Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[hector13]

CBS is partnered with the BBC in some capacity.

[EuchreJack]

In a round about way, all news media is connected.

But yeah, I heard that CBS and BBC has a more formal agreement.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-bbc-join-forces/

[Great Order]

BBC's always toed the ruling party line to some degree or another, but the Cons really fucked it up. They've been filling the upper echelons of the BBC with cronies and been threatening to pull its funding repeatedly.

The bias isn't overt, it's present mainly through over/underreporting. Something against the Tories? Less likely to cover it. Against Labour? All over the front page.

Of course, there are some overt instances. My favourite was the Laura Kuennsberg article on Boris Johnson's relationship with the truth. Somehow, she failed to find a single instance of him lying.

[jipehog]

Different political landscape over here but the same playbook (from my perspective, it's even worse as we don't have the same level of checks and balances to protect against the tyranny of the majority, and the demography favors the religious who already go for the jugular). More importantly shades of this sort of things is something we see all over the world and all political spectrum, and why I look beyond the political blame game.

I don't have the same rosy outlook on traditional media of the past, it had its share of biases and controversies, maybe even more or more adversely impactful given the times and due to its dominant position in our lives. However, it also gave common ground to everyone and provided an editorial filter avoiding junk food news, blunt lies and misinformation, loaded language etc stuff which is the reality of major online platforms.

[martinuzz]

Well, at least the BBC has now decided that Gary Lineker is still welcome at his job.
I hope Attenborough's documentary episode will be aired after all as well.

[Great Order]

Oh, the whole Attenbrough thing.

From what I understand, that's actually kinda bollocks. The BBC's putting it on iPlayer, AND the reason it's not being aired is apparently because the BBC only commissioned five episodes, the sixth one is being funded by their partner instead.

[martinuzz]

It is possible that the Guardian was misinformed I suppose.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/mar/10/david-attenborough-bbc-wild-isles-episode-rightwing-backlash-fears

[McTraveller]

Questionable sensationalism from the SVB (Silicon Valley Bank) media coverage:

"The banking industry has $620 billion in unrealized losses"

So? I have unrealized losses in my 401(k) at the moment.  I don't panic.  Unrealized losses only matter if you have to cash out!  (The headline also doesn't specify if that's net or just looking at loss - if you add unrealized gains in there, is it positive?)

Is this really so difficult to understand?

[pisskop]

The idea that the banks were so reckless and are a push of a button from losing over half a trillion dollars is very sensational.

Theyre supposed to be safe, and part of why they werent is because they invested their clients money into long term bonds that werent mature.

If, essentially, I bought a collectable Today The Great Beany Baby that I knew was going to be worth $1000 in 3 years for the price of $100, Id be making a sound investment.  But, if suddenly I lost my job and had to sell it quickly to [give my clients their money back today], I might only get $50 out of it.  Thus I was forced to realize a massive loss on a 'safe and sure bet' because I didnt have liquidity.

And the reason why they didnt have that liquidity was because they were telling people they had the $1000 today when they only had the $50.  Once one person caught on, the rest went into hyperdrive and ran the bank.

[martinuzz]

But isn't that basically how all banks work?

[pisskop]

But isn't that basically how all banks work?

because of all the stimulus during the Covid crisis, they started taking riskier, bonds with higher yields, and then they started reporting the max profit as if they have that money today

they didn't stop acting like the money was still being printed, and kept those riskier practices up

[McTraveller]

How long, I wonder, until there is the first bank established that only makes investments based on the recommendations of something like ChatGPT, since that is all the rage these days?

Would such a bank do better or worse than the average bank? Or would it be "perfectly average"?

[jipehog]

But isn't that basically how all banks work?

because of all the stimulus during the Covid crisis, they started taking riskier, bonds with higher yields, and then they started reporting the max profit as if they have that money today

It seem that Silicon Valley was known to work with high tech early-stage startups, which are known to have high failure rates and on top they lent against expected revenue for future services, so riskier than the solid financial institution most prefer. I don't know about the US tax payers but its popped in the news in space and hightech media of several countries whose companies used it.

There is also a second bank than went down, which specialized in Crypto which is known for its instability and apparently was closed after failing financial obligations when its customer got spooked and started withdrawing money.

[Frumple]

But isn't that basically how all banks work?

because of all the stimulus during the Covid crisis, they started taking riskier, bonds with higher yields, and then they started reporting the max profit as if they have that money today

they didn't stop acting like the money was still being printed, and kept those riskier practices up

I don't think this had much or anything to do with covid stimulus -- the bank was indeed kinda' braindead with the risks it was taking, but precisely what happened with SVB was people like this (link goes to an imgur album of twitter screenshots, to save it for posterity) being so astoundingly dumb it's vaguely amazing they're not kept inside protected enclosures for their own safety. As the person that I first saw mention this said, "however you imagined this happened, the reality is actually much stupider."

E: While most of it is boggling, the 1:30 PM entry is just wild. As they're in the middle of contributing to a bank run, acknowledging the cause is panic while they're in the middle of panicking, they buy shares in the bank. There is some kind of fundamental disconnect in cognition with folks like that. Something has broken their brain, and for some reason other people think it's a good idea to subsequently give them money.

[Lord Shonus]

In regard to SVB, much of their investments were apparently low-value stuff, not high-risk adventurism. The issue was that they pushed the quantity of said investments way, way beyond safe levels.