[The Washington Post is so socialist that it should be re-titled Pravda. Never to be – like the BBC – relied upon for impartiality.

NB. This reply has been closely monitored.

As is so often the case, in my opinion, you are quite wrong. Confirmation Bias, remember.

I think you would struggle to pass the socialist tag in the US.

No, but you found it in the left leaning anti Brexit Independent. I wonder why ?

Because they are prepared to challenge the brexshiitters? Whilst the likes of the Daily Fail are not really interested in the truth of the research conclusions? Just in IDS Gove’s and BoJo’s alternative truths

it is a matter of a number of different interpretations like so much else.

For example the “bias” of the BBC??

I am not imagining it ! I know hostility when I hear it and see it. The BBC’s anti Brexit hostility is as plain as a pikestaff. It is so obvious that a denial exposes the denier to ridicule.

As for the fatuous dismissal: “Well, it is just your opinion”, of course it is but, it is based upon what I personally hear from the tone and content of the BBC’s Brexit news and commentaries. Quite why few on these forums can accept that with good grace and admit it, is yet more evidence if evidence be needed of an astonishing prevalence and capacity for delusion.

But If you are constantly expecting it you will see it. It even has a name- confirmation bias

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.

The only ridicule should be aimed at those who cannot accept that their position may not be universally held, that cannot accept a position might be held as a matter of opinion rather than of fact and therefore delusion cuts both ways I am afraid.
Just accepting something “with good grace” merely because you say it is true…… Dream on

I see Donald has had another “alternative facts” moment. OK perhaps we should call it for what it is?…. untrue

If it were, surely his team would be providing evidence, shouting it from the rooftops. But not a squeak

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/23/at-white-house-trump-tells-congressional-leaders-3-5-million-illegal-ballots-cost-him-the-popular-vote/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumpvotes-0826pm-winner%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.802a3f6b06b2

There are a number of intersting articles in the US press about the Trump White House press briefing.
Worth reading
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/01/23/dear-media-the-trump-white-house-has-total-contempt-for-you-time-to-react-accordingly/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-d%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.4a5f91aa0622

Even Fox News are saying the ‘Alternative facts’ approach was on shaky ground

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/23/spicer-set-for-tense-briefing-with-press-after-crowd-size-dispute.html

Do you understand how English works? If Jewry means ‘collective of Jews’ then a word can be added before it to refer to the expanse of that collective, which could be limited to one country, a continent, or in this case the global amount.

Wow, you hand-picked one of 10 definitions and ignored all the rest.

By adding ”global’ to a definition that already means the Jewish people, or jews collectively, you can be seen to be implying an organised, homgenous group with one set of goals.
from the context of all of your previous post on the subject the one I quoted from the dictionary is the one definition that you seem to favour.

If this is notthe case, that you were notsuggesting that there was a global jewish conspiracy in the 1920’s and 1930’s then you should say so explicitly.

Is this the £5 argument or the £8 course of 10?