The way the media (namely the BBC) have shaped thoughts over the last year

[pinkunicornwithacatonitsback]

I work in comms and I find it utterly fascinating to see how the media have carefully used their terminology and focus to shape people's thoughts over the past year.

A clear case in point being the BBC - they are clearly terrified of criticising the government in case they lose the licence fee. For months, I've noted that when they report the daily figures on a Monday/Tuesday, they ALWAYS without daily include a disclaimer to state that low numbers are due to a weekend reporting lag. Yet, in contrast as the week progresses and numbers invariably shoot up, there's never a disclaimer to state that it's catching up on this reporting lag...

Similarly today, they've reported about the impact of lateral flow tests over the past 4 weeks.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56750460

The headline says 82% of LTF are confirmed with a PCR proving that they work correctly. It goes onto state: "There had been concerns that many would have to self-isolate needlessly.

But this data suggests these fears may be unfounded"

It then goes onto talk about the specific numbers of tests conducted and says: "18% - came back negative, suggesting the individual concerned and their household had been self-isolating for no reason. Under the current rules, a negative re-test would mean their quarantine period would be considered over immediately."

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but to me, to have almost 20% of tests false positives (aka almost a 5th) seems actually quite high and significantly concerning. Surely we can't have a society where you're forced to isolate (even if just for a day or two) based on a test with only an 82% accuracy?

But by positioning the article as "these tests are our way out" because it's the official government position seems concerning.

The one thing I've noticed heavily about the BBC over the past year is how they've lost their perceived neutrality. They are every bit as scaremongery and OTT as the tabloids.

That's useful maths @bookworm1632. So of 134,000 who go to Cheltenham, if they had equivalent testing and infection rate to now... 178 genuinely infectious people would have been sent home and 45 would have been sent home unnecessarily. That looks like a reasonable balance of interests to me.

bookworm1632 are you actually capable of interacting with people and making a point without being rude or trying to insult them? You should try it

You need to brush up on your maths sunshine and read the article properly

Just say what you mean. No need for passive aggressive "sunshine". Just say, i'm right, agree with me or I'll throw pathetic insults at you.

The BBC has been spectacular at scaremongering through the pandemic, from this time last year with the crying nurses and "inside reports" from Covid wards through summer designed to keep up all terrified, and now it's a look back, remember how awful it's all been, remember to still be scared.

I don't ever read the Guardian but they have been even more doom and gloom than the BBC, if that's possible.

To be honest, my inital point of this thread was actually focusing on the media analysis and coverage than anything else.

As @MrsHastingslikethebattle says, the BBC have reported this as "82% of LTF tests are correct proving they work" which gives confidence in these tests which is what the government want us to feel.

In contrast, if the headline had been "almost a fifth of positive LFT are proven to be inaccurate" then it leads to people feeling that these tests aren't of any purpose or value.

Moving away from the LTF issue entirely, I find it more interesting that over the past year, it's been clear to see how the media has been used to sway and influence opinions and thought processes. Obviously, this has always been the case, but it's been so transparent over the past year. And before anyone starts, it's not about being anti lockdown (clearly they were needed) or anything like that (I've broadly believed that the government has done the right thing at the right time, with the available knowledge).

I don't suppose silencing and media bias during the covid years will ever be fully dissected for my satisfaction

Nor mine

I've grown tired of rolling my eyes about the inevitable "independent inquiry" still to come, when experience teaches that there's no such thing as full independence if the funding's coming from government ... he who pays the piper and all that

One of my favourite writers is George Monbiot. But I can't read him anymore after he wrote this: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/27/covid-lies-cost-lives-right-clamp-down-misinformation

"You don't isolate based on a lateral flow test you follow it up with a PCR so I really don't get your point?"

I thought at one stage in-school tests were not followed up with PCR? eg 9 March report here
schoolsweek.co.uk/dfe-doubles-down-on-policy-that-in-school-covid-test-positives-dont-need-confirmatory-pcr/

Perhaps it has now changed?

@YawnyOwl

It's been many a year since I've seen someone say a good word about the guardian... And on Mumsnet of all places!

Really?

Women of the world Marina Hyde is one of the funniest, astute, female voices in journalism today.

Support the sisters!

@AllWashedOut

Whereas the guardian are happy to hold the government to account

That's actually untrue. The Guardian is so aligned with the government messaging around covid that they are just the same as any other media outlet. Labour is the same. Lefties are traditionally the side of protection for your own good mentality/nanny state etc they can't hold Tories to account. Goes too much against the grain.

Yes, this. The only thing the guardian has been remotely critical of is that the gov didn't lockdown harder and for longer. Their coverage of the pandemic has resulted in me no longer reading them, other than the odd check-in. They positively and uncritically embraced lockdown.

And Keir Starmer has totally failed to hold the gov to acc.

As for the BBC - yes, shameful.

@MRex

That's useful maths *@bookworm1632*. So of 134,000 who go to Cheltenham, if they had equivalent testing and infection rate to now... 178 genuinely infectious people would have been sent home and 45 would have been sent home unnecessarily. That looks like a reasonable balance of interests to me.

Indeed - and it's only the extremely low prevalance of covid in the community (i.e. the enormous number of negative tests) that mean that the number of false positives is significant at all.

BBC is known in our circles as Doom & Gloom (or the government mouth piece)

While I do take note of what they say, It's always with a pinch to Salt so to speak.

But then again I am lucky in that I can read several languages and verify news stories with different media outlets.

... it's really interesting 🤔

The one thing I've noticed heavily about the BBC over the past year is how they've lost their perceived neutrality. They are every bit as scaremongery and OTT as the tabloids.

I was having some questions about their news coverage on some issue before covid but now yea- we listen and watch a lot less news.

It's not just the BBC - we've had the New Scientist for over 20+ years but I increasingly think there's less and less science and more and more opinions.

And Keir Starmer has totally failed to hold the gov to acc.

Yep.

@Youhavetoquitwhileyoureahead

"You don't isolate based on a lateral flow test you follow it up with a PCR so I really don't get your point?"

I thought at one stage in-school tests were not followed up with PCR? eg 9 March report here
schoolsweek.co.uk/dfe-doubles-down-on-policy-that-in-school-covid-test-positives-dont-need-confirmatory-pcr/

Perhaps it has now changed?

Yep agree with that as, esp as my daughter was one of those who had to self isolate I found it frustrating But the comment being made is that the article is biased as lateral flow tests are so crap. But the article does refer to subsequent testing being needed and the OP is just obviously biased against that issue and blames anyone who disagrees Fwiw of course the BBC is biased. For the royal family, against trump etc. But some people are able to see both sides of an argument anyway? Jesus do you see the daily print paper headlines?

Yes the media have downplayed the situation since the start. Very cleverly even coming across as the opposite hence people here talking about 'scaremongering' even after 150,000+ are dead and 1 million+ battling long covid.

Reporting on false positives without explaining how common false negatives are.

Saying things like 'there's no evidence' this or that thing is dangerous or a risk. Neglecting to add there's no evidence it isn't a risk.

Supporting without challenge the official denial for so long that it's an airborne infection.

Reporting on things like the 'average' death is over 60. Nice bit of othering, as well as trying to downplay that if the average is 60, at least half will be under 60.

Only reporting on other counties when things are going badly. Barely a peep about places when it's going well and they've handled it better than us.

Repeatedly ignoring the 40-50 age group and their risks. Dutifully reporting without challenge the government's decision to cutoff the first phase of vaccines at 50, reporting it as 'the most at risk covered' - despite the risk starting at 45.

And, the big one. The othering of elderly and the millions of younger people with underlying conditions.

Also every time the government wants to start ignoring the science and the data to open up too fast too soon, reporting things like 'all the vulnerable have been vaccinated'. When the reality is the majority have only had their first dose. And ignoring that all the vulnerable haven't had their first dose because the risk of hospitalision and death starts increasing from 40/45, and the risk of long covid goes up from 30.

The reporting of current deaths as being low - but failing to add that those deaths are from infections caught during the lockdown.

Failing to challenge the government on why we had to have repeated long lockdowns. Which is our open borders.

Why haven't the media challenged this? We locked down whilst 8,000 tourists a day arrived.

No media challenge about our fake 'quarantine'. We have a tiny handful of 'red list' countries that do airport quarantine. They mix with everyone else on flights and at the airport. Then everyone else travels from the airport on public transport, train or cab, potentially spreading covid as they go.

The lack of border control and no real quarantine is why we had repeated long lockdowns. It's also why the South African strain is now taking hold.

@Tealightsandd

Also every time the government wants to start ignoring the science and the data to open up too fast too soon, reporting things like 'all the vulnerable have been vaccinated'. When the reality is the majority have only had their first dose. And ignoring that all the vulnerable haven't had their first dose because the risk of hospitalision and death starts increasing from 40/45, and the risk of long covid goes up from 30.

The reporting of current deaths as being low - but failing to add that those deaths are from infections caught during the lockdown.

Failing to challenge the government on why we had to have repeated long lockdowns. Which is our open borders.

Why haven't the media challenged this? We locked down whilst 8,000 tourists a day arrived.

No media challenge about our fake 'quarantine'. We have a tiny handful of 'red list' countries that do airport quarantine. They mix with everyone else on flights and at the airport. Then everyone else travels from the airport on public transport, train or cab, potentially spreading covid as they go.

The lack of border control and no real quarantine is why we had repeated long lockdowns. It's also why the South African strain is now taking hold.

Completely agree with this. It's madness that they'd rather have repeated lockdowns, banning nearly every normal aspect of life, than properly control the borders. In can be done, with political will and competence: other countries have demonstrated it.

I'm worried they'll just keep letting in new resistent strains, and all the benefits of the vaccination program and the last painful lockdown will be undone.

All media outlets are disgusting with how they promote fear. A while back I can't remember who but someone had said that Britain was prepared for a random attack from anyone basically saying they had enough military personnel in the country to keep it safe if a random attack happened.

The news headline.... BRITAIN PREPARED FOR WORLD WAR 3

such lazy pathetic journalism

Yes the media have downplayed the situation since the start. Very cleverly even coming across as the opposite hence people here talking about 'scaremongering' even after 150,000+ are dead and 1 million+ battling long covid.

You can't be serious surely? The 150,000 deaths have been with Covid, 28 days of a positive test without any evidence Covid actually contributed to their deaths.
The virus has a 99% full survival rate without a vaccine and the media have been going as if we're in the middle of zombie apocalypse so our government can justify these repeated lockdowns which crash of our economy, made god knows how many people redundant and jobless, mental health rates and so on.

Reporting on things like the 'average' death is over 60. Nice bit of othering, as well as trying to downplay that if the average is 60, at least half will beunder60.

The office of national statistics says otherwise.

I can tell you wipe down your food shopping.

The horror! Someone might wipe their shopping!

No I wasn't on the shielding list so don't wipe my shopping (as recommended by government to shielders). I do wash my hands after shopping though, and I certainly don't sneer anyone who does wipe it.

Pretty nasty to sneer especially when people's mental health might be fragile. If wiping shopping helps someone feel safer (perhaps they're vulnerable or one of the many many bereaved by covid) than good.

Covid has killed 150,000+ and left 1 million+ with long covid. People would be mad not to have concerns.

Reporting on things like the 'average' death is over 60. Nice bit of othering, as well as trying to downplay that if the average is 60, at least half will beunder60.
That's the median you're referring to, not average. The graphs have also showed escalating risks of death with age in the +50 age categories.

Well, undeniably the scary-news.com and covid-news-at-10 outlets have succeeded in their patriotic job for the country. The populace is well and truly frightened and have accepted all kinds of rights concessions. All under the flagship of Boris the individualist and anti-red tape baron. You couldn't make it up. I had to pinch myself this morning thinking back to just over a year ago and seeing the first mask at work. We all thought the man was overreacting and would frighten the customers away. Was a shock to realise how far down the road we have come

It would be quite odd not to fear a disease that's killed 150,000+ and left 1 million+ suffering long term ill health.

How dare people be concerned and worried for themselves and their loved ones!

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51674743

Age and risk of death are very much related with covid.

@AllWashedOut

Reporting on things like the 'average' death is over 60. Nice bit of othering, as well as trying to downplay that if the average is 60, at least half will beunder60. That's the median you're referring to, not average. The graphs have also showed escalating risks of death with age in the +50 age categories.

It's actually 45+ for the risk of death. Not 50.

The risk for long covid goes younger. All ages including 20s, but especially from 30+.