O/T:- Banks

[Elite_Pie]

Apologies for the delayed reply, Elite, I'm only here sporadically at present!

The way this bloody site is running, I think that goes for all of us!

The reason I consider that Britain benefits from Brexit is because I just fundamentally don't accept that we are 'European'.

That's probably where we differ. I like to think I can be British and European at the same time. But where I think we can still retain a national identity, you seem to think (correct me if I'm wrong) that we are being forced into being part of a homogenised Europe. If that was the case, I would be against it. But where do you draw the line? In my vision the French would still be free to cycle in a hooped shirt with a string of onions around their neck, the Germans would still be free to put their towels on sunbeds first, and we would still be free to put on our bells and stockings and go Morris dancing on the village green. We would be different but still friends.

I would add that when I first went abroad I was proud to say I was British. I still am based on the old values, but not on what we have become. I know I did stereotypes before, but if there is a stereotype for distasteful behaviour abroad it belongs to the Brits. This is entirely from personal experience, but the vast majority of times I've seen trouble on holiday, it involves the British.

[Newish Pie]

Newish Pie are you suggesting that every programme, sports team or 'thing' etc, should only be named to give a representation of who/what it's owners are all about.

There is nothing to stop a left leaning, (if you see GB News as right leaning) news or political content channel from starting up. So no 'very bad thing for democracy' issues. GB News only came about because the TV media was leaning so heavily to the left.

I think you are deliberately trying to portray me as one of your 'some people', this not the case. There is a difference between 'not liking' something, i.e. the BBC's idea of balance and diversity, and being annoyed or even angry about it.

Well, no... I'm not suggesting that County be renamed "Data Nerds Restoring Historic But Underperforming Football Club To Proper Place in Football Pyramid For Fun and Profit". I mean, that would ruin the Wheelbarrow Song. But it's hard to avoid the political right's approach to misleading names. To be absolutely fair, "GB" "News" probably isn't quite in the same category as So-Called Taxpayers Alliance, but neither does it do what it says on the twin.

"GB" "News" is right leaning... just look at the roster of presenters. They're all right wing. Not only that, they're all from the right wing of right wing.. the right wing of the Conservative Party or UKIP or successors. It's there for all to see. TV media only looks left wing to those who are very right wing. Or to people who think the print media is balanced. Of course TV news looks left wing if you're right wing enough to think that "GB" "News" might be anything other than very right wing.

A left wing version would be a bad thing for democracy too, because then even more people would vanish into their echo chambers, as in the US. Not only that, I'd see a TV station with programmes presented by (say) Owen Jones and John McDonnell as just as awful and unwatchable as "GB" "News". Although we have seen a growth in left wing media, it's been largely web based and of distinctly variable quality, but without billionaire backers it's hard to see anything on the scale of "GB" "News" get off the ground... 'cos the left typically doesn't have billionaire backers.

"GB" "News" came about because non-British billionaire backers wanted to create a UK version of Fox News, a right wing echo chamber where right-wingers can interview other right-wingers. I'm honestly not sure whether they think they'll eventually profit from it, or whether it's a loss-leader to try to shift the Overton window towards the right and influence our politics in their preferred direction.

I'm not trying to portray anyone as anything, and I'm sorry if you feel that way or if I've given that impression. I thought you followed up your initial post very clearly with your appreciation for what non-UK pundits have brought. You also said that you had a similar appreciation for the punditry work of female and non-white panellists as to while male panellists... I hope that's a fair summary. I'd also respectfully point out that you raised this topic as a reason to dislike the BBC, not me.

I'm happy to accept that you're not annoyed or angry about the BBC's idea of balance and diversity, but that you just don't like it. I'm still puzzled as to why you don't like it, but you don't owe me an explanation.

[Magpies1959]

Newish Pie thanks for your detailed reply, we are always going to have our political differences, but I am sure we will share some.

I do think you need to watch GB News to see what it is actually like before suggesting that right wingers just interview other right wingers. All the programmes I watch on GB News have people from both sides of the political divide on to discuss news stories. And good old racist Nigel Farage has interviewed black people shock horror, even sharing a pint with them

I think it would be good to jump from one 'echo chamber' to another. Not that I am a great fan of echo chambers and punching up and down nonsense.

I am sure there are enough left wingers with enough money to start a channel in opposition to GB News, but they don't really have to at the moment

At least we can get behind the Pies together this season COYP

[MarcusCole]

Well, no... I'm not suggesting that County be renamed "Data Nerds Restoring Historic But Underperforming Football Club To Proper Place in Football Pyramid For Fun and Profit". I mean, that would ruin the Wheelbarrow Song. But it's hard to avoid the political right's approach to misleading names. To be absolutely fair, "GB" "News" probably isn't quite in the same category as So-Called Taxpayers Alliance, but neither does it do what it says on the twin.

"GB" "News" is right leaning... just look at the roster of presenters. They're all right wing. Not only that, they're all from the right wing of right wing.. the right wing of the Conservative Party or UKIP or successors. It's there for all to see. TV media only looks left wing to those who are very right wing. Or to people who think the print media is balanced. Of course TV news looks left wing if you're right wing enough to think that "GB" "News" might be anything other than very right wing.

A left wing version would be a bad thing for democracy too, because then even more people would vanish into their echo chambers, as in the US. Not only that, I'd see a TV station with programmes presented by (say) Owen Jones and John McDonnell as just as awful and unwatchable as "GB" "News". Although we have seen a growth in left wing media, it's been largely web based and of distinctly variable quality, but without billionaire backers it's hard to see anything on the scale of "GB" "News" get off the ground... 'cos the left typically doesn't have billionaire backers.

"GB" "News" came about because non-British billionaire backers wanted to create a UK version of Fox News, a right wing echo chamber where right-wingers can interview other right-wingers. I'm honestly not sure whether they think they'll eventually profit from it, or whether it's a loss-leader to try to shift the Overton window towards the right and influence our politics in their preferred direction.

I'm not trying to portray anyone as anything, and I'm sorry if you feel that way or if I've given that impression. I thought you followed up your initial post very clearly with your appreciation for what non-UK pundits have brought. You also said that you had a similar appreciation for the punditry work of female and non-white panellists as to while male panellists... I hope that's a fair summary. I'd also respectfully point out that you raised this topic as a reason to dislike the BBC, not me.

I'm happy to accept that you're not annoyed or angry about the BBC's idea of balance and diversity, but that you just don't like it. I'm still puzzled as to why you don't like it, but you don't owe me an explanation.

You really have no idea do you. most of the mainstream TV media in the country has a left wing bias. Look at their positions on things and then see if it alligns with the left wing position or the right wing position.

I am on the left of the political spectrum and when i watch some stuff from GB news to me it looks slightly right of centre and that is at most. When i watch something from the BBC, Channel 4 etc the utter left win bias is almost painful. Just look to the reporting they do on social stuff such as the trans discussion, abortion, racism, immegration. They will always have the left wing position. Whenever anyone raises anything that goes against their narrative the BBC will call them conspiracy theories rather than valid viewpoints.

[OchPie]

I am on the left of the political spectrum and when i watch some stuff from GB news to me it looks slightly right of centre and that is at most. When i watch something from the BBC, Channel 4 etc the utter left win bias is almost painful. Just look to the reporting they do on social stuff such as the trans discussion, abortion, racism, immegration. They will always have the left wing position.

Not that I watch all that much these days, but as also someone on the mild left this is only true if you are on the "no such thing as truth" right.

On abortion, racism and immigration they are usually neutral, if often deferential to the government. On accepted facts like climate change, they follow the facts - facts which most of those clustered around the centre accept.

But guests on news shows have a strong right-wing bias. People from the IEA or other 55 Tufton Street organisations (like the Taxpayer Alliance, the LGB Alliance, the Centre for Policy Studies etc.) are on all the damn time. NGOs / charities, trade unions, campaign groups are only invited on for narrow and specific topics or if they are the focus of a specific news story.

[Magpies1959]

Climate change, accepted facts, okey dokey.

[OchPie]

Climate change, accepted facts, okey dokey.

Yep.

How bad it will get and what we should do about it, those are open debates. Climate change happening and caused by us? The scientific debate is over. It is and it is.

And the main reason people in general think otherwise has been an overly neutral approach in the media, at the expense of impartiality.

[jackal2]

The alternative is not to have a national broadcaster, cut it right down to something like PBS in the US, or put it entirely behind a paywall like Netflix or Sky. Or introduce adverts. Or put it behind some sort of paywall. Or some combination of all of them.

It's the way we're going anyway. I think the concept of a national broadcaster funded by the public purse has had its day in the eyes of a growing number of said public.

Regardless of whether we think it's the right direction or the wrong direction, public demand is taking the television news media more in the direction of the printed news media in the sense that channels (like newspapers such as the Sun and the Mirror) are being far more overt and up front about their political bias and marketing themselves to like-minded audiences. It's a continuation of the social media 'echo chambers', where an increasing number of people (especially young people) seek confirmation more than information.

I don't think we'll stop this happening, in fact I think we will see far more television news channels acknowledging their bias that to be honest has always been there in the background. There was never any such thing as an impartial news broadcaster, because they're run by human beings not robots, which begs the question 'What's Worse? - a news channel that falsely claims to be totally impartial/balanced, or a news channel that is honest if not brazen about where it comes from.

There is nothing to stop a left leaning, (if you see GB News as right leaning) news or political content channel from starting up. So no 'very bad thing for democracy' issues. GB News only came about because the TV media was leaning so heavily to the left.

I'm all for 'Morning Star' News TV! I'd happily watch that for an hour and then turn over and watch GB News for an hour. I used to watch Russia Today after all!

Unlike a lot of the younger generation, I like to read/watch stuff that challenges my view of the world as well as stuff that agrees with me, otherwise life just gets boring. It's not very stimulating sitting in a room full of people all saying "yes, you're right". We need to be very cautious about the notion that division and disagreement is a bad thing - it's actually a great thing which leads to some of the most creative and best developed ideas and creations. It also engages people in political debate rather than being apathetic. Here's to a more divisive society!

If you don't already know who funds GB "News", I'd suggest looking into their backers. It's not only the "News" element of the title that should be in inverted commas, it's the "GB" bit too. They're like the "Taxpayers Alliance" and "Islamic State" in that sense - nothing about their name is accurate.

There's two sides to that. The billionaire backers of GB News aim to gradually reduce their funding in favour of mainstream advertising, but there's an organisation called "Stop Funding Hate" who are doing everything they can to scare and initimdate mainstream companies away from buying advertising on GB News. They want to to kill the channel off and prevent its viewers watching what they choose to watch. If we're going to say GB News isn't representative of it's name, then look also into the people behind 'Stop Funding Hate', because their name isn't accurate either.

[Elite_Pie]

You really have no idea do you. most of the mainstream TV media in the country has a left wing bias. Look at their positions on things and then see if it alligns with the left wing position or the right wing position.

The TV media criticise the Tories a lot, but the Tories deserve to be criticised a lot. Is that accurate reporting or left wing bias? The BBC was disgracefully right wing all through the Covid crisis, they gave government ministers a very easy ride, and allowed them to avoid answering any difficult questions. The BBC became little more than a mouthpiece for the Tory party.

[MarcusCole]

The TV media criticise the Tories a lot, but the Tories deserve to be criticised a lot. Is that accurate reporting or left wing bias? The BBC was disgracefully right wing all through the Covid crisis, they gave government ministers a very easy ride, and allowed them to avoid answering any difficult questions. The BBC became little more than a mouthpiece for the Tory party.

You actually think that? Wow, you really have no clue.

The BBC were on the side of lockdowns and pushing a specific narrative, while the government were doing this the BBC were happy to praise them. The BBC to this day still calls the possibility of Covid coming from a lab a conspiracy theory. If the BBC were right wing and the right wingers were the ones calling out all the lockdown narratives how does that make them right wing?

Like all modern politicians, the tories looked at what the press was pushing and followed along with the narrative, the mainstream media were over hyping covid as it got them sales or clicks on the websites. When covid first hit the Tories were against a lockdown but the press kept pushing that as the only option and the Tories followed when the polling showed the people looked on it favourably.