O/T:- Banks

[Elite_Pie]

EP you seem to think it some sort of victory for you, by me saying some Tory's lined their pockets during covid due to having friends in right places, in effect, it seems pretty obvious that this would happen, as it does in all walks of business, political or not. Equally this would have applied had Labour been in power too. It just makes me chuckle that Lefty supporters think that their politicians are completely brown envelope free.

The difference is that we know the Tories were corrupt, while Labour might have been corrupt.

[Magpies1959]

Nah EP ALL politicians are corrupt.

[Newish Pie]

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

You're right, the "right wingers interviewing other right wingers" was a cheap shot, and I take that back. However, I would note in passing that they presented Vince Cable as a "left winger" recently. He's not. I question both their selection, identification, and treatment of so-called "left wing" guests and voices. And I also.. and I'm sorry for sounding like a broken record here... don't think that known hard right figures, including currently active politicians, should be the ones doing the interviewing. I don't regard "GB" "News" as a valid or credible news source because of that. But I'm not saying anything new here.

[Newish 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.

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.

I've tried to reply constructively to everyone, because I've no interest in being sent to the "handbags" room. But I'm not sure how to constructively respond to this, other than to say that I think your post says more about you and your political and cultural beliefs than it does about the BBC.

[Newish Pie]

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.




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!



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.

Lots more interesting points and food for thought, thank you.

I disagree about the national broadcaster. In spite of a sustained, decades-long campaign against the BBC and its staff by the billionaire press, I sense that support is still pretty strong. Even those who have worries about bias would prefer that bias to be addressed, than the BBC abolished or cut down to size. Even among those who think it is biased (whether left or right) it still enjoys very high ratings on trust and accuracy of factual reporting.

I agree that it's very hard - probably impossible - to have infallibly neutral and balanced reporting, and there are a lot of dilemmas to face. Like... how to deal with liars, knowing when to give space to voices to provide balance, and when to follow the overwhelming scientific consensus. But the correct response is just to try harder... acknowledge the difficulty, try to correct the mistakes, point out errors, argue about it. Because it matters.

The thing about "GB" "News" is that it doesn't acknowledge its biases, and even on here, people have been defending it as not being hard right wing, even though... well, just look at the presenters. Balance isn't spending half an hour watching right wing propaganda and then half an hour watching left wing propaganda. That way madness lies, especially if we end in like the US where alarming proportions of the population believe that an election was stolen.

And that's what worries me... we can disagree away, constructively, and arrive at better conclusions than we started with, but only if we start with at least some agreed facts. And it's when we don't start to have agreed facts because fringe media outlets are pushing conspiracy theory nonsense again that we really end up in trouble. We don't have to agree about all facts, but there needs to be a shared bedrock of understanding, and that's what's provided by having a media in common.

"Stop Funding Hate" is an interesting one and I've had to think about this a bit, which is either a good or bad sign. I expect that those who think the Express and Mail headlines and stories about immigrants aren't hateful will perhaps think the name unfair, but there's plenty of people who do and have, and think that both crossed the line regularly between legitimate comment on immigration policy and dehumanising language reminiscent of 1930s Germany.

They've had successes too... they're no longer campaigning against the Express any more since a change of editor means they've cleaned up their act. They got an apology from the Sun about an article that clearly crossed the line into hate speech. Their issue with "GB" "News" seems to be "demonising Trans people at every opportunity" (as one of their former contributors described it), and the Board of Deputies of British Jews has criticised "GB" "News" for "platforming organisations that promote antisemitic conspiracy theories". And of course, there's the serial Ofcom censures for misleading statements about COVID vaccines.

As for "scare and intimidate mainstream companies"... I'm not sure I see evidence for that. Their methods seem to be to encourage people to write to advertisers and ask them not to support hate speech. Lobbying and consumer boycotts seems pretty standard stuff, and I'm not sure why that counts as intimidation. They're very open about what they do, and others who either like hate speech or don't see it as hate speech are free to write letters the other way, buy more of the products of advertisers and so on. Not sure why there's an issue.

And.... I'd say that having discussions with the Express makes them sound like a very reasonable organisation. If an organisation can clean up its act, they call off the action. They're more reasonable than me... my disdain for the Express hasn't changed one bit!

[Magpies1959]

You can write all you like Newish Pie, but you will always have a left wing bias, which is fair enough and why you see GB News as hard right wing, and why I, with more right leaning views do not see it as hard right. I am also sensible enough to watch it and be able to disagree with some of the views of the more right of centre presenters. I see the people who are trying to bring it to it's knees as, kids, who have been brought up being shielded from competition, and that they always have to be right. Poor little dears.

[MarcusCole]

I've tried to reply constructively to everyone, because I've no interest in being sent to the "handbags" room. But I'm not sure how to constructively respond to this, other than to say that I think your post says more about you and your political and cultural beliefs than it does about the BBC.

Oh Noes, I understand that other viewpoints may be valid. Just because i understand other viewpoints exist and may be valid does not mean I agree with them. I get my news from multiple sources, I can recognise when these sources are pushing their narrative rather than giving a balanced view. When the BBC is reporting on certain issues they will always push the left wing viewpoint, can you point to an area where the BBC reports and has a right wing viewpoint?

Your response says everything about you really.

[Magpies1959]

Marcus you should know by now that unless you think like the Lefties do you are a bad person.

[OchPie]

I get my news from multiple sources, I can recognise when these sources are pushing their narrative rather than giving a balanced view.

The BBC isn't supposed to be balanced. It's supposed to be impartial. They aren't the same thing. In particular, it suggests there are only two sides to an argument. When did you last see a pro-single market Brexiteer debate an anti-single market Brexiteer? Or an ever-closer-Europe Rejoiner debate a put-on-the-brakes-again Rejoiner?

The idea that the BBC should be balanced is destroying the quality of its output. (And it's why the 55 Tufton Street brigade get such exposure, because they are a useful contrary viewpoint to just about everything.)

When the BBC is reporting on certain issues they will always push the left wing viewpoint

That's really not true, as only a few moments watching them reporting any actual leftish-wing activity (from strikes to calls for government support to activity by the Labour party) will show.

The BBC's selection of stories is probably skewed a little to the left. Its treatment of those stories, especially when they are being commented on, is then skewed to the right - at least while the Tories are in power (since the absolute biggest skew of the BBC is towards the Establishment, which is currently as right wing as they come).

[Elite_Pie]

Oh Noes, I understand that other viewpoints may be valid. Just because i understand other viewpoints exist and may be valid does not mean I agree with them.

But you come across as rather arrogant and dismissive of different views rather than being tolerant.

You really have no idea do you.

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

Your response says everything about you really.