David Attenborough cancelled

[PistoldPete]

2 hours ago, Duracell said:

I'm glad we've established the obvious link between David Attenborough and austerity this early into the thread.

I think the thread was meant to be about BBC being influenced by the Tories. It isn't, as Needlesh has shown.  So we can go back to the Lineker thing likewise BBC not influenced b the Tories but trying to enforce their own long standing impartiality guidelines. 

[ram59]

Totally made up story by the media rags, the Guardian in this case. Look on the WWF website and it promotes the 5 episode series this coming spring, which backs up the BBC claim that there was only ever 5 episodes to be on tv. 

Like a number of other programmes with both the BBC and the ITV, some are only shown on their streaming channels.

I look at the headlines, then the source, before reading an article. ie pro government articles in the left wing rags and anti government/ pro labour articles in the right wing rags.

[Crewton]

6 hours ago, Needlesh said:

So, what actually happened was that the BBC comissioned and scheduled a 5 parter. A 6th episode was made by the production company, funded by a third party (an environmental charity, I believe). The BBC sae it, liked it, paid for rights to it and are putting it out on iPlayer, but not broadcast tv ad there is no gap in the schedule.

Or so I understand. No evil Tory plan, no left wing snowflakes to be seen. Just a thing we don't need to get in a twist about.

Well, earlier last week the Telegraph printed THIS story to get an early dig in on the BBC in advance of their screening of the TV series (extract posted below, click on link for whole article) :

Quote

The BBC’s latest Sir David Attenborough series has been part-funded by two charities previously criticised for their political lobbying, it has emerged.

Wild Isles, a landmark natural history series launching this week on BBC One, has been co-produced by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

Thank goodness the Telegraph has alerted us to the danger posed by those unspeakable anarchists at the WWF and the RSPB, which are irresponsibly trying to, er, save our dwindling wildlife populations......

 

 

 

[Eddie]

On 12/03/2023 at 10:24, PistoldPete said:

Seriously if you can't see bias in the quote from the Guardian  I made then I really worry about how easily people can be brainwashed. 

I agree that the Guardian is very anti-Tory - but given the vast majority of the UK's press are nothing more than Conservative shills, backers and apologists, they are a necessary balance.

[Archied]

8 hours ago, Eddie said:

I agree that the Guardian is very anti-Tory - but given the vast majority of the UK's press are nothing more than Conservative shills, backers and apologists, they are a necessary balance.

I’m afraid there’s always a bias with news outlets , GB news is by far the best , yes there is what some would class as a right wing slant but you most certainly get the opposing view and proper debate if you take the time to listen , the trans debate is handled evenly , the drag queen story hour was given very balanced coverage that softened my view and the other night there was someone on who spoke in favour of 15 minute cities , he spoke in terms of what they should be , how they should be set up in terms of proper consultation, amenities provided with the emphasis on encouragement not force and be of value to all not just a money spinning control tool ,

I didn’t agree with all he had to say but could find plenty I could get on board with , I should have noted his name , proper debate , decent vision and not one of the extreme nut nuts pushing this stuff without a thought in they’re heads regards how it becomes something of value for ALL

Edited March 14, 2023 by Archied

[PistoldPete]

9 hours ago, Eddie said:

I agree that the Guardian is very anti-Tory - but given the vast majority of the UK's press are nothing more than Conservative shills, backers and apologists, they are a necessary balance.

Couldn’t we just have a newspaper that is balanced? Why does everything have to pass through a distorting lens? 

[Stive Pesley]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

Couldn’t we just have a newspaper that is balanced?

That's why they started The Independent in 1986, although remaining in the centre throughout years of Tory rule shifting ever-rightward now sees it regarded as a liberal news outlet 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/small-boats-braverman-home-office-racist-b2300306.html

Blimey - when Theresa "Go Home Billboards" May is critical of your immigration policy that's a fair indicator that your legislation has grown a little toothbrush moustache

[PistoldPete]

37 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

That's why they started The Independent in 1986, although remaining in the centre throughout years of Tory rule shifting ever-rightward now sees it regarded as a liberal news outlet 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/small-boats-braverman-home-office-racist-b2300306.html

Blimey - when Theresa "Go Home Billboards" May is critical of your immigration policy that's a fair indicator that your legislation has grown a little toothbrush moustache

I think you have just proven that the Independent is not what it says on the tin. 

[i-Ram]

16 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

I think you have just proven that the Independent is not what it says on the tin. 

I think the rest of us already knew it says Ronseal on the tin. 

[Crewton]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

I think you have just proven that the Independent is not what it says on the tin. 

Owned by Russians, so it's obviously a Tory paper ?