formatting link
- posted
5 years ago
Belly laugh of the day
Loading thread data ...
- Vote on answer
- posted
5 years ago
Jesus, I think they mean it, too :-)
- Vote on answer
- posted
5 years ago
"Unemployment down despite Brexit" marked the end for me.
Another Dave
- Vote on answer
- posted
5 years ago
Like most companies in the UK publishing a "mission statement" like that gives the management a warm fuzzy feeling and a sense of achieving their goals. What is blatantly transparent to the public, and often most of the staff, is that it's complete bullshit.
- Vote on answer
- posted
5 years ago
The key phrase is compared to....
Possibly correct, but is the best from a rum bunch of biased news sources quite the same as impartiality? There have been surveys done by respected scientists about bias, and nobody is unbiased, and indeed even systems and software designed by people who try to remove bias, seldom achieves it. In the end unfortunately, who is to say what is or is not biased. In order to tell you have to alot a figure to believability of a source, and thereby is the rub as they say. So yes carry on criticising, but how can anyone tell what unbiased is? In the end we all go for the news feed that reflects our world view. that is the way it is. Brian
- Vote on answer
- posted
5 years ago
"Research shows that, compared to other broadcasters, newspapers and online sites, the BBC is seen as by far the most trusted and impartial news provider in the UK." Not by DM, SUN etc.
- Vote on answer
- posted
5 years ago
Does 'in the UK' exclude Aljazeera (available in?, based in?).
- Vote on answer
- posted
5 years ago
Dunno if you saw John Cleese on Newsnight, but he produced figures on how well people in EU countries regard their press, and the UK came at the bottom of the table. But then many would probably have guessed that.
- Vote on answer
- posted
5 years ago
I never said they weren't convincing :-)
- Vote on answer
- posted
5 years ago
It may be because British people have become rather cynical. Although I'm not sure that's a bad thing, of course. I find that the Italian press (the only other one I see much of) are quite rabid, and they seem to lap it up.
- Vote on answer
- posted
5 years ago
Whenever you see an unqulaified use of the passive form of a verb, you should increase the sensitivity of the bullshit meter till it goes off.
Research shows that compared to nuts seeds or frozen pizza, a diet of worms is preferred ...
...by blackbirds.
- Vote on answer
- posted
5 years ago
The problem with the BBC and MSM is that they give biased reporting. Biased not just in terms of stilted language but probably more importantly the prominence with which they report stories. News unfavourable to the preferred bias is either not featured or reported infrequently and hidden away. Some stories favourable to the bias are promoted to an insane degree.
Al-Jazeera and the Saudi blockade of Qatar give us a prime example. For those of you who don't know just over a year ago Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Egypt, imposed a "land, sea, and air blockade" on Qatar. Al-Jazeera appears to be the major motivating factor for the blockade. The Saudi lead group, demanding that Al-Jazeera is closed down, have support for the blockade from Trump.
One would think a free press in the Arab region is one of the most important stories of our time. Much more important than a few people dying from chlorine gas in Syria.
The BBC News website has done surprisingly little to highlight the Qatar blockade, apparently journalistic freedom isn't important to the BBC.
- Vote on answer
- posted
5 years ago
Press freedom aside, I'd imagine many people, the BBC included are more likely concerned with rather more troubling aspects of Qatari life
The state of human rights in Qatar is a concern for several non-governmental organizations. Sharia law is the main source of Qatari legislation according to Qatar's constitution.[1][2] Flogging and stoning as forms of punishment are legal in Qatar due to Sharia law.
According to Human Rights Watch in June 2012, hundreds of thousands of mostly South Asian migrant workers in construction in Qatar risk serious exploitation and abuse, sometimes amounting to forced labor.[3]
formatting link
None of which has exactly been a secret, and has been widely reported ever since Qatar's successful bid to host the 2022 World Cup.
michael adams
...
- Vote on answer
- posted
5 years ago
You're having a laugh !
Freedom of expression
Freedom of expression is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas. A life sentence was handed to critics of government during the
2012 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Qatar to a Qatari poet Mohammed al-Ajami, also known as Mohammed Ibn al-Dheeb. Observers were not allowed to enter the court, and al-Ajami himself was not present at the sentencing
formatting link
He's having a laugh ! *
michael adams
? Ricky Gervaise
...
>- Vote on answer
- posted
5 years ago
Just how important a story is depends on the individual viewing that programme. Look no further than the World Cup for proof of that.
I was rather appalled to find Newsnight devoting almost the entire prog to the World Cup last night. Even more so given Trump is in Europe and spouting even more lies than usual.
- Vote on answer
- posted
5 years ago
Another lie. I watch NewsNight every night.
- Vote on answer
- posted
5 years ago
You don't appear to have understood the point I was making.
If I defended Edward Snowden would you respond by telling me what a bad man Vlad Putin is, just because Edward Snowden happens to be in Russia?
If you dislike Al-Jazeera and would like to see them banned, feel free to say why but they are not the Qatari government.
>- Vote on answer
- posted
5 years ago
Effective propaganda needs an audience. So MSM has to provide stories that it thinks will boost its audience, the stories people want to see.
That isn't really relevant to a discussion about the propoganda/advertising they push at the audience.
- Vote on answer
- posted
5 years ago
The intereview is available on the BBC News website.
I'm not sure he was even talking about English people specifically rather than British people in general but you're not trolling me into replaying the extract as you'll simply ignore it if I happen to be correct.
Ah right. So he just so happened to be walking past the Newsnight studios wherever they are, Newsnight were short of an item, a member of the editorial team just happened to look out the window at that very moment and thought "Let's invite John Cleese onto the programme to talk about whatever he likes." That happens a lot on Newsnight then does it ? Inviting people in off the street who just happened to be passing ?
Make your mind up. He was just a "rather sad old man" a moment ago.
Just because you might like watching sad old men chuntering on about whetever comes into their heads and being given an easy ride by the likes of Emily Maitlees doesn't mean everyone else should have to agree with him, or you.
michael adams
...
- Vote on answer
- posted
5 years ago
That may well be the case with papers and commercial broadcasters.
The trouble with mentioning the BBC in this is they do a vast range of news programmes. From local news to the World Service. And if you actually listened to all of them would realise there isn't a BBC 'party line'.
Of course they're going to be more critical of those in power at the time. The ones making current decisions. What is so sad is this lot making it so easy to do.