|
Post by Mr Stabby on Feb 6, 2024 20:05:24 GMT
Jim saying the BBC is truthful and unbiased is like Vladimir or Sergei saying Radio Moscow is truthful and unbiased. The BBC is the Government's propaganda department. you have a right to your opinion, but it doesn't outweigh fact. I wonder why the BBC doesn't agree with you. So my facts are merely opinions whereas your opinions are facts? And do you really expect the BBC to agree that they are a partisan broadcaster representing the view of UK Government? They are no different to Voice of America, Al-Jazeera, Radio Moscow or the North Korea state broadcaster, they promote their Government's viewpoint.
|
|
|
Post by fi on Feb 6, 2024 20:09:39 GMT
you have a right to your opinion, but it doesn't outweigh fact. I wonder why the BBC doesn't agree with you. So my facts are merely opinions whereas your opinions are facts? And do you really expect the BBC to agree that they are a partisan broadcaster representing the view of UK Government? They are no different to Voice of America, Al-Jazeera, Radio Moscow or the North Korea state broadcaster, they promote their Government's viewpoint. They don't seem to promote Rwanda as a solution - remind me, does our current Government agree?
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Feb 6, 2024 21:54:23 GMT
you have a right to your opinion, but it doesn't outweigh fact. I wonder why the BBC doesn't agree with you. So my facts are merely opinions whereas your opinions are facts? And do you really expect the BBC to agree that they are a partisan broadcaster representing the view of UK Government? They are no different to Voice of America, Al-Jazeera, Radio Moscow or the North Korea state broadcaster, they promote their Government's viewpoint. It's interesting that you compare Al-Jazeera to Voice of America; it just serves to highlight that you have merely heard of it while sinking ever more deeply into your edgelord persona of increasing years.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 7, 2024 9:34:37 GMT
you have a right to your opinion, but it doesn't outweigh fact. I wonder why the BBC doesn't agree with you. So my facts are merely opinions whereas your opinions are facts? And do you really expect the BBC to agree that they are a partisan broadcaster representing the view of UK Government? They are no different to Voice of America, Al-Jazeera, Radio Moscow or the North Korea state broadcaster, they promote their Government's viewpoint. Still not gone to Barnard Castle I see, it would be a nice trip on the velo. of all the news broadcasters you quote the bbc is the most respected worldwide, though not by old gimmers in coffin boats. What news source do you consider truthful then? I see you are claiming the bbc is tory when they are in power, socialist when labour are, yet some of the other tory gimmers on here say it's currently the opposite, a nest of socialists and liberals refusing to support rishi in his efforts to do the country down while lining his mates pockets.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Feb 7, 2024 10:25:18 GMT
News used to report events at home and around the world.
We were permitted to draw our own conclusions based on what we heard and our own political leaning and prejudices.
A person sat at a desk reading from a list of events.
Unfortunately the news has now become just another 'show' with journalistic and political opinions reported with equal credibility with simple reporting of events.
A person with a microphone standing in splendid isolation 'live at the scene' now tells us what conclusions we are supposed to draw.
The 'political editor' is then given time in the studio to explain their opinion.
And the whole 'show' is concocted based on the views of whichever editor is in charge of filling the half hour.
I don't think the BBC is anymore reliable or truthful than any other broadcaster ... in fact many recent incidents demonstrate so.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Feb 7, 2024 10:32:18 GMT
The rank and file of the beeb are, in the old tongue, right on, and have been so for many a year. If you want to be uncharitable (and I'm sure many here do) then you could even say woke.
It would be delicious to see all upper management asked to state their political affiliations though.
I find the worst thing about the Beeb's coverage, although it is of course it's strength, is that it scrupulously avoids speculation and opinion, unless the item is clearly an editorial or the like. This often forces one to get the gos from The Daily Tory.
My other pet hate is that news articles often begin with 'the BBC has learnt..' or 'the BBC understands...' or similar. They sure are very learned and understanding.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Feb 7, 2024 11:36:59 GMT
News used to report events at home and around the world. We were permitted to draw our own conclusions based on what we heard and our own political leaning and prejudices. A person sat at a desk reading from a list of events. Unfortunately the news has now become just another 'show' with journalistic and political opinions reported with equal credibility with simple reporting of events. A person with a microphone standing in splendid isolation 'live at the scene' now tells us what conclusions we are supposed to draw. The 'political editor' is then given time in the studio to explain their opinion. And the whole 'show' is concocted based on the views of whichever editor is in charge of filling the half hour. I don't think the BBC is anymore reliable or truthful than any other broadcaster ... in fact many recent incidents demonstrate so. Rog We're fairly much polar opposites in our perceptions of the beeb. Since I never watch it live, and rarely listen to the radio these days, my consumption of its output is entirely through the website. Maybe this accounts for it. The next time you read an article that is clearly biased, how about you flag it up? For my edification. 🙂
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Feb 7, 2024 11:49:34 GMT
I didn't say biased ... I said they no longer report events alone.
A simple example would be the 'news' our King has been diagnosed with cancer and is undergoing treatment with (at this stage) a positive prognosis.
That took seconds.
However the reports have gone on and on with opinions being expressed by anyone who's ever walked by him telling us what they think, how his family may feel, what this could mean for our constitution, and what treatments may exist for his type of cancer whatever that is.
Not biased just dumb.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Feb 7, 2024 12:00:13 GMT
Ok the beeb fawns over the bludy royals. This sucks but it seems they still enjoy a majority popular support. It's not a terribly contentious issue though, unless one is hoping for bloody insurrection, I suppose.
Is there an article or subject of a political nature which is, in your opinion, blatantly partisan?
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Feb 7, 2024 12:40:57 GMT
Poor old Jim considers himself 'progressive' but, many years on, tries to perpetuate dinosuar Labour vs Tory and left vs right arguments.
One day he might wake up and realise that the modern day arguments are between globalists and those who believe that a more sustainable future will come about with a reduction in global interdependence.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Feb 7, 2024 15:16:25 GMT
So my facts are merely opinions whereas your opinions are facts? And do you really expect the BBC to agree that they are a partisan broadcaster representing the view of UK Government? They are no different to Voice of America, Al-Jazeera, Radio Moscow or the North Korea state broadcaster, they promote their Government's viewpoint. of all the news broadcasters you quote the bbc is the most respected worldwide, And who told you that?
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Feb 7, 2024 15:59:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Feb 7, 2024 18:07:20 GMT
Ok the beeb fawns over the bludy royals. This sucks but it seems they still enjoy a majority popular support. But this is exactly how State sanctioned propaganda works. There has been plenty in the BBC news about King Charles' stay in hospital but nothing about Dogless's brother's stay in hospital. That's to let you plebs know that King Charles is more important than Dogless's brother.
|
|
|
Post by fi on Feb 7, 2024 18:32:04 GMT
Would you really expect any news organisation to comment on Dogless's brother?
(I hope he is getting well looked after - Dogless)
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Feb 7, 2024 18:49:10 GMT
Ok the beeb fawns over the bludy royals. This sucks but it seems they still enjoy a majority popular support. But this is exactly how State sanctioned propaganda works. There has been plenty in the BBC news about King Charles' stay in hospital but nothing about Dogless's brother's stay in hospital. That's to let you plebs know that King Charles is more important than Dogless's brother. Certainly more well known. I'm no fan of the monarchy but I'm sure even you would concede that the King having cancer is, at the least, a news item. Were Dogless' bro famous I'm sure there would be some column inches about him as well. But he isn't and there is not. TBH it's a pathetic argument. Incidentally, when you compare the BBC's coverage of things royal with the Daily Fail it pales into insignificance. Sometimes such stories comprise 50% of the entire stinking dogpile. Oh dear. He just isn't done yet.
|
|