O/T:- Is Boris a mini Trump?

[sidders]

At today's press briefing about the trade talks with the EU at No 10 Downing Street, a number of reporters were denied entry to the meeting because of their previous stances. The entire cohort turned on their heel and left the meeting, including Laura Kuennsberg.
Backed by Dominic Cummings, Johnson has forbidden all ministers from doing any interviews with Radio 4. Isn't this tantamount to a news blackout and an anti-democratic act?
What would be your reaction if Neal Ardley banned certain journos from post match meetings because they had been critical of him in the past?
The word is that the BBC will be asked to get rid of their 'impartiality clause' which demands they give balance to any political stories. Work that one out. The BBC's days are numbered but that won't cause many tears among the cavemen who inhabit NCM.

[SwalePie]

Not good at all. I'm pleased to see the other journos demonstrate solidarity. The BBC must never lose it's impartiality clause. Very sad.

[pingu_pie]

Not good at all. I'm pleased to see the other journos demonstrate solidarity. The BBC must never lose it's impartiality clause. Very sad.

The impartiality clause does have some downside, if it's the same thing that leads to the BBC editorial decision that all viewpoints should be represented in all cases. Freedom of speech is great and all that, but it becomes an unhelpful distortion when you have something like climate change discussed between two people, when the weight of informed opinion is far, far from 50-50. If they can find a way of making it truly representative it would be far better.

Having said that... if you can't handle a critical free press, get out; you're not fit for the job. Mind you, there has been no sign at any previous point that Johnson is fit for the role anyway, so that's nothing new - but it doesn't seem to matter to the Great British public. Which tells you everything you need to know.

[DaveSmithRules]

Not good at all. I'm pleased to see the other journos demonstrate solidarity. The BBC must never lose it's impartiality clause. Very sad.

100% agree with this.

[drillerpie]

It's par for the course for politicians from the Steve Bannon 'stable'. Trump has his Twitter feed, Salvini does most of his communications through Facebook posts and live videos, and now BJ is doing the same.

Ratcheting up conflict with the press from the beginning is another tactic they have in common and I expect BJ to follow suit. It's about getting everyone outraged on purpose early on in your mandate, so that when you do something that really deserves the outrage, nobody notices.

Expect constant election campaigning on what should be government time and money too.

[jackal2]

The BBC's days are numbered but that won't cause many tears among the cavemen who inhabit NCM.

I'm perfectly happy for the BBC to continue, but it can earn its own keep like other broadcasters have to do. It has lived in its own privileged bubble for far too long. The licence fee is a throwback to a bygone age and should have been scrapped several years ago.

[Elite_Pie]

I'm perfectly happy for the BBC to continue, but it can earn its own keep like other broadcasters have to do. It has lived in its own privileged bubble for far too long. The licence fee is a throwback to a bygone age and should have been scrapped several years ago.

The only way to do that is for the BBC to be funded by inane advertising like all the other channels.

I'd rather pay the licence fee than be constantly bombarded with the latest SCS double discount sale.

[jackal2]

The only way to do that is for the BBC to be funded by inane advertising like all the other channels.

I'd rather pay the licence fee than be constantly bombarded with the latest SCS double discount sale.

I've got no problem with you or anyone else who wants to see/hear the BBC continuing to pay your licence fee, much like I pay a subscription to watch Sky TV, but there's no reason why I should fund your viewing/listening if I don't want to watch the Beeb. In order to see the channels I want to watch on a television, I'm currently forced to do so.

To be fair, if the BBC offers what I want to see, I might be a subscriber myself, but it would be by choice, not by coercion.

[Elite_Pie]

I've got no problem with you or anyone else who wants to see/hear the BBC continuing to pay your licence fee, much like I pay a subscription to watch Sky TV, but there's no reason why I should fund your viewing/listening if I don't want to watch the Beeb. In order to see the channels I want to watch on a television, I'm currently forced to do so.

I understand your problem, because I have been forced to pay part of my taxes to subsidise the Royal Family, when I would rather give the cash to more worthy causes.

Maybe we should have an opt out clause for things like this.

[jackal2]

I understand your problem, because I have been forced to pay part of my taxes to subsidise the Royal Family, when I would rather give the cash to more worthy causes.

Maybe we should have an opt out clause for things like this.

Fine with me. I don't know if you're assuming I'm a Royalist, but to be honest I can take 'em or leave 'em. In light of recent events I could certainly think of better things to spend my money on.