The BBC

[Bruce Spanner]

29 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

He wrote the article, people complained, and he still gets invited on to their politics shows on a fairly regular basis.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/09/sun-publish-far-right-conspiracy-theory-labour

He’s on sky news quite often, which is a natural relationship, but his list of credits say he’s not been on the BBC for a while, since after the publication of the article interestingly...

 

https://m.imdb.com/name/nm6032921/filmotype/self?ref_=m_nmfm_1

 

I’m not interested in going around in circles because it’s a waste of both of our time. We’re on the same team, but look at things from different perspectives. I’d take one of you over a thousand of ‘them’ and it’d be good we kept that in mind.
 

There’s always going to be people we disagree with on screen, that’s life, that’s ‘balance’, but this constant assertion that the BBC is biased towards our enemy from all sides, kind of proves the point that it’s getting something right.

[Jairzinho]

It really doesn't prove that at all. They're biased towards different things differently.

[Bruce Spanner]

Just now, Jairzinho said:

It really doesn't prove that at all. They're biased towards different things differently.

That makes as much sense as saying there’s a grand conspiracy! 
 

Circles.

 

 

[Jairzinho]

3 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

That makes as much sense as saying there’s a grand conspiracy! 
 

Circles.

 

 

Ok.

[Bruce Spanner]

Just now, Jairzinho said:

Ok.

K.

[Duff Man]

20 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

He’s on sky news quite often, which is a natural relationship, but his list of credits say he’s not been on the BBC for a while, since after the publication of the article interestingly...

 

https://m.imdb.com/name/nm6032921/filmotype/self?ref_=m_nmfm_1

 

I’m not interested in going around in circles because it’s a waste of both of our time. 
 

There’s always going to be people we disagree with on screen, that’s life, that’s ‘balance’, but this constant assertion that the BBC is biased towards our enemy from all sides, kind of proves the point that it’s getting something right.

He's been on the Beeb multiple times since that article. Christ, he was on Politics Daily the fucking week after.

 

And platforming racists isn't balance, unless we're saying that anti-racist voices are just as legitimate/illegitimate. Surely we've advanced enough as a society that we can say we're not going to interview/give airtime to people who write conspiracy articles lifted from white supremacist websites that suggest the leader of the opposition is at the heart of an illegal terror organisation. Like, what's the thing that balances that out? Seriously, what's the equivalent of that on the other side?

[Duff Man]

The only remotely acceptable reason for having him on the BBC at all would be to challenge him about that absolutely insane article. But instead it's not even mentioned, and he's presented as a serious and legitimate journalist. It's a complete and utter failing of a public service broadcaster.

[Section_31]

I don't particularly think the BBC is consciously biased either way, you'll get subconscious bias anyway but any reporter/producer worth their salt should be able to bury that. If  you were a Liverpool fan that got a job writing about Everton, it should be a point of personal pride that nobody could tell you're a Liverpool fan because you're a pro. 

 

Saying that, the BBC's higher ups are probably the type of people who've grown accustomed to a cushy little gig and the one thing that probably keeps them awake at night is the idea of having to get a real job, so the government of the day's nipple is always going to be foremost on their minds. I imagine most public and quasi-public sector organisations are like that. if the Jobcentre were told to put pictures of Johnson up on the walls, how many would refuse? It doesn't mean they like him, just means they're scared. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

2 hours ago, Bruce Spanner said:

The statement of fact above, he lost the election. 

"Labour lost the election" is a statement of fact. 

[Bruce Spanner]

2 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

"Labour lost the election" is a statement of fact. 

Semantics.

 

As leader of labour, he lost the election.

[Duff Man]

I think it's too big an organisation to be definitively biased one way or another, but it is safe to say there are huge issues with its political reporting and the amount of revolving door action there is with the two main parties. I mean just look at Robbie Gibb, for example. The idea of balanced and impartial political coverage whilst someone like that is editor is laughable.

[Bruce Spanner]

33 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

He's been on the Beeb multiple times since that article. Christ, he was on Politics Daily the fucking week after.

 

And platforming racists isn't balance, unless we're saying that anti-racist voices are just as legitimate/illegitimate. Surely we've advanced enough as a society that we can say we're not going to interview/give airtime to people who write conspiracy articles lifted from white supremacist websites that suggest the leader of the opposition is at the heart of an illegal terror organisation. Like, what's the thing that balances that out? Seriously, what's the equivalent of that on the other side?

Who on the left is going to talk about Conspiracies? 
 

I can’t think of any recent examples of people on the left, or labour specifically, talking about anything like that.

 

Its sad, but unfortunately very real and true, that the views we’re seeing on screen are the views of a majority of people in this country, on a sliding scale obviously.

 

Now either the media are leading the narrative and the public are too stupid to see through it, or the public are horrible cunts and the media are chasing the income by parroting these views. Both are disgusting, but I’m inclined to believe it’s somewhere in the middle and to repeat we are In the minority, no matter how much that hurts. 
 

The private media has a responsibility to only its shareholders. The government have the power to reform and change.

[Duff Man]

4 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

Who on the left is going to talk about Conspiracies? 
 

I can’t think of any recent examples of people on the left, or labour specifically, talking about anything like that.

 

Its sad, but unfortunately very real and true, that the views we’re seeing on screen are the views of a majority of people in this country, on a sliding scale obviously.

 

Now either the media are leading the narrative and the public are too stupid to see through it, or the public are horrible cunts and the media are chasing the income by parroting these views. Both are disgusting, but I’m inclined to believe it’s somewhere in the middle and to repeat we are In the minority, no matter how much that hurts. 
 

The private media has a responsibility to only its shareholders. The government have the power to reform and change.

Well, OK, but even if there were, why would you have them on to talk about politics, and discuss current affairs? What possible justification is there for it? Surely writing such an insane, offensive, and ultimately misleading article should get you off the guest list, no? And if it doesn't, what does? How racist/misleading do you have to be as a journalist before the BBC says no thanks?

[Gnasher]

This bbc fella who wants more right wing comedians!. At a time when Rule Britannia is getting barred, Black lives matter are holding demonstrations up and down the country and old statues of slave owners are being torn to the ground, I'm not convinced that Jim Davidson reprising his Chalky White routine on BBC 1 is what the country needs.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

27 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

Semantics.

 

As leader of labour, he lost the election.

Not semantics. 

It's a fact that the party lost the election. 

It's an opinion to lay the blame on the party leader.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

4 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

This bbc fella who wants more right wing comedians!. At a time when Rule Britannia is getting barred, Black lives matter are holding demonstrations up and down the country and old statues of slave owners are being torn to the ground, I'm not convinced that Jim Davidson reprising his Chalky White routine on BBC 1 is what the country needs.

It isn't. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

BBC historians are alright, like.

 

 

[Gnasher]

13 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

Well, OK, but even if there were, why would you have them on to talk about politics, and discuss current affairs? What possible justification is there for it? Surely writing such an insane, offensive, and ultimately misleading article should get you off the guest list, no? And if it doesn't, what does? How racist/misleading do you have to be as a journalist before the BBC says no thanks?

I think the answer is very, they were still having Kelvin McKenzie spout his bile for years after it was plain as day he deliberately blackened the innocent men , women and children who died at Hillsborough.

[Gnasher]

2 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

It isn't. 

Oh dear, wishful thinking. Is it just the words? Or have I got the wrong Slade record?

[Gnasher]

4 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

BBC historians are alright, like.

 

 

Dan Snows a cunt.

[Bruce Spanner]

17 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

Well, OK, but even if there were, why would you have them on to talk about politics, and discuss current affairs? What possible justification is there for it? Surely writing such an insane, offensive, and ultimately misleading article should get you off the guest list, no? And if it doesn't, what does? How racist/misleading do you have to be as a journalist before the BBC says no thanks?

Maybe him being head of politics at, sadly, the second biggest paper in the land gives him some clout. 
 

You are right, of course, I get it, but the original talk was of Farage and his ilk being given oxygen and no matter how much ‘we’ think their views are reprehensible those views are sadly echoed throughout the nation and can make a legitimate claim to be, well, legitimate. 

[Bruce Spanner]

10 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Not semantics. 

It's a fact that the party lost the election. 

It's an opinion to lay the blame on the party leader.

Him being leader means he’s responsible for the performance of it, labour lost, his leadership lost the election.

 

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

19 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Oh dear, wishful thinking. Is it just the words? Or have I got the wrong Slade record?

They decided, for one year only, that a singalong sounds a bit shit with nobody to sing along. It will be back next year  (unfortunately).

[AngryOfTuebrook]

19 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Dan Snows a cunt.

Actually, yeah. And Starkey is a massive racist shitbag.

 

I just wanted an excuse to post that tweet.

[Bruce Spanner]

I find Worsley’s lisp incredibly attractive.