Given though that this demographic rapes women far more often than 65+ women, yes, it's worrying that they hold these deeply chauvinistic and misogynistic views. Yes they did, because Buzzfeed had published it in its entirety, which is what their story was about. They referred to the dossier as unverified, as a multitude of other media outlets which reported the same thing. There was nothing incorrect in their reporting. As I said, you seem to have just listened to Trump's version of events. If you are going to suggest that all men think something, you should really have a bigger sample size than 180 No, you're being disingenuous. You've just said this is worrying because that demographic commits more rape. Blaming the victim doesn't mean you will be a victimiser. Nope, Buzzfeed published after CNN reported the existence of the dossier.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Apr 20, 2017 21:49:30 GMT
They didn't fail to highlight anything. www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/38690265/some-people-still-blame-sexual-assault-on-short-skirts-a-study-suggestsThe article says this and provides a link to the survey: Figures released by the Fawcett society show that 41% of men aged 18-24 say that a woman who is drunk and wearing a short skirt is "totally or partially to blame" if they are sexually assaulted. . Wrong. "Older women are even more likely to blame sexual assault victims. Among over-65s, 55% of women would blame the victim, versus 48% of men, the study suggests" Wrong again: "The Sounds Familiar report suggests that 30% of women aged 18-34 would also "totally or partially to blame" a drunk woman wearing a short skirt if they were sexually assaulted." That's eleven percentage points between the genders not a couple. The title of your OP is damned ironic given what you've said. This wasn't where I saw it several months ago. The original was as I presented it.
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Apr 20, 2017 22:19:16 GMT
If this survey was trying to represent the whole country, is 180/8000 not a fair proportion for 18-24 year old men? If not, what is? Or how many people overall need to be surveyed before the BBC is allowed to report on the results?h You're just being disengenuous now. I never said that an 18-24 year old man holding that view was likely to commit rape. Given though that this demographic rapes women far more often than 65+ women, yes, it's worrying that they hold these deeply chauvinistic and misogynistic views. Yes they did, because Buzzfeed had published it in its entirety, which is what their story was about. They referred to the dossier as unverified, as a multitude of other media outlets which reported the same thing. There was nothing incorrect in their reporting. As I said, you seem to have just listened to Trump's version of events. If you are going to suggest that all men think something, you should really have a bigger sample size than 180 No, you're being disingenuous. You've just said this is worrying because that demographic commits more rape. Blaming the victim doesn't mean you will be a victimiser. Nope, Buzzfeed published after CNN reported the existence of the dossier. You weren't like this pre-Brexit madness. What happened? No-one suggested all men think anything. My copy paste isn't working so going to respond to your other two comments like this. With the first one, you honestly don't find it more worrying that young men hold deeply chauvinistic views than old women? Most normal people would. As for CNN, evidence?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2017 2:07:21 GMT
So the Young Turks ran with the story about Trump throwing a kids hat away, mocking him and the usual, when in reality he threw the hat back to the kid. At what point did facts stop mattering to people? How do you know this is what happened in reality? Oh, and to answer your question, I'd say narrative has always been more important than reality to some extent, but really the giant leap forward came with the bogus justifications for the second Gulf War.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Apr 21, 2017 21:22:19 GMT
If you are going to suggest that all men think something, you should really have a bigger sample size than 180 No, you're being disingenuous. You've just said this is worrying because that demographic commits more rape. Blaming the victim doesn't mean you will be a victimiser. Nope, Buzzfeed published after CNN reported the existence of the dossier. You weren't like this pre-Brexit madness. What happened? No-one suggested all men think anything. My copy paste isn't working so going to respond to your other two comments like this. With the first one, you honestly don't find it more worrying that young men hold deeply chauvinistic views than old women? Most normal people would. As for CNN, evidence? So a headline that says "18-24 year old men say yes!" doesn't suggest that in anyway. And I am exactly the same as I was before the EU referendum. It's just before june last year I was a sexist, mysoginist, rape apologist. I progressed to racist Islamophobe then to fascist. I think at one point I was also a White Supremacist and a transphobe. Yes, I do actually. I find it troubling that anyone thinks women are to blame if they are sexually assaulted, but unless you can show a link between victim blaming and victimisation, it's simply running a narrative. If you read the link Superdude gave, the only explanation given for the 30 odd percent of women who blame the victim is "internalised misogyny" No counterpoint given. The Buzzfeed article says as much.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Apr 21, 2017 21:30:16 GMT
So the Young Turks ran with the story about Trump throwing a kids hat away, mocking him and the usual, when in reality he threw the hat back to the kid. At what point did facts stop mattering to people? How do you know this is what happened in reality? Oh, and to answer your question, I'd say narrative has always been more important than reality to some extent, but really the giant leap forward came with the bogus justifications for the second Gulf War. Because other people filmed it: Here is the Young Turks segment www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkdIYgGwriAHere is what actually happened. www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_Io6U2-cdAThe Telegraph used the same clip as TYT. .As did the Daily Mail and The Guardian. Is it just really lazy journalism?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2017 21:32:13 GMT
Right. So he flung it more or less at random and the kid just managed to reach out and grab it.
So the Turks are actually fairly accurate, then.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Apr 21, 2017 21:36:18 GMT
Right. So he flung it more or less at random and the kid just managed to reach out and grab it. So the Turks are actually fairly accurate, then. Flung it more or less at random to where the kid was, then grinned at the kid who walked off smiling. Yup, Trump is a cock alright. Look, I know you probably don't like him. I don't particularly like him, but the story is a flat out lie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2017 21:40:44 GMT
He didn't fling it to where the kid was. He threw it past him, but the kid managed to reach out and get it anyway. And you're nowhere near showing that anybody lied.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 21, 2017 21:51:56 GMT
Nothing new here. TŶT are a joke, they don't even acknowledge the Armenian genocide.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Apr 21, 2017 21:52:25 GMT
He didn't fling it to where the kid was. He threw it past him, but the kid managed to reach out and get it anyway. And you're nowhere near showing that anybody lied. So what your saying is that had the press seen only the second clip, they would have run with "Trump throws boys hat into crowd?" Of course they wouldn't and you know it. The hat is what? A foot away from the kid, both are laughing, there is absolutely no problem at all with this. Had Obama, or Hilary Clinton done that, nobody would be attacking them for it and you know that as well. And of course, you're correct, TYT et al were completely honest in their reporting of a non event.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2017 21:58:59 GMT
He didn't fling it to where the kid was. He threw it past him, but the kid managed to reach out and get it anyway. And you're nowhere near showing that anybody lied. So what your saying is that had the press seen only the second clip, they would have run with "Trump throws boys hat into crowd?" Probably. Balls. If Hillary had done that the headlines would be "Hillary probably has arm cancer!!!!" If Obama had done it, the headlines would have been "Obama smears Ebola on hats and gives them to American children! He hates America because he's a Kenyan Marxist!" You wanted to talk about media honesty, and THIS is really the best example you could come up with? Dude, this isn't even the best example from this week. Be serious if you want to be taken seriously.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Apr 21, 2017 22:05:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Apr 21, 2017 22:07:45 GMT
So what your saying is that had the press seen only the second clip, they would have run with "Trump throws boys hat into crowd?" Probably. Balls. If Hillary had done that the headlines would be "Hillary probably has arm cancer!!!!" If Obama had done it, the headlines would have been "Obama smears Ebola on hats and gives them to American children! He hates America because he's a Kenyan Marxist!" You wanted to talk about media honesty, and THIS is really the best example you could come up with? Dude, this isn't even the best example from this week. Be serious if you want to be taken seriously. So they wouldn't have accused her of throwing the hat away then. So what? What actual difference does it make what examples I use. Are you going to argue that the media does not promote narrative over fact?
|
|