|
We can't have watched £5 worth of the state broadaster's output over the last 5 years, it's now too politically biased, though its hardly alone in that, it has C4 and lots of the MSM for company.
We had family round for dinner a few weeks ago, it had been so long since the telly was switched on in our main room (wanted summat to keep kids entertained) that it took me nearly 20 minutes to reboot the Humax and work out how the sound system worked and get the right input for the telly.
TV and almost all mainstream radio has gone so far down the same road we can barely bring ourselves to watch anything bar Netflix and Youtube.
|
it's now too politically biased,
Is it biased though or just not agree with your thoughts?
Also the BBC is not a state broadcaster.
Edited by alan1302 on 20/02/2018 at 13:15
|
|
The BBC is regularly criticised by the right as being pro-left and by the left as being pro-right.
Maybe that suggests it's getting things somewhere near where they should be.
|
|
It certainly tries. Sometimes it drifts one way or the other but I dont think it's on purpose.
|
|
|
The BBC is regularly criticised by the right as being pro-left and by the left as being pro-right.
Maybe that suggests it's getting things somewhere near where they should be.
No - its criticised by the (far) left (though far, far less often than by the 'right') for not being 'left enough'. There is a difference - all those of a right-of-centre (or at least not hard left) want is a 'level playing field' and honest, truthful journalism that doesn't start with a bias before reporting. In my opinion, that's not what we're getting and haven't been for decades.
|
The BBC is regularly criticised by the right as being pro-left and by the left as being pro-right.
Maybe that suggests it's getting things somewhere near where they should be.
In my opinion, that's not what we're getting and haven't been for decades.
Any examples you can think of?
|
The BBC is regularly criticised by the right as being pro-left and by the left as being pro-right.
Maybe that suggests it's getting things somewhere near where they should be.
In my opinion, that's not what we're getting and haven't been for decades.
Any examples you can think of?
Pretty much all their news programmes for the last few years, with particular emphasis on climate change, the NHS and Brexit.
|
The BBC is regularly criticised by the right as being pro-left and by the left as being pro-right.
Maybe that suggests it's getting things somewhere near where they should be.
In my opinion, that's not what we're getting and haven't been for decades.
Any examples you can think of?
Pretty much all their news programmes for the last few years, with particular emphasis on climate change, the NHS and Brexit.
Also the big coverage of the (very likely) false allegations by (IMO) known fantasists against VIPs who just happen to lean on the right of centre politically, such as Ted Heath, Harvey Proctor, that former Army chief (whose name escapes me), Cliff Richard (they were 'on the spot when his home was 'raided' as they seemed, in my view, in cahoots with the Police [who IMO seemed very eager to help]), and yet there's very little, if any, coverage of the Current allegations against Corbyn and his 'contacts' with Soviet spies (never mind all his others with terrorist groups, not just in the distant past), which isn't just trivial, given he could be (God help us) PM.
Lots more - I could write a ten page article on this if I had the time to spare - as galileo's post, this is just a flavour of the carp that they spout and obvious (they now don't even bother to deny it or cover it up any more) SJW agenda they now peddle. Perhaps if they didn't waste so much time, effort and thus money on such things, they might some more for better quality programming, including sport.
|
The BBC is regularly criticised by the right as being pro-left and by the left as being pro-right.
Maybe that suggests it's getting things somewhere near where they should be.
In my opinion, that's not what we're getting and haven't been for decades.
Any examples you can think of?
Pretty much all their news programmes for the last few years, with particular emphasis on climate change, the NHS and Brexit.
Also the big coverage of the (very likely) false allegations by (IMO) known fantasists against VIPs who just happen to lean on the right of centre politically, such as Ted Heath, Harvey Proctor, that former Army chief (whose name escapes me), Cliff Richard (they were 'on the spot when his home was 'raided' as they seemed, in my view, in cahoots with the Police [who IMO seemed very eager to help]), and yet there's very little, if any, coverage of the Current allegations against Corbyn and his 'contacts' with Soviet spies (never mind all his others with terrorist groups, not just in the distant past), which isn't just trivial, given he could be (God help us) PM.
Lots more - I could write a ten page article on this if I had the time to spare - as galileo's post, this is just a flavour of the carp that they spout and obvious (they now don't even bother to deny it or cover it up any more) SJW agenda they now peddle. Perhaps if they didn't waste so much time, effort and thus money on such things, they might some more for better quality programming, including sport.
This is what I've mentioned further up - the bias you say the BBC has basically means that you don't agree with something they report and call it a bias.
There are 3 articles on the Corbyn + radio and TV mentions...how many articles do you want? Is that because you want more articles to try and discredit him as you dislike him? Or does it show a bias?
|
|
|
Also the big coverage of the (very likely) false allegations by (IMO) known fantasists against VIPs who just happen to lean on the right of centre politically, such as Ted Heath, Harvey Proctor, that former Army chief (whose name escapes me), Cliff Richard (they were 'on the spot when his home was 'raided' as they seemed, in my view, in cahoots with the Police [who IMO seemed very eager to help]), and yet there's very little, if any, coverage of the Current allegations against Corbyn and his 'contacts' with Soviet spies (never mind all his others with terrorist groups, not just in the distant past), which isn't just trivial, given he could be (God help us) PM.
The allegations against Heath were such that, were he still alive, the police would have wanted to interview him. Anyone with an iota of knowledge of Heath's view of Proctor and vice versa would know they were not not going to be kiddy fiddling in same space and time. That does not preclude possibility of prima facie believable allegations aginst either or both.
With both Cliff and the Army chap it's unfortunately the case that allegations aginst Savile, Cyril Smith and others that have susequently proved founded covered up and/or a Nelsonian eye turned that the pendulum had to swing the other way. I think everydody accepts that allowing the BBC to cover the raid in Cliff's home was a mistake. But it's been done before - Maxwells for example - and I doubt ITV or Sky would have turned the gig down if it were offered.
As has already pointed out the BBC has reported the allegations against Corbyn viv a vis the Czech agent. Though what state secrets a junior back bencher who routinely pee'd off his leadership and the whips might have known is a complete mystery.
As for meeting Irish Terrorists these were the same people who'd had contacts either face to face or through back channels with the UK government going back as far as Heath. Subsequent events where McGuinness, Adams and others were invited into the tent pretty much bear out Corbyn's long held view that dialogue and addressing the concerns that fed support of violent republicanism was the way forward.
You could say the same for Palestinians. It's pretty much impossible to find a legitimate spokesperson (ie a person the Palestinians themselves regard as their representative) who is not labelled a terrorist by the current government in Tel Aviv. Until world powers, principally the US, are prepared to hold Netanyahu's feet to the fire to implement treaties his country has previously signed the Palestine issue will fester with the rest of the Muslim world and fuel anti-western sentiment.
|
|
|
|
|
Pretty much all their news programmes for the last few years, with particular emphasis on climate change, the NHS and Brexit.
Climate change (man made) exists - there is a clear scientific consensus for that. Or do you mean the absurd time give to 'experts' like Lord Lawson, Christopher Monkton and James Delingpole in the name of balance?
There are problems in the NHS and the BBC reports them.
Brexit? The BBC were punctilious in giving equal time during the referendum which gave the £350m for the NHS lie the oxygen of publicity.
|
Pretty much all their news programmes for the last few years, with particular emphasis on climate change, the NHS and Brexit.
Climate change (man made) exists - there is a clear scientific consensus for that. Or do you mean the absurd time give to 'experts' like Lord Lawson, Christopher Monkton and James Delingpole in the name of balance?
Never gave Christopher Booker any airtime, nor the reputable scientists he quotes regarding 'adjusted' historice records
There are problems in the NHS and the BBC reports them.
Agreed, but the NHS is a bottomless money pit as long as everything is free, including multiple attempts at IVF treatment. Priority shoud be given to physical illness, rather than encouraging such demands.
The NHS has needed a re-think on financing for many years, consider what it was set up for in 1948 and what it is 'expected' to do now. Other Governments have kicked this can down the road for decades, yet the BBC implies it is all the fault of the wicked Tories.
Brexit? The BBC were punctilious in giving equal time during the referendum which gave the £350m for the NHS lie the oxygen of publicity.
The BBC engaged with 'Project Fear' with great enthusiasm and still gleefully dwell on any negative claims regarding the possible effects from doom-monger civil servants, remainer MPs, the CBI and the blackmailing, bullying EU spokesmen.
Somehow I am not surprised this is not your view (but this used to be a country where speech and opinion were free, so that is your privilege, as mine is to disagree).
Edited by galileo on 22/02/2018 at 17:14
|
(but this used to be a country where speech and opinion were free,
When did that change then?
|
Never gave Christopher Booker any airtime, nor the reputable scientists he quotes regarding 'adjusted' historice records
Who are these reputable scientists?
Agreed, but the NHS is a bottomless money pit as long as everything is free, including multiple attempts at IVF treatment. Priority shoud be given to physical illness, rather than encouraging such demands.
Th whole point is that health care is free at point of demand. Without getting into relative merits, what propotion of NHS spend is taken up with multiple attempts at IVF? The main driver of increasing demand is an aging population who expect to be kept alive and active. If 'physical illness' is a priority where does that leave Mental Health?
yet the BBC implies it is all the fault of the wicked Tories.
Really?
The BBC engaged with 'Project Fear' with great enthusiasm and still gleefully dwell on any negative claims regarding the possible effects from doom-monger civil servants, remainer MPs, the CBI and the blackmailing, bullying EU spokesmen
Project fear in one form or another about consequences of economic or socail change has been the Tories policy since time imemorial. It's modern version having served then well in GEs in 2010 and 15 and the Scottish Referendum. It's no surprise they used it again in the referendum. In reality a more positive message about gains in deprived areas of UK and stuff affecting ordinary people like roaming on mobiles and opportunity for children to study or work in Europe would have been more profitable.
Somehow I am not surprised this is not your view (but this used to be a country where speech and opinion were free, so that is your privilege, as mine is to disagree).
There's no change whatever. This is still a country where speech and opinion are free. Do you think differently?
|
Somehow I am not surprised this is not your view (but this used to be a country where speech and opinion were free, so that is your privilege, as mine is to disagree).
There's no change whatever. This is still a country where speech and opinion are free. Do you think differently?
Have you not noticed the abuse and death threats received by numbers of MPs and others who have made statements the hard left/remainers/LBGT disagree with?
Have you not noticed the "no-Platforming" of speakers that spineless universities have thought would "offend" the student audience?
Thought not, there are none so blind as those who do not want to see.
|
|
God help us if JR-M ever becomes PM is all I can say.
|
Somehow I am not surprised this is not your view (but this used to be a country where speech and opinion were free, so that is your privilege, as mine is to disagree).
There's no change whatever. This is still a country where speech and opinion are free. Do you think differently?
Have you not noticed the abuse and death threats received by numbers of MPs and others who have made statements the hard left/remainers/LBGT disagree with?
Have you not noticed the "no-Platforming" of speakers that spineless universities have thought would "offend" the student audience?
Thought not, there are none so blind as those who do not want to see.
So how does any of the above show the UK does not have freedom so speech?
How does some idiot sending a death threat to someone show that freedom of speech is now allowed?
A University limiting who they allow to speak is their freedom to choose who they allow at the university. Or should they not be free to choose?
|
Somehow I am not surprised this is not your view (but this used to be a country where speech and opinion were free, so that is your privilege, as mine is to disagree).
There's no change whatever. This is still a country where speech and opinion are free. Do you think differently?
Have you not noticed the abuse and death threats received by numbers of MPs and others who have made statements the hard left/remainers/LBGT disagree with?
Have you not noticed the "no-Platforming" of speakers that spineless universities have thought would "offend" the student audience?
Thought not, there are none so blind as those who do not want to see.
So how does any of the above show the UK does not have freedom so speech?
How does some idiot sending a death threat to someone show that freedom of speech is now allowed?
A University limiting who they allow to speak is their freedom to choose who they allow at the university. Or should they not be free to choose?
There are countries where speech is censored and dissidents jailed, leftists here are strident in criticising this as abuse of human rights, yet when the same happens here "the Universities have a right to choose" to prevent some views being heard.
An extension of the "all are equal, buit some are more equal than others" philosophy: if your views are politically correct you must be heard,, if not, you must be silenced.
Not a healthy trend, history shows where it can lead. (or is that the kind of comment which should not be made?)
Edited by galileo on 23/02/2018 at 13:59
|
|
The irony of those seeking to prevent the views of others being heard, whilst calling them fascist and a multitude of other 'ists, is strong here Obiwan.
I'd be proud to call Jacob Rees Mogg my Prime Minister, have to go back an awful long of years before i could honestly say that, those on the top rungs of the last 20 years have been little short of traitors, instead of counting their trousered £millions (and some still trying to subvert democracy) should be doing time in The Tower at Her Majesty's pleasure.
|
|
GB, I know your are an often and very much respected poster here, but how anyone can wish for JR-M as PM beggars belief. Please note I'm not saying any of the ones past or present are any good, but FCS!
|
GB, I know your are an often and very much respected poster here, but how anyone can wish for JR-M as PM beggars belief. Please note I'm not saying any of the ones past or present are any good, but FCS!
Absolutely, the idea that JR-M, no previous minsterial experience, is even though of as PM material indicates the shallow pool in which the Tory party is currently fishing. Having offered the prospect of Brexit, not for the country's good but to salce the party's own wounds they've still, 18 months after the referendum not the foggiest of consensus as what Brexit menans never mind how to deliver it.
Heard JR-M on the radio this morning crying crocodile tears for the poor and disadvantaged who would allegedly pay more for essential in EU than out. From a man who has voted for every benefit cut, inclusing £30 of ESA for people with serious illness including Cancer, and against any increase in higher rate tax the hyocrisy stinks.
|
|
Nick, where would one start.
Honesty, you ask him a question and he answers it, no dodging, no waffling for 20 minutes with the party line which arrived via the appropriate app, he gives his truthful answer.
Integrity, thay have nothing on this man, he straight, he's old fashioned, he's married and has lots of children and he makes no apology for not changing nappies, he doesn't get down with the yoof when it suits the cameras, thankfully, it is the ultimate embarrassment to see leading politicians prostituting themselves to garner votes.
He is posh, so what, he is rich, so what, he makes no apology for this and he is no hypocrit, the hypocrits in parliament are legion, all sides.
Check his expenses and living expense claims, to which he is entitled i might add, compare to others who trouser heavily.
Principle, he has his beliefs, when asked about them he doesn't quickly check twitter to see what way the wind is blowing, he states the honest truth about his views, and he doesn't immediately apologise like some whipped boy when the twitterati blow a fuse and make a storm in response, no, he sticks to his beliefs, a man of complete principle and honour there, we haven't had many of those in parliament for a hell of along time, the vast majority blow like candles in the wind.
Patriot, i don't need to say anything else, one is either a patriot or one is not, Rees-Mogg is, genuinely.
Wise, for a relatively young man he has an almost genius intellect and his knowledge is vast, yet he is always but always polite and respectful to anyone who is arguing against him, including reporters who are sometimes patronising bordering on hostile.
However one sees the steel in the man when he deals with those who should know and behave better, when on a committee asking questions (eg questioning Mike Carney, BoE), he's straight and there is no messing about, fudged answers are not accepted by Mogg, he doesn't waffle answers and he doesn't accept any in return, one could call him the most polite and honourable verbal assassin in the country, this is the sort of man we need as leader of the country.
This is but a taster, i could go on all day about the Mogg.
By the way i haven't voted Conservative for probably 25 years, because i haven't had a conservative party to vote for, neither have i voted labour because the labour party is no longer the party of the working man, and thats what i am a working man, i could never vote liberal, i did vote UKIP at one time but that's now been destroyed mostly by trojan infiltrators...the last general election neither i or my wife voted because there was no party worth voting for, it was unecessary anway, but i honestly believe May wanted to lose so they could blame the destruction and reversal of Brexit on Corbyn, the May govt is so incompetent they couldn't even manage to lose competently.
If JRM becomes the leader of the conservative party i will not only vote conservative with pride, i will also join the party, otherwise its entirely possible we will never vote again, i flatly refuse to vote against someone because the least worse is preferable, i want to vote positively for something once again.
|
|
Oh dear. I'm almost beginning to understand why Trump got voted in.
|
Oh dear. I'm almost beginning to understand why Trump got voted in.
Trump got voted in because voters were fed up of the politicians they had and wanted a change. Just as 17+ million ordinary voters here wanted a change, and did not follow the guidance that MPs, the CBI, the Chancellor had given: there is a disconnect between those at the top and many of the general public, a lack of genuine understanding of what life is like for the ordinary man and woman.
GB has pointed out that Jacob R-M appears to be decent, honest and principled, I was impressed by the way he tried to engage with Rentamob protesters, instead of avoiding them (not that it did him much good, those with closed minds will not debate in a civilised manner)
When I was at University, we had debates in the Student Union, sometimes with external speakers: opposing views were expressed, sometimes with passion, but never a howling mob drowning out and intimidating a speaker, which unfortunately has been reported as occurring in recent months.
We need tolerance for others, instead our society is polarising, with hate being shown by one division for the other. Rational debate is needed, not the fixed belief that 'your' views are correct and anyone who disagrees is evil.
|
|
Trump got voted in because he told the voters what they wanted to hear, made the impression they wanted to see, struck the right poses and made the right gestures, with precious little about policies or how they were to be achieved. He was also deliberately aggressive and divisive. His election also says a great deal about the naivety of many American voters.
Though you couldn't put Rees-Mogg in the same category, I'm afraid I curl up in despair when I read that he is honest and principled, and wise and patriotic, gives straight answers and makes no apologies for not changing nappies, and that somehow he is more wholesome than brown bread. It seems almost like a cult of personality - a personality that is virtually a caricature.
I am deeply suspicious of someone who makes a big issue about being old-fashioned, is extremely conservative in his views and seems out of touch with the everyday. To be specific: his anti-gay and anti-abortion views are anachronistic and repulsive, and his indifference to climate change alarming, as is his attitude to foreign aid.
I am also deeply suspicious of someone who takes religion seriously enough for you to think it might affect his decision-making - it was bad enough when Blair got into that.
The worst aspect of it all is that it is mainly because his eighteenth-century views and manners have been so seized upon by the press as being egregiously newsworthy that he has become fixed in people's minds as someone significant. In different circumstances, he would be quietly forgotten as a bizarre nobody.
And one of the problems is that the Tories seems to have no-one of any weight, conviction or personality as an alternative.
|
Have you not noticed the abuse and death threats received by numbers of MPs and others who have made statements the hard left/remainers/LBGT disagree with?
There have always been a minority who will throw abuse and death threats around. To suggest they are solely the preserve of 'hard left/remainers/LBGT' is utter, utter nonesense. Those in the Tory party like Anna Soubry, who remain of the view that Brexit is a mistake have been in the front line for this stuff.
You know as well as I do the political leanings of Jo Cox's murderer
Have you not noticed the "no-Platforming" of speakers that spineless universities have thought would "offend" the student audience?
I'm not in favour of no platforming as I'd prefer barmy views, either way, to be exposed and argued down. It's not new though is it ? It goes back at least as far as Mosely in the thirites.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 24/02/2018 at 09:47
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
