Has the BBC become a Tory tool?

[carlosthejackal]

Why is he a hypocrite?

I’d imagine he’s read it in the Mail so it must be true .

 

[Brightwell Bros.]

What was the reason for:

- Not playing the theme song?
- Not showing team lineups and formations?
- Not having commentary in the games? (I'm sure they could've used some of the official Premier League commentary used on the international feed if they'd asked nicely)
- Not showing stats such as shots on target, possession, corners etc at the end?

All of that requires extensive production work, and the production team were on an unofficial strike.

 

[cheekybids]

That would be a good point if the news was just twenty silent minutes of images of people looking upset in Istanbul, people looking angry in Tel-Aviv, people looking gormless in London and a quick glance at the weather map.

But it isn't. Otherwise, yeah, you might as well just look it up online.

They don’t want you thinking for yourself when they can put their angle on it ;)

 

[urban genie]

There is no clear implication at all. Your argument is predicated on the basis that the holocaust was an inevitable corollary of the Nazi regime in the 1930s. It was not. It was, however, an inevitable consequence of right thinking people not doing enough to stop it, and allowing it to grow in confidence and morph into the genocidal machine it became. There are potential parallels here if people do nothing to stop the clear and obvious erosion of our liberties.

It’s probably best not to accuse someone of being disingenuous, without exploring what their view is founded upon first. You shot your load far too soon, pal.

If people actually studied the period they would know after the beer haus putsch failure they actually toned down their direct antisemetic message to appeal to non nazis while masking it with such language as a cancer within our nation or sickness and concentrated on all imigrants, the intelligencia, comminists and trade unions, changing their language to subtibly mention the jewish dispora.

this was the language of the 30s to win majority power, demonising all, what followed on came out of growing in power, confidence and the success of their invasions and occupations, which led to germans who even 5 years earlier would have baulked at such nationistic fever to conform, the propoganda of 1933 were a pre-curser to what came to pass and any government echoing such language is on a dangerous path if not challenged on it.

 

[carlosthejackal]

 

[Chris B]

The implication is fairly clear yes.but is it wrong to worry about the future?

Did the Germans in 1933 who listened to their government and accepted what they were doing expect what it would lead to? I doubt it very much. But they accepted what their Government did and look where it ended up.

It's right to remind people about this and it's right to be cautious. Pointing out comparisons with 1930s Germany is about caring about minorities as well as refugees and hoping that this horrific lot in charge don't go further down that road.

If Lineker has concerns about the future he should make his argument by setting those out.

He shouldn’t indulge in lazy tropes that minimise the evils of the Nazi regime. Presumably, Lineker’ concern isn’t that the UK government will shortly begin rounding up Jews and sending them to gas chambers (unless he is entirely unhinged). So it is not appropriate to invoke the Nazis and therefore ultimately the holocaust as a parallel, and doing so only serves to minimise those events.

 

[Blue and true]

If you talk about Nazis in the 1930s there’s a clear implication of where it leads. Don’t be so disingenuous.

Firstly, there isn't; that's inference on your part. If I tell you a young lad from the academy reminds me of Messi, and you then repeat to all and sundry that we have a player in the academy as good as prime Messi, then you've manipulated my words and blown a comparison out of all proportion.

Secondly, the language used by the Tories with this policy is repugnant. It's used to get the hard-right nationalists onside before the GE and simultaneously distract from the real issues plaguing the country; the objective of the bill (which is flagrantly illegal, btw), is to gets large swathes of knuckle draggers blaming all the ills of this country on "foreigners".

Mission accomplished for the party of compassion.

 

[west didsblue]

If Lineker had taken out the '1930's Germany' reference then I think there would have been little fuss. His use of over the top inflammatory language is just political mischief making which is fine when among friends but not so for the BBC where neutrality is it's whole DNA. If the multi millionaires Sugar and Lineker want to preach politics then fine, do it on commercial stations, not the politically neutral BBC.

He did it on Twitter not the BBC.

 

[paska]

That would be a good point if the news was just twenty silent minutes of images of people looking upset in Istanbul, people looking angry in Tel-Aviv, people looking gormless in London and a quick glance at the weather map.

But it isn't. Otherwise, yeah, you might as well just look it up online.

Interestingly, the news channel “euronews” does a segment of exactly that. It lasts no less than a minute and it’s called something like “no words”.

It’s fine enough, but if you wanna know what you’re even looking at you still have to listen to the real program shown a minute after.

 

[Coatigan]

He minimised it by comparing the description of some limited measures to stop illegal migration into a country with one of the worst crimes in human history. The two aren’t comparable and to imply they are equivalent is to minimise one and exaggerate the other.

Yes, he said the language in the 1930s, not the actual holocaust, but the implication was clear. After all, the nazis aren’t regarded as one of the most evil regimes in history because of their language in the early part of their reign. It was clear the line of argument he was making was to equate the current actions of the government with those of Nazi germany. That is an absolutely risible comparison that is offensive and beyond contempt.

I disagree. I think it is an appropriate comparison, at the right point in time. It isn't the first either, and shouldn't be the last. And he should have every right to make it.

By the same logic, you are now 'minimising holocoust' by exaggerating his comment to that extent.