atypical_boro
Well-known member
Only the truly impartial can judge really.
And it depends on your definition of impartial.
Finally…, now close it down
- Thread starter Jedi boro
- Start date
And it depends on your definition of impartial.
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
Removing RT from our screens is exactly the type of censorial move that we criticise others - usually Russia or China - for.
LessoftheLip
Well-known member
Some of the news presenters on BBC are impartial certainly but its drama and entertainment output is worth £13 a month to me. Appreciate it isn't to others.
The thing with RT is that it quite simply told lies about Salisbury/Skipral. John McDonnell boycotted RT because even he could see that objective journalistic standards were not being displayed.
The thing with RT is that it quite simply told lies about Salisbury/Skipral. John McDonnell boycotted RT because even he could see that objective journalistic standards were not being displayed.
Jonny_Rondos_Disco_pants
Well-known member
Would love to see ‘the coast guy’ and Bev Turner on the dole
Norton_Nomad
Member
I can’t remember Mi6 murdering and jailing RT journalists and presenters to be fair.
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.
ThatFragranceGuy
Well-known member
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 thanks
Licence fee pays for more than eastenders
Sky one of the most hated organisations going, why we'd want another one I have no idea
Licence fee isn't a kings ransom, it's good value for what is available to society, even if you as an individual don't care for it.
viv_andersons_nana
Well-known member
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.
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.
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
I can't either. Who said they did?
Corcaigh_the_Cat
Well-known member
The people in his head?
sweet_left_foot
Well-known member
The bbc world service is though from the perspective you have regarding Russia today
sweet_left_foot
Well-known member
It is biased to the establishment.
sweet_left_foot
Well-known member
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.
Last edited:
r00fie1
Well-known member
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.
Here's RT, for instance: https://rumble.com/v35waq4-rt-news-livestream-247.html
And here: https://odysee.com/@RT:fd/livestream_RT:d
Once you get used to the idea that YouTube is not the only platform of its kind, you get out of the habit of relying on it.
Like YouTube, there is plenty of gash, but you sift out what you're not interested in.
Foreign News Channels that are censored by YouTube, X, Instagram and the like, often have sites on Rumble and Odysee.
[https://rumble.com/]
[https://odysee.com/]
atypical_boro
Well-known member
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.
BobUpnDown
Well-known member
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 )
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..
As for mainstream outlets lending it legitimacy, you're right, but this isn't accidental. This is the thing about the Global Right: it's organised. It goes about systematically getting its message out there, its people into positions of influence, both in the media and in Government. About 600 think tanks, in every major country of the world are joined in a global network coordinated by the Institute of Economic Affairs in London - set up especially to confront environmentalism (and advocate for Big Oil, who still hugely funds them) but now also dedicated to fomenting the various rightwing agrarian revolts and right-wing populist movements in general. Inchoate anger, mythic culture totems and loathing of the educated: the standard cocktail of populist rage the world over, being stoked each and every day by paid sock puppets, media plants and downright propaganda channels.
r00fie1
Well-known member
If RT “had zero credibility” why did YouTube and other vested interests ban it?
It's like the Home Office issuing a “D” Notice.
You can't misinform and promote propaganda if there is a readily available alternative.
It's a sign that what the public are being fed isn't the whole truth.
It's typical of tyrannical authoritarian regimes.
I don't need Whitehall or Vauxhaul Cross to tell me what information I can and can't digest and analyse.