+ Visit West Bromwich Albion FC Mad for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Thread: Channel 4 are a disgrace!

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    23,896

    Channel 4 are a disgrace!

    The way,during the Brexit interviews with the Tory ministers,that they allow that moron with the “remainer” type placards to stand three feet behind interviewees with his fellow campaigners is utterly ridiculous.

    This guy was allowed to do exactly the same a few weeks ago and it’s always Channel 4.

    No surprise considering Jon Snow’s rabid hatred of the Tory’s and his “f u c k the Tory’s” chant on stage at Glastonbury a couple of years ago as he tried to “get down” with the youth and the Leftie Elite and considering that channels Left Wing agenda!

    If I’d been Rees-Mogg and the two ladies I would’ve told Channel 4 to stick their interview up their a r s e so in part I blame them for lack of nous and awareness.

    I would be equally annoyed if it’d been “out” campaigners doing the same to a remain interview.

    I thought it was a hideous spectacle.

  2. #2
    If you know their agenda why watch their news. There are several channels that broadcast news other than Channel 4.

  3. #3
    It's not just CH4. Last week on the BBC's Politics Live there was an interview on College Green with what I assume was the same idiot (fancy dress anti Brexit placard) constantly changing position so he was always in shot.

    For me all it does is belittle whatever their cause is so let em carry on.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    23,896
    Quote Originally Posted by holmleighchris View Post
    If you know their agenda why watch their news. There are several channels that broadcast news other than Channel 4.
    That’s not the point I was trying to make.

    I may be wrong but it’s my understanding that Channel 4 get a certain amount of public money,I may be wrong.

    BBC are fully funded by public money and have a definite bias.

    News on main channels should be fair and unbiased.

    I do feel that right wing supporters would not have been allowed to turn such an interview into such a farce.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,150
    Quote Originally Posted by mickd1961 View Post
    That’s not the point I was trying to make.

    I may be wrong but it’s my understanding that Channel 4 get a certain amount of public money,I may be wrong.

    BBC are fully funded by public money and have a definite bias.

    News on main channels should be fair and unbiased.

    I do feel that right wing supporters would not have been allowed to turn such an interview into such a farce.
    Channel 4 are publicly owned but commercially run. They don't take a public money.

    Its ironic how both Remain and Leave sides accuse the BBC of Bias. Basically when they report something the reader or viewer doesn't like - then its labelled automatically as 'biased'..

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    10,879
    Quote Originally Posted by WBA123 View Post
    Channel 4 are publicly owned but commercially run. They don't take a public money.

    Its ironic how both Remain and Leave sides accuse the BBC of Bias. Basically when they report something the reader or viewer doesn't like - then its labelled automatically as 'biased'..
    Funny you should mention talk of bias. You posted a link the other day from the EU Commission’s ‘EuroMyths’ site in reference to what you (rightly or wrongly) perceive as lies from the “right wing press” towards the EU from 1992 to 2017. I haven’t read through them all but there’s a good number of myths accredited to both the BBC and even the left wing Mirror via that link. How inconvenient .

    Now given that you provided the link I feel we may agree that poor reporting exists across a wide spectrum of outlets. Many perpetuate indignation and often anger. They sensationalise, attract attention, appeal to the collective moral compass of the masses and in so doing often promote division. On the other hand once you get passed the headlines good reporting is often accurate, unbiased, to the point and able to raise awareness. As I’m sure you’ll agree the trick is to read between the lines, do some research and find out what’s what.

    Having looked up the terms army, defence, EU Army and even veto from the link you provided there’s very little in the way of denial from the EU Commission’s own ‘EuroMyths’ site on their reported plans for an EU Army. If said site is a fair and accurate reflection of the truth then how very unusual. Could that mean there’s been little bias or untruth on such reporting? Could the desires of Junker, Macron, Merkel, Blair and Chirac et.al regarding an EU Army have been accurately reported after all? Or is the link itself largely useless as it concentrates on trivia by sheer volume of nonsense, thus diverting attention from wider agendas encapsulating any number of issues and not just defence?

    There is a link on ‘EuroMyths’ quoting the Telegraph’s story on an EU Rapid Reaction Force though, denying plans for an EU security force exist and which goes on to state the following: “The rapid response unit was set up inside the European Commission in May 2000 on the back of proposals from Chris Patten, the Commissioner for External Relations. It aims to ensure that the Commission can react quickly to unfolding crises, such as earthquakes or other humanitarian disasters. This measure is categorically not linked to the decision by EU Member States to create a joint military capacity. The Commission does not perform any kind of military role”.

    https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK...-its-own-army/

    As you like links if you have the time feel free to explore the one below at your leisure. It’s from the European Union External Action site and lists a number of its operations to date. Although humanitarian interventions can of course take many guises, a European Union which uses “…… civilian and military instruments in several countries in three continents (Europe, Africa and Asia) as part of its Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP)” doesn’t sound very humanitarian to me. There are some very interesting uses of common defence and police resources on said link worthy of further reading elsewhere.

    https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/...-operations_en

    One final point, vetoes are only as useful as the governments entrusted with their use.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Albionic68 View Post
    Funny you should mention talk of bias. You posted a link the other day from the EU Commission’s ‘EuroMyths’ site in reference to what you (rightly or wrongly) perceive as lies from the “right wing press” towards the EU from 1992 to 2017. I haven’t read through them all but there’s a good number of myths accredited to both the BBC and even the left wing Mirror via that link. How inconvenient .

    Now given that you provided the link I feel we may agree that poor reporting exists across a wide spectrum of outlets. Many perpetuate indignation and often anger. They sensationalise, attract attention, appeal to the collective moral compass of the masses and in so doing often promote division. On the other hand once you get passed the headlines good reporting is often accurate, unbiased, to the point and able to raise awareness. As I’m sure you’ll agree the trick is to read between the lines, do some research and find out what’s what.

    Having looked up the terms army, defence, EU Army and even veto from the link you provided there’s very little in the way of denial from the EU Commission’s own ‘EuroMyths’ site on their reported plans for an EU Army. If said site is a fair and accurate reflection of the truth then how very unusual. Could that mean there’s been little bias or untruth on such reporting? Could the desires of Junker, Macron, Merkel, Blair and Chirac et.al regarding an EU Army have been accurately reported after all? Or is the link itself largely useless as it concentrates on trivia by sheer volume of nonsense, thus diverting attention from wider agendas encapsulating any number of issues and not just defence?

    There is a link on ‘EuroMyths’ quoting the Telegraph’s story on an EU Rapid Reaction Force though, denying plans for an EU security force exist and which goes on to state the following: “The rapid response unit was set up inside the European Commission in May 2000 on the back of proposals from Chris Patten, the Commissioner for External Relations. It aims to ensure that the Commission can react quickly to unfolding crises, such as earthquakes or other humanitarian disasters. This measure is categorically not linked to the decision by EU Member States to create a joint military capacity. The Commission does not perform any kind of military role”.

    https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK...-its-own-army/

    As you like links if you have the time feel free to explore the one below at your leisure. It’s from the European Union External Action site and lists a number of its operations to date. Although humanitarian interventions can of course take many guises, a European Union which uses “…… civilian and military instruments in several countries in three continents (Europe, Africa and Asia) as part of its Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP)” doesn’t sound very humanitarian to me. There are some very interesting uses of common defence and police resources on said link worthy of further reading elsewhere.

    https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/...-operations_en

    One final point, vetoes are only as useful as the governments entrusted with their use.

    Where do I start...firstly, every print media has an agenda and sensationalises headlines and the Mirror are no different. There is a line though where sensationalism turns into lies. RW media accounts for 8 of the top 10 print media outlets in the UK. Therefore its not a surprise that (some of) their 'sensationalist reporting' helped the Leave campaign during the campaigning for the referendum. And no doubt they have helped successive governments win elections in the last few decades. My opinion is that they manipulate perception of the wider UK public. So when I read on here people stating slogans from the Daily Mail, which happens quite frequently, I can't help but think they are being lead like a sheep by these media outlets.

    My link (which I've only glossed over) was intended to highlight the lack of accurate information regarding the EU that is conveyed to the public by these media outlets. My opinion is that the BBC are impartial and they get unfairly labelled by both Leave and Remain supporters of bias.

    "once you get passed the headlines good reporting is often accurate, unbiased, to the point and able to raise awareness"

    I really hope that sentence refers to media who promote themselves as impartial and not the print media (Which includes the Mirror btw). Because they is very little in the way of 'accurate and unbiased reporting' that you mention in some of these toerag newspapers.

    These newspapers are owned by foreign, tax dodging millionaires who are not scrutinised in the same way other individuals are and have undue influence on our political process and constitution. Why? They are as much to blame for this political mess as anyone. They have created an environment where our largest trade partner is now considered an enemy. But people will continue to purchase them and believe the general rubbish that they read. So perhaps that is one area where we differ.

    An EU Army...perhaps it is on the agenda for Macron and Merkel etc. And if so it has probably gained more traction since we voted to leave, because we would be unable to veto it. My point was and still is, that if an EU army is so disastrous to us, then elected members of the UK had the option to veto it as members of the EU. There is nothing more democratic than that.

    Your final point applies to any government or MP who is elected, or anyone voted into any position of power and decision making. We vote to give them power to make decisions on our behalf. The EU is a very democratic organisation in my opinion, just as democratic as the UK is. Does this now set a precedent for UK towns and counties to 'take back control' from Westminster?'

    Anyhow, any Leave voter should know that May has put the best deal available to us on the table, if there was a better deal, why would she not have gone out and got it? Get ready for all Brexiters to start pointing fingers of blame to Remainers because we are in a worst position now than before....A no deal is a disaster, but when many people, not just on this message board, say statements like 'I would rather be poorer than be in the EU' or 'I've got my country back' then what hope is there...

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    23,896
    Back on topic and avoiding the usual “hijacking” by Carolgees.

    Other channels including SKY and BBC have been almost as bad as Channel 4 today in allowing the Work shy rabble with the placards and megaphones ruin the interviews.

    There is absolutely no need to be conducting the interviews in the street,it’s ludicrous.

    I’ve found the debate ( both ways ) fascinating today but I’ve got a migraine from the inane chanting from close by.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    9,076
    Yeah...the news is getting chaotic at the moment...we had a TD over here produce a pair of "Thongs" in the Dail...
    Strange news alright...
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46207304

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,863
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubbag View Post
    Yeah...the news is getting chaotic at the moment...we had a TD over here produce a pair of "Thongs" in the Dail...
    Strange news alright...
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46207304
    yes read that this morning dub,it’s about a alleged rape victim wearing a thong ,so if you wear a thong your up for it.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Forum Info

Footymad Forums offer you the chance to interact and discuss all things football with fellow fans from around the world, and share your views on footballing issues from the latest, breaking transfer rumours to the state of the game at international level and everything in between.

Whether your team is battling it out for the Premier League title or struggling for League survival, there's a forum for you!

Gooners, Mackems, Tractor Boys - you're all welcome, please just remember to respect the opinions of others.

Click here for a full list of the hundreds of forums available to you

The forums are free to join, although you must play fair and abide by the rules explained here, otherwise your ability to post may be temporarily or permanently revoked.

So what are you waiting for? Register now and join the debate!

(these forums are not actively moderated, so if you wish to report any comment made by another member please report it.)



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •