|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 16, 2024 7:01:03 GMT
I don't see any parallel between Private Eye and GB News. The journalism in Private Eye is largely about stories that are not covered in in the MSM. GB News basically covers all the news but tries to cover it from different political views - in particular it also gives the more right wing point of view which is lacking in BBC coverage. An egregious example is the BBC coverage of the Israel/Gaza war which the BBC covers from the point of view of Gaza as told by Hamas. So when hamas announced that Israel had bombed a hospital and killed 500 people the BBC reported this. GB News waited and reported the actual truth which was that the hospital was hit by a Hamas missile and a much lower number of people had been killed. Did the BBC ever apologise? No. On Gaza, the BBC gives the sources of its information — eg, The Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza says 141 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli air strikes since Saturday.The BBC allows its audience to make up its own mind from available statements and information rather than preaching at them like an imitation Fox News, or the usual Right Wing biased print news media… You say that "The BBC allows its audience to make up its own mind from available statements", but you're either lying or you're ignorant of the facts. The BBC itself admits that it does not report all opinions. It reserves the right to select what it reports. An obvious example is climate change where the BBC has an editorial policy not to give a platform for anyone who doesn't support the current orthodoxy. In the case of their Gaza reporting, as I said, the BBC (Jeremy Bowen) reported the obvious Hamas lie that Israel had bombed a hospital and killed 500 people. The honest thing to have done would have been to also report that Israel had not taken responsibility for the bombing and were looking into it. But they didn't. When the dust settled the facts emerged that the bombing was caused by (one of the many) malfunctioning missiles that Hamas continually lob over to Israel - and that the death toll was very much lower. When Bowen was asked to apologise he refused. And you plainly never watch GB News. When they have a political discussion program they ALWAYS have people representing the opposing views - and they allow them to talk. I think that they overdo it. The BBC are notorious for loading their panels with Lefties. And when they actually do represent both sides of an argument it's noticeable that the Leftie will be a vociferous motormouth (like Alistair Campbell) while the right winger will be fairly tame and not be allowed to talk anyway. I suggest that you don't comment on subjects you plainly know nothing about.. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jul 16, 2024 11:27:13 GMT
On Gaza, the BBC gives the sources of its information — eg, The Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza says 141 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli air strikes since Saturday.The BBC allows its audience to make up its own mind from available statements and information rather than preaching at them like an imitation Fox News, or the usual Right Wing biased print news media… You say that "The BBC allows its audience to make up its own mind from available statements", but you're either lying or you're ignorant of the facts. The BBC itself admits that it does not report all opinions. It reserves the right to select what it reports. An obvious example is climate change where the BBC has an editorial policy not to give a platform for anyone who doesn't support the current orthodoxy. In the case of their Gaza reporting, as I said, the BBC (Jeremy Bowen) reported the obvious Hamas lie that Israel had bombed a hospital and killed 500 people. The honest thing to have done would have been to also report that Israel had not taken responsibility for the bombing and were looking into it. But they didn't. When the dust settled the facts emerged that the bombing was caused by (one of the many) malfunctioning missiles that Hamas continually lob over to Israel - and that the death toll was very much lower. When Bowen was asked to apologise he refused. And you plainly never watch GB News. When they have a political discussion program they ALWAYS have people representing the opposing views - and they allow them to talk. I think that they overdo it. The BBC are notorious for loading their panels with Lefties. And when they actually do represent both sides of an argument it's noticeable that the Leftie will be a vociferous motormouth (like Alistair Campbell) while the right winger will be fairly tame and not be allowed to talk anyway. I suggest that you don't comment on subjects you plainly know nothing about.. In my view, the BBC is mainly correct in the way it handles news. Some opinions — after being discredited — don't add anything to the sum of knowledge if they're regurgitated every time a topic is raised.
I admit I try to ignore the biased moronic content that forms much of the rise in current stream of populist allegations and verbiage — though some can be amusing.
I suggest that if you're so worried, you don't read my posts as I doubt I'll feel constrained from putting in my two-cents worth when so inclined...
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 16, 2024 14:44:04 GMT
GB news states the same facts that the BBC does. Why would that be a problem? If that was totally true, it wouldn’t. GB News set out out its stall when it opened — in effect “only Right Wing info being given here”, mouthed by Andrew Neil, who quickly left when he saw his mistake. Contrast that with the I example I gave of how BBC reports information and leaves it’s audience to judge what’s factual… However the BBC does not do that, it has commentators who comment with opinion. Just a few examples Kuensberg the 'BNP pretending they have a manifesto as well' and political reporter (not commentator) 'the BNP doing what they do best' as BNP supporters were attacked by antifa and a fracas developed. Mz Guru Murthy a news presenter saying Farage 'indulging in his usually inflammatory language' the BBC frequently refer to many parties as hard right or far right or even hard far right which is not allowing someone to make up their mind, they also refer to anti immigrant parties where they are not anti immigrant just anti mass immigration. The list is long as regards how they comment and try and direct our minds to their viewpoint and i have not referred to climate change at all. They have distinct editorial policies. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jul 16, 2024 16:23:04 GMT
If that was totally true, it wouldn’t. GB News set out out its stall when it opened — in effect “only Right Wing info being given here”, mouthed by Andrew Neil, who quickly left when he saw his mistake. Contrast that with the I example I gave of how BBC reports information and leaves it’s audience to judge what’s factual… However the BBC does not do that, it has commentators who comment with opinion. Just a few examples Kuensberg the 'BNP pretending they have a manifesto as well' and political reporter (not commentator) 'the BNP doing what they do best' as BNP supporters were attacked by antifa and a fracas developed. Mz Guru Murthy a news presenter saying Farage 'indulging in his usually inflammatory language' the BBC frequently refer to many parties as hard right or far right or even hard far right which is not allowing someone to make up their mind, they also refer to anti immigrant parties where they are not anti immigrant just anti mass immigration. The list is long as regards how they comment and try and direct our minds to their viewpoint and i have not referred to climate change at all. They have distinct editorial policies. I suspect you really mean that you're own preconcepstions and biases are jarred when the experiences of others are voiced... |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 16, 2024 20:33:31 GMT
However the BBC does not do that, it has commentators who comment with opinion. Just a few examples Kuensberg the 'BNP pretending they have a manifesto as well' and political reporter (not commentator) 'the BNP doing what they do best' as BNP supporters were attacked by antifa and a fracas developed. Mz Guru Murthy a news presenter saying Farage 'indulging in his usually inflammatory language' the BBC frequently refer to many parties as hard right or far right or even hard far right which is not allowing someone to make up their mind, they also refer to anti immigrant parties where they are not anti immigrant just anti mass immigration. The list is long as regards how they comment and try and direct our minds to their viewpoint and i have not referred to climate change at all. They have distinct editorial policies. I suspect you really mean that you're own preconcepstions and biases are jarred when the experiences of others are voiced... No I was referring specifically to comment within the supposed framework of 'we let people make up their own mind' which is obvious nonsense as even just one night's viewing will highlight. I do not care if they call the BNP far right what I do care about is if they say they are letting people make up their own minds. I will mention climate change as they have adopted an editorial policy that it is the truth and it is not necessary to air other views. This is arrant nonsense as other views exist in abundance and the BBC are not the arbiters of truth they are supposed to be conveyors of news and opinions in an unbiased and impartial way. Climate change belief is a political policy that is affecting the country in a negative way with the actions taken to 'mitigate' it. If the BBC adopt a stance on it, which they have, that is a political stance in support of a political viewpoint and it is not teh BBC's position to be the mouthpiece of the government and its policies, any government. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 17, 2024 7:21:57 GMT
- Patman post said "In my view, the BBC is mainly correct in the way it handles news. Some opinions — after being discredited — don't add anything to the sum of knowledge if they're regurgitated every time a topic is raised."
Maybe you could give examples of some of these "discredited opinions" that the BBC is correct in not "regurgitating". For example is the argument that "climate change is predominantly caused by man-made CO2" settled to the extent that the BBC should not allow any discussion? Or what about the claim that immigration is a cause of strain on services and housing? Is the BBC right to dismiss this too?
It's true that the news that the BBC reports is largely accurate. But the problem is that there is an awful lot of news that the BBC simply doesn't report. You need to watch GB News or Talk to hear this. And when the BBC gets it wrong they're very unwilling to apologise.
- Patman post said "I admit I try to ignore the biased moronic content that forms much of the rise in current stream of populist allegations and verbiage — though some can be amusing."
Again can you give an example of biased moronic populist allegations that GB News reports. It sounds to me that you only want to hear stuff reflects your own views - which are mainly got from the BBC and the Guardian. Someone once said that if you can only afford one newspaper pick one you don't agree with - and there is some wisdom in that. You do learn more.
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jul 17, 2024 9:26:48 GMT
- Patman post said "In my view, the BBC is mainly correct in the way it handles news. Some opinions — after being discredited — don't add anything to the sum of knowledge if they're regurgitated every time a topic is raised." Maybe you could give examples of some of these "discredited opinions" that the BBC is correct in not "regurgitating". For example is the argument that "climate change is predominantly caused by man-made CO2" settled to the extent that the BBC should not allow any discussion? Or what about the claim that immigration is a cause of strain on services and housing? Is the BBC right to dismiss this too? It's true that the news that the BBC reports is largely accurate. But the problem is that there is an awful lot of news that the BBC simply doesn't report. You need to watch GB News or Talk to hear this. And when the BBC gets it wrong they're very unwilling to apologise. - Patman post said "I admit I try to ignore the biased moronic content that forms much of the rise in current stream of populist allegations and verbiage — though some can be amusing." Again can you give an example of biased moronic populist allegations that GB News reports. It sounds to me that you only want to hear stuff reflects your own views - which are mainly got from the BBC and the Guardian. Someone once said that if you can only afford one newspaper pick one you don't agree with - and there is some wisdom in that. You do learn more. I have admitted that after an initial interest (and subsequent amusement at its ramshackle start), I rarely watch GB News. I have access to most national UK print media and follow heavyweight US and EU publications. The overwhelming number position themselves on the Right of the political spectrum. So this constant whining by them and their audiences that any difficulties are all the fault of Left wing media concentrating on the negatives and causing unrest just shows their inability to accept the failings of their extreme actions, concepts and views. I’ve previously listed the TV I access and find most useful. Reports from GB News adherents on here suggest to me that I’m choosing wisely… |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 17, 2024 9:55:05 GMT
- Patman post said "In my view, the BBC is mainly correct in the way it handles news. Some opinions — after being discredited — don't add anything to the sum of knowledge if they're regurgitated every time a topic is raised." Maybe you could give examples of some of these "discredited opinions" that the BBC is correct in not "regurgitating". For example is the argument that "climate change is predominantly caused by man-made CO2" settled to the extent that the BBC should not allow any discussion? Or what about the claim that immigration is a cause of strain on services and housing? Is the BBC right to dismiss this too? It's true that the news that the BBC reports is largely accurate. But the problem is that there is an awful lot of news that the BBC simply doesn't report. You need to watch GB News or Talk to hear this. And when the BBC gets it wrong they're very unwilling to apologise. - Patman post said "I admit I try to ignore the biased moronic content that forms much of the rise in current stream of populist allegations and verbiage — though some can be amusing." Again can you give an example of biased moronic populist allegations that GB News reports. It sounds to me that you only want to hear stuff reflects your own views - which are mainly got from the BBC and the Guardian. Someone once said that if you can only afford one newspaper pick one you don't agree with - and there is some wisdom in that. You do learn more. I have admitted that after an initial interest (and subsequent amusement at its ramshackle start), I rarely watch GB News. I have access to most national UK print media and follow heavyweight US and EU publications. The overwhelming number position themselves on the Right of the political spectrum. So this constant whining by them and their audiences that any difficulties are all the fault of Left wing media concentrating on the negatives and causing unrest just shows their inability to accept the failings of their extreme actions, concepts and views. I’ve previously listed the TV I access and find most useful. Reports from GB News adherents on here suggest to me that I’m choosing wisely… You have not actually addressed any points raised and return to repetition of your opinion. You ignore examples of bias and editorial slant you ignore giving examples of discredited opinions and by whom they are discredited and still call the MSN in general Right Wing and the BBC in particular unbiased and impartial which it cannot be if it ignores some opinions and ignores some news. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 18, 2024 6:53:42 GMT
As SP says you have just repeated your own prejudice. You were asked to provide an example of "discredited" opinions that the BBC (justifiably) refuses to discuss but you haven't. It's a very slippery slope when a broadcaster sets itself up as the arbiter of "truth", especially the state broadcaster. As I said Jeremy Bowen tried to justify this by giving the analogy of two commentators reporting the weather - one saying it's raining and the other saying that it's dry. He said the BBC looks out of the window and reports the truth. The trouble is that most things are much more complex than this simplistic analogy.
There are many areas where the BBC simply doesn't report the facts at all. And there are other areas where the BBC bangs on about the same thing for literally years. "Partygate" was on the BBC news for over a year - always focusing on their claim that Boris had lied about his involvement. In the end the police investigated it for 6 months and Boris was found to have breached the rules in ONE case - where he was "ambushed by a cake for about 5 minutes while at a work meeting. Starmer's "Beergate" bash, where he held a beer and curry party for various people (not in a bubble) was hardly reported at all by the BBC.
|
|
|
|
Post by Veronika on Jul 18, 2024 17:48:26 GMT
Dear Forumers,
I suppose that Labour of course don't like GB News because all of the channel's presenters either have Tory views and opinions, or they are actual Tory and right-wing politicians. It is fine for GB News to do that, because only the right-wing stands up for free speech. And also, all of the BBC presenters for example are left-wing or liberal elitist people.
At least GB News always makes sure that left-wing and Labour views are expressed as well. There is real balance, unlike the BBC.
Veronika Oleksychenko
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 19, 2024 7:52:32 GMT
Dear Forumers, I suppose that Labour of course don't like GB News because all of the channel's presenters either have Tory views and opinions, or they are actual Tory and right-wing politicians. It is fine for GB News to do that, because only the right-wing stands up for free speech. And also, all of the BBC presenters for example are left-wing or liberal elitist people. At least GB News always makes sure that left-wing and Labour views are expressed as well. There is real balance, unlike the BBC. Veronika Oleksychenko I would not say they are Tory views, I would say most of the views are broadly in the bracket of Common sense views that take the stance that doing specific things has specific consequences and those consequences should be recognised. |
|
|
|
Post by Veronika on Jul 23, 2024 16:15:06 GMT
Dear sandypine,
You say that the GB News presenters do not have Tory views. But actually, I think it is clear that all of the channel's presenters have views that are in main alignment with the Conservatives rather than with Labour. Which is fine, as I explained, because all of the BBC's presenters are left-wing Labour supporters.
The only person that I can think of who has been a presenter on GB News and is also a Labour person is Gloria De Piero.
Veronika Oleksychenko
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jul 28, 2024 3:37:26 GMT
Dear sandypine, You say that the GB News presenters do not have Tory views. But actually, I think it is clear that all of the channel's presenters have views that are in main alignment with the Conservatives rather than with Labour. Which is fine, as I explained, because all of the BBC's presenters are left-wing Labour supporters. The only person that I can think of who has been a presenter on GB News and is also a Labour person is Gloria De Piero. Veronika Oleksychenko What if they do Your photo suggests you are probably not old enough to recall a BBC presenter named Brian Redhead. He once famously told Nigel Lawson on air that he felt the programme should now have a TWO minute silence, one for the audacity to suggest on air Lawson knew how he voted, and the second for what his policies had done to the country. But somehow it is acceptable for the BBC to employ the rabidly left wing, but not acceptable for a broadcaster who declared up front they wish to balance the bias in the BBC by employing predominantly holders of the opposite view ? I think you'll find the rabid left get more airtime on GB News than anyone to the right of David Lammy gets on the BBC |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 28, 2024 18:45:35 GMT
Dear sandypine, You say that the GB News presenters do not have Tory views. But actually, I think it is clear that all of the channel's presenters have views that are in main alignment with the Conservatives rather than with Labour. Which is fine, as I explained, because all of the BBC's presenters are left-wing Labour supporters. The only person that I can think of who has been a presenter on GB News and is also a Labour person is Gloria De Piero. Veronika Oleksychenko Well immigration restriction and control is a Labour, Tory, Reform policy. Saving the Ukraine is a Labour/Tory policy. Increase defence spending is a Labour, Tory Reform policy. There are many other policies that are basically jointly held by all parties. The presenters tend to have Common Sense views like immigration control, like increasing defence spending, If they align with commons sense that does not make the Tory polices it still makes them common sense policies, as we have seen for the past 14 years the Tories are incapable of implementing their own stated policies instead take time out to legalise gay marriage. |
|
|
|
Post by Veronika on Jul 30, 2024 15:47:08 GMT
Dear johnofgwent,
Yes I am in total agreement with you. And as I said, although GB News's presenters all seem to be natural Tories, that is perfectly fine because all of the presenters on the BBC and Channel 4 news seem to be natural lefty people. But there is always a fair balance on GB News, with contrasting viewpoints, unlike the BBC and Channel 4.
I would also say that there are a number of presenters and experts who are not on GB News anymore and who I miss. They include the Reverend Calvin Robinson, Mercy Muroki, Dehenna Davison, David Starkey and Dominique Samuels.
Veronika Oleksychenko
|
|
