http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37967178 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37967178)
(http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/11FF0/production/_92421737_a38bdf70-cd70-4aab-8d01-c80feed41527.jpg)
Christchurch was hammered in 2011 . An awful lot of buildings were destroyed.
One of the things about countries settled by whites in recent history is that there is no knowledge of longer term risk.
The Brits built brick buildings in the 19th century. They didn't know.
Christchurch is not built on a suitable site for a major city.
Insurance is going to be impossible.
Quote from: seafoid on November 13, 2016, 08:33:18 PM
Christchurch was hammered in 2011 . An awful lot of buildings were destroyed.
One of the things about countries settled by whites in recent history is that there is no knowledge of longer term risk.
The Brits built brick buildings in the 19th century. They didn't know.
Christchurch is not built on a suitable site for a major city.
Insurance is going to be impossible.
?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 13, 2016, 09:45:17 PM
Quote from: seafoid on November 13, 2016, 08:33:18 PM
Christchurch was hammered in 2011 . An awful lot of buildings were destroyed.
One of the things about countries settled by whites in recent history is that there is no knowledge of longer term risk.
The Brits built brick buildings in the 19th century. They didn't know.
Christchurch is not built on a suitable site for a major city.
Insurance is going to be impossible.
[/quote
?
Earthquakes are considered 1 in 200 year events. Christchurch may be 150 years old
Quote from: seafoid on November 13, 2016, 09:51:05 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 13, 2016, 09:45:17 PM
Quote from: seafoid on November 13, 2016, 08:33:18 PM
Christchurch was hammered in 2011 . An awful lot of buildings were destroyed.
One of the things about countries settled by whites in recent history is that there is no knowledge of longer term risk.
The Brits built brick buildings in the 19th century. They didn't know.
Christchurch is not built on a suitable site for a major city.
Insurance is going to be impossible.
[/quote
?
Earthquakes are considered 1 in 200 year events. Christchurch may be 150 years old
That depends on where the country is surely? As for records I'm sure the the locals have some sort historical records before the whities came
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 13, 2016, 10:21:10 PM
Quote from: seafoid on November 13, 2016, 09:51:05 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 13, 2016, 09:45:17 PM
Quote from: seafoid on November 13, 2016, 08:33:18 PM
Christchurch was hammered in 2011 . An awful lot of buildings were destroyed.
One of the things about countries settled by whites in recent history is that there is no knowledge of longer term risk.
The Brits built brick buildings in the 19th century. They didn't know.
Christchurch is not built on a suitable site for a major city.
Insurance is going to be impossible.
[/quote
?
Earthquakes are considered 1 in 200 year events. Christchurch may be 150 years old
That depends on where the country is surely? As for records I'm sure the the locals have some sort historical records before the whities came
Maori had no written language, they've no appreciable records only myth and legend.
MR why don't you Google the Maori earthquake data and post it ?
Maybe nobody lived around the site of Christchurch.
It's a good example of stability bias. It was stable in the past so let's build a brick house.
I didn't know whether to put this in here, or in the WTF thread. The independent is such a sensationalist piece of shit.
"'The wardrobe doors were rattling, I couldn't understand it' - Irish woman describes New Zealand earthquake horror"
Not sure why that is sensationalist... apparently it was terrifying for people.
God is punishing New Zealand for losing to Ireland
God punishes people for voting for gay marriage so it is possible
Quote from: longballin on November 14, 2016, 09:32:50 AM
Not sure why that is sensationalist... apparently it was terrifying for people.
If it said she was afraid, that would be realistic. But Earthquake 'Horror' is very loaded, and when you read the story, she woke up, saw the wardrobe doors shaking, went outside, and had a sleepless night. If that's 'horror' then the definition of horror has changed a lot.
I'm sure people up in the town affected most would have much more horrific tales to tell than some ex-journo who was woken in the middle of the night. FFS I'm sure people in the West Coast of the USA would have experienced that a few times in the last 20 years.
They have to use words like HORROR and TERROR to hook people in. It pisses me off.
Fair enough probably not anything like earthquakes you have experienced in Offaly ::)
Quote from: AZOffaly on November 14, 2016, 10:28:24 AM
Quote from: longballin on November 14, 2016, 09:32:50 AM
Not sure why that is sensationalist... apparently it was terrifying for people.
If it said she was afraid, that would be realistic. But Earthquake 'Horror' is very loaded, and when you read the story, she woke up, saw the wardrobe doors shaking, went outside, and had a sleepless night. If that's 'horror' then the definition of horror has changed a lot.
I'm sure people up in the town affected most would have much more horrific tales to tell than some ex-journo who was woken in the middle of the night. FFS I'm sure people in the West Coast of the USA would have experienced that a few times in the last 20 years.
They have to use words like HORROR and TERROR to hook people in. It pisses me off.
AZ , NZ is on a fault line. There was an earthquake in 2011 that messed up the RWC arrangements. It was pretty serious.
Christchurch will not be the same again.
If you couldn't insure your house and the cups started rattling how would you react?
I'm aware of that. I'm calling bullshit on the Independent's reporting of this lady's experience. All designed to get clicks. Read the story about what she said actually happened, and come back to me if what she experienced was 'horrific'.
I'm not doubting she was afraid, I'd imagine I'd be afraid, but then everyone on the San Andreas fault is afraid too. Horror, in the way they are writing, does not mean 'fear' though. But a headline that said
"'The wardrobe doors were rattling, I couldn't understand it' - Irish woman describes New Zealand earthquake fear OR
"'The wardrobe doors were rattling, I couldn't understand it' - Irish woman describes New Zealand earthquake nervousness
wouldn't sell as much clicks.
Maybe I just hate the independent.
Quote from: seafoid on November 14, 2016, 09:59:00 AM
God is punishing New Zealand for losing to Ireland
God punishes people for voting for gay marriage so it is possible
Shut up about God!
Quote from: AZOffaly on November 14, 2016, 11:14:17 AM
I'm aware of that. I'm calling bullshit on the Independent's reporting of this lady's experience. All designed to get clicks. Read the story about what she said actually happened, and come back to me if what she experienced was 'horrific'.
I'm not doubting she was afraid, I'd imagine I'd be afraid, but then everyone on the San Andreas fault is afraid too. Horror, in the way they are writing, does not mean 'fear' though. But a headline that said
"'The wardrobe doors were rattling, I couldn't understand it' - Irish woman describes New Zealand earthquake fear OR
"'The wardrobe doors were rattling, I couldn't understand it' - Irish woman describes New Zealand earthquake nervousness
wouldn't sell as much clicks.
Maybe I just hate the independent.
It is probably a mixture of both.
Papers romanticise
Did Vogue Williams have anything to say ?
Remember when papers newspapers used to report the news? I miss that.
Quote from: AZOffaly on November 14, 2016, 11:55:26 AM
Remember when papers newspapers used to report the news? I miss that.
I don't know who started it, but imho the likes of Murdock and Maxwell having their publications merely reflect their own extreme ideology was the beginning of the end for the media.
Read any edition of
The Daily Mail for reference.
Quote from: muppet on November 14, 2016, 12:52:00 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on November 14, 2016, 11:55:26 AM
Remember when papers newspapers used to report the news? I miss that.
I don't know who started it, but imho the likes of Murdock and Maxwell having their publications merely reflect their own extreme ideology was the beginning of the end for the media.
Read any edition of The Daily Mail for reference.
I rather not, thanks. :)
But they all do it now, just from different agendas. The Guardian is like the opposite end of the scale from the Daily Mail. But they are not newspapers now, they are opinion pieces. Soap Boxes. The print version óf the Hyde Park corner in London.
Quote from: AZOffaly on November 14, 2016, 01:10:02 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 14, 2016, 12:52:00 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on November 14, 2016, 11:55:26 AM
Remember when papers newspapers used to report the news? I miss that.
I don't know who started it, but imho the likes of Murdock and Maxwell having their publications merely reflect their own extreme ideology was the beginning of the end for the media.
Read any edition of The Daily Mail for reference.
I rather not, thanks. :)
But they all do it now, just from different agendas. The Guardian is like the opposite end of the scale from the Daily Mail. But they are not newspapers now, they are opinion pieces. Soap Boxes. The print version óf the Hyde Park corner in London.
Exactly.
The amazing freedom we allow them has been wasted and in many cases abused.
The quality papers are still OK. The NYT is doing an honest job investigating Trump fraud. The IT is ok. It was always limited. The Daily Mail is an enabler of fascism by way of soft porn.
The role of the media is to assure us everything is fine. And they can't now.
Quote from: seafoid on November 14, 2016, 01:56:46 PM
The quality papers are still OK. The NYT is doing an honest job investigating Trump fraud. The IT is ok. It was always limited. The Daily Mail is an enabler of fascism by way of soft porn.
The role of the media is to assure us everything is fine. And they can't now.
Assure us everything is fine, or frighten us into thinking everything is fucked. Depending on their agenda. As I said, no reporting, all agenda based opinion.
Quote from: AZOffaly on November 14, 2016, 01:57:56 PM
Quote from: seafoid on November 14, 2016, 01:56:46 PM
The quality papers are still OK. The NYT is doing an honest job investigating Trump fraud. The IT is ok. It was always limited. The Daily Mail is an enabler of fascism by way of soft porn.
The role of the media is to assure us everything is fine. And they can't now.
Assure us everything is fine, or frighten us into thinking everything is fucked. Depending on their agenda. As I said, no reporting, all agenda based opinion.
The role of the media is to report in a fair and balanced manner. Tell us as it is, without bias. But let us make up our minds.
Sadly there are very few hacks, never mind media outlets, that you can say do that.
Quote from: muppet on November 14, 2016, 02:00:17 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on November 14, 2016, 01:57:56 PM
Quote from: seafoid on November 14, 2016, 01:56:46 PM
The quality papers are still OK. The NYT is doing an honest job investigating Trump fraud. The IT is ok. It was always limited. The Daily Mail is an enabler of fascism by way of soft porn.
The role of the media is to assure us everything is fine. And they can't now.
Assure us everything is fine, or frighten us into thinking everything is fucked. Depending on their agenda. As I said, no reporting, all agenda based opinion.
The role of the media is to report in a fair and balanced manner. Tell us as it is, without bias. But let us make up our minds.
Sadly there are very few hacks, never mind media outlets, that you can say do that.
So many things never make it into the narrative.
I wouldn't be too hard on journalists. Teaching is just as bad
Quote from: seafoid on November 14, 2016, 02:24:27 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 14, 2016, 02:00:17 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on November 14, 2016, 01:57:56 PM
Quote from: seafoid on November 14, 2016, 01:56:46 PM
The quality papers are still OK. The NYT is doing an honest job investigating Trump fraud. The IT is ok. It was always limited. The Daily Mail is an enabler of fascism by way of soft porn.
The role of the media is to assure us everything is fine. And they can't now.
Assure us everything is fine, or frighten us into thinking everything is fucked. Depending on their agenda. As I said, no reporting, all agenda based opinion.
The role of the media is to report in a fair and balanced manner. Tell us as it is, without bias. But let us make up our minds.
Sadly there are very few hacks, never mind media outlets, that you can say do that.
So many things never make it into the narrative.
I wouldn't be too hard on journalists. Teaching is just as bad
Too many journalists, too few reporters.
It's not a career that would be appealing at all these days. I know one boy who does it and follow him on twitter. Nothing but garbage on his twitter feed bout "celebs", stories about bin days etc. Now granted that is local but even at national level imagine being a daily mail / sun journalist and you had some integrity about yourself. You wouldn't stand a chance.
Quote from: AZOffaly on November 14, 2016, 02:31:25 PM
Quote from: seafoid on November 14, 2016, 02:24:27 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 14, 2016, 02:00:17 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on November 14, 2016, 01:57:56 PM
Quote from: seafoid on November 14, 2016, 01:56:46 PM
The quality papers are still OK. The NYT is doing an honest job investigating Trump fraud. The IT is ok. It was always limited. The Daily Mail is an enabler of fascism by way of soft porn.
The role of the media is to assure us everything is fine. And they can't now.
Assure us everything is fine, or frighten us into thinking everything is fucked. Depending on their agenda. As I said, no reporting, all agenda based opinion.
The role of the media is to report in a fair and balanced manner. Tell us as it is, without bias. But let us make up our minds.
Sadly there are very few hacks, never mind media outlets, that you can say do that.
So many things never make it into the narrative.
I wouldn't be too hard on journalists. Teaching is just as bad
Too many journalists, too few reporters.
The role of the media is to make money, this equates to telling people what they want to hear
Or to get them angry/scared so they click into all their stories.
Quote from: AZOffaly on November 14, 2016, 03:02:07 PM
Or to get them angry/scared so they click into all their stories.
.. if you want to get scared/angry/outraged it all amounts to the same thing, your choice of media provides with means to each your preferred emotional state
True I suppose, but things like Facebook throw it in your face, you don't have to go looking. It's not necessarily confirmation bias.
Quote from: AZOffaly on November 14, 2016, 03:22:35 PM
True I suppose, but things like Facebook throw it in your face, you don't have to go looking. It's not necessarily confirmation bias.
True to an extend but you could always choose to roll you eyes at it
Anyway I wasnt really talking about confirmation bias as much as people's preferred emotional state.
I'd sort of compare it to bitching at work.... I was in management training once and bitching came up and someone said "Do you ever notice who you do it to". I used to bitch alot and sure enough I noticed that I always bitch to other people that bitch, never to someone who would likely say..."Catch yerself on wud ye" or "Sorry, dont really want to hear it" or "There is procedure thru HR if you have a grievance"
You could, and I do. But that's sort of my point. Isn't it sad that we can't just expect our reporters to report the news, and let us make up our own mind on how 'terrible' it is otherwise. People are being spoonfed how to think, and how to feel, and that's what pisses me off.
Mind you I have a cynical mind anyway, so I believe nobody.
FB is seriously compromised cos its algos cannot distinguish between real news and BreitBart which won the election. Zuckerberg says 99% of info is real but that is bullshit.
Quote from: AZOffaly on November 14, 2016, 03:55:07 PM
You could, and I do. But that's sort of my point. Isn't it sad that we can't just expect our reporters to report the news, and let us make up our own mind on how 'terrible' it is otherwise. People are being spoonfed how to think, and how to feel, and that's what pisses me off.
Mind you I have a cynical mind anyway, so I believe nobody.
Likewise, unless it matches my own cynical viewpoint ;P
And now paradoxically we are back full circle, why would you expect reporters to give accurate accounts when for the most part they are operatives for a profit making entity.
But perhaps this is more fundamental question of how do you know anything is correct if perception is removed? (sorry ET)
This reminds me of relativity, how do you know the speed of anything if nothing is stationary?
Quote from: omaghjoe on November 14, 2016, 04:33:01 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on November 14, 2016, 03:55:07 PM
You could, and I do. But that's sort of my point. Isn't it sad that we can't just expect our reporters to report the news, and let us make up our own mind on how 'terrible' it is otherwise. People are being spoonfed how to think, and how to feel, and that's what pisses me off.
Mind you I have a cynical mind anyway, so I believe nobody.
Likewise, unless it matches my own cynical viewpoint ;P
And now paradoxically we are back full circle, why would you expect reporters to give accurate accounts when for the most part they are operatives for a profit making entity.
But perhaps this is more fundamental question of how do you know anything is correct if perception is removed? (sorry ET)
This reminds me of relativity, how do you know the speed of anything if nothing is stationary?
Why do we (some but not all countries) legal privileges such as the 'freedom of the press' upon them, if some of them merely exploit that for profit? Serious question btw.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/RWB-PressFreedomIndex-WorldMap.svg/863px-RWB-PressFreedomIndex-WorldMap.svg.png)
Quote from: muppet on November 14, 2016, 04:43:04 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on November 14, 2016, 04:33:01 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on November 14, 2016, 03:55:07 PM
You could, and I do. But that's sort of my point. Isn't it sad that we can't just expect our reporters to report the news, and let us make up our own mind on how 'terrible' it is otherwise. People are being spoonfed how to think, and how to feel, and that's what pisses me off.
Mind you I have a cynical mind anyway, so I believe nobody.
Likewise, unless it matches my own cynical viewpoint ;P
And now paradoxically we are back full circle, why would you expect reporters to give accurate accounts when for the most part they are operatives for a profit making entity.
But perhaps this is more fundamental question of how do you know anything is correct if perception is removed? (sorry ET)
This reminds me of relativity, how do you know the speed of anything if nothing is stationary?
Why do we (some but not all countries) legal privileges such as the 'freedom of the press' upon them, if some of them merely exploit that for profit? Serious question btw.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/RWB-PressFreedomIndex-WorldMap.svg/863px-RWB-PressFreedomIndex-WorldMap.svg.png)
Its a very good question Muppet and one that I have often wondered..
Why within the confines of a capitalist system is a completely derugulated press more likely to give accurate reporting than in a state controlled/regulated media? I truthfully cant see any..
The UK media went nuts after the government tried to impose some regulation on them after the phone hacking scandal, comparing it to China and Iran which was total bollocks. I really had to question their motives after that was it ego was it profit I dunno? But I am nearly definite that it was nothing to do with getting the truth to the people
Whats the map BTW?
Apologies, I couldn't get the legend put it up explaining the colours.
Basically no colour is 'not rated'
Very green is good situation'
Yellow 'noticeable problems'
Very pink 'Very serious situation'
With the other colours in between.
Here is the source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index)