malg
Well-Known Member
Fuck me, only on here would anyone describe the BBC as pro Tory and pro Brexit.
My life......
My life......
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Has the BBC become a Tory tool?
- Thread starter dave_blue12
- Start date
Fred_Quimby
Well-Known Member
The latest exchange in the Commons by Yvette Cooper on Cruella being ‘missing’ was not on any BBC News bulletin or programme. There have been many instances of this lately.
Colin Bells Boots
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 16,949
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Does anybody know where the witch is hiding as she is conspicuous by her absence ?
The party rulers no doubt keeping her out of the public eye to avoid her saying anything incriminating about their disgusting policies and tactics.
A major embarassment of a Home Secretary , and that really is saying something.
The party rulers no doubt keeping her out of the public eye to avoid her saying anything incriminating about their disgusting policies and tactics.
A major embarassment of a Home Secretary , and that really is saying something.
not even hiding it now.
The BBC just needs to survive as a public broadcaster past this government.
The ERG and libertarian wing of the Tory party has declared war on the bbc and is desperately trying to defund it so your tv choice becomes like the USA, run by one or 2 billionaires free to peddle their propaganda 24/7.
GB news looks to have been seen off, but their end goal is Fox News in the UK, and eroding trust in the BBC, trying to close it down or otherwise hamstring it is a major part of that.
Yes. Seeing them genuflect towards the government and insane both-sides-ing or making QT a conservative love in is shit, but I’d rather look back in 20 years at a dark period for the BBC than look back at when it stopped existing.
The ERG and libertarian wing of the Tory party has declared war on the bbc and is desperately trying to defund it so your tv choice becomes like the USA, run by one or 2 billionaires free to peddle their propaganda 24/7.
GB news looks to have been seen off, but their end goal is Fox News in the UK, and eroding trust in the BBC, trying to close it down or otherwise hamstring it is a major part of that.
Yes. Seeing them genuflect towards the government and insane both-sides-ing or making QT a conservative love in is shit, but I’d rather look back in 20 years at a dark period for the BBC than look back at when it stopped existing.
I don't understand the obsession with public and physical media. The Daily Mail gets the most hate here but the paper itself is read daily by just 2m people, less than 4% of the population.The BBC just needs to survive as a public broadcaster past this government.
The ERG and libertarian wing of the Tory party has declared war on the bbc and is desperately trying to defund it so your tv choice becomes like the USA, run by one or 2 billionaires free to peddle their propaganda 24/7.
GB news looks to have been seen off, but their end goal is Fox News in the UK, and eroding trust in the BBC, trying to close it down or otherwise hamstring it is a major part of that.
Yes. Seeing them genuflect towards the government and insane both-sides-ing or making QT a conservative love in is shit, but I’d rather look back in 20 years at a dark period for the BBC than look back at when it stopped existing.
We shouldn't be having a debate about the BBC or any other news outlet because they're trending towards total irrelevance if they aren't irrelevant already. No-one is truly interested in what the BBC has to say, right-wing, left-wing, centre, it doesn't matter because most people aren't watching BBC News to get a political opinion. I don't watch the WC to get a political opinion although nowadays I seem to get it anyway.
The reach of news generally though has been falling year on year. The younger generation do not watch BBC News or QT, they don't watch any news actually nor do they buy newspapers. They get the entirety of their information to form opinions from completely unregulated and unfiltered social media.
Society has never been so divided because of the chaos and reach of social media and no politician will change or regulate it because why the hell would they pay for a political broadcast when a Tweet hits more of the right people?
Social media is probably one of the most powerful tools ever invented, it even led to the downfall of the US capitol several years ago. How many news companies can boast that? All of these companies are not a threat, they're just loud because they're playing at being relevant at a time when they're becoming increasingly irrelevant.
Last edited:
I don't understand the obsession with public and physical media. The Daily Mail gets the most hate here but the paper itself is read daily by just 2m people, less than 4% of the population.
No offence but if youe still measuring a news outlets reach by the number of physical papers it sells then no wonder* you don't understand it.
The Mail gets 5 million direct visitors to its website per day.
A viral tweet, or clip on Twitter, Facebook can get 10s of millions of impressions.
Rupert Murdoch's reach isn't just people glued to fox news' tv coverage or buying the Mail in person. The BBC is not just people watching the 10 oclock news.
Media companies have never had greater reach.
Last edited:
BlueHammer85
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 36,205
I would worry alot if the BBC were to go, they make mistakes like every organisation but they try (imo) to be as impartial and balanced as possible - in fact, they try to hard sometimes and go easy on things they should be more critical about - any main news broadcaster would find it impossible to please everyone and be completly balanced all the time
Of course but look at this forum, are the opinions of people on here really shaped by the news? I spend more time on here than on any news site. It seems to me that actually news is just secondary or rather it just takes advantage of the bigger issue which is that people love to argue with each other. Social media facilitates that but the news doesn't so which is the greater threat?No offence but if youe still measuring a news outlets reach by the number of physical papers it sells then no one you don't understand it.
The Mail gets 5 million direct visitors to its website per day.
A viral tweet, or clip on Twitter, Facebook can get 10s of millions of impressions.
Rupert Murdoch's reach isn't just people glued to fox news' tv coverage or buying the Mail in person. The BBC is not just people watching the 10 oclock news.
Media companies have never had greater reach.
Look at the title of this thread, it has nothing to do with the news but rather it's solely about the political contents of the output of the BBC. The energy behind that attracts debate but ultimately what the BBC actually does or doesn't do or the opinions it puts out are irrelevant because everyone will all always disagree on what's right.
It all just reminds me of Talksport, if city lose then after the game they will say how crap city were and then people get angry and ring up. Are they shaping the opinion that city are crap or are they just trying to get people to ring up at £1.50 a minute?
It's really easy money to be honest. Look at GB News - identify a group, start a news channel, drip-feed them with what they want to hear, show advertisements... Profit! Who's at fault though for the opinions of the viewers? That's a different kettle of fish that I'm sorry goes far beyond blaming Rupert Murdoch for everything.