GB news

[Animal is a Ram]

16 hours ago, TuffLuff said:

For saying this news channel is supposedly anti mainstream/establishment it’s sure getting a couple of favours from the mainstream/establishment.

 

Amazing how the right suddenly hate the free market forces when it isn't going their way, huh?

I've been watching a few clips here and there - I try and balance the 'free and diverse media', as Mr Dowden puts it - and I don't find them to be the anti-establishment, breath of fresh air they claim to be.

But then, as someone who leans to the left of the political spectrum, and pretty sure Dan Wootton would call me woke/snowflake/liberati/metropolitan elite/virtue-signalling/socialist and say its not aimed at me.

Did enjoy them falling into the classic elephant traps of Mike Hunt, Mike Oxlong, and Hugh Janus though. Even one presenter having to implore people to stop emailing in with the last one. All told it looks a little college-project, which considering its a startup is to be expected, although didn't they have about £60m behind them at one point? I guess it doesn't buy much these days.

[ariotofmyown]

GB news has 100% record of losing Tory seats now.

Maybe the neglected segment are the socially liberal and centre right on economics.

The people who worry that the UK becoming internationally isolated because we deliberately break treaties is more important than some 19 year olds removing a picture of the queen in their common room.

Or woke Marxists as they are usually known as.

[maxjam]

34 minutes ago, Animal is a Ram said:

Amazing how the right suddenly hate the free market forces when it isn't going their way, huh?

Its not just about the free market though, it is mostly due to vindictive activists using nefarious tactics to target ideas and opinions they don't like.

https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-hatred-behind-stop-funding-hate/

https://unherd.com/thepost/stop-funding-hate-is-a-dangerous-campaign/

Futhermore, most of the companies that have pulled adverts have qualified their decision to do so stating they need more time to judge the content on GB News.  It will be very interesting to watch Stop Funding Hate no doubt turn on companies they have been praising in future days/weeks once they realise there is nothing contentious being broadcast - as some have done already. 

[Bob The Badger]

17 hours ago, maxjam said:

I'd disagree with that tbh.

A lot of people are fed up with the BBC and Sky is subscription tv.  GB News could hoover up a lot of views simply being an alternative.

I'm not sure how many people 'a lot' is.

For most people that term usually means of a lot of people they know and it really is a tiny proportion.

In fact, it's often not even most people they know, just the most vocal people they know, or the ones who have a strong opinion.

Most people aren't vocal and don't have a strong opinion on the news.

I would imagine it will be relatively easy for them to grab disillusioned people now, but keeping them will be another matter.

Most people really don't want balanced reporting, if they did AP and Reuters would be the most popular websites.

People want reporting that agrees with the opinion they already hold.

Only, very few people are self-aware and/or honest enough to admit/know that.

 

[uttoxram75]

20 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Its not just about the free market though, it is mostly due to vindictive activists using nefarious tactics to target ideas and opinions they don't like.

https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-hatred-behind-stop-funding-hate/

https://unherd.com/thepost/stop-funding-hate-is-a-dangerous-campaign/

Futhermore, most of the companies that have pulled adverts have qualified their decision to do so stating they need more time to judge the content on GB News.  It will be very interesting to watch Stop Funding Hate no doubt turn on companies they have been praising in future days/weeks once they realise there is nothing contentious being broadcast - as some have done already. 

These activists, if they actually care about their fellow humans, should concentrate their boycotts against corporations who really damage   ordinary people. They should go for the Fire and Rehire brigade and NHS privateers.

Doing what they do keeps the important stuff off the agenda and enables the dividers to win.

[ariotofmyown]

24 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:

I'm not sure how many people 'a lot' is.

For most people that term usually means of a lot of people they know and it really is a tiny proportion.

In fact, it's often not even most people they know, just the most vocal people they know, or the ones who have a strong opinion.

Most people aren't vocal and don't have a strong opinion on the news.

I would imagine it will be relatively easy for them to grab disillusioned people now, but keeping them will be another matter.

Most people really don't want balanced reporting, if they did AP and Reuters would be the most popular websites.

People want reporting that agrees with the opinion they already hold.

Only, very few people are self-aware and/or honest enough to admit/know that.

 

All my news comes from the Guardian. The news may be biased, and the opinion pieces clearly are, but I still trust it to reports the facts.

I would like to also read The Times, Telegraph and FT too, but they are all behind paywalls. I would also trust those papers to report facts.

I wonder how much impact paywalls have on restricting people seeing a cross section of media.

[DarkFruitsRam7]

2 hours ago, Jubbs said:

Probably because they know that more people would find out the incredibly awful stuff he did...

That's the thing isn't it.

Churchill's actions played a significant part in stopping the Nazis. But he also said (and signed off) some horrific things, even for the standards of the time.

But because the Churchill diehards have this perception that anyone who explores the complexities of his character are loony snowflakes who want to piss all over his statue, the debate always gets shut down. Just watch Piers Morgan on Good Morning Britain whenever the subject is raised. The anti-snowflake brigade are absolutely petrified of anyone who dares to say anything bad about their hero, even if it's a direct quote from Churchill himself.

No doubt the more extreme voices of 'the left' have contributed to this, but their voices have been disproportionately amplified by news organisations that know reporting on a ridiculous 'snowflakey' opinion will generate clicks. And that's how this 'culture war' crap started.

[Stive Pesley]

10 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

That's the thing isn't it.

Churchill's actions played a significant part in stopping the Nazis. But he also said (and signed off) some horrific things, even for the standards of the time.

But because the Churchill diehards have this perception that anyone who explores the complexities of his character are loony snowflakes who want to piss all over his statue, the debate always gets shut down. Just watch Piers Morgan on Good Morning Britain whenever the subject is raised. The anti-snowflake brigade are absolutely petrified of anyone who dares to say anything bad about their hero, even if it's a direct quote from Churchill himself.

No doubt the more extreme voices of 'the left' have contributed to this, but their voices have been disproportionately amplified by news organisations that know reporting on a ridiculous 'snowflakey' opinion will generate clicks. And that's how this 'culture war' crap started.

Exactly, and even when the Cambridge college that holds his papers attempts to explore his complicated legacy in a balanced and open way - they get shut down by those who cannot bear any critical thinking on the issue 

Makes it easy to understand why @maxjam is so up in arms about the issue of controlling what gets said in Universities..

[maxjam]

4 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Exactly, and even when the Cambridge college that holds his papers attempts to explore his complicated legacy in a balanced and open way - they get shut down by those who cannot bear any critical thinking on the issue 

Makes it easy to understand why @maxjam is so up in arms about the issue of controlling what gets said in Universities..

I'm not sure it was balanced though tbh... Did you see the makeup of the actual panel that was complained about?  

https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/20800

The panel was entirely one sided, with no opposing counter arguments at all ? 

[nottingram]

I work for one of the companies who have pulled adverts from GB News, and to be clear don’t really have an opinion on them doing so other than that I can’t really see how it helps matters.

Anyway, was talking to someone this morning who works on reporting within the call centre. He’d not really heard of GB News but just asked me if I knew about it because they’d had so many calls this week. Essentially the lines were flooded with people fuming at the company for advertising on it for half the week, threatening to go elsewhere etc, then for the other half of the week the lines were flooded with people fuming at them for pulling adverts, threatening to go elsewhere etc.

Thought it was interesting and shows what a difficult position the companies are in and that there isn’t really a right answer from a “business” perspective (which isn’t necessarily the right perspective to look at it from IMO).

Of course in an ideal world everyone would be able to separate a company from the channels they advertise on and the channels they don’t advertise on (who even watches or pays attention to adverts for goodness sake). Shame everyone needs to be offended one way or the other and that isn’t just “snowflakes” but also the people who purport to be “anti snowflakes”.

[Bob The Badger]

1 hour ago, ariotofmyown said:

All my news comes from the Guardian. The news may be biased, and the opinion pieces clearly are, but I still trust it to reports the facts.

I would like to also read The Times, Telegraph and FT too, but they are all behind paywalls. I would also trust those papers to report facts.

I wonder how much impact paywalls have on restricting people seeing a cross section of media.

The Guardian is my first port of call, but I also read the BBC and CNN.

The BBC is the most unbiased and CNN the one I trust the least.

I doubt there are many people slamming the MSM who would be reading the types of outlets you refer to tbh.

Just a hunch, but I'd be surprised it if moved the gauge that much. 

[DarkFruitsRam7]

19 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I'm not sure it was balanced though tbh... Did you see the makeup of the actual panel that was complained about?  

https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/20800

The panel was entirely one sided, with no opposing counter arguments at all ? 

Out of interest, how would you assemble a panel for something like that? 

[Stive Pesley]

1 minute ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

Out of interest, how would you assemble a panel for something like that? 

I'd have it chaired and made up of people from 4 of the 5 continents

Oh - they already did

[maxjam]

5 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

 

But you can't bring yourself to admit it fits, and instead you go straight on the attack about the ethnic make-up of the panel ?

 

I don't care about the ethnic make up of the panel, more their ideologies.  From the article;

The academics were Professor Priya Gopal – who chaired the discussion – Professor Kehinde Andrews, Dr Madhusree Mukerjee and Dr Onyeka Nubia.

Dr Onyeka Nubia, a renowned historian of Black History, discussed how Churchill was influenced by “ideas of white supremacy” and “eugenics”. He went on to discuss quotes attributed to Churchill, including: “The Aryan stock is bound to triumph”.

Dr Madhusree Mukerjee, author of ‘Churchill’s Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India during World War II’, discussed the Bengal famine of 1943 and its “connection” to “Churchill’s white supremacy”, in particular his reference to Indians as “rabbits”.

Professor of Black Studies at Birmingham City University, Kehinde Andrews, argued that Churchill was “the perfect embodiment of white supremacy” and has “a mythic status” because “white supremacy is still the politics of the day”.

Not much balance there for any kind of debate...

[maxjam]

4 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

Out of interest, how would you assemble a panel for something like that? 

You could have quite happily had all of the people listed above, so long as you had an equal number of views presenting a more pro-Churchill argument.

[DarkFruitsRam7]

29 minutes ago, maxjam said:

You could have quite happily had all of the people listed above, so long as you had an equal number of views presenting a more pro-Churchill argument.

Was the purpose of the panel to have a debate or to instigate change? Genuine question.

I imagine it would be difficult to get anything done if it was perfectly balanced. But obviously if it's imbalanced then the decisions will lean a certain way. I suppose it comes down to who represents the students of the college.

If it was to debate then yeah you probably need more of a balance.

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

The anti-snowflake brigade are absolutely petrified of anyone who dares to say anything bad about their hero, even if it's a direct quote from Churchill himself.

Perhaps that's because they are snowflakes themselves.

Goodness knows, I've probably offended the sensitivities of enough on here to get a job clearing the roads in winter.

[maxjam]

4 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

Was the purpose of the panel to have a debate or to instigate change? Genuine question.

I imagine it would be difficult to get anything done if it was perfectly balanced. But obviously if it's imbalanced then the decisions will lean a certain way. I suppose it comes down to who represents the students of the college.

If it was to debate then yeah you probably need more of a balance.

Haven't the foggiest tbh, I don't recall the drama - it was just another of the summer of BLM troubles to me. I don't know anything about it other than a few articles I've googled. 

My immediate reaction was if you are going to ask a heavily biased panel to discuss a sensitive subject you are going to get a lot of blowback for that fact alone ?  It wouldn't have been the way I'd have approached it and I can understand why a lot of people were upset.

[TuffLuff]

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

Perhaps that's because they are snowflakes themselves.

Goodness knows, I've probably offended the sensitivities of enough on here to get a job clearing the roads in winter.

We are all ‘snowflakes’ and we are all ‘woke’ about our own different things because literally everyone in existence has something to moan about which someone else doesn’t see a problem with. Andrew Neil is quite the snowflake about advertisers not wanting to advertise on GB News, hence why it’s a pretty stupid rhetoric because you quickly become what you are wanting to ridicule.

Edited June 18, 2021 by TuffLuff

[Eddie]

32 minutes ago, TuffLuff said:

We are all ‘snowflakes’ and we are all ‘woke’ about our own different things because literally everyone in existence has something to moan about which someone else doesn’t see a problem with. Andrew Neil is quite the snowflake about advertisers not wanting to advertise on GB News, hence why it’s a pretty stupid rhetoric because you quickly become what you are wanting to ridicule.

But I want to ridicule everything and everybody, and if you say that I shouldn't then that's an example of 'cancel culture', and I object to that in the strongest possible terms, thus making me a snowfl... <brain explodes>