O/T:- Just Stop Boil

[jackal2]

Newish Pie I'm not sure where you've appeared from, but your posts to date have been excellent. You make your arguments very well without insulting or dismissing others who may have a different viewpoint. I think that's why you're being well-received by posters across the Notts MAD political spectrum.

If someone finds GB "news" a refreshing alternative and reflects a lot of how they feel, it's almost certainly because they're very right wing. And therefore it's not surprising that the rest of the media will appear left wing. Stands to reason.

It probably does, but likewise, I’d argue that someone who finds the news output of the BBC these days to their taste is likely to be at least mildly left-leaning, even if they’re not especially conscious of that themselves, hence why a channel like GB News will appear to them to be ‘very right wing’.

If someone finds GB "news" a refreshing alternative and reflects a lot of how they feel, it's almost certainly because they're very right wing. And therefore it's not surprising that the rest of the media will appear left wing. Stands to reason.

Left wing and right wing are - to some extent - relative terms as where the political centre is varies over time, and a lot of effort goes into trying to shift it one way or another. There's this useful concept called the "Overton Window"... what's inside the window is proposals that can legitimately be talked about and taken seriously... so, nationalising the trains or the utility companies is inside, nationalising the mobile phone companies is outside.

What GB "news" and Tufton Street Thinktankocracy and others are trying to do is shift the "Overton Window" as far to the right as possible. And I know people have problems with the BBC and with ITV and Sky and the rest, but they don't literally have news programme after news programme presented by hard right active political figures... this ought to be illegal under the broadcasting code, but for some reason it's not being enforced.

I would say GB News is the most “obvious” about its political leanings. As you say, there are clear indicators in the commentators it hires and the messaging it promotes, although they do make a point of separating their commentary and discussion segments from their news bulletins, the latter of which follow the standard ‘newsreader reading the news without additional comment’ format.

Channels like the BBC, ITV and increasingly Sky News are much less “in your face” with their agendas, but it permeates through their editorial decisions about which elements of the news they prioritise and which elements they downplay or choose not to report at all. It’s also there in their use of the techniques I described earlier in this thread to gently (or in some cases not so gently) steer the viewer’s interpretation of what they’re seeing and hearing, whilst still trying to retain the veneer of impartiality.

I don’t really have a problem with news channels that are very obvious about their political position, whether they’re ‘right wing’ or ‘left wing’. I think the danger (of deceiving the public) lies more in those channels that purport to be giving people an impartial view of the news when they’re actually doing no such thing, which leads neatly to the next point...

TV news should be politically neutral and impartial.

I think that’s practically impossible, because there’s a degree of bias – conscious or unconscious – in a person’s interpretation of any event, even if they are honestly trying their best to avoid it. As you’ve acknowledged, the interpretation of what might be ‘very right wing’, ‘very left wing’ or ‘neutral’ is itself subjective and will vary from editor to editor and viewer to viewer depending on their own starting position and view of the world. I’d actually prefer a range of news channels who are conscious and up front about their editorial position, like many newspapers, rather than broadcasters who lay dubious/false claim to being neutral/impartial.

[keldsyke]

I would say GB News is the most “obvious” about its political leanings. As you say, there are clear indicators in the commentators it hires and the messaging it promotes, although they do make a point of separating their commentary and discussion segments from their news bulletins, the latter of which follow the standard ‘newsreader reading the news without additional comment’ format.

Have to say I did a bit of channel hopping over to GB news this morning and I have to say it came across as fairly balanced and entertaining with those political big hitters Anne Diamond followed by Angela Rippon!! TBH it was quite refreshing from someone who thinks all political parties are as bad as each other, I'll pop across again I think, it was nice to see issues taken from a different angle the others won't touch.

[bule1]

Sitting and waiting for them to disrupt the F1, guess they are bound to try.

[Magpies1959]

Thanks jackal, you saved me a post which would have been identical in thoughts but not so eloquently put.

keldsyke, glad you found GB News refreshing, and not the far right fascist monster some on here like to see it as.

[bule1]

Just seen a GB news article trashing Lewis Hamilton on an emabarrasingly weak premise around racism and hypocrisy for having an opinion on climate change and environmental issues. Had an open mind on them before, but that sort of closes it for me.

[Notsohumblepie]

Just seen a GB news article trashing Lewis Hamilton on an emabarrasingly weak premise around racism and hypocrisy for having an opinion on climate change and environmental issues. Had an open mind on them before, but that sort of closes it for me.

Formula 1 teams spend over $500,000 per year on fuel. Development costs of the fuel could be between £1 million - £10 million per year ( forgive the mixed currencies). Any chance of using Crisp 'N' Dry instead Lewis ?

[Magpies1959]

So they have a different opinion to you on those issues and you cancel them. The idea that Lewis Hamilton has climate change concerns, while happily driving a petrol/oil guzzling four wheeled rocket ship is quite hilarious.

[bule1]

Formula 1 teams spend over $500,000 per year on fuel. Development costs of the fuel could be between £1 million - £10 million per year ( forgive the mixed currencies). Any chance of using Crisp 'N' Dry instead Lewis ?

F1 also have been instrumental in improving engine efficiency, developing lighter body and engine parts and improving driver safety parts. When compared to the huge number of cars on the road overall that have benfitted from these improvements I think it is a positive sport.

[keldsyke]

F1 also have been instrumental in improving engine efficiency, developing lighter body and engine parts and improving driver safety parts. When compared to the huge number of cars on the road overall that have benfitted from these improvements I think it is a positive sport.

Oh dear, really?

[bule1]

Oh dear, really?

In a word, yes.