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.

The BBC have been cowed into compliance by the Government. They have played down the ineptitude and cronyism of the Government and repeatably failed to report on the PM being caught out consistently lying to the public and parliament. Now the Tories have a tame DG we can expect it to become a reliable mouthpiece for the government rather than a source of accurate political reporting.
twitter.com/PeterStefanovi2/status/1382005651904331782

It always fucks me off when people say the BBC are scared into toadying to the government because if they challenge them at all, there's the threat of them taking the license fee/cutting services.

What's the fucking point of them then if they're scared into cowardice?

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

As I see it, you can be concerned without going to extremes. Washing vegetables and sitting in your own car with a mask are extremes. Taking away rights to go about one's private business is an extreme. Lying about stuff day in, day out on the Beeb is an extreme. Unless you are the person who says anything is permissible to reduce covid (and those people exist), you too must have limits to what is reasonable precaution and overreaction.

@anniegun
They sure have the Beeb in their pocket. This power play between the government of the time and the Beeb has long been a problem (remember David Kelly?). The only real solution is to remove the fee and let the Beeb do its thing independently. We as a nation are proud of the license fee system, yet go explain that to the French for instance and they are shocked. The outcome of the funding and appointment system at the BBC makes it really closer to RT than TF.

Washing vegetables is extreme??? It's been the done thing for my entire life. You do know manure is used to grow some crops?

This to me, shows that they cannot be relied upon as an entrance barrier to certain things such as pub/cinema/theatre etc It depends what your aim is. If you want to keep people with Covid from mingling in crowded places, then false positives don't matter, what matters is false negatives, those with Covid who test negative.

IF, instead, your aim is that all those who don't have Covid should be able to mingle, then false positives do matter.

Hardly extremes. I don't bother myself but it's the official guidance for the shielded. And if anyone else is a bit worried...if spending a couple of minutes disinfecting shopping helps their mental health, good. It's no big deal. It doesn't affect anyone else. Mental health has been prominently acknowledged as an issue during the pandemic. It's important not to mock a tiny little thing that helps someone's mental wellbeing.

The only real solution is to remove the fee and let the Beeb do its thing independently. Like newspapers, you mean?

26 MILLION tests taken.
3034 false positives.

That's fewer than 1 in 8500 tests taken falsely gave a positive or a specificity of 99.988%.

But that's not the statistic you should be looking at. Most of those 26 million tests are negative. The interesting statistic is: Given that you have tested positive, what is the probability that it's a false positive. And that figure is a lot higher.

I'd say there has been underplaying by the BBC at least as much.

When numbers are high there's often been a disclaimer saying that cases are high because of a reason or simply a reminder that the cases are from previous days.
There's been far more articles about the "wonderful 105yo who has half a lung surviving covid" than the under 40yo with no health conditions who didn't.
"Schools are safe" anyone?

And it looks like they've done a good job. People seem to think it's only old people and people with prior health conditions dying. And if there are any younger they probably had a positive covid test then died in a car accident.
Anyone like to know how many people died in a car accident in 2019? Less than 2k. It was about halved last year due to fewer journeys. Even if every one of them had had a +ve test the numbers were not significant.
Have you seen the list of "pre-existing health conditions"? You might well find you're on that list even though you don't think you have a risk factor.

@User135644

It always fucks me off when people say the BBC are scared into toadying to the government because if they challenge them at all, there's the threat of them taking the license fee/cutting services.

What's the fucking point of them then if they're scared into cowardice?

Well precisely

It's what the media does.

For example "the number of COVID deaths has jumped" versus "the number of COVID deaths has risen". What formulation causes more stress to you?

There’s no doubt the media have played a part in lockdowns and compliance but at the same time they’re fickle and out for a story so you get a lot of to and fro-ing.

Plus there’s a lot of spin out if any old report as coronavirus dominates but actual news can be thin on the ground.

However pp mention if The Guardian - I’ve found them one of the worst.

Overall I prefer experts etc speaking on radio to get context.

@MargaretThursday
Very true.

We stopped watching BBC news a long time ago it’s unbearably biased. We tend to watch channel 4 news but also read a variety of news websites.
Even our 12 year old ds said “why do the BBC love Boris?”!

I haven't had a tv licence in years, not a chance I'd pay for the drivel churned out by the BBC. And yes it's all above board, I opted out as we only have a games console for gaming and Netflix, no iplayer or tv channels at all. I read multiple sources online for news, none of which are the BBC.

"For example "the number of COVID deaths has jumped" versus "the number of COVID deaths has risen". What formulation causes more stress to you?"

Yes, *spike" is a good example of that!

Oh also, who remembers 'ramping up' testing - what happened to that? Do we just increase it now (I don't watch the press conferences, so maybe they're still ramping up and away?)

I've read online bbc news for years but time to stop now.