|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Apr 9, 2015 20:14:47 GMT 1
Yes, yes I do.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2015 21:33:41 GMT 1
If you'd have paid attention, I don't buy any newspapers due to political bias. The Gaurdian is about as impartial as The Daily Mail and it's comments should be treated with the same disdain that socialists pour out to anyone who dares to read a right of centre paper. The problem with UK politics is that most of it is aired through biased media, to people who can't think for themselves. Thank god for the independent BBC. Although some would argue it's left and right at times - it's the sort of impartiality that many in other countries would crave. "The independant BBC". ?! I presume that's an ironic comment and not serious? order-order.com/2010/09/07/bbc-is-the-guardianistas-broadcasting-arm/#_@/qo0NjOESB_jxJA |
|
|
|
Post by gledholt terrier on Apr 9, 2015 21:57:10 GMT 1
Guido Fawkes rofl3m  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2015 22:02:53 GMT 1
Guido Fawkes. Saw that pillock on the news presenting the Clarkson petition...
But hey ho, he has the money to hire a tank (& presumably the influence or ignorance to be able to flout traffic regs) rather than just roll up in a taxi and have it filmed...
Marcus - I don't actually think you've answered any Q posed at you factually, just tried to brush things off Farage style. I expect your head will be in bits by the 7th May if you have to keep this charade going...
|
|
|
|
Post by The King's Head 1230 on Apr 9, 2015 22:24:19 GMT 1
Dean Hoyle for PM
Now delete this thread everyone in politics pisses in the same pot.
Cast your vote by purchasing a season ticket. UTT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2015 22:35:11 GMT 1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2015 22:56:08 GMT 1
At least you've stopped your bizarre banking theories... |
|
|
|
Post by gledholt terrier on Apr 9, 2015 23:05:57 GMT 1
At least you've stopped your bizarre banking theories... I think Kings Head has it right - time to wrap up. Marcus has come full circle and back to Auntie Beeb which was tiresome the first time round. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 0:08:37 GMT 1
Why don't you twaddle off to the US and watch the wholly independent Fox News instead. I'm sure they'd adore your theories. |
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Apr 10, 2015 0:23:03 GMT 1
He isn't claiming there isn't right wing bias in media outlets. Hes laughing at the suggestion the BBC is independent - which hes right to IMO as it has always had a distinct left wing agenda.
Of course if you agree with a particular media sources agenda, its easy to think they are independent and just 'telling it how it is', as you've just proved maybe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 0:32:52 GMT 1
The BBC has a much greater middle class, London bias than either left or right.
There's no such thing as being unbiased anyway. Every individual producer and presenter has their own set. I'd say the BBC's political output is largely a weak sort of One Nation Toryism of the sceptical Paxman/Andrew Neil variety.
What I find striking is the kids output; sadly I tend to watch much more of that these days. It's certainly a proselytiser for multicultural values that even gets under my skin.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 1:03:14 GMT 1
Why don't you twaddle off to the US and watch the wholly independent Fox News instead. I'm sure they'd adore your theories. If you actually watch the News shows on Fox they are as balanced as you will see anywhere. The opinion shows are a different matter. I just wish they did more straight news. NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN all slant heavily left in all their programming. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 1:16:03 GMT 1
Why don't you twaddle off to the US and watch the wholly independent Fox News instead. I'm sure they'd adore your theories. If you actually watch the News shows on Fox they are as balanced as you will see anywhere. The opinion shows are a different matter. I just wish they did more straight news. NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN all slant heavily left in all their programming. It rather depends where you mark the centre as. In the countries of the West, those channels would only ever be called leftist in the US. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 1:47:13 GMT 1
If you actually watch the News shows on Fox they are as balanced as you will see anywhere. The opinion shows are a different matter. I just wish they did more straight news. NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN all slant heavily left in all their programming. It rather depends where you mark the centre as. In the countries of the West, those channels would only ever be called leftist in the US. Let me put it another way that is not as open to interpretation. If you watch the actual news with Shepherd Smith on Fox News you will see both sides of every story. If you watch the others I mentioned you will only see one perspective. If you really want to know what is going on you need to watch different sources for your news, gather as many facts as you can and make your own mind up independent of party line. Then you can consider yourself an independent thinker. Anyone that tows the party line on everything is nothing but a sheep who can not think for themselves. That applies to anyone regardless of what end of the political spectrum they fall on. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 1:57:38 GMT 1
It rather depends where you mark the centre as. In the countries of the West, those channels would only ever be called leftist in the US. Let me put it another way that is not as open to interpretation. If you watch the actual news with Shepherd Smith on Fox News you will see both sides of every story. If you watch the others I mentioned you will only see one perspective. If you really want to know what is going on you need to watch different sources for your news, gather as many facts as you can and make your own mind up independent of party line. Then you can consider yourself an independent thinker. Anyone that tows the party line on everything is nothing but a sheep who can not think for themselves. I only tend to watch them when miserably stuck in a foreign hotel room, and even then am only passingly interested in the foreign affairs stuff, and mostly it makes my draw drop in outrage as often as Russia Today does. Framing the narrative is a large part of how our media is managed. No US news source ever refers to Israel-Palestine with reference to Balfour or Sykes-Picot as a genuine leftist would do. I doubt any of Murdoch's enterprises have a distinctive editorial view - they're simply not allowed. I remember all 175 of his "independent" worldwide newspapers and TV channels backing the Iraq War, for instance. However, I simply don't consume enough of the content to have a substantive view of the domestic US TV news market. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 11:23:02 GMT 1
Why don't you twaddle off to the US and watch the wholly independent Fox News instead. I'm sure they'd adore your theories. I presume you read my post a few back saying I wont buy newspapers because I don't like the obvious political slant. I hold the Daily Mail with the same disdain as The Guardian. They are both as bad as each other. And trying to pretend the BBC is unbiased, which was the point I was making, shows incredible naivety whether you like it or not. It was shown earlier on in this thread how the BBC spend the vast majority of it's recruiting advertising in probably what is the furthest left media mouthpiece in the mainstream media, both online and in print. It's hardly a well kept secret that the BBC mentality is heavily slanted to the left. I'm amazed you forgot that part of this thread. I do wonder with all this mud being slung from right to left and vice versa, if people will get so fed up and put their vote elsewhere. Who do you think will benefit most? Lib-Dem, Greens, UKIP? It looks like the SNP will dominate north of the border, which could be interesting. Sturgeon is already talking about another sodding referendum. If this was to happen and they got their way this time, then the SNP could not be part of a (what's left of) UK government. |
|
|
|
Post by gledholt terrier on Apr 10, 2015 11:39:13 GMT 1
Why don't you twaddle off to the US and watch the wholly independent Fox News instead. I'm sure they'd adore your theories. I presume you read my post a few back saying I wont buy newspapers because I don't like the obvious political slant. I hold the Daily Mail with the same disdain as The Guardian. They are both as bad as each other. And trying to pretend the BBC is unbiased, which was the point I was making, shows incredible naivety whether you like it or not. It was shown earlier on in this thread how the BBC spend the vast majority of it's recruiting advertising in probably what is the furthest left media mouthpiece in the mainstream media, both online and in print. It's hardly a well kept secret that the BBC mentality is heavily slanted to the left. I'm amazed you forgot that part of this thread. I do wonder with all this mud being slung from right to left and vice versa, if people will get so fed up and put their vote elsewhere. Who do you think will benefit most? Lib-Dem, Greens, UKIP? It looks like the SNP will dominate north of the border, which could be interesting. Sturgeon is already talking about another sodding referendum. If this was to happen and they got their way this time, then the SNP could not be part of a (what's left of) UK government. And you seem to have forgotten that this oft quoted but specious argument was debunked. Let me remind you. The Guardian publishes what is considered THE supplement for the advertising of media jobs. It is utilised by all parts of the media, right, left and centre and is pretty much a required resource for anybody looking for media vacancies (in an industry that is inherently transient). Other than for specialist areas of the media, no other paper has such a niche. In a similar vein, if you are in education, the place to go to search for jobs in that sector is the Times Education Supplement. Teachers - Tories to a man! It is impossible for any organisation to be demonstrably impartial, and, even if they were, everyone looking in does so through their own prism (some more distorted than others). However, and unlike the US where Reagan dismantled media fairness, there are remedies for and scrutiny of unreasonable bias. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 12:30:34 GMT 1
I presume you read my post a few back saying I wont buy newspapers because I don't like the obvious political slant. I hold the Daily Mail with the same disdain as The Guardian. They are both as bad as each other. And trying to pretend the BBC is unbiased, which was the point I was making, shows incredible naivety whether you like it or not. It was shown earlier on in this thread how the BBC spend the vast majority of it's recruiting advertising in probably what is the furthest left media mouthpiece in the mainstream media, both online and in print. It's hardly a well kept secret that the BBC mentality is heavily slanted to the left. I'm amazed you forgot that part of this thread. I do wonder with all this mud being slung from right to left and vice versa, if people will get so fed up and put their vote elsewhere. Who do you think will benefit most? Lib-Dem, Greens, UKIP? It looks like the SNP will dominate north of the border, which could be interesting. Sturgeon is already talking about another sodding referendum. If this was to happen and they got their way this time, then the SNP could not be part of a (what's left of) UK government. And you seem to have forgotten that this oft quoted but specious argument was debunked.
Let me remind you. The Guardian publishes what is considered THE supplement for the advertising of media jobs. It is utilised by all parts of the media, right, left and centre and is pretty much a required resource for anybody looking for media vacancies (in an industry that is inherently transient). Other than for specialist areas of the media, no other paper has such a niche. In a similar vein, if you are in education, the place to go to search for jobs in that sector is the Times Education Supplement. Teachers - Tories to a man! It is impossible for any organisation to be demonstrably impartial, and, even if they were, everyone looking in does so through their own prism (some more distorted than others). However, and unlike the US where Reagan dismantled media fairness, there are remedies for and scrutiny of unreasonable bias. No it wasn't, it was shouted down by the left wing fascists as do all other opinions which don't meet their left wing agenda. Trying to pretend that the whole reason the advertising budget was mainly with the Guardian because it's the main source of media jobs, is ignoring the fact that the only reason there's a bigger media jobs section in the Guardian, is that the countries biggest media employer chooses to recruit almost exclusively in terms of money spent, from the furthest left media outlet in the mainstream press. It's like a chicken or egg situation and certainly not a recruiting process which will bring impartiality to the publicly funded BBC. To show impartiality, the BBC needs to be advertising to the same effort in equally biased right wing media too. Did you actually read any of the quotes from the site I linked to from former BBC employees? It seems like a common attitude with socialists, shout down, mock and supress the opposition viewpoint, without offering any viable alternative. This describes fascism to a T. |
|
|
|
Post by gledholt terrier on Apr 10, 2015 12:53:56 GMT 1
And you seem to have forgotten that this oft quoted but specious argument was debunked.
Let me remind you. The Guardian publishes what is considered THE supplement for the advertising of media jobs. It is utilised by all parts of the media, right, left and centre and is pretty much a required resource for anybody looking for media vacancies (in an industry that is inherently transient). Other than for specialist areas of the media, no other paper has such a niche. In a similar vein, if you are in education, the place to go to search for jobs in that sector is the Times Education Supplement. Teachers - Tories to a man! It is impossible for any organisation to be demonstrably impartial, and, even if they were, everyone looking in does so through their own prism (some more distorted than others). However, and unlike the US where Reagan dismantled media fairness, there are remedies for and scrutiny of unreasonable bias. No it wasn't, it was shouted down by the left wing fascists as do all other opinions which don't meet their left wing agenda. Trying to pretend that the whole reason the advertising budget was mainly with the Guardian because it's the main source of media jobs, is ignoring the fact that the only reason there's a bigger media jobs section in the Guardian, is that the countries biggest media employer chooses to recruit almost exclusively in terms of money spent, from the furthest left media outlet in the mainstream press. It's like a chicken or egg situation and certainly not a recruiting process which will bring impartiality to the publicly funded BBC. To show impartiality, the BBC needs to be advertising to the same effort in equally biased right wing media too. Did you actually read any of the quotes from the site I linked to from former BBC employees? It seems like a common attitude with socialists, shout down, mock and supress the opposition viewpoint, without offering any viable alternative. This describes fascism to a T. Well, you have a unique debating style, I'll give you that - ranting about people "shouting down" your opinions! Anyway, back in the world of reality and, you know, facts, it isn't just that there is a "bigger media jobs section in the Guardian", it is that it is THE place people look for media jobs, regardless of their political persuasion. Nobody else in the mainstream national press even tries (the Telegraph effectively dropped their media jobs advertising some years ago) Placing adverts in places people don't look would be a colossal waste of license payer money. People looking for media jobs don't care what political persuasion the paper has (hence my example of The TES) - they go to the place where they know jobs will be advertised. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 13:02:14 GMT 1
No it wasn't, it was shouted down by the left wing fascists as do all other opinions which don't meet their left wing agenda. Trying to pretend that the whole reason the advertising budget was mainly with the Guardian because it's the main source of media jobs, is ignoring the fact that the only reason there's a bigger media jobs section in the Guardian, is that the countries biggest media employer chooses to recruit almost exclusively in terms of money spent, from the furthest left media outlet in the mainstream press. It's like a chicken or egg situation and certainly not a recruiting process which will bring impartiality to the publicly funded BBC. To show impartiality, the BBC needs to be advertising to the same effort in equally biased right wing media too. Did you actually read any of the quotes from the site I linked to from former BBC employees? It seems like a common attitude with socialists, shout down, mock and supress the opposition viewpoint, without offering any viable alternative. This describes fascism to a T. Well, you have a unique debating style, I'll give you that - ranting about people "shouting down" your opinions! Anyway, back in the world of reality and, you know, facts, it isn't just that there is a "bigger media jobs section in the Guardian", it is that it is THE place people look for media jobs, regardless of their political persuasion. Nobody else in the mainstream national press even tries (the Telegraph effectively dropped their media jobs advertising some years ago)
Placing adverts in places people don't look would be a colossal waste of license payer money. People looking for media jobs don't care what political persuasion the paper has (hence my example of The TES) - they go to the place where they know jobs will be advertised. And why do you think the none Guardian media outlets stopped a media jobs advertising section? Could it be something to do with the countries biggest advertiser by a country mile, choosing to recruit from the furthest left mainstream media source and almost exclusively spend all of the huge advertising budget with the countries favourite far left mouthpiece? Surely not!  |
|
|
|
Post by gledholt terrier on Apr 10, 2015 13:09:30 GMT 1
Well, you have a unique debating style, I'll give you that - ranting about people "shouting down" your opinions! Anyway, back in the world of reality and, you know, facts, it isn't just that there is a "bigger media jobs section in the Guardian", it is that it is THE place people look for media jobs, regardless of their political persuasion. Nobody else in the mainstream national press even tries (the Telegraph effectively dropped their media jobs advertising some years ago)
Placing adverts in places people don't look would be a colossal waste of license payer money. People looking for media jobs don't care what political persuasion the paper has (hence my example of The TES) - they go to the place where they know jobs will be advertised. And why do you think the none Guardian media outlets stopped a media jobs advertising section? Could it be something to do with the countries biggest advertiser by a country mile, choosing to recruit from the furthest left mainstream media source and almost exclusively spend all of the huge advertising budget with the countries favourite far left mouthpiece? Surely not! When the Telegraph competed with the Guardian for media jobs advertising, it was BBC policy to advertise in both. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 13:16:56 GMT 1
The bbc has no bias towards any political party and unlike other broadcasters is forced not to show any. The previous director general was a former Tory mp, but so what? It also has a duty not to be offensive to minorities which some see as a liberal agenda.
be honest, what would you prefer? paying a fortune for shiite "celeb" programmes where endless adverts blur the boundaries between the programme and marketing, commentaters who cant say a sporting event is crap even when it is obvious that it is for fear of upsetting sponsors, programmes that contain and are built around product placement, news programmes that claim people cannot go into English cities because they are run by Islamic fundamentalists, hysterical scare mongering weather forecasts which are always wrong but keep coming anyway, I could go on for ever.
Please, the BBC has many faults, but stop being sold this ridiculous line by right wing agencies with vested interests.
Also The Guardian has a media section, thats why it has adverts for media jobs.
|
|
|
|
Post by gledholt terrier on Apr 10, 2015 13:18:02 GMT 1
The bbc has no bias towards any political party and unlike other broadcasters is forced not to show any. The previous director general was a former Tory mp, but so what? It also has a duty not to be offensive to minorities which some see as a liberal agenda. be honest, what would you prefer? paying a fortune for shiite "celeb" programmes where endless adverts blur the boundaries between the programme and marketing, commentaters who cant say a sporting event is crap even when it is obvious that it is for fear of upsetting sponsors, programmes that contain and are built around product placement, news programmes that claim people cannot go into English cities because they are run by Islamic fundamentalists, hysterical scare mongering weather forecasts which are always wrong but keep coming anyway, I could go on for ever. Please, the BBC has many faults, but stop being sold this ridiculous line by right wing agencies with vested interests. Also The Guardian has a media section, thats why it has adverts for media jobs. Fascist  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 13:20:23 GMT 1
When the Telegraph competed with the Guardian for media jobs advertising, it was BBC policy to advertise in both. And when was that? How many years ago? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 13:26:15 GMT 1
The bbc has no bias towards any political party and unlike other broadcasters is forced not to show any. The previous director general was a former Tory mp, but so what? It also has a duty not to be offensive to minorities which some see as a liberal agenda. be honest, what would you prefer? paying a fortune for shiite "celeb" programmes where endless adverts blur the boundaries between the programme and marketing, commentaters who cant say a sporting event is crap even when it is obvious that it is for fear of upsetting sponsors, programmes that contain and are built around product placement, news programmes that claim people cannot go into English cities because they are run by Islamic fundamentalists, hysterical scare mongering weather forecasts which are always wrong but keep coming anyway, I could go on for ever. Please, the BBC has many faults, but stop being sold this ridiculous line by right wing agencies with vested interests. Also The Guardian has a media section, thats why it has adverts for media jobs. Completely unbiased of course.... |
|
|
|
Post by gledholt terrier on Apr 10, 2015 14:39:43 GMT 1
When the Telegraph competed with the Guardian for media jobs advertising, it was BBC policy to advertise in both. And when was that? How many years ago? 1990s. Not sure "when" is relevant - when there was a viable alternative, it was used (in a far right newspaper). You've taken 2 facts - The guardian is a left wing newspaper and the BBC advertise heavily for recruits in it to come to a conclusion that is a fallacy, because you haven't considered the other facts: - The Guardian's pre-eminence in media job advertising - The heavily skewed recruitment advertising of Sky, The Sun, ITV etc by the same method However, but not for the reason stated, I think it highly likely that many recruits to the BBC will be left leaning, mainly because the arts and media tends to attract more people who are left leaning than right leaning. Similarly, conservatives tend not to be particularly good at comedy or satire. When they get there though (and only a fraction will be employed in current affairs), they become subject to broadcasting laws which demands equal treatment. Oversight is probably not perfect, and never will be, absolute balance is impossible (left or right)and what to you may look like a heavily weighted tilt to the left is to others either centrist or tilting to the right (theory of relativity). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 15:36:07 GMT 1
When the Telegraph competed with the Guardian for media jobs advertising, it was BBC policy to advertise in both. And here lies the point of me asking when they advertised in both. The earliest records I can find were from 2007, by which time the BBC were spending £275,000 with the Guardian newspaper on recruitment advertising and only £1,300 with the Daily Telegraph. Rather than the Daily Telegraph bot being bothered to compete, it looks to me more like the BBC created the almost monopoly themselves, by diverting their cash to their newspaper and political slant of choice, killing off the other options. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 15:40:05 GMT 1
When the Telegraph competed with the Guardian for media jobs advertising, it was BBC policy to advertise in both. And here lies the point of me asking when they advertised in both. The earliest records I can find were from 2007, by which time the BBC were spending £275,000 with the Guardian newspaper on recruitment advertising and only £1,300 with the Daily Telegraph. Rather than the Daily Telegraph bot being bothered to compete, it looks to me more like the BBC created the almost monopoly themselves, by diverting their cash to their newspaper and political slant of choice, killing off the other options. Or you're making assumptions to fit your argument... again. |
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Apr 10, 2015 15:44:51 GMT 1
assumptions and guesses and half truths to fit your argument?  you mean politics? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 15:45:24 GMT 1
And when was that? How many years ago? 1990s. - The heavily skewed recruitment advertising of Sky, The Sun, ITV etc by the same method I don't suppose you have anything to back this claim up, like I have for the BBC spending? Here it is again if needed... downloads.bbc.co.uk/foi/classes/disclosure_logs/rfi20110092_spend_on_recruitment_advertising.pdfEven if it were true, there's a huge difference in ethical behaviour, with regards to impartiality, between a privately owned media source and the nationally funded and owned broadcasting corporation that is the BBC. The BBC, being nationally owned, should have no bias whatsoever any way, including throwing the vast majority of it's recruiting and ad spending, to the furthest left mainstream press. It's a policy which by it's very nature, is just ensuring the BBC keeps it's left wing bias, which only benefits the BBC socialists and not the viewers and licence fee payers as a whole. |
|
you mean politics?