Election Year or Fear!

[swaledale]

But did you bother to fact check the issue highlighted by TTR? Or do you ever? TTR has an extreme slant, as does our other extremist Swale, and both are likely to spout a load of *******s in support of their beliefs. However, i do fact check/investigate some of their claims and find them to be enlightening/different to my perception. Yes even Swale, the fact that he comes over in such an odious manner doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be listened to.

Regarding the issue in question, GBN, in their shouty way, appear to have it right, BBC lauded a person when his circumstances appeared to be ‘the wronged immigrant’ but have buried the fact that the person is, and was at the time, a serial *** offender. Yes GBN had/have an agenda, but this appears to show that BBC, by omission, do to.

So lying any worse than hiding the truth? I think not. There are no clean hands in the media

So you make an assumption that the way a news story is covered by the BBC is a deliberate omission and they are therefore hiding the truth? Based on no evidence other than your own particular prejudice? News stories get covered in many different ways by different media, in practically any news report I could find omissions or even things that patently aren't actually true. Conspiracy or cock up? I generally favour the latter, unless its a front page of the Express or Mail which will cheerfully print complete lies and made up guff as headlines and indeed completely contradict themselves within days.

You make a statement that GB News, a TV station that in no way attempts to be objective, factual or truthful, never mind the implicit right wing bias is a useful foil, when the facts are this - it's loss making, £40 million and counting, its viewing figures are miniscule, its owning company has as one of its investors a notorious hedge fund manager with distinctly dubious political views, and has made donations in excess of £600,000 to the Tory party. In addition the TV has employed some of the more right wing and extreme Tory MP's as presenters not to mention the other presenters who range from a former historian turned conspiracy theorist, a former actor turned complete nut case, a fake vicar and a notorious journalist noted mainly for appalling misogynist attacks on celebrities.

How can any person capable of critical thought consider GB News as anything other than the vehicle for rich right wing ****s who want to push a certain agenda to the proles in the hope that some of it will stick?

How is that a foil for anything?

Truly you have confirmed my assessment of you as not being quite as bright as you think you are.

[Andy_Faber]

So you make an assumption that the way a news story is covered by the BBC is a deliberate omission and they are therefore hiding the truth? Based on no evidence other than your own particular prejudice? News stories get covered in many different ways by different media, in practically any news report I could find omissions or even things that patently aren't actually true. Conspiracy or cock up? I generally favour the latter, unless its a front page of the Express or Mail which will cheerfully print complete lies and made up guff as headlines and indeed completely contradict themselves within days.

You make a statement that GB News, a TV station that in no way attempts to be objective, factual or truthful, never mind the implicit right wing bias is a useful foil, when the facts are this - it's loss making, £40 million and counting, its viewing figures are miniscule, its owning company has as one of its investors a notorious hedge fund manager with distinctly dubious political views, and has made donations in excess of £600,000 to the Tory party. In addition the TV has employed some of the more right wing and extreme Tory MP's as presenters not to mention the other presenters who range from a former historian turned conspiracy theorist, a former actor turned complete nut case, a fake vicar and a notorious journalist noted mainly for appalling misogynist attacks on celebrities.

How can any person capable of critical thought consider GB News as anything other than the vehicle for rich right wing ****s who want to push a certain agenda to the proles in the hope that some of it will stick?

How is that a foil for anything?

Truly you have confirmed my assessment of you as not being quite as bright as you think you are.

You’re digging the usual big hole for yourself Swale, GBN’s funding and profitability has nothing to do with the fact that it occasionally is on the right side of an issue. In media parlance I’d suggest you are indulging in a ‘smear campaign’, as you do against anyone and anything that disagrees with your entrenched views.

Still, you’re clearly less unhinged than normal as you’ve not gone off on your Nazi analogies. Yet

[MadAmster]

You’re digging the usual big hole for yourself Swale, GBN’s funding and profitability has nothing to do with the fact that it occasionally is on the right side of an issue. In media parlance I’d suggest you are indulging in a ‘smear campaign’, as you do against anyone and anything that disagrees with your entrenched views.

Still, you’re clearly less unhinged than normal as you’ve not gone off on your Nazi analogies. Yet

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.... that's more often than GB News.

You're right. They do get it occasionally right.

It's high time, IMO, that HMG introduced a Truth Law. One that demands that both Politicians and Journalists MUST tell the truth, the facts and absolutely NO BS lies. The public deserve the truth.

[Andy_Faber]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.... that's more often than GB News.

You're right. They do get it occasionally right.

It's high time, IMO, that HMG introduced a Truth Law. One that demands that both Politicians and Journalists MUST tell the truth, the facts and absolutely NO BS lies. The public deserve the truth.

I’ll vote for you on that ticket MA

[ramAnag]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.... that's more often than GB News.

You're right. They do get it occasionally right.

It's high time, IMO, that HMG introduced a Truth Law. One that demands that both Politicians and Journalists MUST tell the truth, the facts and absolutely NO BS lies. The public deserve the truth.

Completely agree…but how the hell do you do it? Even ‘back in the day’ when newspapers were just that, there was no online media presence and no concept of ‘social influencers’ or ‘deep fakes’, every newspaper had some sort of political allegiance albeit heavily weighted (numerically) in favour of the Conservatives.
The difference imo is that things have become much more extreme. GBN encapsulates that and, without taking personal sides, Swale’s ‘assessment’ of GBN in the second paragraph of post #281, has nailed it.

[MadAmster]

Completely agree…but how the hell do you do it? Even ‘back in the day’ when newspapers were just that, there was no online media presence and no concept of ‘social influencers’ or ‘deep fakes’, every newspaper had some sort of political allegiance albeit heavily weighted (numerically) in favour of the Conservatives.
The difference imo is that things have become much more extreme. GBN encapsulates that and, without taking personal sides, Swale’s ‘assessment’ of GBN in the second paragraph of post #281, has nailed it.

You pass a Law. Interestingly, the USA had such a Law, the Fairness of Broadcasting Act. It demanded balance and truth. the FCC dropped that part of Act in 2011. A Godsend for Trump.

[Geoff Parkstone]

MA "It's high time, IMO, that HMG introduced a Truth Law. One that demands that both Politicians and Journalists MUST tell the truth, the facts and absolutely NO BS lies. The public deserve the truth."

Under such legislation the silence would be deafening, and, IMO a refreshing relief.

[ramAnag]

I’ll vote for you on that ticket MA

Just listened to Rachel Reeves on Kuenssberg. Most convincing politician I’ve listened to for a while…mind you even Michael Howard, who’s also on, seems reasonable in comparison to his current counterparts.

[Andy_Faber]

Completely agree…but how the hell do you do it? Even ‘back in the day’ when newspapers were just that, there was no online media presence and no concept of ‘social influencers’ or ‘deep fakes’, every newspaper had some sort of political allegiance albeit heavily weighted (numerically) in favour of the Conservatives.
The difference imo is that things have become much more extreme. GBN encapsulates that and, without taking personal sides, Swale’s ‘assessment’ of GBN in the second paragraph of post #281, has nailed it.

I must say you have highly developed view of a broadcaster you refuse to watch

[Andy_Faber]

Just listened to Rachel Reeves on Kuenssberg. Most convincing politician I’ve listened to for a while…mind you even Michael Howard, who’s also on, seems reasonable in comparison to his current counterparts.

Her grating metallic timbre is one of the things I’m not looking forward to should there be a change in administration - as for convincing, if she/they deliver on their promises, great, but ‘they’ have no track record yet. Fingers crossed