Election Year or Fear!

[ramAnag]

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

Sorry Andy…had enormous difficulty logging in. No idea why.

[ramAnag]

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

You have me there…sort of! I rarely read any of Capt. YouTube’s attachments so, to be honest, I could hardly fact check them.
The reason? I’ll debate with anyone but I don’t think the forum is the right place to just regurgitate clips from the Right - or Left - wing press. I prefer to debate with people on the forum rather than have to watch items that I would usually choose to avoid and Tricky has been inclined to obsessively bombard the Election thread with his ‘video’ clips recently.

Does that make me ‘narrow minded’ or not fully informed? I don’t think so. I’ve already explained why but, to reiterate, you don’t have to hear stuff from the ‘horse’s mouth’/original source to be able to form an opinion. There is plenty of more honest, objective journalism out there and that is what I prefer to rely on to influence my opinions. That doesn’t, btw, mean that I believe everything said by the BBC, the Guardian or the Independent but I do believe them to have far greater integrity than any of Capt. YT’s sources.

Are Swale and Tricky ‘extremists’? In my opinion the only thing extreme about Swale is his, self defeating, anger. As regards Tricky…he certainly seems to spend a lot of time quoting or defending those on the far Right, but then his reasoning about it being impossible for him to be xenophobic on the basis of a previous relationship with a Native American and his current one with his future Thai bride is beyond simplistic.

[swaledale]

You have me there…sort of! I rarely read any of Capt. YouTube’s attachments so, to be honest, I could hardly fact check them.
The reason? I’ll debate with anyone but I don’t think the forum is the right place to just regurgitate clips from the Right - or Left - wing press. I prefer to debate with people on the forum rather than have to watch items that I would usually choose to avoid and Tricky has been inclined to obsessively bombard the Election thread with his ‘video’ clips recently.

Does that make me ‘narrow minded’ or not fully informed? I don’t think so. I’ve already explained why but, to reiterate, you don’t have to hear stuff from the ‘horse’s mouth’/original source to be able to form an opinion. There is plenty of more honest, objective journalism out there and that is what I prefer to rely on to influence my opinions. That doesn’t, btw, mean that I believe everything said by the BBC, the Guardian or the Independent but I do believe them to have far greater integrity than any of Capt. YT’s sources.

Are Swale and Tricky ‘extremists’? In my opinion the only thing extreme about Swale is his, self defeating, anger. As regards Tricky…he certainly seems to spend a lot of time quoting or defending those on the far Right, but then his reasoning about it being impossible for him to be xenophobic on the basis of a previous relationship with a Native American and his current one with his future Thai bride is beyond simplistic.

Ah but rA the world is full of people who aren't racist because my best friend, a relative or some such person is of a different ethnicity to themselves. Tricky does this and so does AF, you know the Af who say's stuff like the are too many ethnic presenters in the media.

By the way my "self defeating" anger is merely me having a laugh at the inability to have a debate with people who use obviously false, inaccurate and biased interpretations to back up their warped views.

There is an old saying, Don't argue with a fool, they will drag you down to their level"

[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.

[swaledale]

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

its your opinion that GB News is occasionally on the "right" side of an issue, and certainly in this case I'd be inclined to say you have proven your opinion to be worthless.

I have a simple rule of thumb for anybody who watches GB News or in any way defends it - they aren't capable of critical thought and aren't worth arguing with.

Surely the whole point of news media (not that GB News is in any way a news media), is to inform and challenge? If one just wants ones own prejudices, pre formed opinions and views parroted back at you, then your not really in the game are you?

I do laugh when you accuse me of an entrenched views! Being able to spot a fraud and question why a media organisation that is clearly unviable is being funded actually shows independence of thought. My views are far from entrenched, they change but I do set store by verifiable sources and actual evidence, made up fake news and the misrepresentation of the facts less so. Its true all media to an extent misrepresents a story or news, but GB News does it as a matter of course, that should be enough to make any vaguely sentient person question it.

I actually said that there is often a grain of truth in the puerile right wing propaganda this media pushes out. That's a well known tool used by such organisations and the people within, it enables the useful fools, such as yourself to claim there is some credence to what it says. I mean how simple minded do you have to be to defend a channel spewing out falsehoods and hate on the basis it got one thing right?

The funding and profitability is key to understanding what GB News is about, it goes to the heart of why it pushes the material it does, if your incapable of recognising that, and worryingly not perturbed about it, you confirm my thoughts on your willingness to accept crap that confirms your innate prejudice.

How am I indulging in a smear campaign when I've merely quoted the facts? You claim to do research, so please do come up with the evidence that what I've said about GB Nes its output and its funding is a "smear"?

[Andy_Faber]

I have a simple rule of thumb for anybody who watches GB News or in any way defends it - they aren't capable of critical thought and aren't worth arguing with.

Yet you are doing