DEATH Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 Well it seems it is not just us in this thread. The BBC risks undermining Brexit and damaging the UK's reputation with its "pessimistic and skewed" coverage, MPs have warned. More than 70 MPs from across the political spectrum have written to Lord Hall, the director-general of the BBC, accusing the corporation of portraying the UK as a "xenophobic" nation that regrets the vote to leave the EU. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/20/bbc-risks-undermining-brexit-damaging-uk-pessimistic-skewed/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XswampyX Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 9 minutes ago, DEATH said: Well it seems it is not just us in this thread. The BBC risks undermining Brexit and damaging the UK's reputation with its "pessimistic and skewed" coverage, MPs have warned. More than 70 MPs from across the political spectrum have written to Lord Hall, the director-general of the BBC, accusing the corporation of portraying the UK as a "xenophobic" nation that regrets the vote to leave the EU. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/20/bbc-risks-undermining-brexit-damaging-uk-pessimistic-skewed/ The so called 'unbiased' BBC is out of f**king control and needs shutting down asap! f*** s*** c*** s****** m****** f*****! Phew. Quote BBC letter | In full Dear Lord Hall, RE: BBC Coverage of Brexit Brexit is the most important political challenge facing our country. Bearing in mind the new Royal Charter’s first ‘Public Purpose’ is to impartial news, as national broadcaster the BBC has a special obligation to ensure that it reflects available evidence and the balance of argument on the subject as fairly as possible. We believe the BBC has fallen far short of this high standard. No doubt the BBC often nurtures first-class journalism but its position depends on trust. If politicians and the public don’t view it as an impartial broker, then the future of the BBC will be in doubt. When Sir David Clementi, the incoming Chairman of the BBC, gave evidence to the Culture, Media, and Sport Select Committee in January, he insisted that the Corporation’s treatment of Brexit after the referendum had walked “a good path down the middle” – despite acknowledging that fewer viewers than ever now trust its coverage. We know many Leave-voting constituents have felt their views have been unfairly represented. This phenomenon is weakening the BBC's bond with the 52 per cent who voted Leave and all who wish to make a success of the decision made. In particular, the Corporation’s focus on ‘regretful’ Leave voters, despite there being no polling shift towards Remain since the referendum, has led some to believe it is putting its preconceptions before the facts. Meanwhile, the posturing and private opinions of EU figures are too often presented as facts, without the vital context that they are talking tough ahead of the exit negotiations. It particularly pains us to see how so much of the economic good news we’ve had since June has been skewed by BBC coverage which seems unable to break out of pre-referendum pessimism and accept new facts. Some of the signatories of this letter shared many of the concerns about the economic impact of Brexit, but all are delighted to find forecasts of immediate economic harm were at best misplaced. So-called ‘despite Brexit’ reporting may be expected of a partisan press, but licence fee-payers have the right to expect better. The BBC has a much larger market share than any newspaper – it runs the most-used news website in the country, on top of its television and radio coverage. This, as well as viewers’ belief in its neutrality, means that BBC bias can have a substantial effect on national debate. BBC coverage also shapes international perceptions of the UK: we fear that, by misrepresenting our country either as xenophobic or regretful of the Leave vote, the BBC will undermine our efforts to carve out a new, global role for this country. We are therefore asking you to take steps to correct these flaws in the BBC’s coverage of our EU exit at the earliest moment. Yours etc., Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChewingGrass Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 Watched the main BBC news and the Local One tonight and it was so tainted with bias it was almost laughable, still taking pops at trump followed by some other non-news. The local version even had a story about a German family who are packing up and going back to Germany because brits are apparently so insensitive after Brexit. Then again on the plus side I thought to myself thats another house for a local family to live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spunko2010 Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 13 hours ago, DEATH said: Well it seems it is not just us in this thread. The BBC risks undermining Brexit and damaging the UK's reputation with its "pessimistic and skewed" coverage, MPs have warned. More than 70 MPs from across the political spectrum have written to Lord Hall, the director-general of the BBC, accusing the corporation of portraying the UK as a "xenophobic" nation that regrets the vote to leave the EU. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/20/bbc-risks-undermining-brexit-damaging-uk-pessimistic-skewed/ Anti-BBC sentiment is rife online, I see it daily. Funnily enough the only fawning seems to come from liberal Americans - who funnily enough don't realise we are forced to pay it or be put in prison. About as anti-American an idea as you can get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliver Sutton Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 Headline : "Four people, including a police officer and the lone attacker, have died in a terror attack near the Houses of Parliament in London." Why is he described as a lone attacker? Just attacker would suffice. Normally journalists go for brevity. Answers on a postcard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byron Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 Just don't mention the 'I' word Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XswampyX Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 29 minutes ago, Byron said: Just don't mention the 'I' word Integrity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spunko2010 Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 1 hour ago, XswampyX said: Integrity? inbreeding? incest? indoctrination? I'm joking it's obviously integration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliver Sutton Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 "Lone" attacker to me implies he was acting totally alone and in isolation and not as part of a group or an ideology. If they wanted to emphasis that he was the only one involved here they should have said "single attacker". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 8 hours ago, Oliver Sutton said: Headline : "Four people, including a police officer and the lone attacker, have died in a terror attack near the Houses of Parliament in London." Why is he described as a lone attacker? Just attacker would suffice. Normally journalists go for brevity. Answers on a postcard. loan attacker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turned Out Nice Again Posted March 23, 2017 Author Share Posted March 23, 2017 So Trump was bugged by US spooks. Note weasely caveats ("incidentally monitored") and the prominence given to this story (low). http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39358363 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onlyme2 Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 1 minute ago, Turned Out Nice Again said: So Trump was bugged by US spooks. Note weasely caveats ("incidentally monitored") and the prominence given to this story (low). http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39358363 Thus far FBI failing to respond. Trump right again. A landmine was laid by Obama on his way out - releasing identifiable information on wiretaps and surveillance to such a wide audience leaks of that information were inevitable and difficult to track. Trump won't do it, but should have Obama/Clinton and their cronies up for sedition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InlikeFlynn Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 11 hours ago, onlyme2 said: Trump right again......snip.... Trump won't do it, but should have Obama/Clinton and their cronies up for sedition. No. At least thats not what I read in the article. It's perhaps a reflection of the company he keeps - Trump team was "incidentally monitored" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39358363 As I said on another thread it's not surprising given his penchant for hanging out with Russians... Hilary Clinton was probably incidentally monitored too. Here's a quote from the article (my bold) "Post-election communications of Donald Trump's team were swept up in an "incidental collection" by intelligence agencies, a Republican lawmaker says. House intelligence committee chairman Devin Nunes said individuals were named in "widely disseminated" reports, which he said was "totally inappropriate". Mr Nunes said this did not back Mr Trump's claim Barack Obama had ordered Trump Tower wiretapped before the poll." Given that Nunes is a Republican and supporter of Trump you can take him at his word on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codfather Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 26 minutes ago, InlikeFlynn said: No. At least thats not what I read in the article. It's perhaps a reflection of the company he keeps - Trump team was "incidentally monitored" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39358363 As I said on another thread it's not surprising given his penchant for hanging out with Russians... Hilary Clinton was probably incidentally monitored too. Here's a quote from the article (my bold) "Post-election communications of Donald Trump's team were swept up in an "incidental collection" by intelligence agencies, a Republican lawmaker says. House intelligence committee chairman Devin Nunes said individuals were named in "widely disseminated" reports, which he said was "totally inappropriate". Mr Nunes said this did not back Mr Trump's claim Barack Obama had ordered Trump Tower wiretapped before the poll." Given that Nunes is a Republican and supporter of Trump you can take him at his word on this. So no problem with the fact that they were in fact spying on the trump administration but just arguing semantics that it was Obama who had ordered it. (That's ignoring that the claims that the Russians helped sway the election has been rubbished) Stasi state is still AOK, all political point scoring, tomorrow is going to be fun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onlyme2 Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 47 minutes ago, InlikeFlynn said: No. At least thats not what I read in the article. It's perhaps a reflection of the company he keeps - Trump team was "incidentally monitored" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39358363 As I said on another thread it's not surprising given his penchant for hanging out with Russians... Hilary Clinton was probably incidentally monitored too. Here's a quote from the article (my bold) "Post-election communications of Donald Trump's team were swept up in an "incidental collection" by intelligence agencies, a Republican lawmaker says. House intelligence committee chairman Devin Nunes said individuals were named in "widely disseminated" reports, which he said was "totally inappropriate". Mr Nunes said this did not back Mr Trump's claim Barack Obama had ordered Trump Tower wiretapped before the poll." Given that Nunes is a Republican and supporter of Trump you can take him at his word on this. Still wiretapped, still enabled by the policies put in place by Obama, Bit of plausible deniability and obfuscation by opening up unlimited access to multiple agencies. = Concerted effort to put in place all the infrastructure to spy/leak on selected targets. Obama pushed through these changes in rules, he is responsible, he is behind it, he put the rules in place to enable it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errol Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 Something to balance the propaganda: From Paul Joseph Watson on Youtube, so perfectly mainstream and accessible to all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePiltdownMan Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turned Out Nice Again Posted March 26, 2017 Author Share Posted March 26, 2017 2 hours ago, ThePiltdownMan said: Needs a Heckler . (or a Heckler & Koch). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hail the Tripod Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 16 hours ago, ThePiltdownMan said: Well, it almost works as a parody of itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austin Allegro Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 2 hours ago, Hail the Tripod said: Well, it almost works as a parody of itself. This stuff bears out my theory that being a 'comedian' is actually just a form of 'lay preaching' for SJWs. I think this comment on the Youtube page sums it up: 'They have the sense of humor of people who are legal guardians of an autistic person. You don't want to piss them off, so you laugh at their non funny shit in exchange for dinner.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turned Out Nice Again Posted March 27, 2017 Author Share Posted March 27, 2017 2 hours ago, Hail the Tripod said: Well, it almost works as a parody of itself. To be fair, the Pink Bipolar burd @ 20:50 isn't bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hail the Tripod Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 52 minutes ago, Turned Out Nice Again said: To be fair, the Pink Bipolar burd @ 20:50 isn't bad. You lasted a lot longer than me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash4781 Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 The BBC has a headline on their website today 'Britain goes a full day without coal' with a photo of two shirtless chaps working in a mine in the 1920s. It is a really odd article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steppenpig Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 I was listening to NPR (american public broadcaster) the other day, and thinking how pointless it was listening to a Democrat politician being interviwed, as he was just avoiding all the interviewers questions and making anti-trump comments instead, and it turned out that it wasn't a politician, it was NPR's own political analyst. Weird world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbonic Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 I was listening to R4 this AM when they were discussing the security leaks by US intelligence agencies to the NYT. They decided that it was very useful intel to the terrorists and John Humphries remarked, with contempt in his voice 'this one's nothing to do with Trump then' to the intelligence analyst he was talking to (how disappointing for him eh). Normal usage was President Obama (or maybe Obama in a reverential tone) Angela Merkel, Teresa May, etc. and not in a contemptuous tone. They also managed to avoid saying 'Islam' when discussing the bombers motives.'Ideology' was used a couple of times instead, as in 'they want their ideology to dominate the world'. This craven self censorship by the MSM has been pointed out Douglas Murray and others on several occasions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.