You keep up with the name calling as usual. I'll just try not to join in. When you say the voting public are uninformed I'll presume you are speaking personally about yourself. I can't imagine you'd believe yourself more informed than everyone else.

Hmm.

If you've got nothing to add but hypocritical attacks on my character then our little discussion is over. I've stated why the public are uninformed and you have provided nothing but indignation. If you have a problem with what I'm saying then prove me wrong, don't try to invalidate opinions you dislike but can't disprove by acting like it's a personal attack.

I'm not going to be petty and quote your frequent name calling. As stated decided to watch you continue alone. It's not upon me to prove wrong statements regarding 65 million people (or thereabouts) being uninformed. It's upon you to stop calling 65 million people names and making judgement calls like you know something. Any other defensive accusations are fantasy.

Media bias is a thing... It's not name calling to acknowledge that.

What about being called naive, willfully ignorant and silly, and the voting public uninformed?

If you are not presented with a balanced argument you remain ignorant and uninformed as to the facts don't you?

That depends I suppose if the person giving the argument knows what they are talking about or just think they do. :shrug:

So you don't have a counter argument to what I'm saying?

Balanced just refers to two sides being presented, it doesn't mean that either side are correct or incorrect. Pasting some links provides a source of information not a guaranteed fact.

We are talking about the media.....not individuals or members of this forum Jaxie :/

When you think of something sensible to say that isn't implying everyone who isn't you doesn't know what they are talking about, sure.

Where did I name an individual?

I am aware what balanced means.... That is specifically my point however, that our media has been shown say the BBC for instance to be particularly unbalanced in favour of the tories since he call for an election.

The media has a duty to print facts, they can misrepresent, spin and present information in different ways... but they cannot lie.

'the person' ( from your quote)

You cannot personify the media.

Nothing but personal remarks and indignation. I won't rise to your bait.

I've stated the reasons qualifying my opinion, if you actually want a discussion then I suggest you try to form a counter argument to them otherwise give up if you haven't got anything else to add to the topic aside from trying to take it off topic because you dislike the opinions within it.

I won't respond to any more of your posts on the subject unless you are actually interested in an actual discussion.

Explain how claiming most voters are uninformed is a balanced argument of anything?

You really are amusing when you deflect. :shrug: How is saying most voters are uninformed a balanced argument of anything? You've given no reasons at all. See the highlight, that's deflecting. It's fine if you can't respond.

What a strange and completely off subject thing to come up with. So someone reporting for the media is not a person? :think:

I'll ignore the hypocritical insult.

As for your question. I'm not a media product. Kizzy was speaking about the lack of balance in the media, not individual people. She told you this and you responded to the post so I don't really understand why you're still confused on the matter.

My opinions is that the vast majority of voters ARE uninformed and (like I said before but you ignored in favour of the 'I AM OFFENDED' tactic) the reasons why I believe that is because the dominant tactics in almost all of the recent elections are shallow and ultimately uninformative. Theresa May has been saying 'Strong and Stable' at every chance she's given because people respond to it in spite the fact that you don't need to look hard to see that her administration is anything but. They've demonised Jeremy Corbyn to the point that the uninformed believes him to be some sort of terrorist traitor because people don't bother to fact check. Tell the voting public what they want to hear and they will respond regardless of the facts. The same can be said for the previous two elections, the referendum, every US election ever and more.

Policies and hard facts aren't sexy. The public in general don't respond to anything that isn't a buzzword, headline or soundbite.

Except you didn't ignore what you call a hypocritical insult (pot, kettle), you keep on replying. :shrug:

I'll take the fact you ignored the answer to the question you asked as a white flag on your part. You are not interested in discussing anything.

In essence no, not when they are representing their publication.

I'll have to tell my friend who works in journalism she's not a person at work, not sure what she will make of that. :shrug:

You really can take what you like as what you like. I'd love to discuss anything with you, Dezzy, anytime when you aren't making wild statements with no substance then defensively berating me for pointing it out.

I don't really have a whole day to waste though and I'm hungry. :wavey:

You're twisting again.

My point of course was whatever her personal opinions they are not always the ones expressed during your journalistic reporting.