Printable View
I don't think that at all and I have never claimed to be a multi award winning anything. I suspect your difficulty with me arises out of your right wing convictions. I may post twaddle but now and then it's positive twaddle. When did you last post anything positive on here? That's why I belittle your username. In truth you are a backward magpie.Quote:
Originally Posted by forwardmagpie
Yeah I know, don't worry I wasn't seriously expecting it to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigFatPie
The Guardian has to do with it the fact that it is also an organisation that reports the news. One that you presumably read as you link to it sometimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigFatPie
This made me presume that you consider it to be more objective, unlike the BBC that you rarely watch or listen to any more because you don't like its editorial line.
I would disagree with you Sid you call posters on here Sad Punters who don’t understand etc................ pompous in my book.Quote:
Originally Posted by sidders
I mainly read but keep out of political discussions and generally don’t post as people have entrenched views on both sides of the arguments that aren’t going to be changed on a football message board.
I believe my views are centre right but I suppose it all depends who is judging me.
You can ~belittle~ me and my username and call me backward magpie all day long as if my views seem backward to you then that makes me believe I am on the right track.
I wouldn't call you forward or backward, I would call you sideways.Quote:
Originally Posted by forwardmagpie
That's based purely on the idea that 'Sideways Pest Control' would have been a brilliant sponsor for McParland's teams!
It annoys me to say that is funnyQuote:
Originally Posted by Elite_Pie
Context is everything, Forward, Ever heard that?Quote:
Originally Posted by forwardmagpie
I did not call posters on here 'sad punters'. Why don't you look back at what I actually posted? Post 83
Why did you ask me then?Quote:
Originally Posted by drillerpie
Bringing the Guardian up in a debate about the BBC is odd because one is primarily a public service broadcaster and the other is more known for its print and digital output. One is supposed by law to be impartial and the other one isn’t. A better comparison is between BBC news and CH4 news, which I do watch regularly. I think CH4 news does a great job in holding power to account, which is presumably why government ministers are banned from going on. The same goes for Newsnight on BBC2 which does a better job than the regular news programmes.
Imo the BBC’s political editor is in the pocket of Johnson and Cummings. ( ie See her tweet regarding Cummings) Government ministers aren’t banned from being interviewed by her. I’m sorry, I can’t give you a more ‘rational’ reason than that, anymore than I give you rational reasons why I don’t watch Eastenders anymore.
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/bbc-b...inic-cummings/
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't recall asking you.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigFatPie
I just commented sarcastically on the lack of nuance or reasoning in your 'horse****' verdict.
I don't see why comparing the BBC to the Guardian or any other journalistic institution is odd when talking about preferences in editorial line. Yes the BBC has a different remit, but in was asking you about your preferences. I also don't see the differences between the Guardian and the BBC in terms of whether they predominantly use the written word or the spoken word.
I agree that Kuenssberg seems happy to be drip fed off the record briefings from Cummings, but as long as she marks them clearly as being from her Tory source I don't see the problem.
Anyway I don't see that Tweet as a smoking gun to support your argument that she is biased. The fact that the BBC received complaints is becoming more and more irrelevant, as they are mostly from campaigns orchestrated by extreme / minority voices. I'm sure somewhere in the Twittersphere there was a group of right wing people getting angry about Kuenssberg's aggressive line of questioning to Cummings at his garden party / press conference.
When narcissists are rumbled they accuse their accuser of the same thing that they are accused of.
For instance, when the BBC is accused of left bias, which is true, they produce fake news that they have been accused of right wing bias. Untrue.
The BBC are mentally ill, they foment racial hatred at every oppurtunity, they expose social divisions, like the rich and poor, at every oppurtunity.
Every programme has a political social programming message. Everything the government does, especially a Tory one, is wrong. Not so.
The BBC is run by gangsters, if they could they would rub out the opposition. Yes they would. They are sick and need dismantling.
..."sad punters"..? If someone hasn't travelled as widely as you they might not be aware of "the respect worldwide" for the BBC that you have experienced. That respect overseas unfortunately doesn't pay the BBC licence fee, it's paid for out of people's wages - and currently the BBC doesn't seem to be respected at home. I think that the purpose of the BBC to inform, educate and entertain 'impartially' - which I think justifies a licence fee, should not mean that people are in effect taxed to pay the salaries of the 'Gary Linekers' of this world - the BBC could use trained journalists to do these jobs and let the 'Gary Linekers' seek there huge salaries in the private sector -The "incredible value"of the BBC might be more apparent then.Quote:
Originally Posted by sidders