I wonder who you got that line from?

What is your opinion about the changes to the NHS and why?

Oooh this will be interesting. Will Ajw disappear like Sal does?

No opinion then?

We've been here before with the mis-reporting of statistics at the Leeds Childrens Heart Surgery Dept over the Easter period, mis-reporting driven by an enquiry with a pre-determined conclusion that was so poorly constructed that despite having cost a couple of million pounds was severely criticised by a high court judge and scrapped in its entirety, at the time the Medical Director of the NHS, Sir Bruce Keogh, who initially ordered the immediate suspension of the unit on the strength of the incorrect stats, then stood up and took on the chin the fact that his committee had mis-led him and declared the heart unit no worse, no better than any other in the country - when the correct stats were taken into account.

Well now its happened again and once again Sir Bruce Keogh is going to be forced (probably tomorrow) to heavily criticise news media reporting on extrapolated statistics, quoting as hard facts something that a statistician has used as a "what if" model.

[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/heal-our-hospitals/10181220/Thousands-may-have-died-because-of-Labour-NHS-failings-Tory-MPs-claim.htmlOriginal Telegraph story here[/url The original story being that 13,000 patients HAVE died needlessly since 2005, a claim which the current government has used to have a pop at the previous incumbents, side-stepping the fact that the numbers have not decreased in the three years of their governing.


What Sir Bruce Keogh is ACTUALLY saying [url=http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/national-media-keogh-says-13k-nhs-deaths-keogh-er-no-i-dont/is reported here[/url and whilst he is keeping his tinder dry for another day its fairly obvious that once again he has been seriously mis-quoted, and once again its embarrassed him and his department.


You have to ask yourself why - why do seemingly sensible reporters and editors take a decision to extrapolate tiny chunks of data from huge and complex reports and present them in a sensational manner, making a story where a story does not exist in order to score political points for a party currently in power - is this another example of an extremely compliant media doing the governments propaganda work - and making a bloody good job of it in the process, far better than any government press office could do ?


How much more attacking of the NHS can the NHS stand before, as suggested in that second link, the current incumbents will appear to be doing us all a favour to put the NHS down for its own good like a sick old dog - and how much reporting will be done on Sir Bruce Keogh's denial of the sensational story, this will be the true test, how will The Telegraph report Sir Bruces denial of their "facts" and will Labour grow some balls and shut the clamour for their own heads to roll by pointing out that the mis-reporting seems to have initiated on the other side of the Commons ?

Quote ="JerryChicken"... You have to ask yourself why - why do seemingly sensible reporters and editors take a decision to extrapolate tiny chunks of data from huge and complex reports and present them in a sensational manner, making a story where a story does not exist in order to score political points for a party currently in power - is this another example of an extremely compliant media doing the governments propaganda work - and making a bloody good job of it in the process, far better than any government press office could do ?'" Yes. This is what the bulk of current media owners want. Therefore this is what their employees are told to do. I had a conversation with a bloke on Twitter over the last 48 hours, after he had been retweeted by someone I follow, essentially claiming similar kinds of things about the NHS. Couldn't back it up at all when challenged. On Cameron's "no more top-down reorganisation of the NHS" lie, he lamely suggested that 'perhaps it was worse than they thought until they got in'. To which I said that that meant that he was saying that the figures were flawed/deliberately misleading. He refused to respond to that. Then (and you may recognise the debating 'technique') he tried to change the tack to: 'well not all the world is in love with with the NHS'. Who said it was? 'Look, look' ... "here's what Australia thinks." (Note use of quote marks) Not what one person in Australia – or even 'a lot of Australians' or 'some Australians' or 'X% of Australians' think, but what a country as a whole thinks. "What Australia thinks", apparently, was summed up in a brief snippet from an interview with Osborne in the Murdoch-owned [iAustralian[/i. And this is someone who clearly considers themselves as intelligent. Mind, when I rubbished The Dirty Digger, he did get sniffy, claim that all businesses do dodgy things in the hunt for profit (we're not "Care Bears"icon_wink.gif and refuse to comment when I asked what he thought should be done about this, and when he ignored this, suggested that he had no ethics – to which he still refuses to comment. I really do sometimes want to despair at the sheer gullible nitery from supposedly intelligent and educated people. I blame the education system. Too much of it for people who haven't the intellectual capacity to cope. PS: I've added that link to the comments below the [iTelegraph[/i report. I've also posted this one too (don't know ho long it will stay up) on [iTelegraph[/i collusion with private healthcare companies etc: skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2012/ ... -colludes/

Quote ="JerryChicken"... You have to ask yourself why - why do seemingly sensible reporters and editors take a decision to extrapolate tiny chunks of data from huge and complex reports and present them in a sensational manner, making a story where a story does not exist in order to score political points for a party currently in power - is this another example of an extremely compliant media doing the governments propaganda work - and making a bloody good job of it in the process, far better than any government press office could do ?'" Yes. This is what the bulk of current media owners want. Therefore this is what their employees are told to do. I had a conversation with a bloke on Twitter over the last 48 hours, after he had been retweeted by someone I follow, essentially claiming similar kinds of things about the NHS. Couldn't back it up at all when challenged. On Cameron's "no more top-down reorganisation of the NHS" lie, he lamely suggested that 'perhaps it was worse than they thought until they got in'. To which I said that that meant that he was saying that the figures were flawed/deliberately misleading. He refused to respond to that. Then (and you may recognise the debating 'technique') he tried to change the tack to: 'well not all the world is in love with with the NHS'. Who said it was? 'Look, look' ... "here's what Australia thinks." (Note use of quote marks) Not what one person in Australia – or even 'a lot of Australians' or 'some Australians' or 'X% of Australians' think, but what a country as a whole thinks. "What Australia thinks", apparently, was summed up in a brief snippet from an interview with Osborne in the Murdoch-owned [iAustralian[/i. And this is someone who clearly considers themselves as intelligent. Mind, when I rubbished The Dirty Digger, he did get sniffy, claim that all businesses do dodgy things in the hunt for profit (we're not "Care Bears"icon_wink.gif and refuse to comment when I asked what he thought should be done about this, and when he ignored this, suggested that he had no ethics – to which he still refuses to comment. I really do sometimes want to despair at the sheer gullible nitery from supposedly intelligent and educated people. I blame the education system. Too much of it for people who haven't the intellectual capacity to cope. PS: I've added that link to the comments below the [iTelegraph[/i report. I've also posted this one too (don't know ho long it will stay up) on [iTelegraph[/i collusion with private healthcare companies etc: skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2012/ ... -colludes/

There must be regimes around the world who have to control their own propaganda and would just love to have such a compliant printed media section, to all outward appearances a free press (and thereby gaining unwarranted credence) but in reality almost always happy to support the same wing of politics over the other.

When it comes to stats and science, our newspapers almost always love to splash an unprovable headline rather than write a balanced piece looking at the possibilities that the raw data might support.
As an example, I'd point at the MMR vaccine story which has been running for decades now (started by one man who faked his data) that the papers have backed-up by nothing more than bad science, wilful misinterpretation of stats and outright scaremongering, just to sell more copies ... to the point where there are still many thousands of people out there who have believed the stories and who, even now, simply will not immunise their children, putting the whole status of mass-immunisation at risk.
And all because the papers either don't employ anyone who actually understands statistics and probabilities or just won't let them anywhere near such a lovely screamer of a story.

Given how much public health policy, here and in the US, has been influenced over decades by one man who lied about his research date, Ancel Keyes ...

[urlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jul/16/report-nhs-hospitals-claims-care[/url

Sir Bruce Keogh has his moment in the news media - he seems to have learned from the trousering he took at Leeds - and dismisses media speculation and indeed the whole methodology of the data analysis as "meaningless".

I wonder if the newspapers will have this as their headlines tomorrow ?

I wonder if the current incumbent government will pay heed or get their media dogs to publish more lies ?


EDIT @ 12.45

Interestingly the Telegraph, who were leading with the "13000 unnecessary deaths" over the weekend do not yet seem to have caught up with Bruce Keogh's "meaningless stats" comments, or are ignoring them, the fact that they are reporting the comments he made about understaffing suggests that they have read his press release but have chosen not to report on the fact that he completely rubbished their earlier reporting and have not backtracked on the "13000 deaths" at all.

[urlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10181920/NHS-crisis-low-staffing-to-blame-for-high-hospital-mortality-rates.html[/url

When the BBC's Chief Political Correspondent was head of the Conservative Association at university, it's a reach to expect their coverage to be in any way impartial.

Having seen the dismantling of the NHS and education, clearly Auntie is too scared to report the truth lest it be next on the ideological chopping block.

The ultimate head of the Beeb, Lord Patten, also has private financial interests in a venture capital company that has interests in private health care. Coincidence, of course.

And you still get the thicko's stating the Beeb is a left wing bastion.


Like fook it is!

Take a look at who's alongside Hunt when he makes his statement, Anna Soubry is the only recognisable MP. There's not another cabinet colleague within a bus stop of him.

The tories also wheeled out Priti (and I really mean this) Patel on the Daily Politics show to answer questions on the Keogh report. Where were all the big guns?

Heads straight to I-player in a hurry.

Quote ="WIZEB"And you still get the thicko's stating the Beeb is a left wing bastion. Like fook it is!'" By thicko's you mean former BBC news directors.... www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/ju ... mmigration

Quote ="WIZEB"And you still get the thicko's stating the Beeb is a left wing bastion. Like fook it is!'" By thicko's you mean former BBC news directors.... www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/ju ... mmigration

Quote ="Ajw71"By thicko's you mean former BBC news directors.... www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/ju ... mmigration'" Please research the terms "left wing" and "liberal" before spouting again

Quote ="Ajw71"By thicko's you mean former BBC news directors.... www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/ju ... mmigration'" Please research the terms "left wing" and "liberal" before spouting again

Quote ="Ajw71"By thicko's you mean former BBC news directors.... www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/ju ... mmigration'" See the second comment down on that article thicko.

Quote ="Ajw71"By thicko's you mean former BBC news directors.... www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/ju ... mmigration'" See the second comment down on that article thicko.

Sorry your post was embarrassingly clueless and now you resort to insults. Clever boy.

So have you worked out the difference yet or is it all too difficult for you?
Wadd'ya think?

Oh the irony

Are you seriously suggesting being liberal is not associated with left wing politics?

Just to try and avoid your friend looking exceedingly silly you are going to argue that?!

I'm not going to argue anything. I'm telling you that "liberal" and "left wing" are not the same

So all these diagrams just show liberal being on the left of the political spectrum for a laugh do they?!

Being Liberal is associated with left wing politics.

The former director of BBC News, who I suggest has more knowledge of the organisation that either me or you or anyone on this forum states the BBC had a 'deep liberal bias' on issues of immigration and the European Union.

Hardly a 'thicko', rather someone who has first hand knowledge of how the BBC works!

Bit strange that all the usual suspects are bleating on about the BBC supposedly having a right wing bias when only a few days ago an employee admitted exactly the opposite.

At least you're getting that liberal is to the right of left-wing with your stupid irrelevant diagrams?
Excellent.

Steve Barnett professor of communications at Westminster University gets it spot on for me.

''I do not believe the BBC is biased in any particular direction. And yet, from top to bottom, in structure and staffing, in history and ideology, it is a conservative organisation, committed to upholding Establishment values and protecting them from challenge''.

Now go get your rattle out Tory-boy.