Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Auntie's fine. The fact that it stands up to scrutiny and accountability is a great thing. She's a great asset." In the case of trump it didn't though, it knew a cpl of weeks ago that it had fucked up royally on that issue yet sat on its hands until the Telegraph ( not a fan personally) put it on the front page.. It had the opportunity to sort out an apology or an explanation why it did what it did but for whatever reasons (and that's possibly as relevant to the resignations) it didn't.. It became the story.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They should drop the television side of it and just concentrate on the wireless, their radio 4 output is very good, this would require a level of commercialism to fund it as chasing folk for a license to listen to the wireless would be even more futile than the television licence. " 👍🏻 radio 4 is much better than most of their visual output. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Any state run media will be politically biased. It’s a vehicle for indoctrination to the hard of thinking. " But the BBC isn't state run. It's state funded, but it's very proudly independent of the state. Sadly it has lost sight of its purpose, which is to Inform, Educate, and Entertain, in that order. Today's BBC puts entertainment first, education secondary to that, and information in a sad last place. It's hard to see how it can be fixed without just sacking everyone and starting again. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Any state run media will be politically biased. It’s a vehicle for indoctrination to the hard of thinking. But the BBC isn't state run. It's state funded, but it's very proudly independent of the state. Sadly it has lost sight of its purpose, which is to Inform, Educate, and Entertain, in that order. Today's BBC puts entertainment first, education secondary to that, and information in a sad last place. It's hard to see how it can be fixed without just sacking everyone and starting again." Do really believe that? Really believe it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Any state run media will be politically biased. It’s a vehicle for indoctrination to the hard of thinking. But the BBC isn't state run. It's state funded, but it's very proudly independent of the state. Sadly it has lost sight of its purpose, which is to Inform, Educate, and Entertain, in that order. Today's BBC puts entertainment first, education secondary to that, and information in a sad last place. It's hard to see how it can be fixed without just sacking everyone and starting again." Do you work in asset stripping or something? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But the BBC isn't state run. It's state funded, but it's very proudly independent of the state. Sadly it has lost sight of its purpose, which is to Inform, Educate, and Entertain, in that order. Today's BBC puts entertainment first, education secondary to that, and information in a sad last place. It's hard to see how it can be fixed without just sacking everyone and starting again." "Do really believe that? Really believe it? " We must have very different world views. I don't see anything even slightly contentious in what I wrote. Can you give me an example of what you find to be wrong in what I said? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But the BBC isn't state run. It's state funded, but it's very proudly independent of the state. Sadly it has lost sight of its purpose, which is to Inform, Educate, and Entertain, in that order. Today's BBC puts entertainment first, education secondary to that, and information in a sad last place. It's hard to see how it can be fixed without just sacking everyone and starting again." "Do you work in asset stripping or something?" Most of the BBC's assets have already been stripped out into BBC Enterprises, which is a separate profit making company. I'm actually quite fond of the core of the BBC and its mandate. I just feel that it has lost its way and is now wasting money doing stuff that isn't needed. The BBC isn't supposed to be popular, it's supposed to be good and useful. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But the BBC isn't state run. It's state funded, but it's very proudly independent of the state. Sadly it has lost sight of its purpose, which is to Inform, Educate, and Entertain, in that order. Today's BBC puts entertainment first, education secondary to that, and information in a sad last place. It's hard to see how it can be fixed without just sacking everyone and starting again. Do you work in asset stripping or something? Most of the BBC's assets have already been stripped out into BBC Enterprises, which is a separate profit making company. I'm actually quite fond of the core of the BBC and its mandate. I just feel that it has lost its way and is now wasting money doing stuff that isn't needed. The BBC isn't supposed to be popular, it's supposed to be good and useful." In some ways my response was a tad flippant as I can see no sense or logic in sacking everyone in such a large organisation especially when the majority have done nothing wrong and the costs in doing so would be prohibitive.. I wouldn't disagree with your last point at all, they've made mistakes and as we've seen far too often have either tried to hide it for the reputational impact or their is a issue with some of the policies of their core remit which they've on the whole abided by and need to get back to.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I worked there for 20 years so inevitably some will see me as biased, but I can honestly say BBC journalists go to huge lengths to try to be accurate and impartial. Mistakes have been made, the Trump editing is a bad one (though to suggest DT was not winding up the crowd before the attack on the Capitol is a stretch) There are also questions to be answered about reporting of sensitive topics like Gaza and trans identity. These issues are so divisive I would argue it’s impossible to please everyone. Someone is always going to think the reporting is skewed if it doesn’t match their opinion. More worryingly is the fact that those with an overt political agenda who sit on the governing board are exploiting the BBC’s mistakes at a time of crisis. The BBC produces so much it’s inevitable some won’t please everyone, but do you really want to hand over news coverage of this country to Rupert Murdoch, GB News, The Daily Mail and The Guardian all of whom have a very clear political agenda. Is that a good result for democracy? Rant over - now back to perving naughty pictures x" In many ways it's a case of the narrative being exploited by outside interests who want it gone from a publicly funded entity, the same with the NHS etc.. Open to market forces.. And if we need to see how badly that's gone in the last thirty or so years we don't fave to look far.. The old saying of being careful what you wish for springs to mind.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I worked there for 20 years so inevitably some will see me as biased, but I can honestly say BBC journalists go to huge lengths to try to be accurate and impartial. Mistakes have been made, the Trump editing is a bad one (though to suggest DT was not winding up the crowd before the attack on the Capitol is a stretch) There are also questions to be answered about reporting of sensitive topics like Gaza and trans identity. These issues are so divisive I would argue it’s impossible to please everyone. Someone is always going to think the reporting is skewed if it doesn’t match their opinion. More worryingly is the fact that those with an overt political agenda who sit on the governing board are exploiting the BBC’s mistakes at a time of crisis. The BBC produces so much it’s inevitable some won’t please everyone, but do you really want to hand over news coverage of this country to Rupert Murdoch, GB News, The Daily Mail and The Guardian all of whom have a very clear political agenda. Is that a good result for democracy? Rant over - now back to perving naughty pictures x" I can understand your view on the BBC but to a pair of eyes looking in, I don't see how BBC "news" are any better or worse than Sky, ITV and Ch4. I would also go as far as saying that the criticism shown to people who watch GB news, could also be directed towards those that take their news from the BBC. The BBC has for some years shown a degradation in the news services it offers, I frequently see spelling mistakes on the BBC News site, a visible standards issue. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In some ways my response was a tad flippant as I can see no sense or logic in sacking everyone in such a large organisation especially when the majority have done nothing wrong and the costs in doing so would be prohibitive.." I see your point. But my view is that the BBC has become obsessed with the idea that they must be progressive, and lead public opinion, and that they must be popular and get large audience figures. Neither of these fits the BBC's mandate. I can't see a way in which we can turn the corporation round without getting rid of the vast majority of the decision makers, and fundamentally changing the attitude of the organisation. I agree though, that sacking everyone would be overkill, and would lose a significant amount of genuinely useful talent, but I don't think any reform can work without mass layoffs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In some ways my response was a tad flippant as I can see no sense or logic in sacking everyone in such a large organisation especially when the majority have done nothing wrong and the costs in doing so would be prohibitive.. I see your point. But my view is that the BBC has become obsessed with the idea that they must be progressive, and lead public opinion, and that they must be popular and get large audience figures. Neither of these fits the BBC's mandate. I can't see a way in which we can turn the corporation round without getting rid of the vast majority of the decision makers, and fundamentally changing the attitude of the organisation. I agree though, that sacking everyone would be overkill, and would lose a significant amount of genuinely useful talent, but I don't think any reform can work without mass layoffs." I would guess there's a few in the BBC and those who have recently left who would agree that there's certainly a need to reset and to sort out where it's going awry in certain areas.. 2027 isn't far away and there will need to be substantial changes to try and get back to where it should be before then.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The BBC has for some years shown a degradation in the news services it offers, I frequently see spelling mistakes on the BBC News site, a visible standards issue." This is a good point. Spelling and grammar on the website is appalling, and shows that the staff are clearly rushed by deadlines. I regularly find fundamental errors in their tech coverage, and I now just use the site as a guide to what's new, so that I can find the actual information myself. A particular bugbear is their click-baity straplines in the video section. It's common to see videos labelled "See moment plane crashes" attached to a video which just shows a long distance view of the aftermath. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I frequently see spelling mistakes on the BBC News site, a visible standards issue." In probably 20-25% of articles, at least, more if you include grammar and punctuation. It might seem petty, but the BBC is supposed to represent something. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The BBC has for some years shown a degradation in the news services it offers, I frequently see spelling mistakes on the BBC News site, a visible standards issue. This is a good point. Spelling and grammar on the website is appalling, and shows that the staff are clearly rushed by deadlines. I regularly find fundamental errors in their tech coverage, and I now just use the site as a guide to what's new, so that I can find the actual information myself. A particular bugbear is their click-baity straplines in the video section. It's common to see videos labelled "See moment plane crashes" attached to a video which just shows a long distance view of the aftermath." ++1 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The BBC are not impartial, because nobody can be. Several senior journalists demonstrate clear bias on certain topics." I agree that it's practically impossible to be completely impartial. Even more so where Trump is involved, and the BBC has to report what was said as well as what he probably meant, and whether there's any basis in truth to either of those things. "But what's worse is that their policy of attempting "even-handedness" forces them to show issues from "all sides", which seems like a great idea in principle, but amplifies nonsense in practice. Like "vaccines cause autism". False balance/false equivalence." But if they don't show those people, or treat them with contempt, then there will be conspiracy theories sprouting up saying that the BBC is hiding the truth. The best way to counter misinformation is to let the conspiracy theorists explain their stuff, and then get a good interviewer to point out all the fallacies and inconsistencies, so that the public are better armed with knowledge. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, calm down. This is the politics section, so BBC bias isn't just a curvature to the left on your favourite... Never mind. Thoughts? Does the BBC need an overhaul, a systemic purging, withdrawal of public funds and decriminalisation of license fee avoidance... Or to be let go altogether? Or is it perfectly fine as-is?" My opinion. I think bbc and BBC news needs to be distinguished. That's not to give BBC programming a free pass as they very much have their bias and it comes out in their programming and the types of programs that are commissioned which they ver well know influences society in some cases strongly. And that needs to be kept in check and needs to be monitored and controlled in order to ensure our national broadcaster is being representative of all people and not just those who make the most noise. National broadcaster. I do think we need to keep it. I think if we close it down as there is a lot of noise about it will be to our detriment. Careful what you wish for. It just needs to serve as a national broadcaster which is fare and impartial. BBC news.. Is a shockingly biased part of their business. BBC news should be trustworthy, should have editorial responsibility, should be factual and impartial and above all things be able to do the right thing by showing no favour to any side or person. It's currently dominated by stories and people with their agendas which mean that their stories are often factually incorrect or at the very least open to challenge. In the particular case of panorama.. The editor should be sacked and the people invved who very well knew what they were doing but have arrogantly refused to apologise and accept responsibility that what they did was wrong. They need to be gone. There is no place for such bias in a national news organisation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I worked there for 20 years so inevitably some will see me as biased, but I can honestly say BBC journalists go to huge lengths to try to be accurate and impartial. Mistakes have been made, the Trump editing is a bad one (though to suggest DT was not winding up the crowd before the attack on the Capitol is a stretch) There are also questions to be answered about reporting of sensitive topics like Gaza and trans identity. These issues are so divisive I would argue it’s impossible to please everyone. Someone is always going to think the reporting is skewed if it doesn’t match their opinion. More worryingly is the fact that those with an overt political agenda who sit on the governing board are exploiting the BBC’s mistakes at a time of crisis. The BBC produces so much it’s inevitable some won’t please everyone, but do you really want to hand over news coverage of this country to Rupert Murdoch, GB News, The Daily Mail and The Guardian all of whom have a very clear political agenda. Is that a good result for democracy? Rant over - now back to perving naughty pictures x" But it's not about pleasing everyone.. Or indeed pleasing anyone. Bbc news should present the facts without fear or favour. It may not please everyone buts its the facts. Pleased or not pleased. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But the BBC isn't state run. It's state funded, but it's very proudly independent of the state. Sadly it has lost sight of its purpose, which is to Inform, Educate, and Entertain, in that order. Today's BBC puts entertainment first, education secondary to that, and information in a sad last place. It's hard to see how it can be fixed without just sacking everyone and starting again. Do you work in asset stripping or something? Most of the BBC's assets have already been stripped out into BBC Enterprises, which is a separate profit making company. I'm actually quite fond of the core of the BBC and its mandate. I just feel that it has lost its way and is now wasting money doing stuff that isn't needed. The BBC isn't supposed to be popular, it's supposed to be good and useful." This | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Any state run media will be politically biased. It’s a vehicle for indoctrination to the hard of thinking. But the BBC isn't state run. It's state funded, but it's very proudly independent of the state. Sadly it has lost sight of its purpose, which is to Inform, Educate, and Entertain, in that order. Today's BBC puts entertainment first, education secondary to that, and information in a sad last place. It's hard to see how it can be fixed without just sacking everyone and starting again." The BBC charter can be summarised as to Inform, Educate and Entertain, but I challenge your claim "in that order". I could find nothing to support your claim. Then you falsely claim, in my view, the BBC puts entertainment first. Does entertainment output also not include topics that inform or educate? Let's take a highly successful series Clarkson's Farm (not BBC to overcome your bias towards the BBC). Is this series only entertainment, or does it also inform and educate viewers about farming? The answer, in my view, is yes to all three. And this example can be translated across most TV output including the popular soaps, quiz games, cookery programmes etc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read and watch the BBC more than any other outlet so this is alarming. Have they said why they did what they did? Looks like trump may take legal action over this" Not an isolated incident and too late for Jimmy Savilles victims Hopefully Trump takes them to the cleaners | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read and watch the BBC more than any other outlet so this is alarming. Have they said why they did what they did? Looks like trump may take legal action over this Not an isolated incident and too late for Jimmy Savilles victims Hopefully Trump takes them to the cleaners " But it'll be the license payers who'll foot the bill, it's not like they are going to pay any compensation out of their own pockets. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sadly it has lost sight of its purpose, which is to Inform, Educate, and Entertain, in that order. Today's BBC puts entertainment first, education secondary to that, and information in a sad last place. It's hard to see how it can be fixed without just sacking everyone and starting again." "The BBC charter can be summarised as to Inform, Educate and Entertain, but I challenge your claim "in that order". I could find nothing to support your claim." The words were put in that order after much discussion. At the time there was significant debate as to whether the word "entertain" should be added at all. "Then you falsely claim, in my view, the BBC puts entertainment first. Does entertainment output also not include topics that inform or educate?" Of course it does. But if you look at any of them, the most important consideration is entertainment. Even in the excellent nature documentaries that the BBC produces, the focus is on action and drama. They don't show animals doing boring but noteworthy stuff, they show fights and action and unexpected tenderness. Take a look at one and count the number of minutes that are actually educational, and the number of minutes that are just pretty pictures. Particularly take a note of the number of times the narrator says "these pictures, captured for the first time ever". The only BBC output that comes close to the original charter is the news. Even there they spend a lot of time sensationalising current events, and showing 'shocking' footage, and claiming to have exclusives. They have pushed the news as close to entertainment as they can get away with. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read and watch the BBC more than any other outlet so this is alarming. Have they said why they did what they did? Looks like trump may take legal action over this" He won't, it's just bluster. He's just grabbing the headlines and making them all about him. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Panorama edit was misleading in that it made it look like one continuous take. That was wrong. But let's be serious. If you read the transcript, Trump talked about fighting twenty times in the speech. Even in the bit where he spoke about cheering on "our brave senators and congressmen and women" he followed it with "and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them". His lawyers no doubt advised him to say "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard" but the whole tone of the speech was about inciting the crowd . When the crowd chanted "Fight for Trump" he thanked them. Then there's the context. In the campaigh debate he told the Proud Boys to "stand back and stand by". The Proud Boys were involved in the Jan 6th rioting. According to Hutchison, Trump said "I don't fucking care that they have weapons, they're not here to hurt me. They're not here to hurt me. Take the fucking mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here, let the people in and take the mags away". The mags are magnetometers - metal detectors used to detect weapons. During the riots Trump did nothing until eventually saying "“This was a fraudulent election, but we can’t play into the hands of these people”, “We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You’re very special." and "Remember this day forever!" On the first day of his second term Trump gave out nearly 1,600 pardons. So the Panorama edit was wrong but if you believe Trump's purpose was not to incite what happened then I would have to disagree with you. " That's not the if / or. It's simple. The bbc fabricated a story to meet their agenda they misreported facts. Which is they should be there to do. They should not be being dishonest and making stuff up. Why not just report what he said? Truthfully and honestly and with no agenda.? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That's not the if / or. It's simple. The bbc fabricated a story to meet their agenda they misreported facts. Which is they should be there to do. They should not be being dishonest and making stuff up. Why not just report what he said? Truthfully and honestly and with no agenda.?" As other people have indicated there's a very unfortunate desire to entertain and sensationalise and the BBC should have pushed back against this. A simple one second insert would have made it apparent that it wasn't one take. But something like my long-winded description of events wouldn't be as easy to convey as simply taking the two parts of the speech and splicing them together. I condemn the edit as it was misleading but the overall message was I think essentially truthful. Trump's goal was to encite what happened. I don't see any other rational explanation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I condemn the edit as it was misleading but the overall message was I think essentially truthful. Trump's goal was to encite what happened. I don't see any other rational explanation." You don't think it's possible that Trump whipped up the crowd just so he could bask in their admiration, while failing to put any thought into what might happen afterwards? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That's not the if / or. It's simple. The bbc fabricated a story to meet their agenda they misreported facts. Which is they should be there to do. They should not be being dishonest and making stuff up. Why not just report what he said? Truthfully and honestly and with no agenda.? As other people have indicated there's a very unfortunate desire to entertain and sensationalise and the BBC should have pushed back against this. A simple one second insert would have made it apparent that it wasn't one take. But something like my long-winded description of events wouldn't be as easy to convey as simply taking the two parts of the speech and splicing them together. I condemn the edit as it was misleading but the overall message was I think essentially truthful. Trump's goal was to encite what happened. I don't see any other rational explanation. " And that's your opinion. Others may arrive at the same conclusion when presented with what he actually said. I agree with you but the bit that somehow as long as the bbc report something that is loosely along the same lines as what they think his overall message was....as what he has actually stated.... Well that's OK. I think not. Report the facts, the truth. One can only question the motives of the production company, the commissioning editor, the management team, in presenting the edit as fact. As you said. Would have been easy to insert a graphic to say.. "15 minutes later trump said" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I condemn the edit as it was misleading but the overall message was I think essentially truthful. Trump's goal was to encite what happened. I don't see any other rational explanation. You don't think it's possible that Trump whipped up the crowd just so he could bask in their admiration, while failing to put any thought into what might happen afterwards?" Doesn't really matter what we think. They reported a maliciously edited speech as fact. Choosing not to say it was edited nor saying where the edits too place. That's all we want our national news organisation to do. Report the facts, not editorialise them and then deny any wrong doing. And as far as I can tell, still yet to apologise about the initial act or getting caught with their pants down. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I condemn the edit as it was misleading but the overall message was I think essentially truthful. Trump's goal was to encite what happened. I don't see any other rational explanation. You don't think it's possible that Trump whipped up the crowd just so he could bask in their admiration, while failing to put any thought into what might happen afterwards?" It’s less to do with Trump himself, and more that the bbc have made a deliberately fraudulent representation and broadcast it to millions of viewers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And that's your opinion. Others may arrive at the same conclusion when presented with what he actually said. I agree with you but the bit that somehow as long as the bbc report something that is loosely along the same lines as what they think his overall message was....as what he has actually stated.... Well that's OK. I think not. Report the facts, the truth. One can only question the motives of the production company, the commissioning editor, the management team, in presenting the edit as fact. As you said. Would have been easy to insert a graphic to say.. "15 minutes later trump said"" Yeah, it was misleading and would have been easy to fix. The BBC are rightly being criticised. There was nearly an hour between the two segments. I watched it at the time and read the transcript today to make sure my recollection was correct and to be honest I wouldn't recommend anyone listening to or reading Trump talking/lying/inciting for an hour as it's not good for one's mental health. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You don't think it's possible that Trump whipped up the crowd just so he could bask in their admiration, while failing to put any thought into what might happen afterwards?" HIs message to the Proud Boys to stand by, him wanting the mags removed, his lack of response during the rioting and him saying he loved the rioters and thought they were special and then him pardoning them kind of makes your theory unlikely to be true. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whoever signed off on the programme and the content which was deliberately manipulated and aimed at influencing the upcoming election last year should also resign.. I'm massively opposed to trump but this stupidity has only served to benefit him.. There was time to apologise and yes there's still questions about why the BBC board looks to have prevented two statements apologising last week after the telegraph went with the story but this is purely their own fuck up.. The two resignations so far might not be enough.. "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I condemn the edit as it was misleading but the overall message was I think essentially truthful. Trump's goal was to encite what happened. I don't see any other rational explanation. You don't think it's possible that Trump whipped up the crowd just so he could bask in their admiration, while failing to put any thought into what might happen afterwards?" No I don't think he did it for that reason, he and his entire team had been denying the election result before the 6th and whilst he might not have intended the actions of the mob to go so far he did nothing to stop it despite calls from both republicans, democrats and law enforcement during that attack on the capitol.. He fired from the hip verbally and his actions were partly culpable in my opinion, they were certainly not fitting anyone who holds one of the highest offices globally.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"BBC has always be suspect - look at the Panorama story on the Italian spaghetti harvest from the 1950s." Probably the best April Fools Day spoof ever. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"BBC has always be suspect - look at the Panorama story on the Italian spaghetti harvest from the 1950s. Probably the best April Fools Day spoof ever." Spoof? I'll have you know I own several acres..  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Spoof? I'll have you know I own several acres.." I think you'll find you are actually growing linguine rather than spaghetti. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I condemn the edit as it was misleading but the overall message was I think essentially truthful. Trump's goal was to encite what happened. I don't see any other rational explanation. You don't think it's possible that Trump whipped up the crowd just so he could bask in their admiration, while failing to put any thought into what might happen afterwards? No I don't think he did it for that reason, he and his entire team had been denying the election result before the 6th and whilst he might not have intended the actions of the mob to go so far he did nothing to stop it despite calls from both republicans, democrats and law enforcement during that attack on the capitol.. He fired from the hip verbally and his actions were partly culpable in my opinion, they were certainly not fitting anyone who holds one of the highest offices globally.." That take is now going to be in question | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The BBC (wether you think it's right or wrong) needs to tell trump and his legal team to fuck off, he's still an obnoxious cunt. Hes that stupid he won't even remember about sueing the BBC next week. How did he get on during Murdoch?" Sure. But the bbc were wrong. So need to be made to pay. Regardless of who they were wrong about. If they can make shit up about POTUS imagine what shit they can make up about anyone else? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"BBC has always be suspect - look at the Panorama story on the Italian spaghetti harvest from the 1950s. Probably the best April Fools Day spoof ever." It's pasta it's best | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"...90 % they are columnists from the Daily Telegraph or The Financial Times!!!!" Are you willing to stand by 90%, or would you rather have another go? Is this just confirmation bias on your part? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"...90 % they are columnists from the Daily Telegraph or The Financial Times!!!! Are you willing to stand by 90%, or would you rather have another go? Is this just confirmation bias on your part?" There probably is a right wing bias on QT, but 90% is pushing it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You don't think it's possible that Trump whipped up the crowd just so he could bask in their admiration, while failing to put any thought into what might happen afterwards?" "HIs message to the Proud Boys to stand by, him wanting the mags removed, his lack of response during the rioting and him saying he loved the rioters and thought they were special and then him pardoning them kind of makes your theory unlikely to be true." Your problem is that you keep judging Trump by your own standards, and assuming that he must have some consistent reason for his actions. But sometimes he just does whatever he feels like in the moment, with no thought as to consequences. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read and watch the BBC more than any other outlet so this is alarming. Have they said why they did what they did? Looks like trump may take legal action over this He won't, it's just bluster. He's just grabbing the headlines and making them all about him." I hope your right. The thought of license fee money going to him is not a good one. He may use it as leverage over other issues too I guess | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The BBC (wether you think it's right or wrong) needs to tell trump and his legal team to fuck off, he's still an obnoxious cunt. Hes that stupid he won't even remember about sueing the BBC next week. How did he get on during Murdoch? Sure. But the bbc were wrong. So need to be made to pay. Regardless of who they were wrong about. If they can make shit up about POTUS imagine what shit they can make up about anyone else? " I wonder if so many excuses would be made if it were something like GB news fabricating events in the way the BBC did. Unfortunately if the BBC do have to pay will they get the money from us | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The BBC (wether you think it's right or wrong) needs to tell trump and his legal team to fuck off, he's still an obnoxious cunt. Hes that stupid he won't even remember about sueing the BBC next week. How did he get on during Murdoch? Sure. But the bbc were wrong. So need to be made to pay. Regardless of who they were wrong about. If they can make shit up about POTUS imagine what shit they can make up about anyone else? I wonder if so many excuses would be made if it were something like GB news fabricating events in the way the BBC did. Unfortunately if the BBC do have to pay will they get the money from us" It's a good question but the issue in that example is different. One is our national news organisation, funded by legally enforced license payers and founded on a charter. The other is a commercial entity. Now, should All media entities be held accountable for publishing falsehoods. Absolutely they should. The fact trump has the ability to go after them is a good thing. Bbc should be setting the standards not racing to the sensationalist bottom. Report the facts so we trust what we can see and hear from them. Let news go back to being news rather than infotainment. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your problem is that you keep judging Trump by your own standards, and assuming that he must have some consistent reason for his actions. But sometimes he just does whatever he feels like in the moment, with no thought as to consequences." Obviously Trump isn't a deep thinker or strategist. But he is totally focused on what he thinks is in his own interests and if you look at it purely from that perspective then everything he does makes complete sense. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You don't think it's possible that Trump whipped up the crowd just so he could bask in their admiration, while failing to put any thought into what might happen afterwards? HIs message to the Proud Boys to stand by, him wanting the mags removed, his lack of response during the rioting and him saying he loved the rioters and thought they were special and then him pardoning them kind of makes your theory unlikely to be true. Your problem is that you keep judging Trump by your own standards, and assuming that he must have some consistent reason for his actions. But sometimes he just does whatever he feels like in the moment, with no thought as to consequences." We all judge others by our own standards and morals etc, that's only a 'problem' for others who have different standards and morals etc.. As for trump he has the duties of holding the office to abide by which he's failed to reach on many occasions apart from his own deplorable standards ( my opinion) .. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I hear the cunt wants a bribe to not sue. What an absolute heap of shite he is" Given they've apologised and no doubt will do a full retraction plus the Panorama programme in question wasn't available in the USA nor was available via the iPlayer there they should ignore his attempt to bribe them .. Let him try and sue.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I hear the cunt wants a bribe to not sue. What an absolute heap of shite he is" He can have a retraction… they can issue an apology He wouldn’t win anything in a lawsuit… all the BBC would do is show his speech followed by the aftermath of his speech on January 6th Trump would need to show reputational harm…. I would love to see him lawyers argue that in the context of the insurrection | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I hear the cunt wants a bribe to not sue. What an absolute heap of shite he is" So on that basis everyone who has ever settled out of court is a "heap of shite". 
I'm far from his biggest fan, although not a hater either, but the Panorama speech editing was disgraceful.
Imagine the hullabaloo if say GB news did a similar job on Starmer or Harris last year. No doubt the reporter would be on D wing in the Scrubs by now.
If he can sue them then he must or at least get some recompense out of court.
The BBC has to learn, maybe the hard way, that it can't play fast and loose with the truth. Whether they like Trump (or even Hamas) or not.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The BBC (wether you think it's right or wrong) needs to tell trump and his legal team to fuck off, he's still an obnoxious cunt. Hes that stupid he won't even remember about sueing the BBC next week. How did he get on during Murdoch? Sure. But the bbc were wrong. So need to be made to pay. Regardless of who they were wrong about. If they can make shit up about POTUS imagine what shit they can make up about anyone else? I wonder if so many excuses would be made if it were something like GB news fabricating events in the way the BBC did. Unfortunately if the BBC do have to pay will they get the money from us" they don't get a penny from me already so he can crack on and sue them because I won't be helping with any settlement | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If Trump is dumb enough to proceed then it would be very interesting if the BBC had the balls to put up a proper defence as the last thing the Trump administration needs is a forensic re-examination of the evidence of 6th Jan. I suspect many top lawyers would work pro bono to help the BBC. " BBC will do what they are told. In the blink of an eye more trade tariffs coming our way. We are in no position to negotiate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"BBC will do what they are told. In the blink of an eye more trade tariffs coming our way. We are in no position to negotiate." The BBC has a narrow path to walk. It can't afford to pay extortion money to Trump to stop a lawsuit. And if Trump is dumb enough to sue then it would be oblidged to defend itself in court. This defence would most likely use the minimum force required, but would still result in the further highlighting Trump's role in Jan 6th and be very damaging to his reputation. It's not in his interests to pursue this, so he won't. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The BBC (wether you think it's right or wrong) needs to tell trump and his legal team to fuck off, he's still an obnoxious cunt. Hes that stupid he won't even remember about sueing the BBC next week. How did he get on during Murdoch? Sure. But the bbc were wrong. So need to be made to pay. Regardless of who they were wrong about. If they can make shit up about POTUS imagine what shit they can make up about anyone else? I wonder if so many excuses would be made if it were something like GB news fabricating events in the way the BBC did. Unfortunately if the BBC do have to pay will they get the money from us It's a good question but the issue in that example is different. One is our national news organisation, funded by legally enforced license payers and founded on a charter. The other is a commercial entity. Now, should All media entities be held accountable for publishing falsehoods. Absolutely they should. The fact trump has the ability to go after them is a good thing. Bbc should be setting the standards not racing to the sensationalist bottom. Report the facts so we trust what we can see and hear from them. Let news go back to being news rather than infotainment. " I agree they are held to different standards but even so if an outlet like GB news we're to do this sort of thing there would not be the same people making excuses for them. The reputational damage is probably far higher than any possible legal action. Seems the trump incident was not the only thing highlighted though probably more high profile than some others | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I would love to speak to Jeremy Bowen, it would be a two sided conversation with no raised voices. " His bias is clear and vitriolic, yet is wrapped in an unassuming and faux-genuine tone. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You don't think it's possible that Trump whipped up the crowd just so he could bask in their admiration, while failing to put any thought into what might happen afterwards?" "HIs message to the Proud Boys to stand by, him wanting the mags removed, his lack of response during the rioting and him saying he loved the rioters and thought they were special and then him pardoning them kind of makes your theory unlikely to be true." "Your problem is that you keep judging Trump by your own standards, and assuming that he must have some consistent reason for his actions. But sometimes he just does whatever he feels like in the moment, with no thought as to consequences." "We all judge others by our own standards and morals etc, that's only a 'problem' for others who have different standards and morals etc.. As for trump he has the duties of holding the office to abide by which he's failed to reach on many occasions apart from his own deplorable standards ( my opinion) .." It's a problem for all those that try to work out what Trump is going to do next. If you think that the things Trump did last week are part of a grand plan that he is continuing to execute this week, you'll come up with all sorts of ludicrous theories. The fact is that he can't keep a plan in his head for more than a couple of days, and he just moves on and forgets what happened last week. If there's attention to be grabbed today he goes for it, whether it chimes with his previous actions or not. As for your opinion that he has deplorable standards, I don't think you can claim a monopoly on that view. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You don't think it's possible that Trump whipped up the crowd just so he could bask in their admiration, while failing to put any thought into what might happen afterwards? HIs message to the Proud Boys to stand by, him wanting the mags removed, his lack of response during the rioting and him saying he loved the rioters and thought they were special and then him pardoning them kind of makes your theory unlikely to be true. Your problem is that you keep judging Trump by your own standards, and assuming that he must have some consistent reason for his actions. But sometimes he just does whatever he feels like in the moment, with no thought as to consequences. We all judge others by our own standards and morals etc, that's only a 'problem' for others who have different standards and morals etc.. As for trump he has the duties of holding the office to abide by which he's failed to reach on many occasions apart from his own deplorable standards ( my opinion) .. It's a problem for all those that try to work out what Trump is going to do next. If you think that the things Trump did last week are part of a grand plan that he is continuing to execute this week, you'll come up with all sorts of ludicrous theories. The fact is that he can't keep a plan in his head for more than a couple of days, and he just moves on and forgets what happened last week. If there's attention to be grabbed today he goes for it, whether it chimes with his previous actions or not. As for your opinion that he has deplorable standards, I don't think you can claim a monopoly on that view." I wasn't trying to claim anything..
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As for your opinion that he has deplorable standards, I don't think you can claim a monopoly on that view." "I wasn't trying to claim anything.. " That was me trying to say "well yes, pretty much everyone would agree with you on that point". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I agree they are held to different standards but even so if an outlet like GB news we're to do this sort of thing there would not be the same people making excuses for them. The reputational damage is probably far higher than any possible legal action. Seems the trump incident was not the only thing highlighted though probably more high profile than some others" Actually the BBC and GB News are held to different standards…. The BBC have to legally hold a standard of impartiality of a free to air broadcaster (ITN who provides news for itv, channel 4 and channel 5 have to adhere legally to the same rules) Sky News doesn’t have to but adheres to this standard voluntarily GB News doesn’t have to as they are a satellite/cable broadcaster… in fact if they had done what panorama did, worst thing that would happen is a slap on the wrist from OFCOM For Trump to get close to any win in a court he would need to show it was done with malicious intent, and that it caused him reputational harm Since the BBC have both admitted the mistake and offered an unconditional apology… it won’t get far! And since the speech came from January 6th there is no way you can argue that this programme alone caused reputational harm | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As for your opinion that he has deplorable standards, I don't think you can claim a monopoly on that view. I wasn't trying to claim anything.. That was me trying to say "well yes, pretty much everyone would agree with you on that point"." No worries.. Thanks for clarifying.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I agree they are held to different standards but even so if an outlet like GB news we're to do this sort of thing there would not be the same people making excuses for them. The reputational damage is probably far higher than any possible legal action. Seems the trump incident was not the only thing highlighted though probably more high profile than some others Actually the BBC and GB News are held to different standards…. The BBC have to legally hold a standard of impartiality of a free to air broadcaster (ITN who provides news for itv, channel 4 and channel 5 have to adhere legally to the same rules) Sky News doesn’t have to but adheres to this standard voluntarily GB News doesn’t have to as they are a satellite/cable broadcaster… in fact if they had done what panorama did, worst thing that would happen is a slap on the wrist from OFCOM For Trump to get close to any win in a court he would need to show it was done with malicious intent, and that it caused him reputational harm Since the BBC have both admitted the mistake and offered an unconditional apology… it won’t get far! And since the speech came from January 6th there is no way you can argue that this programme alone caused reputational harm " I literally wrote that I agree they are held to different standards. I made no mention of how official bodies may or may not react to such things. I was showing doubt that the same people that have been making excuses for the BBC would not be so keen if an outlet like GB news were to have done this. And to repeat I also said the reputational damage is probably far higher than any possible legal action. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I agree they are held to different standards but even so if an outlet like GB news we're to do this sort of thing there would not be the same people making excuses for them. The reputational damage is probably far higher than any possible legal action. Seems the trump incident was not the only thing highlighted though probably more high profile than some others Actually the BBC and GB News are held to different standards…. The BBC have to legally hold a standard of impartiality of a free to air broadcaster (ITN who provides news for itv, channel 4 and channel 5 have to adhere legally to the same rules) Sky News doesn’t have to but adheres to this standard voluntarily GB News doesn’t have to as they are a satellite/cable broadcaster… in fact if they had done what panorama did, worst thing that would happen is a slap on the wrist from OFCOM For Trump to get close to any win in a court he would need to show it was done with malicious intent, and that it caused him reputational harm Since the BBC have both admitted the mistake and offered an unconditional apology… it won’t get far! And since the speech came from January 6th there is no way you can argue that this programme alone caused reputational harm " The BBC are losing no matter how this is wrapped up. They are a damaged brand and very close to the funding finishing line for failing on the standards you quite rightly say they are expected to adhere to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If the media organisations around the world ignored him completely for 1 month, Trump would be a different man. That doesn't mean ignoring the US, it means taking the output from official sources and stop badgering for the gotcha off Trump. " This 100%. The left-leaning media is at least 90% responsible (the other 10% being Obama) for the success and election of Trump. You don't get elected without either popularity or notoriety. You don't get either of those without oxygen, and the media are basically the oxy to his acetylene. Which can even burn underwater. The media should generally ignore anything other than dry, factual, news about him, if they aren't looking to promote him. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I agree they are held to different standards but even so if an outlet like GB news we're to do this sort of thing there would not be the same people making excuses for them. The reputational damage is probably far higher than any possible legal action. Seems the trump incident was not the only thing highlighted though probably more high profile than some others Actually the BBC and GB News are held to different standards…. The BBC have to legally hold a standard of impartiality of a free to air broadcaster (ITN who provides news for itv, channel 4 and channel 5 have to adhere legally to the same rules) Sky News doesn’t have to but adheres to this standard voluntarily GB News doesn’t have to as they are a satellite/cable broadcaster… in fact if they had done what panorama did, worst thing that would happen is a slap on the wrist from OFCOM For Trump to get close to any win in a court he would need to show it was done with malicious intent, and that it caused him reputational harm Since the BBC have both admitted the mistake and offered an unconditional apology… it won’t get far! And since the speech came from January 6th there is no way you can argue that this programme alone caused reputational harm I literally wrote that I agree they are held to different standards. I made no mention of how official bodies may or may not react to such things. I was showing doubt that the same people that have been making excuses for the BBC would not be so keen if an outlet like GB news were to have done this. And to repeat I also said the reputational damage is probably far higher than any possible legal action. " Looked into this further.. Trump is never going to win this for various reasons 1) he can’t sue for defamation in the UK because the legal time limit for claims is 1 year… and the programme is older than that 2) he could try to sue in Florida, their time limit is 2 years.. but he would need to show that there was reputational harm where he resides… and since a) the programme has never been broadcast in the US and b) the programme is not legally available to be seen in the US since the iPlayer service is not available there (and before someone screams VPN, that doesn’t count) people in Florida or elsewhere in the US would never have known So like we said.. he will get the retraction, he will get the apology, but he won’t get a single penny/cent from this | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I agree they are held to different standards but even so if an outlet like GB news we're to do this sort of thing there would not be the same people making excuses for them. The reputational damage is probably far higher than any possible legal action. Seems the trump incident was not the only thing highlighted though probably more high profile than some others Actually the BBC and GB News are held to different standards…. The BBC have to legally hold a standard of impartiality of a free to air broadcaster (ITN who provides news for itv, channel 4 and channel 5 have to adhere legally to the same rules) Sky News doesn’t have to but adheres to this standard voluntarily GB News doesn’t have to as they are a satellite/cable broadcaster… in fact if they had done what panorama did, worst thing that would happen is a slap on the wrist from OFCOM For Trump to get close to any win in a court he would need to show it was done with malicious intent, and that it caused him reputational harm Since the BBC have both admitted the mistake and offered an unconditional apology… it won’t get far! And since the speech came from January 6th there is no way you can argue that this programme alone caused reputational harm I literally wrote that I agree they are held to different standards. I made no mention of how official bodies may or may not react to such things. I was showing doubt that the same people that have been making excuses for the BBC would not be so keen if an outlet like GB news were to have done this. And to repeat I also said the reputational damage is probably far higher than any possible legal action. Looked into this further.. Trump is never going to win this for various reasons 1) he can’t sue for defamation in the UK because the legal time limit for claims is 1 year… and the programme is older than that 2) he could try to sue in Florida, their time limit is 2 years.. but he would need to show that there was reputational harm where he resides… and since a) the programme has never been broadcast in the US and b) the programme is not legally available to be seen in the US since the iPlayer service is not available there (and before someone screams VPN, that doesn’t count) people in Florida or elsewhere in the US would never have known So like we said.. he will get the retraction, he will get the apology, but he won’t get a single penny/cent from this " How's the birthday card law suit going for him ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I agree they are held to different standards but even so if an outlet like GB news we're to do this sort of thing there would not be the same people making excuses for them. The reputational damage is probably far higher than any possible legal action. Seems the trump incident was not the only thing highlighted though probably more high profile than some others Actually the BBC and GB News are held to different standards…. The BBC have to legally hold a standard of impartiality of a free to air broadcaster (ITN who provides news for itv, channel 4 and channel 5 have to adhere legally to the same rules) Sky News doesn’t have to but adheres to this standard voluntarily GB News doesn’t have to as they are a satellite/cable broadcaster… in fact if they had done what panorama did, worst thing that would happen is a slap on the wrist from OFCOM For Trump to get close to any win in a court he would need to show it was done with malicious intent, and that it caused him reputational harm Since the BBC have both admitted the mistake and offered an unconditional apology… it won’t get far! And since the speech came from January 6th there is no way you can argue that this programme alone caused reputational harm I literally wrote that I agree they are held to different standards. I made no mention of how official bodies may or may not react to such things. I was showing doubt that the same people that have been making excuses for the BBC would not be so keen if an outlet like GB news were to have done this. And to repeat I also said the reputational damage is probably far higher than any possible legal action. Looked into this further.. Trump is never going to win this for various reasons 1) he can’t sue for defamation in the UK because the legal time limit for claims is 1 year… and the programme is older than that 2) he could try to sue in Florida, their time limit is 2 years.. but he would need to show that there was reputational harm where he resides… and since a) the programme has never been broadcast in the US and b) the programme is not legally available to be seen in the US since the iPlayer service is not available there (and before someone screams VPN, that doesn’t count) people in Florida or elsewhere in the US would never have known So like we said.. he will get the retraction, he will get the apology, but he won’t get a single penny/cent from this " I also read that today on the BBC site which if correct reinforces my statement that the reputational damage is far higher than any possible legal action. Also that those making excuses for them would not be so keen if it were another outlet. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Auntie's fine. The fact that it stands up to scrutiny and accountability is a great thing. She's a great asset." Huw Edwards? Jimmy Saville? The editing of Trump’s speech? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But the BBC isn't state run. It's state funded, but it's very proudly independent of the state. Sadly it has lost sight of its purpose, which is to Inform, Educate, and Entertain, in that order. Today's BBC puts entertainment first, education secondary to that, and information in a sad last place. It's hard to see how it can be fixed without just sacking everyone and starting again. Do really believe that? Really believe it? We must have very different world views. I don't see anything even slightly contentious in what I wrote. Can you give me an example of what you find to be wrong in what I said?" That bit about the BBC being completely independent from the state. It’s funded by the state using tax payers money. Hardly independent. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"...90 % they are columnists from the Daily Telegraph or The Financial Times!!!! Are you willing to stand by 90%, or would you rather have another go? Is this just confirmation bias on your part? There probably is a right wing bias on QT, but 90% is pushing it." 90% is nearly always a turn of phrase used to imply credibility rather than being an actual statistic. Its frequent use should normally be enough to raise suspicion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Actually, are all of these mistakes across the political spectrum or do they concentrate on trying to push a one sided agenda?" I think the "mistakes" are always agenda led. They can't not be. Someone is choosing to edit what someone had said and change the meaning of it. There can be no other explanation because there is an editor to ensure that the guidelines are adhered to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've wondered for years if there will ever be a channel that just gives me the news - i.e. without any comment, analysis, bias or lies. Thought not..." Such a thing isn't really possible. Even with the best of intentions, merely selecting which events to cover and which to ignore is an act of political discrimination. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 of serious magnitude
I am waiting to see a positive news post from them about a trans woman this year in anything Seems if they don’t call them biological males identifying as women the fws lunatics froth at the mouth for biased reporting 
More interesting to see how hard trump destroys them fiscally lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've wondered for years if there will ever be a channel that just gives me the news - i.e. without any comment, analysis, bias or lies. Thought not... Such a thing isn't really possible. Even with the best of intentions, merely selecting which events to cover and which to ignore is an act of political discrimination. " Possibly true but failure of that perfect situation should not stop us from trying to have something close to it. ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Possibly true but failure of that perfect situation should not stop us from trying to have something close to it. ?" The best thing is to be moderately cynical and to try and access a wide range of sources. One educational experiment is to read the way that various newspapers cover the news on one particular day. If you read the Express, Sun, Mail and Telegraph you'll see a different representation of reality than that presented by the Times, Guardian, Mirror and Metro. Most news coverage is shallow so you need a lot of background information to figure out what's really going on and it's impossible not to have some kind of political bias with regards to this background too. I'm all for independent news but ultimately it's down to critical reasoning skills and having an instinct for detecting bullshit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
