GB news

[maxjam]

This is the type of edgy content the loony lefties don't want you watching ?

Anyway.  Its a cob.

[maxjam]

Not sure why the twitterati want to cancel this - could be uncomfortable for the Chancellor...

 

[AndyinLiverpool]

50 minutes ago, maxjam said:

GB News are bound by Ofcom and headed by Andrew Neil, I fail to see the need for a boycott GB News campaign other than a nefarious attempt to force it off air.  Surely if you don't like something that is free there are a multitude of other channels to watch?

Viewing figures for the launch were in excess of both Sky and the BBC.  These could go up or down over time, it was launch night after all and people may have just been curious - a better judge will be 6 months down the road after its had time to find its groove.  But it doesn't so much smack of being silenced by the free market, more an attempt to silence it by twitter activists putting pressure on weak advertisers scared of an overly vocal noisy minority.

I made a joke about 'loony lefties' in another thread - who I specify is the type of person that goes around trying to cancel things they don't agree with.  Not content with turning off the channel, a looney leftie doesn't want you watching it either.  It is a very dangerous path we're heading down if these activists are allowed to achieve their goals - not just for free speech issues but for the companies involved as well.  Just ask Gillette how the backlash to their woke campaign went, actually I'll save you the effort, its cost them $8bn - and whilst its only a massive corporation who cares, you can bet it was the low paid workers that paid for the loses with their jobs.

'loony lefties' boycotting GB news bad; 'anti-woke' Bamfords feeling emasculated by an advert boycotting Gillette good. Is that what you're saying? Or is it that boycotts work? Or that crusading gobshites like Piers Morgan cost a load people their jobs? Or men that beat up their wives no longer buy gillette razors? Are these the same people that no longer buy Nike?

I'm not sure what point you're making about boycotts.

Interesting that you are now talking about changing the channel. It isn't that long that you were criticising a broadcaster because you couldn't bring yourself to change the channel. It will come as no surprise to those reading this thread that that broadcaster was the BBC.

[maxjam]

39 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

'loony lefties' boycotting GB news bad; 'anti-woke' Bamfords feeling emasculated by an advert boycotting Gillette good. Is that what you're saying? Or is it that boycotts work? Or that crusading gobshites like Piers Morgan cost a load people their jobs? Or men that beat up their wives no longer buy gillette razors? Are these the same people that no longer buy Nike?

I'm not sure what point you're making about boycotts.

My point was about free speech and the nefarious actions of the twitterati to prevent others from watching content that doesn't cost anything and can be easily turned off.  Why do some people feel compelled to stop you from watching something because they don't like it? 

I also alluded to the point that this woke campaigns often backfire as the noisy twitter minority, is well, a minority.  Gillette found this to the tune of $8bn as the vast majority of people are getting fed up of being accused of something they are not.

I also made the point that whilst these woke campaigns are aimed at big corp advertisers, it is often the shop floor worker that pays for it with his job.

 

39 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

Interesting that you are now talking about changing the channel. It isn't that long that you were criticising a broadcaster because you couldn't bring yourself to change the channel. It will come as no surprise to those reading this thread that that broadcaster was the BBC.

Yep, I was talking about the BBC not cutting away from broadcasting the Eriksen incident.  It just happened to be the BBC that had the match - it could have easily been ITV or Sky if it was a Premier League match etc. 

One key difference is if you don't want to watch GB News there are multiple other news channels available whereas I had to watch the channel that had the Denmark match.  Furthermore I wasn't so much complaining about my inability to look away, that was a personal decision along the lines of why do people slow down to look at car crashes.  But the fact that to continuing showing Eriksen recieving treatment was not only in bad tase and poor judgement, but against Ofcom rules. 

Edited June 15, 2021 by maxjam

[cstand]

Since GB news has started the tidal wave of woke news on the BBC website has virtually disappeared can only assume the viewing figures for the BBC  have taken quite a tumble has anyone got any info on the viewing figures?

[cstand]

10 hours ago, WhiteHorseRam said:

Is this the new camouflaged Politics Thread??

No it’s the new Coronavirus thread??. 

[maxjam]

21 minutes ago, cstand said:

Since GB news has started the tidal wave of woke news on the BBC website has virtually disappeared can only assume the viewing figures for the BBC  have taken quite a tumble has anyone got any info on the viewing figures?

I'd caveat this with 'launch night curiosity'.

As mentioned previously, give it 6 months or so to iron out the picture/sound quality issues and to find their groove as to kind the content they want to deliver and we'll have a more accurate figure. 

I am hopeful they will deliver on their promises, gain a good audience and be a force for change - but we'll have to judge that in the future.

[maxjam]

Ikea pull GB News adverts citing humanistic values;

Humanistic values?  I'd call it woke posturing...

 

Edited June 15, 2021 by maxjam

[cstand]

55 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I'd caveat this with 'launch night curiosity'.

As mentioned previously, give it 6 months or so to iron out the picture/sound quality issues and to find their groove as to kind the content they want to deliver and we'll have a more accurate figure. 

I am hopeful they will deliver on their promises, gain a good audience and be a force for change - but we'll have to judge that in the future.

Totally agree with you on this people judging it on only a few nights airing is ridiculous wether you like it or not.

As for companies caving in to the anti free speech movement by declaring they will not advertise on GB news this will only galvanise support to ditch the BBC news in favour of GB news also their sales figures will take a battering from the silent majority.

I agree it will take at least 6 months to iron out any production problems and get any sense of identity.

[uttoxram75]

3 hours ago, maxjam said:

I'd caveat this with 'launch night curiosity'.

As mentioned previously, give it 6 months or so to iron out the picture/sound quality issues and to find their groove as to kind the content they want to deliver and we'll have a more accurate figure. 

I am hopeful they will deliver on their promises, gain a good audience and be a force for change - but we'll have to judge that in the future.

When you say a force for change, do you mean they convince more people that less regulation of financial markets and full privatisation of

the NHS is a good thing?

What change are you looking for?

 

[maxjam]

8 minutes ago, uttoxram75 said:

When you say a force for change, do you mean they convince more people that less regulation of financial markets and full privatisation of

the NHS is a good thing?

What change are you looking for?

 

It aims to be less London metropolitan elite centric and give a voice to the argument that the BBC and Sky find increasingly uncomfortable.  

I firmly believe that it will attract a lot of forgotten center-left labour voters, who feel neglected by the political parties and spoken down to by existing broadcasters.

[Eddie]

10 minutes ago, uttoxram75 said:

When you say a force for change, do you mean they convince more people that less regulation of financial markets and full privatisation of

the NHS is a good thing?

What change are you looking for?

 

It's a brilliant thing - if you are a hedge fund operator/owner.

Like the backers/owners of GB News.

Serious question - is it available in Northern Ireland?

[tinman]

Tuned in earlier to see what the fuss was about. 
saw some Botox Faced chap interviewing lady Colin Campbell about Prince Harry while she was holding a dog. All with graphics that wouldn’t look out of place on a teenagers YouTube channel. 

[cstand]

7 hours ago, Eddie said:

It's a brilliant thing - if you are a hedge fund operator/owner.

Like the backers/owners of GB News.

Serious question - is it available in Northern Ireland?

The backers of the BBC are the license fee payers who have no choice but to put up their anti free speech agenda. Scrap the license fee let BBC raise money on the open market with advertising so it’s a level playing field for all.

Edited June 16, 2021 by cstand

[alexxxxx]

7 hours ago, maxjam said:

It aims to be less London metropolitan elite centric and give a voice to the argument that the BBC and Sky find increasingly uncomfortable.

What does this even mean? What voice in what argument?

The boogeymen of the 'london metropolitan elite' means nothing because it can just mean anyone who's against nationalist populist talking points. 

Can I read 'the argument' as being the ongoing 'culture wars' stoked in the print press? 

Quote

I firmly believe that it will attract a lot of forgotten center-left labour voters, who feel neglected by the political parties and spoken down to by existing broadcasters.

Really? This is daily mail tv can't see how this is at all attractive to the centre left? It's populist right all over. 

Tried to watch some of that Wooton show again last night but it was garbage. I think if this kind of show does become popular, BBC and Sky will respond and match the format but with a more grown up approach. 

Having said that, might watch sunak with Neill later - will be interesting how much of a hard time he gives him. 

Edited June 16, 2021 by alexxxxx

[AndyinLiverpool]

8 hours ago, uttoxram75 said:

When you say a force for change, do you mean they convince more people that less regulation of financial markets and full privatisation of

the NHS is a good thing?

What change are you looking for?

 

It's the opposite of change really. All the 'culture wars' and anti-woke stuff is really aimed at keeping things as they have always been. The aim is to stop change.

[sage]

It's almost like Tories are winding up working class Britains with culture wars so they don't notice being shafted economically.

Fishermen

Farmers

Who's next?

 

[AndyinLiverpool]

4 minutes ago, sage said:

It's almost like Tories are winding up working class Britains with culture wars so they don't notice being shafted economically.

Fishermen

Farmers

Who's next?

 

Turkeys?

[maxjam]

3 minutes ago, alexxxxx said:

What does this even mean? What voice in what argument?

You asked for an answer, I gave you one.  I was told in the old politics thread numerous times that there was no such thing as a cancel culture or culture wars, yet here we are.  Commenting further would lead us down the road of politics and this thread will get locked but imo for a lot of people the mainstream media, just like the Labour Party, have forgotten how to talk to and engage with many outside of the metropolitian elite bubble;  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-57041672

 

4 minutes ago, alexxxxx said:

 

Really? This is daily mail tv can't see how this is at all attractive to the centre left? It's populist right all over. 

Tried to watch some of that Wooton show again last night but it was garbage. I think if this kind of show does become popular, BBC and Sky will respond and match the format but with a more grown up approach. 

And you're perfectly entitled to that opinion. 

It seems to me that a lot of people (not specifically you, thinking more twitter etc) are spending far to much time arguing and getting upset about something they don't intend to watch anyway - and thats fine, if thats what they want to do I guess ?  

What I object to is the cancel culture that, lets be honest is done almost entirely by loony lefties when faced with something they don't like.  Not watching it is not good enough, they want to spoil it for everyone else as well.  The campaign had started before a second of footage had been broadcast and has obviously ramped up since - this despite GB News being bound by Ofcom regulations and therefore having to meet certain standards. 

These online campaigns to get things cancelled are leading us down a divisive path in which one side puts pressure on companies to without advertising etc which triggers the other side into reacting and escalation. 

When did switching to another channel not become enough?

[WhiteHorseRam]

20 minutes ago, maxjam said:

The campaign had started before a second of footage had been broadcast and has obviously ramped up since - this despite GB News being bound by Ofcom regulations and therefore having to meet certain standards. 

To what extent is it simply a campaign to nobble a commercial competitor?

Making GB News seem toxic is a knock out blow.

Always follow the money.

All the presenters are where they are because its the best offer.

I tried to launch a model railway and home made ice cream making channel. I wrote to Susannah Reid and Carol Vorderman offering them positions on my couch.

I heard nothing back.

I strongly suspect it is because I hadn't offered enough cash.