Twelve-year-olds are being taught about anal sex in school while nine-year-olds are told to 'masturbate' for homework: The shocking lesson plans used by teachers in UK classrooms

submitted by [deleted] from dailymail.co.uk

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

A rather moot point considering the same could be said of any media outlet.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

What's your best instance of The Economist manufacturing outrage over factual reporting?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Enough with the whataboutery. What topic of interest would even be published in The Economist worth discussing here?

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Enough with the whataboutery.

It's not clear that you know what whataboutery is.

What topic of interest would even be published in The Economist worth discussing here?

A few from this week would be:

The Ukraine war

The China's increasing dominance over the US in indo-pacific trade

The Chinese perspective on the coming Taiwan war

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

All media relies on sources, of which can be unreliable, even those from government or military due to the possibility that they are withholding information or fabricating information as a means to protect themselves from embarrassment or to push propaganda. Even the most polished of media outlets fall victim to publishing nonsense from time to time. Simply plucking a single outlet out of a hat to use as an example is meaningless when my original statement was broad and generalised. Should I now pick examples? What would be the point?

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Some journalism is well regarded, even in this age of native advertising and clickbait.

The Economist makes predictions, and, as such, is often wrong. It also has a point of view, and will give an opinion. But it is not conflated with the reporting of facts. But I'm not aware of them publishing "nonsense" in the sense of poorly fact-checked journalism. Do you have an example?

Should I now pick examples?

If you can.

What would be the point?

I would show that you are right that "Even the most polished of media outlets fall victim to publishing nonsense from time to time", and that I am mistaken about the journalism standards at The Economist.