atypical_boro
Well-known member
Only the truly impartial can judge really.I have no idea how anyone can see the BBC as impartial. I think I must live on a different planet to some of you lot.
And it depends on your definition of impartial.
Only the truly impartial can judge really.I have no idea how anyone can see the BBC as impartial. I think I must live on a different planet to some of you lot.
Removing RT from our screens is exactly the type of censorial move that we criticise others - usually Russia or China - for.
Agreed, When you've lived in a country where journalists are menaced by the police, thrown in jail for airing opinions we would regard as innocuous and routinely practice self-censorship as a consequence, then the set of a priori (cultural) assumptions that underlie BBC coverage seem small beer in comparison. I rail at them as much as the next man - especially their toadying posture with regard to the Royals - but ultimately they set the tone for a broadcast culture of factual reporting and assumed impartiality that I'm grateful for. Added to which, the range and depth of programming they commission and the creative sub-culture they have engendered is still admired and worth preserving. I'm not sure the licence fee is the right funding model - an element of subscription should probably be built in - but I think the BBC as a brand should not be watered down in the way that, say, the Post Office has. Like the NHS, it has a unique role in our shared culture we would be foolish to underestimate and even more foolish to lose. I would like to see it part-funded by a tax on all other media - which in terms of news output was obliged to adhere to its impartiality guidelines - and its public service element enshrined in legislation, its appointments handed to an independent body.Be careful what you wish for is my advice.
So all the elderly have to pay for programming, and educational content on the radio? In fact who's going to pay for radio? And world service giving news to areas that otherwise wouldn't get it? Adverts everywhere? No thanksFair comment Jed, but to me they are no different to any other state broadcaster.
It's just they force the population to pay whether they want it or not.
Make it pay-per view or subscription like Sky.
This is 2024, not 1922.
I can't either. Who said they did?I can’t remember Mi6 murdering and jailing RT journalists and presenters to be fair.
The people in his head?I can't either. Who said they did?
The bbc world service is though from the perspective you have regarding Russia todayIt’s not privately foreign owned though as an insidious attack on our democracy pretending to be a news channel.
Sorry there’s No comparison.
It is biased to the establishment.They abide by ofcom and are impartial in their news coverage despite what people think, the left say it’s biased and right say it’s biased so it must be doing something right.
As I say the alternative is far worse.
Nor is it 1984. At least in orwell's novel, intelligent people couldn't turn off the telebox.Sky News isn't PPV or subscription.
No one is forced to pay the licence fee if they don't want to watch live TV.
And you're right, its 2024 not 1922, and watching live TV (or not) is very much a choice now.
YouTube, like X, heavily censor content, particularly when it comes to various current events. They are similar to Google, where you have instant USA-oriented answers and have to dig deep to find what you want. It's interesting, but there are numerous other platforms around the world, which I find more useful than Google. But it's up to the individual. I try to avoid the “big” American — owned Corporations and use open-source like Ubuntu Linux. At least I don't have to pay Microsoft for their lousy updates and software. But hey ho, each to their own.Removing RT from our screens is exactly the type of censorial move that we criticise others - usually Russia or China - for.
Well, indeed. No one is forced to watch or pay for the BBC (or GBnews) and nowadays it is easier than ever to avoid any broadcaster if you choose.Nor is it 1984. At least in orwell's novel, intelligent people couldn't turn off the telebox.
One can still choose the 'truth' you receive, or cancel it.
It had to be done because some people just soak up - whatever - is put in front of them..Removing RT from our screens is exactly the type of censorial move that we criticise others - usually Russia or China - for.
Angry presenters for angry people. It's a global disease. I'd recommend The Age of Anger by Pankaj Mishra. One of the most illuminating books I've read in the past couple of decades, it traces the genesis of today's populist/nationalist ideologies from the failure of the self-creating myth of the Enlightenment through (particularly) the Rousseau-inspired volk nationalism of Germanic peoples humiliated by Napoleon but also analogous movements in Italy, the U.K, and especially the among the hurt colonised peoples of the East..Blimey, I had no idea Beverley Turner was presenting on there these days. I just Googled her and saw she was divorced from James Cracknell in 2019.
It got me thinking - the thing all these presenters, regular guests and general crackpots invited to speak on this news platform have in common is their unhappiness. It’s a theme. People like Fox, now Turner, that BBC travel bloke, Dorries, Wootton, etc, they’re all miserable as f*ck. Nasty, bitter and broken by everything from divorce, to losing their main job and the status it brings, to losing custody of the kids, whatever life-altering thing it may be, they end up channeling their anger and bile through this news channel.
It’s amazing it exists isn’t really but the problem isn’t so much that, it’s that people watch it and some of them even take it at face value. But another big problem is that the main news outlets constantly report on it as if it’s a serious thing, which lends it a legitimacy it doesn’t deserve. You get reports in the Guardian or BBC or the Times or on Radio 4 about something that was said on there and you think, yeah but if you lot weren’t reporting on this stuff with such vigour then the only people who’d know about it would be the 2,000 gammon-headed buffoons and their wives who watched it when it was broadcast.
It’s akin to reading a YouTube comments section and reporting it as important, newsworthy information.
If RT “had zero credibility” why did YouTube and other vested interests ban it?It had to be done because some people just soak up - whatever - is put in front of them..
RT had zero credibility, I even - post Crimea though pre Ukraine - recall a mate saying he trusted Putin more than a western politician.. ( as crap as many of ours are, you don't get locked up or killed for calling ours idiots or worse )