Propaganda watch

[BIAD]

Like all mainstream medias, the same reports are displayed and usually in the same order.
Conclusions are drawn within a minute-or-two by the presenter's presentation of the information and we all are
supposed to confidently nod that everything that's offered is true and unbiased.

Except... it's what is missing that can have a bearing too.

These days, we're asked to believe that white men are oppressing women at every opportunity and if an article
offers room for such a suggestion, the mainstream media will not falter in driving their agenda onward.
These masters of narrative also believe that Governments should control your children's conduct and once again,
if there's an opening to tell you that they know better, they'll tell you.

The report below is a harmless one, the British Medical Journal -now called 'The BMJ', says its findings show that
an average use of devices -such as cell phones and tablets that have screens, cause little harm to the young in
general.

But there are other screens, namely television screens and oddly enough, this BBC article misses certain findings of
the same BMJ out of their account.
I wonder why?

Worry less about children's screen use, parents told.

'There is little evidence screen use for children is harmful in itself, guidance from leading paediatricians says.
Parents should worry less as long as they have gone through a checklist on the effect of screen time on their
child, it says.



While the guidance avoids setting screen time limits, it recommends not using them in the hour before bedtime.
Experts say it is important that the use of devices does not replace sleep, exercising and time with family.

It was informed by a review of evidence published at the same time in the BMJ Open medical journal, and follows
a debate around whether youngsters should have time on devices restricted.
Meanwhile, a separate study has found that girls are twice as likely to show signs of depressive symptoms linked
to social media use at age 14 compared with boys...'

LINK:
See...? there's a link to the open medical journal where a diligent parent can check to see the results of these tests,
but there's no link to where the evidence is that girls are worse victims than boys.
And I'd wager the Journalist's finger tarried over the keyboard on whether to adjust the statement to 'white boys'!

'...'No evidence of being toxic'
The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH), which oversees the training of specialists in child
medicine, has produced the guidance for under-18s.

It said there was no good evidence that time in front of a screen is "toxic" to health, as is sometimes claimed.
The review of evidence found associations between higher screen use and obesity and depression...'

Remember that second sentence, I'll post at the bottom what the BMJ actually said.

'....But the college looked at this and said it was not clear from the evidence if higher screen use was causing these
problems or if people with these issues were more likely to spend more time on screens.

The review was carried out by experts at University College London, including RCPCH president Prof Russell Viner.
The college said it was not setting time limits for children because there was not enough evidence that screen time
was harmful to child health at any age.

Instead, it has published a series of questions to help families make decisions about their screen time use:

Is your family's screen time under control?
Does screen use interfere with what your family want to do?
Does screen use interfere with sleep?
Are you able to control snacking during screen time?

Dr Max Davie, officer for health promotion for the RCPCH, said phones, computers and tablets were a "great way to
explore the world", but parents were often made to feel that there was something "indefinably wrong" about them.

He said: "We want to cut through that and say 'actually if you're doing OK and you've answered these questions of yourselves
and you're happy, get on and live your life and stop worrying'.
"But if there are problems and you're having difficulties, screen time can be a contributing factor."

Dr Russell Viner, president of the RCPCH, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme "screens are part of modern life", adding:
"The genie is out of the bottle - we cannot put it back."...'

There's a segment on what parents say and recommendations of not using 'devices' that are obvious.
The final few sentences are where the majority of the mainstream media wriggle out of they've implied earlier and the BBC
is no exception.

'Social media and young people
The study on social media use and young people was carried out by experts at University College London and published in
EClinicalMedicine.
It involved nearly 11,000 young people answering questionnaires on their social media use, online harassment,
sleep patterns, self-esteem and body image...'

You can click on the link, but it doesn't lead to an academic page that has any bearing on the subject!
Here we go with the back-tracking

'...It is separate to the RCPCH guidance on screen use and the review that informed it, neither of which looked at social media
use. Experts not involved in the social media study said it added to existing evidence that heavy social media use may be harmful
for mental health.

But they called for more research to better understand if it causes depression, or if depressive people are more likely to use social
media excessively...'

BBC:

Which is strange considering the BBC stated: '...Meanwhile, a separate study has found that girls are twice as likely to show signs
of depressive symptoms linked to social media use at age 14 compared with boys...' But that was in the form of a dig at males and
not backed-up with science.

But all of this is about screens. Screens, screens screens. And is there a difference in effects when looking at different types of screens?

Here are some other findings the report showed and oddly enough, not offered in the above article.

'The great majority of findings related to television screentime. Tremblay et al 10 reported a moderate association between
television screetime and adiposity [obesity] measures, identified in 94/119 cross-sectional studies and 19/28 longitudinal
studies.

van Ekris et al reported strong evidence for a positive relationship between TV viewing time and incidence of overweight/obesity
over time in three high-quality studies and in three low-quality studies. Carson et al reported that unfavourable adiposity was
associated with television screentime in 14/16 longitudinal studies, 2/2 case-control studies and 58/71 cross-sectional studies.

LeBlanc et al 18 reported that the association between television screentime and unfavourable adiposity measures could be seen
at all ages, but that evidence quality was low for infants and moderate for toddlers and preschoolers...'

'...We conclude there is moderately strong evidence that higher television screentime is associated with greater adiposity,
but that there is insufficient evidence for an association with overall screentime or non-television screentime.
There is moderate evidence that a dose-response association is present for screentime or television screentime.
However, there is no strong evidence for a particular threshold in hours of screentime...'

'...We conclude there is moderate evidence for an association between screentime, particularly television screentime,
and higher energy intake and less healthy diet quality including higher intake of energy and lower intake of healthy food
groups...'

You'll notice that in the BBC article, they never used the word 'television' and stuck with 'devices'.
We tend not to think of a television-set being a device, more like a piece of furniture or appliance.

Screen time on a television comes-off as a negative and British Broadcasting Company failed to show
their readers and viewers that... I wonder why?!!!