FactCheck Ch4 News: separating political fact from fiction

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Well, I will leave you to your prejudice. I am an American, although, I must admit, I would not trust myself with a gun...which is why I don't own one. lol
However, there are a few Americans I know personally that I would trust to own a gun.

btw...my issue is not with gun ownership per se ...it is with dishonest stupid people who fucking won't admit the truth because of their ideology.

It's not prejudice when the facts and statistics speak for themselves. I've never seen a single American give a decent argument about why they need to own guns. It's always 'the second amendment, the second amendment...' Like that means anything to a rational person.

[artisticsolution]

Well, I will leave you to your prejudice. I am an American, although, I must admit, I would not trust myself with a gun...which is why I don't own one. lol
However, there are a few Americans I know personally that I would trust to own a gun.

btw...my issue is not with gun ownership per se ...it is with dishonest stupid people who fucking won't admit the truth because of their ideology.

It's not prejudice when the facts and statistics speak for themselves. I've never seen a single American give a decent argument about why they need to own guns. It's always 'the second amendment, the second amendment...' Like that means anything to a rational person.

When it comes to humans, 'facts and statistics' merely means 'trends'. Trends come and go with the wind, humans remain the same.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Well, I will leave you to your prejudice. I am an American, although, I must admit, I would not trust myself with a gun...which is why I don't own one. lol
However, there are a few Americans I know personally that I would trust to own a gun.

btw...my issue is not with gun ownership per se ...it is with dishonest stupid people who fucking won't admit the truth because of their ideology.

It's not prejudice when the facts and statistics speak for themselves. I've never seen a single American give a decent argument about why they need to own guns. It's always 'the second amendment, the second amendment...' Like that means anything to a rational person.

When it comes to humans, 'facts and statistics' merely means 'trends'. Trends come and go with the wind, humans remain the same.

It's a pretty long-lasting 'trend' if you ask me, although once a population has been dumbed down to that degree I don't know if it's reversible.

[The Inglorious One]

Because that's always the case. If you are not liberal then that means you are against free speech, against equal rights....In other words it means you are a redneck moron. Look up the word liberal, idiot. It's impossible to be intelligent and right-wing--it's a contradiction in terms.

I'll take that to mean that studies that show that not to be the case are irrelevant to you.

The rational mind is like a child riding atop an emotional elephant. The elephant doesn’t acquire its knowledge from self-conscious study; rather, it absorbs information from the environment. The elephant picks up and process information, and even draws conclusions before the child is aware of what is going on, but it's not rational. It's emotional, not deliberative.

Your abusive language is a clear indication that your elephant-mind is an charge.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Because that's always the case. If you are not liberal then that means you are against free speech, against equal rights....In other words it means you are a redneck moron. Look up the word liberal, idiot. It's impossible to be intelligent and right-wing--it's a contradiction in terms.

I'll take that to mean that studies that show that not to be the case are irrelevant to you.

The rational mind is like a child riding atop an emotional elephant. The elephant doesn’t acquire its knowledge from self-conscious study; rather, it absorbs information from the environment. The elephant picks up and process information, and even draws conclusions before the child is aware of what is going on, but it's not rational. It's emotional, not deliberative.

Your abusive language is a clear indication that your elephant-mind is an charge.

What are you blithering on about? What 'studies'? You were pretty 'abusive' yourself earlier. I could debate with you on social evolution, and the fact that it's the 'liberal' thinkers you despise who have helped to drive it and give us the freedom and lifestyle we enjoy today, but I can't be bothered, and it's not really what this thread is about. I suppose you would rather live in Saudi Arabia.

[The Inglorious One]

The point is that the media's "fact checking" falls short and people naive enough to believe it is informative are philosophic idiots, thinking with their emotions rather than the rational mind.

[Obvious Leo]

Are you suggesting that humans behave rationally whereas elephants do not? Could you give an example of irrational behaviour in an elephant, or in any other non-human mammal for that matter?

[Pluto]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5dXUSkwhhM

[marjoram_blues]

There are too many variables for numbers to mean anything.

Indeed, in general I am suspicious of stats and graphs used to support a point. FactCheck Ch4 News - I see as an attempt to provide some answers to questions arising from political events/statements. Like 'Is it true that X ?' It's search is not as broad as some of Ch4's more dangerous investigative journalism. However, it is a good starting point for further research, if you wish...
Wouldn't it be something if we could look at the respective slants of the media, and see how much they are willing to dig deeper, rather than trot out the usual stats...and biased reporting...
So, rather than read/view, nod and accept, check out - as much as possible - the supporting evidence; think about a problem in a wider context.

“More gun control, fewer shootings?”
Not necessarily. It’s possible to find correlations between high rates of gun use and high rates of gun murders, as you might expect.
But that doesn’t mean the statistical patterns always follow obvious trends. Opponents of gun control point out that gun violence in the US is going down even as ownership rates go up.
And in Britain, tighter firearm laws brought in after the Dunblane massacre did not lead to a falling-off of gun crime.
The basic problem is that correlation doesn’t prove causation.
You could find US states where gun deaths have gone up or down after tighter legislation was introduced, but it’s impossible to filter out all the other factors that might have affected the crime rate.
The biggest academic reviews * of the evidence in America have all concluded that we can’t say one way or the other whether gun control laws will necessarily lead to a drop in killings.
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/sho ... bate/12748

* link leads to this: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?recor ... 881&page=2
One of its conclusions is that to find more meaning; what it means to people and communities - we need more empirical research. Descriptive information in how firearm violence is embedded into some communities. More and more, it seems that fire-arm related homicides/suicides are a quick solution - an accepted way ? - of resolving problems.

For sure, some statistics are more reliable than others. However, hurling any figures, left and right, isn't particularly constructive, given all the variables.

Another thing I read recently - about child poverty; apparently this is increasing in the UK due to political decisions on welfare cuts. So, what to do to solve this problem - why not massage the figures. Redefine what is meant by 'child poverty'.

Isn't this where philosophy steps in with its clear definitions; takes action in schools re critical thinking skills; problem-solving...

[marjoram_blues]

The media, political claims and FactCheck.
On Child Poverty (UK)

One newspaper on poverty claims and the scale of the problem.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... ties-claim
The introduction of the bedroom tax and cuts in benefits between 2013 and last year are blamed for fuelling the rise in the number of families whose income is below 60% of the UK average – the definition of relative poverty.
Calculations from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) have suggested that progress between the late 1990s and 2010 has been reversed and that the number of children living in relative poverty rose from 2.3 million in 2013 to 2.6 million in 2014. The Child Poverty Action Group says that with the government committed to implementing another £12bn of cuts in a new round of austerity, the problem will grow...

....The Conservative manifesto pledged to redefine child poverty. But the Treasury and the DWP are split over how this should be done. Duncan Smith believes there is a need to look beyond income to consider factors including whether a child lives in a workless household or has parents in poor health.
Charities are suspicious of such a move, arguing that it would give a misleading impression about the scale of the problem. They warn that any shift to focus on tackling the problem of non-working families, at the expense of low-income working families, betrays the government’s legal obligations to tackle child poverty.

FactCheck Ch4 news on poverty claims and measures

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/fac ... ling/18387
The claim
“Inequality is at its lowest since 1986. There are 300,000 fewer children in child poverty than when I became Prime Minister. There are half a million fewer people in relative poverty than at the election.”
David Cameron, 11 June 2014

There is no single definitive measure of child poverty. The official statistics track a huge number of different trends, and the Child Poverty Act 2010 uses four different measures to define government targets.
Mr Cameron’s words are true if we are talking about relative poverty, defined as the number of people earning less than 60 per cent of the average income in the year in question, and if we use the financial year 2009/10 as the benchmark.
The number of children in relative poverty fell from 2.6 to 2.3 million between 2009/10 and 2011/12 (the latest year we know about) and the number of people of all ages fell from 10.3 to 9.8 million.
But if we choose a different measure of poverty the picture is very different.
Absolute poverty – how many people earn 60 per cent of the average income in the year 2010/11, adjusted for inflation – has gone up not down over the last three years, for children and for the whole population.
In fact, the trend for the number of children in absolute poverty is exactly the reverse of the statistic quoted by the prime minister: it has risen from 2.3 million to 2.6 million since 2009/10.
We’re not in a position to say that one measure is better than another. It’s probably better to consider them together and look at the long-term trends.

Again, so much time, energy and money spent on figuring out figures; reaching certain goals. Which is fine up to a point. And we can argue all we like about the rights and wrongs of political positions and definitions.

It frustrates me - a bit like the current debate on who gets to lead the Labour Party. The focus - again - on personalities and electability.
How did we get so far from clear policy - and real opposition/debate - based on evidence. What evidence ? All we see is the left v right debacle; the cheering and the jeering.

Meanwhile, real people benefit and real people suffer. Who chases up the why's, the wherefores and what-to-do...
The press?
What is the best way forward...? As things stand, we seem to increasingly rely on quick, cold calculations (quantifying abilities and problems) without regard for long-term individual/community circumstances; health and wealth ( quality - what it means ).

We need sound arguments to back up any sound-bites.

From wiki: A sound bite is a short clip of speech or music extracted from a longer piece of audio, often used to promote or exemplify the full length piece. In the context of journalism, a sound bite is characterized by a short phrase or sentence that captures the essence of what the speaker was trying to say, and is used to summarize information and entice the reader or viewer. The term was coined by the U.S. media in the 1970s. Since then, politicians have increasingly employed sound bites to summarize their positions.

Due to its brevity, the sound bite often overshadows the broader context in which it was spoken, and can be misleading or inaccurate. The insertion of sound bites into news broadcasts or documentaries is open to manipulation, leading to conflict over journalistic ethics.

[marjoram_blues]

AS wrote: Trends come and go with the wind, humans remain the same.

Trends in the sense of fashion/modes clearly come and go. Statistical trends can illuminate; after collecting information, there is an attempt to see patterns over a particular period.
Humans remain the same in the sense that they can and do change. They change the way they dress; the way they behave - given new information and experience. Humans set and are besotted ( meant to write 'beset' and besotted came out - how strange ! ) by trends.
Statistics and fact-gathering can show whether any change is in a negative or positive direction. Although not always reliable and clearly open to manipulation, they can provide a starting point. A basis for --- more change...

[Hobbes' Choice]

If you put Estonia and Turkey aside for the moment. The US's only rival for murder, and murder with guns is MEXICO.

How come Mexico has so many murders each year? 90% of all murders in Mexico are through gang violence in pursuit of two things. 1) Supplying the USA with drugs, mostly cocaine, and 2) related to the tide of immigrants wishing to reach the US.

If the USA were to end its stupid war on drugs, and pursue a more enlightened economic relationship with its southern neighbour, most of these crime based murders would stop, not only in Mexico, but in the USA.

Given the proximity of Mexico with the USA. It only makes sense to view these figures together.

[marjoram_blues]

From FactCheck:

It’s tempting to assume that countries with high rates of gun ownership will naturally experience high rates of gun violence, but the correlation between homicide rates and firearms prevalence in these figures is surprisingly weak.

Switzerland and Finland both have high rates of gun ownership (although still only half that of the US) but low homicide rates.

Mexico experiences very high numbers of killings but guns are relatively unusual in the general population, if these figures are to be believed.

It’s tempting to remove Mexico as an outlier, given its turbulent recent history, and if we do that a stronger correlation between gun ownership and homicide in OECD countries emerges.

[artisticsolution]

AS wrote: Trends come and go with the wind, humans remain the same.

Trends in the sense of fashion/modes clearly come and go. Statistical trends can illuminate; after collecting information, there is an attempt to see patterns over a particular period.
Humans remain the same in the sense that they can and do change. They change the way they dress; the way they behave - given new information and experience. Humans set and are besotted ( meant to write 'beset' and besotted came out - how strange ! ) by trends.
Statistics and fact-gathering can show whether any change is in a negative or positive direction. Although not always reliable and clearly open to manipulation, they can provide a starting point. A basis for --- more change...

It's frustrating for me to see things slowly moving in a more positive direction, and then have a negative trend that sets the positive trend back decades. The new conservative republican "values" bother the hell out of me. To me it's akin to the Salem witch hunts. And the thing that gets me is they actually believe they are the good guys with a gun. It's really hard to take...and I know you are trying to reason with this fool...but I can't anymore. I am fed up. They aren't rational. You will never get through to them. I live it everyday. I am so over being nice.

[marjoram_blues]

AS wrote:
It's frustrating for me to see things slowly moving in a more positive direction, and then have a negative trend that sets the positive trend back decades. The new conservative republican "values" bother the hell out of me. To me it's akin to the Salem witch hunts. And the thing that gets me is they actually believe they are the good guys with a gun. It's really hard to take...and I know you are trying to reason with this fool...but I can't anymore. I am fed up. They aren't rational. You will never get through to them. I live it everyday. I am so over being nice.

I'm not trying to reason with any fool. I'm discussing the way that certain parts of the media actually do bother to check facts and show people a bit of reality behind politicians' sound-bites and claims.
http://www.channel4.com/news/channel-4- ... line-award

The FactCheck blog was named winner in the commentary/blogging category at the Online Media Awards in London, beating off strong competition from the Huffington Post, New Statesman, The Times and Reuters.
Judge Nick Wrenn said FactCheck was "an important service" and praised Channel 4 News for turning the pursuit of truth into "a franchise

Is there anything similar in the USA, Denmark, Australia, Africa, Egypt, Saudi Arabia...?

The trouble starts when people are frustrated at not getting through. They see that 'playing nice' doesn't work. Things turn nasty with peaceful demonstrations turning violent.
However, I can't believe that nothing can be done to counter any negative throw-backs. This is the internet age, for goodness sake. News and events travel fast.