|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 20, 2024 10:24:03 GMT
Nope, semantics. Of exactly the same type that Ofcom are playing. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 20, 2024 10:26:02 GMT
No MP, ex or current, reads news bulletins on GB News. If you watched it instead of talking about it you would know that. It's only news if JRM does it. It's current affairs if Lammy does it. See? 😉 |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Mar 20, 2024 10:28:15 GMT
They aren't news readers, they are talkshow hosts. LBC has also had Tory MP presenters. No MP, ex or current, reads news bulletins on GB News. If you watched it instead of talking about it you would know that. "GB News has been warned about its use of politicians as presenters after media regulator Ofcom ruled that five episodes of programmes hosted by serving Tory MPs broke its rules. Ofcom said shows hosted by Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, Esther McVey and Philip Davies broke rules stating politicians should not usually front news coverage." |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Mar 20, 2024 10:48:55 GMT
He talks about current affairs... That's what news is. Seems simple to understand — Current Affairs programmes are radio and TV broadcasts in which major news stories are discussed, while News reporting consists of simple presentations of Who, What, When, Where, as soon as possible, with little or no analysis… |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Mar 20, 2024 10:58:51 GMT
No MP, ex or current, reads news bulletins on GB News. If you watched it instead of talking about it you would know that. "GB News has been warned about its use of politicians as presenters after media regulator Ofcom ruled that five episodes of programmes hosted by serving Tory MPs broke its rules. Ofcom said shows hosted by Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, Esther McVey and Philip Davies broke rules stating politicians should not usually front news coverage." I say again, no MP ex or current, reads the news on GB News. The news is read by 'news readers'. The people you mention certainly presented current affairs programmes, as Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg still does, but no MP has ever read the news. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Mar 20, 2024 11:00:42 GMT
Not going to engage with someone trying to use whataboutery to deflect from Trump's wrongdoing. Trump's wrongdoing stands on its own as being totally wrong... ...end of. You chose Clinton because he is of the opposite party, trying to turn wrong-doing into a party-political points game. So "whatabout" this: Recent administrations with the MOST criminal indictments: Trump (Republican) — 215 Nixon (Republican) — 76 Reagan (Republican) — 26 Recent administrations with the LEAST criminal indictments: Obama (Democrat) — 0 Carter (Democrat) — 1 Clinton (Democrat) — 2 Spot the pattern yet? All The Best It's called "Lawfare" where the Left attack those of different political persuasions by using the courts rather than the ballot box - it's an attempt to roll back democracy. So Trump is accused of overvaluing his property to get loans and a court cited his Mar-a-Lago property as an example, which they valued at $18 million.  Other valuations are more like $500 million. This place is a huge gold and marble palace with 58 bedrooms, 17 acres and a golf course. So Trump borrowed money against it from various banks. None of the banks are complaining - they got their money back plus interest and both parties were happy. But the courts are trying to shut down Trump's business empire on the basis of ludicrous claims. Lawfare is also at work in the UK. Boris was prevented from proroguing Parliament (to prevent Labour hijacking the agenda and legislating to make leaving the EU impossible). The pro-EU courts ruled the prorogation illegal (in a coup that Lord Sumption said was a prime example of the courts making law rather than interpreting it). The Left then called in the police to investigate Boris for lying about parties at no. 10. They investigated him for 6 months and charged him on one count of "being ambushed by a cake" for a few minutes. The left then set up a kangaroo court (chaired by Harriet Harperson - who said Boris was guilty before the mock trial) - to find him guilty of lying to the House. Et cetera. Lawfare is becoming a serious problem in countries where the lawyers have taken over. Elected governments are being prevented from enacting the will of the people by courts who think they're the "Executive". Lord Sumption did the Reith lectures partly on this subject. Why is it always "The Left". You think "The Right" doesn't use the law to its own benefit? I am more Right than the Tories on some issues within Law & Order. I am more Left than Starmer's New-Nu-Lab on some issues of Economics. In my opinion only a moron picks one spot on the Left / Right spectrum and pins all their political aspirations on it. And really, the quaint adherence to the "Left vs Right" spectrum conflict is laughable, it really only works in a two-party state, Politics is way more nuanced than that these days, the real issue is that so many people have not been smart enough to figure that out, and they therefore fell "politics is letting them down" when is reality they are letting down the political system in this country. Genuine democracy required informed voters, those who still think is exclusively about Left vs Right are NOT informed voters. Lawfare is made up word to make it sound like some section of society is being unfairly singled out in some way. What you call "lawfare" in and childish attempt to make it sound nefarious and scary is what rationale people call "The Rule Of Law". Every civilised nation on this planet adheres to its own "Rule Of Law" - because doing so is the ONLY way to protect all individuals from the tyranny of the masses, the tyranny of the state, and the tyranny of corporate greed. The section of society that is being singled out, not unfairly mind you, by what you call "lawfare" does indeed have a name: they are called criminals, they broke the law. Are you suggesting that the law should not pursue criminals for some reason? Is that reason that "you happen to agree with them politically". I'll say again, it does not matter what Trump does, the Law can not go after him if he has NOT broken the law. He broke the law - it is not only acceptable for the Law to go after him in those cases it is 100% wholly necessary. I follow UK Politics pretty closely. Boris illegally prorogued Parliament - he should have been investigated by the law. Boris did lie to parliament about the parties - even my mother who is a huge Boris fan and thought he could do no wrong came to realise that. Lord Sumption is a prime example of a Trumpian response to something they don't like - claim it was flawed without showing how in law it was flawed. Were any of the charges laid against Boris Johnson legally flawed in anyway he would have appealed them, and they would have been overturned - he didn't, why? Could it be he knew he couldn't win an appeal. I wonder, if Trump or Johnson, had been vindicated by the respective courts that passed judgement on them would you still mistrust those courts? Do you have any evidence of a failure of due process? Or is the reason you question them solely because you don't like the outcome? Because frankly, that is just a "waah waah waah I can't get my own way, it is just not fair waah waah" childish temper-tantrum. Here's a basic primer on how The Law works: The People Elect Governments. Governments set Laws. The Judiciary takes cases to examine if specific events have broken the law, and where they have the hand down sentences to the perpetrators. There are several avenues of Appeal if a perpetrator is not happy with the judgement handed down to them. If, at any point, the so called "Will Of The People" is at odds with the The Law the correct means of addressing that is for the "Will Of The People" to elect Governments who have pledged to change The Laws they disagree with. The Will Of The People was to leave the EU - we did so. Can you demonstrate a situation where the "Will Of The People", as expressed via a legal ballot, has been denied in this country? All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Mar 20, 2024 11:02:31 GMT
"GB News has been warned about its use of politicians as presenters after media regulator Ofcom ruled that five episodes of programmes hosted by serving Tory MPs broke its rules. Ofcom said shows hosted by Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, Esther McVey and Philip Davies broke rules stating politicians should not usually front news coverage." David Lammy doesn't do this on LBC. Nobody has shut down GB News. This is a non-answer. I pointed out that the left-wing hypocrites who just want to kill GB News outright cannot explain what that is. A vague claim by Ofcom doesn't answer that. Specific details aren't present.
Looking at GB News I can confirm that Jacob comes under 'opinion'.
You can't even confirm you can find a link to a story allegedly all over the mainstream news. Why would anyone trust you confirm something far more nuanced? All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 20, 2024 11:11:41 GMT
Seems simple to understand — Current Affairs programmes are radio and TV broadcasts in which major news stories are discussed, while News reporting consists of simple presentations of Who, What, When, Where, as soon as possible, with little or no analysis… Well exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Mar 20, 2024 11:12:20 GMT
"GB News has been warned about its use of politicians as presenters after media regulator Ofcom ruled that five episodes of programmes hosted by serving Tory MPs broke its rules. Ofcom said shows hosted by Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, Esther McVey and Philip Davies broke rules stating politicians should not usually front news coverage." I say again, no MP ex or current, reads the news on GB News. The news is read by 'news readers'. The people you mention certainly presented current affairs programmes, as Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg still does, but no MP has ever read the news. That’s not what Ofcom found (as you would know if you’d read Ofcom’s findings and not been spoon fed an opinion by GBN and the Telegraph): After careful consideration of the facts in each case – including forensic analysis of the content and detailed representations from GB News – we found that two episodes of Jacob Rees-Mogg’s State of the Nation, two episodes of Friday Morning with Esther and Phil, and one episode of Saturday Morning with Esther and Phil, broadcast during May and June 2023, failed to comply with Rules 5.1 and 5.3 of the Broadcasting Code. All five programmes in question contained a mix of news and current affairs content. We found that host politicians acted as newsreaders, news interviewers or news reporters in sequences which clearly constituted news – including reporting breaking news events – without exceptional justification. News was, therefore, not presented with due impartiality. www.ofcom.org.uk/news-centre/2024/politicians-acting-as-news-presenters-on-gb-news-broke-broadcasting-rulesThe site also contains a link to the Broadcasting Code, which might also inform your thinking… |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Mar 20, 2024 11:20:19 GMT
I say again, no MP ex or current, reads the news on GB News. The news is read by 'news readers'. The people you mention certainly presented current affairs programmes, as Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg still does, but no MP has ever read the news. That’s not what Ofcom found (as you would know if you’d read Ofcom’s findings and not been spoon fed an opinion by GBN and the Telegraph): After careful consideration of the facts in each case – including forensic analysis of the content and detailed representations from GB News – we found that two episodes of Jacob Rees-Mogg’s State of the Nation, two episodes of Friday Morning with Esther and Phil, and one episode of Saturday Morning with Esther and Phil, broadcast during May and June 2023, failed to comply with Rules 5.1 and 5.3 of the Broadcasting Code. All five programmes in question contained a mix of news and current affairs content. We found that host politicians acted as newsreaders, news interviewers or news reporters in sequences which clearly constituted news – including reporting breaking news events – without exceptional justification. News was, therefore, not presented with due impartiality. www.ofcom.org.uk/news-centre/2024/politicians-acting-as-news-presenters-on-gb-news-broke-broadcasting-rulesThe site also contains a link to the Broadcasting Code, which might also inform your thinking… Hey now, don't let facts get in the way of a politically biased view, that is just not fair.... All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Mar 20, 2024 11:29:45 GMT
I say again, no MP ex or current, reads the news on GB News. The news is read by 'news readers'. The people you mention certainly presented current affairs programmes, as Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg still does, but no MP has ever read the news. That’s not what Ofcom found (as you would know if you’d read Ofcom’s findings and not been spoon fed an opinion by GBN and the Telegraph): After careful consideration of the facts in each case – including forensic analysis of the content and detailed representations from GB News – we found that two episodes of Jacob Rees-Mogg’s State of the Nation, two episodes of Friday Morning with Esther and Phil, and one episode of Saturday Morning with Esther and Phil, broadcast during May and June 2023, failed to comply with Rules 5.1 and 5.3 of the Broadcasting Code. All five programmes in question contained a mix of news and current affairs content. We found that host politicians acted as newsreaders, news interviewers or news reporters in sequences which clearly constituted news – including reporting breaking news events – without exceptional justification. News was, therefore, not presented with due impartiality. www.ofcom.org.uk/news-centre/2024/politicians-acting-as-news-presenters-on-gb-news-broke-broadcasting-rulesThe site also contains a link to the Broadcasting Code, which might also inform your thinking… You are confusing reading the news as in a 'news bulletin' which GB News have on an hourly basis, and discussing current affairs. This is getting tedious. No MP ex or current has ever read the news on GB News. News readers read the news. That is a fact. However, several ex and current MP's present or take part in current affairs programmes. I'm currently watching Ex Labour MP Stephen Pound in the studio discussing various current affairs with three other people. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Mar 20, 2024 11:41:31 GMT
Hey now, don't let facts get in the way of a politically biased view, that is just not fair.... All The Best Pillock. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Mar 20, 2024 11:43:29 GMT
That’s not what Ofcom found (as you would know if you’d read Ofcom’s findings and not been spoon fed an opinion by GBN and the Telegraph): After careful consideration of the facts in each case – including forensic analysis of the content and detailed representations from GB News – we found that two episodes of Jacob Rees-Mogg’s State of the Nation, two episodes of Friday Morning with Esther and Phil, and one episode of Saturday Morning with Esther and Phil, broadcast during May and June 2023, failed to comply with Rules 5.1 and 5.3 of the Broadcasting Code. All five programmes in question contained a mix of news and current affairs content. We found that host politicians acted as newsreaders, news interviewers or news reporters in sequences which clearly constituted news – including reporting breaking news events – without exceptional justification. News was, therefore, not presented with due impartiality. www.ofcom.org.uk/news-centre/2024/politicians-acting-as-news-presenters-on-gb-news-broke-broadcasting-rulesThe site also contains a link to the Broadcasting Code, which might also inform your thinking… You are confusing reading the news as in a 'news bulletin' which GB News have on an hourly basis, and discussing current affairs. You are confusing your opinion with a ruling delivered by a government appointed body, in accordance with government mandated guidelines, who have more understanding of the regulations than you or I ever will. If you have an issue here it is NOT with Ofcom, but with the Government that appointed them and set their remit and guidelines. But that would mean criticising the Tories, rather than "the left" wouldn't it? Would you be calling out Ofcom if they had made a similar ruling with similar circumstances about a left-leaning news outlet? Just checked, all current serving officer of Ofcom were appointed by the Tories. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Mar 20, 2024 11:44:30 GMT
Hey now, don't let facts get in the way of a politically biased view, that is just not fair.... All The Best Pillock. Ooooh, nerve... ...hit.... Must be getting close to the mark, All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Mar 20, 2024 11:54:38 GMT
Ooooh, nerve... ...hit.... Must be getting close to the mark, All The Best LOL, you couldn't hit a barn door at ten paces. Here to help. |
|
Other valuations are more like $500 million. This place is a huge gold and marble palace with 58 bedrooms, 17 acres and a golf course. So Trump borrowed money against it from various banks. None of the banks are complaining - they got their money back plus interest and both parties were happy. But the courts are trying to shut down Trump's business empire on the basis of ludicrous claims.