On the Peoples News Channel last night it was revealed that study has calculated that the attack on 'Non Doms' could cost the country over £8 billion a year.
Don't you mean the People's Entertainment Channel? You could get them into a lot of trouble by calling them a news channel, because if they were a news channel they'd have to tell the truth.
A study by whom? Let me guess: a right-wing think tank partly funded by non-doms?
Its easy enough to knock GBN: five minutes with some of it requires at least an hour scrubbing out one's mind with bleach. But you have to acknowledge that at least some of the views expressed are not entirely unreasonable and are shared by people who are not swivel-eyed loons.
Ever since the 2016 referendum there has been a tendency for much of the MSM to sneer at the people they decided had 'voted wrong', and this attitude is obviously shared among some politicians. It has been all too easy for the metropolitan political/chattering classes to sneer at the concerns of those they may privately consider deplorable, but they dismiss and sneer at things they don't understand because they don't live in the same areas and have the same sort of lives. And some government policies betray the same depths of ignorance.
A classic example is the provision of "15 hours per week of free childcare": most people thinks this means 15 hours per week for a year, and that is the way it is presented. But it is a lie: what is provided is 15 hours weekly for 38 weeks a year, leaving a gap of at least 9 weeks with no support. What eejit decided on this nonsense? A civil service that has children in a 2 parent household and gets 5 weeks annual leave per parent is the answer. It simply doesn't work for the "ordinary working people" that Mr Starmer claims to represent but about whose lives he appears clueless.
Is the Budget going to do anything to address this kind of lunacy? I won't be holding my breath.
I'm assuming it might be a reference to the Adam Smith Institute (tick "right wing think tank") report released at the end of the week, claiming a quarter of non-doms would leave the UK, though their figure for the cost to the UK economy was £6.5b rather than £8 (so either the entertainment channel in question was referring to another report or aren't too concerned with accurately reporting). It's a report that has received a lot of criticisms from every academic specialising in taxation of the ultra wealthy, questioning both the number of non-doms and also the amount of tax they pay/would pay.
@TheOrganist this is pure Treasury cheeseparing, fucking up a publicly funded programme because GBeebeeists go mad at the idea they should ever work properly.
And whose fault is it that decisions made in 2016 are going ridiculously badly? Surely not those who actually supported them? The whingers who won't take a moment's responsibility for their own utter fuck up?
I'm assuming it might be a reference to the Adam Smith Institute (tick "right wing think tank") report released at the end of the week, claiming a quarter of non-doms would leave the UK, though their figure for the cost to the UK economy was £6.5b rather than £8 (so either the entertainment channel in question was referring to another report or aren't too concerned with accurately reporting). It's a report that has received a lot of criticisms from every academic specialising in taxation of the ultra wealthy, questioning both the number of non-doms and also the amount of tax they pay/would pay.
It's not all about taxation. It's also about the loss of some jobs.
On the Peoples News Channel last night it was revealed that study has calculated that the attack on 'Non Doms' could cost the country over £8 billion a year.
Don't you mean the People's Entertainment Channel? You could get them into a lot of trouble by calling them a news channel, because if they were a news channel they'd have to tell the truth.
A study by whom? Let me guess: a right-wing think tank partly funded by non-doms?
It's an entertainment channel with an unbiased news bulletin every hour
My point of course is that we should 'follow the money.' That's where the smoking gun lies.
At any rate, Starmer and Co seem to be courting the business community big time, whilst introducing some measures that aren't likely to be popular with some businesses.
That's always going to be a tricky path for any Labour government to take. The Labour left will accuse it of kow-towing to rabid capitalism. The Conservatives will say that it's all very well and good except they must leave the obscenely wealthy alone and not introduce any measures likely to improve the lot of ordinary workers.
No, it's not a 'popular' news channel, GB News is a 'populist' news channel if ever there was one.
I'm assuming it might be a reference to the Adam Smith Institute (tick "right wing think tank") report released at the end of the week, claiming a quarter of non-doms would leave the UK, though their figure for the cost to the UK economy was £6.5b rather than £8 (so either the entertainment channel in question was referring to another report or aren't too concerned with accurately reporting). It's a report that has received a lot of criticisms from every academic specialising in taxation of the ultra wealthy, questioning both the number of non-doms and also the amount of tax they pay/would pay.
It's not all about taxation. It's also about the loss of some jobs.
On the Peoples News Channel last night it was revealed that study has calculated that the attack on 'Non Doms' could cost the country over £8 billion a year.
Don't you mean the People's Entertainment Channel? You could get them into a lot of trouble by calling them a news channel, because if they were a news channel they'd have to tell the truth.
A study by whom? Let me guess: a right-wing think tank partly funded by non-doms?
It's an entertainment channel with an unbiased news bulletin every hour
I'm assuming it might be a reference to the Adam Smith Institute (tick "right wing think tank") report released at the end of the week, claiming a quarter of non-doms would leave the UK, though their figure for the cost to the UK economy was £6.5b rather than £8 (so either the entertainment channel in question was referring to another report or aren't too concerned with accurately reporting). It's a report that has received a lot of criticisms from every academic specialising in taxation of the ultra wealthy, questioning both the number of non-doms and also the amount of tax they pay/would pay.
It's not all about taxation. It's also about the loss of some jobs.
On the Peoples News Channel last night it was revealed that study has calculated that the attack on 'Non Doms' could cost the country over £8 billion a year.
Don't you mean the People's Entertainment Channel? You could get them into a lot of trouble by calling them a news channel, because if they were a news channel they'd have to tell the truth.
A study by whom? Let me guess: a right-wing think tank partly funded by non-doms?
It's an entertainment channel with an unbiased news bulletin every hour
I'm assuming it might be a reference to the Adam Smith Institute (tick "right wing think tank") report released at the end of the week, claiming a quarter of non-doms would leave the UK, though their figure for the cost to the UK economy was £6.5b rather than £8 (so either the entertainment channel in question was referring to another report or aren't too concerned with accurately reporting). It's a report that has received a lot of criticisms from every academic specialising in taxation of the ultra wealthy, questioning both the number of non-doms and also the amount of tax they pay/would pay.
It's not all about taxation. It's also about the loss of some jobs.
I think the ASI report had a prediction of something like 20,000 job losses if the non-doms they predicted leaving the UK actually leave. It's part of the £6.5b cost they predict.
Which doesn't change the fact that practically everyone with expertise in how the ultra-wealthy actually behave trashed the report. Nor that, according to your statements, that an entertainment channel presenting their take on current affairs quotes £8b which isn't even supported by the rubbish produced by ASI, and certainly not by any experts.
I'm assuming it might be a reference to the Adam Smith Institute (tick "right wing think tank") report released at the end of the week, claiming a quarter of non-doms would leave the UK, though their figure for the cost to the UK economy was £6.5b rather than £8 (so either the entertainment channel in question was referring to another report or aren't too concerned with accurately reporting). It's a report that has received a lot of criticisms from every academic specialising in taxation of the ultra wealthy, questioning both the number of non-doms and also the amount of tax they pay/would pay.
It's not all about taxation. It's also about the loss of some jobs.
I think the ASI report had a prediction of something like 20,000 job losses if the non-doms they predicted leaving the UK actually leave. It's part of the £6.5b cost they predict.
Which doesn't change the fact that practically everyone with expertise in how the ultra-wealthy actually behave trashed the report. Nor that, according to your statements, that an entertainment channel presenting their take on current affairs quotes £8b which isn't even supported by the rubbish produced by ASI, and certainly not by any experts.
Which is very commendable, but you only ever serm to cite GB News. I might be wrong, but it suggests to me that it's your main source of information.
That's your prerogative and your choice, of course but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that your claim that its news coverage is 'unbiased' is your idea of a joke.
I find it funny too but less so if you are being 'serious' as you claim.
How can we take anything you say seriously if you genuinely believe that GB News is a) popular rather than populist and b) unbiased when, as @chrisstiles has pointed out, its proprietors make no secret of their particular stance and bias.
I'm assuming it might be a reference to the Adam Smith Institute (tick "right wing think tank") report released at the end of the week, claiming a quarter of non-doms would leave the UK, though their figure for the cost to the UK economy was £6.5b rather than £8 (so either the entertainment channel in question was referring to another report or aren't too concerned with accurately reporting). It's a report that has received a lot of criticisms from every academic specialising in taxation of the ultra wealthy, questioning both the number of non-doms and also the amount of tax they pay/would pay.
It's not all about taxation. It's also about the loss of some jobs.
I think the ASI report had a prediction of something like 20,000 job losses if the non-doms they predicted leaving the UK actually leave. It's part of the £6.5b cost they predict.
Whenever someone mentions the ASI, it's worth bearing in mind that the other big think tank in their network believes that doctors should not be licensed:
"Perhaps most importantly, the compulsory licensing of medical professionals should be abolished. Anyone should be at liberty to practice as a doctor or nurse, with patients relying on brand names or competing voluntary associations to ensure quality. "
I welcome purveyors of their reports to test this principle - with a life threatening illness.
Which is very commendable, but you only ever serm to cite GB News. I might be wrong, but it suggests to me that it's your main source of information.
That's your prerogative and your choice, of course but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that your claim that its news coverage is 'unbiased' is your idea of a joke.
I find it funny too but less so if you are being 'serious' as you claim.
How can we take anything you say seriously if you genuinely believe that GB News is a) popular rather than populist and b) unbiased when, as @chrisstiles has pointed out, its proprietors make no secret of their particular stance and bias.
You are aware of how media works, I take it?
I watch several news programmes on BBC such as Politics live.
What is your evidence that 3 to 5 minutes hourly new bulletins on GBN are biased. These bulletins just report the news. They don't comment on the news.
No news broadcast is unbiased. Each channel has its own way of looking at things. Even if they seem to be neutral they have to decided what is important enough to highlight. Thar is why some things that turn out to be important slip under the radar. I generally follow BBC news. Yes it has its faults but it is one of the better ones.
No news broadcast is unbiased. Each channel has its own way of looking at things. Even if they seem to be neutral they have to decided what is important enough to highlight. Thar is why some things that turn out to be important slip under the radar. I generally follow BBC news. Yes it has its faults but it is one of the better ones.
You clearly haven't seen many, if any, of these news broadcasts. A male or female merely reads the news without comment
The selection of what news stories to report, what order to do so, how much time to spend on each, whether it's simply an anchor to camera piece or has a reporter on the ground etc are all potential areas of bias even before there's any consideration of the actual words used to report events.
@Telford, that's why I rhetorically asked whether you knew how news media works. You clearly don't.
There's no such thing as an unbiased news report. Any news report is going to reflect the viewpoint of the outlet where it appears, whether it be the BBC, CNN, Russia Today, The Times, The Telegraph, The Grauniad, The Birmingham Post or whatever else.
There are editorial decisions involved every step of the way.
@Telford, that's why I rhetorically asked whether you knew how news media works. You clearly don't.
There's no such thing as an unbiased news report. Any news report is going to reflect the viewpoint of the outlet where it appears, whether it be the BBC, CNN, Russia Today, The Times, The Telegraph, The Grauniad, The Birmingham Post or whatever else.
There are editorial decisions involved every step of the way.
I'm surprised you don't appear to realise this.
How patronising from someone who does not even watch these news bulletins
How patronising from someone who does not even watch these news bulletins
Selection and framing bias applies to all news bulletins. You don't have to watch a particular organization's output to know this.
Is it worth reporting that one candidate for US president spent time at a campaign event praising the size of deceased golfer Arnold Palmer's penis? Was that the most important thing the candidate said at that event?
@Telford, that's why I rhetorically asked whether you knew how news media works. You clearly don't.
There's no such thing as an unbiased news report. Any news report is going to reflect the viewpoint of the outlet where it appears, whether it be the BBC, CNN, Russia Today, The Times, The Telegraph, The Grauniad, The Birmingham Post or whatever else.
There are editorial decisions involved every step of the way.
I'm surprised you don't appear to realise this.
How patronising from someone who does not even watch these news bulletins
I watch news bulletins and am always surprised when people claim some are neutral. It is such a well known fact. There is bias for reasons already stated.
It's not patronising in the least @Telford. It's simply how these things work and as I pointed out, applies to all media outlets. I even listed some by way of example.
You'll have heard enough witness statements and evidence in your career to know that facts can be selected and presented in different ways.
The same applies to the media.
As @Hugal says, it's common knowledge. It's how these things work.
That doesn't mean that we should become cynical and distrustful, simply that we need to recognise where various media sources are coming from. The proprietors of GB News make no effort to disguise their particular slant and 'take' on things so I am genuinely surprised that you consider it 'neutral'.
If that's being 'patronising' then guilty as charged m'lud, but I don't think it is.
When I read a news report in The Times or Grauniad I'm as conscious of those papers' particular slant on things as I would be if I read an opinion piece in The New Statesman or Spectator. That doesn't mean that a news article and an opinion piece are the same thing, of course.
I pretty much know what I'd be likely to get on GB News because it makes no bones about what it offers. Likewise, I'd have a pretty good idea what I'd get from CNN, Fox News, Channel 4, the BBC etc etc.
In saying that, I'm not implying that GB News coverage is 'fake' or that everything they report is factually incorrect. No.
What I am saying is that the selection, presentation and editorial stance will reflect the particular stance of the proprietors.
Same as with any other media outlet.
I won't go into detail for obvious reasons but some decades ago my mother was witness to a fatal accident which was widely covered by both the broadsheets and tabloids. Some of the tabloid coverage certainly was 'fake news' but mostly it consisted of sensationalised accounts of the incident. I'm no fan of The Daily Mail, for instance, but in this instance its coverage was measured and balanced and without the sensationalism that characterised the other tabloids.
The broadsheets covered the incident in an exemplary way, I thought.
As for GB News, I met someone the other week who hates it with a passion but watches it addictively and compulsively, his words, as it seems to fuel his anger and discontent. That hardly seems healthy.
In saying that, I'm not implying that GB News coverage is 'fake' or that everything they report is factually incorrect. No.
What I am saying is that the selection, presentation and editorial stance will reflect the particular stance of the proprietors.
Same as with any other media outlet.
I won't go into detail for obvious reasons but some decades ago my mother was witness to a fatal accident which was widely covered by both the broadsheets and tabloids. Some of the tabloid coverage certainly was 'fake news' but mostly it consisted of sensationalised accounts of the incident. I'm no fan of The Daily Mail, for instance, but in this instance its coverage was measured and balanced and without the sensationalism that characterised the other tabloids.
The broadsheets covered the incident in an exemplary way, I thought.
As for GB News, I met someone the other week who hates it with a passion but watches it addictively and compulsively, his words, as it seems to fuel his anger and discontent. That hardly seems healthy.
It's a pity that you will not be able to give me examples of a lack of neutrality in news bulletins on GB News.
In saying that, I'm not implying that GB News coverage is 'fake' or that everything they report is factually incorrect. No.
What I am saying is that the selection, presentation and editorial stance will reflect the particular stance of the proprietors.
Same as with any other media outlet.
I won't go into detail for obvious reasons but some decades ago my mother was witness to a fatal accident which was widely covered by both the broadsheets and tabloids. Some of the tabloid coverage certainly was 'fake news' but mostly it consisted of sensationalised accounts of the incident. I'm no fan of The Daily Mail, for instance, but in this instance its coverage was measured and balanced and without the sensationalism that characterised the other tabloids.
The broadsheets covered the incident in an exemplary way, I thought.
As for GB News, I met someone the other week who hates it with a passion but watches it addictively and compulsively, his words, as it seems to fuel his anger and discontent. That hardly seems healthy.
It's a pity that you will not be able to give me examples of a lack of neutrality in news bulletins on GB News.
In saying that, I'm not implying that GB News coverage is 'fake' or that everything they report is factually incorrect. No.
What I am saying is that the selection, presentation and editorial stance will reflect the particular stance of the proprietors.
Same as with any other media outlet.
I won't go into detail for obvious reasons but some decades ago my mother was witness to a fatal accident which was widely covered by both the broadsheets and tabloids. Some of the tabloid coverage certainly was 'fake news' but mostly it consisted of sensationalised accounts of the incident. I'm no fan of The Daily Mail, for instance, but in this instance its coverage was measured and balanced and without the sensationalism that characterised the other tabloids.
The broadsheets covered the incident in an exemplary way, I thought.
As for GB News, I met someone the other week who hates it with a passion but watches it addictively and compulsively, his words, as it seems to fuel his anger and discontent. That hardly seems healthy.
It's a pity that you will not be able to give me examples of a lack of neutrality in news bulletins on GB News.
Not really. I started reading and the screen was suddenly filled with a big advert. In any case I assume that the factcheck was probably about the whole of the GBN output rather than just the news bulletins
The ads are irritating but you can close them easily enough. The analysis concludes that the news bulletins are 'mixed' factually, but more balanced than the editorial and opinion pieces, which accords with what you assumed.
It is also in line with what might be expected seeing as GBNews draws from what the site refers to as 'generally credible' sources such as the BBC in a second-hand kind of way.
That said, there is a list of reporting errors and things that are factually incorrect which GBNews has reported as though they were true.
This leads the fact-check site to conclude that it is unreliable overall as a source of news.
Bias is one thing, factual inaccuracies another.
I can see why you are making the distinction between the news bulletins and the editorial. I would make that distinction too in the case of any news media, left, right or centre.
But there are instances cited where GBNews reported factual inaccuracies as actual fact.
If I were a viewer of GBNews that would cause me some concern.
I would like to comment on a few examples. Do you have any ?
They are on the site you can't be bothered to read.
In the interests of balance and fairness, there are pundits who give GB News more credit and I'll post a link to one of them tomorrow. They still conclude that it is 'right wing news for right wing people,' though, and with a very narrow and parochial focus. But then Channel 4 News is left wing News for left wing people...
It's the middle of the night and I've woken up. I need to get some sleep.
I believe in 'innocent till proven guilty' but there do appear to have instances of misreporting and factual inaccuracy as well as a lack of impartiality at times.
The Media Bias web-page states that generally GBNews reports stories factually, although sometimes with loaded language or a particular right-wing slant.
Other media outlets will do the same of course, only from other positions or perspectives. The station's webpage has hypertext links to other sources, such as the BBC. So it's certainly not saying that every single news item is skewed or slanted unduly or that everything it reports is factually incorrect.
The list of false claims and factually inaccuracies it cites are all related to the pandemic, which may reflect the date that the page was created.
It could also be, of course, that GBNews has cleaned up its act to some extent as it has found its feet.
I will provide a link later to the other media analysis article I mentioned which is quite complementary of some aspects of GBNews's approach and critical of more liberal mainstream media in some respects.
That's got some irritating ads on yo but it's easy to close those down.
I must admit, though @Telford that on occasion I've noticed you refuse to read articles in The Grauniad for example because of a pop-up ad asking for subscriptions or support.
This suggests to me that you either don't understand how online media works or know how to close down or avoid ads, or you are taking a 'la-la-la, I'm not listening!' approach whenever anyone presents you with material that doesn't fit or accord with views akin to your own.
And the Budget?
Its looking a lot like the old Tax-and-Spend. The lowering of the NI threshhold coupled with the rise in the minimum wage, especially at the lower age ranges, isn't going to help the young unemployed.
But there are many other things to do with business rates and an allowance re NICs which you aren't taking into account. In any case how do you get out of the utter destruction of public services without spending and therefore raising more money????
Well, the options, in broad strokes, are:
tax, don't spend;
spend, don't tax;
don't tax, don't spend;
tax and spend.
The first is a non-starter; the second doesn't work; the third has been tried for the past fourteen years and hasn't worked; which leaves us with the fourth.
Or, to put it another way, what would you do differently, bearing in mind the actual trade-offs involved?
The fact that tax and spend, which all governments have to do, has become a pejorative for any policy that raises taxes above a fantastic level is a symptom of something unhealthy in our public economic discourse.
Give over. The last thing we need in this country is a wannabe Fox News and thank God we have impartiality rules for TV stations aimed at preventing that.
There are all sorts of limits on free speech. It is not some kind of absolute good. You may not shout ‘Fire!’ In a crowded theatre, you may not defame, and for certain kinds of programme you have a duty to be impartial.
That is to say free speech applies not only to those whom your broadcasting business or its political masters happen to favour, but also to those whose voices you’d rather suppress.
There are all sorts of limits on free speech. It is not some kind of absolute good. You may not shout ‘Fire!’ In a crowded theatre, you may not defame, and for certain kinds of programme you have a duty to be impartial.
That is to say free speech applies not only to those whom your broadcasting business or its political masters happen to favour, but also to those whose voices you’d rather suppress.
There are all sorts of limits on free speech. It is not some kind of absolute good. You may not shout ‘Fire!’ In a crowded theatre, you may not defame, and for certain kinds of programme you have a duty to be impartial.
That is to say free speech applies not only to those whom your broadcasting business or its political masters happen to favour, but also to those whose voices you’d rather suppress.
Voices on GBN are being suppressed.
Are they feck.
The problem wasn't Sunak having his say. The problem was partiality.
Comments
A study by whom? Let me guess: a right-wing think tank partly funded by non-doms?
Ever since the 2016 referendum there has been a tendency for much of the MSM to sneer at the people they decided had 'voted wrong', and this attitude is obviously shared among some politicians. It has been all too easy for the metropolitan political/chattering classes to sneer at the concerns of those they may privately consider deplorable, but they dismiss and sneer at things they don't understand because they don't live in the same areas and have the same sort of lives. And some government policies betray the same depths of ignorance.
A classic example is the provision of "15 hours per week of free childcare": most people thinks this means 15 hours per week for a year, and that is the way it is presented. But it is a lie: what is provided is 15 hours weekly for 38 weeks a year, leaving a gap of at least 9 weeks with no support. What eejit decided on this nonsense? A civil service that has children in a 2 parent household and gets 5 weeks annual leave per parent is the answer. It simply doesn't work for the "ordinary working people" that Mr Starmer claims to represent but about whose lives he appears clueless.
Is the Budget going to do anything to address this kind of lunacy? I won't be holding my breath.
And whose fault is it that decisions made in 2016 are going ridiculously badly? Surely not those who actually supported them? The whingers who won't take a moment's responsibility for their own utter fuck up?
It's not all about taxation. It's also about the loss of some jobs.
It's an entertainment channel with an unbiased news bulletin every hour
At any rate, Starmer and Co seem to be courting the business community big time, whilst introducing some measures that aren't likely to be popular with some businesses.
That's always going to be a tricky path for any Labour government to take. The Labour left will accuse it of kow-towing to rabid capitalism. The Conservatives will say that it's all very well and good except they must leave the obscenely wealthy alone and not introduce any measures likely to improve the lot of ordinary workers.
No, it's not a 'popular' news channel, GB News is a 'populist' news channel if ever there was one.
I'm surprised you can't tell the difference.
I'd have said the hosts and funders made their biases known to even the meanest intelligence, but perhaps that was optimistic.
Is this the Bad Jokes thread?
Here Telford is not funny and not serious.
😂😂😂😂
Which doesn't change the fact that practically everyone with expertise in how the ultra-wealthy actually behave trashed the report. Nor that, according to your statements, that an entertainment channel presenting their take on current affairs quotes £8b which isn't even supported by the rubbish produced by ASI, and certainly not by any experts.
It looks like I may have misheard the £8 Billion I am serious and I would never criticise a programme I don't watch
That's your prerogative and your choice, of course but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that your claim that its news coverage is 'unbiased' is your idea of a joke.
@Spike seemed to find it amusing.
I find it funny too but less so if you are being 'serious' as you claim.
How can we take anything you say seriously if you genuinely believe that GB News is a) popular rather than populist and b) unbiased when, as @chrisstiles has pointed out, its proprietors make no secret of their particular stance and bias.
You are aware of how media works, I take it?
Whenever someone mentions the ASI, it's worth bearing in mind that the other big think tank in their network believes that doctors should not be licensed:
https://iea.org.uk/blog/how-to-abolish-the-nhs
"Perhaps most importantly, the compulsory licensing of medical professionals should be abolished. Anyone should be at liberty to practice as a doctor or nurse, with patients relying on brand names or competing voluntary associations to ensure quality. "
I welcome purveyors of their reports to test this principle - with a life threatening illness.
I watch several news programmes on BBC such as Politics live.
What is your evidence that 3 to 5 minutes hourly new bulletins on GBN are biased. These bulletins just report the news. They don't comment on the news.
You clearly haven't seen many, if any, of these news broadcasts. A male or female merely reads the news without comment
No news is unbiased.
There's no such thing as an unbiased news report. Any news report is going to reflect the viewpoint of the outlet where it appears, whether it be the BBC, CNN, Russia Today, The Times, The Telegraph, The Grauniad, The Birmingham Post or whatever else.
There are editorial decisions involved every step of the way.
I'm surprised you don't appear to realise this.
How patronising from someone who does not even watch these news bulletins
Selection and framing bias applies to all news bulletins. You don't have to watch a particular organization's output to know this.
Is it worth reporting that one candidate for US president spent time at a campaign event praising the size of deceased golfer Arnold Palmer's penis? Was that the most important thing the candidate said at that event?
I watch news bulletins and am always surprised when people claim some are neutral. It is such a well known fact. There is bias for reasons already stated.
You'll have heard enough witness statements and evidence in your career to know that facts can be selected and presented in different ways.
The same applies to the media.
As @Hugal says, it's common knowledge. It's how these things work.
That doesn't mean that we should become cynical and distrustful, simply that we need to recognise where various media sources are coming from. The proprietors of GB News make no effort to disguise their particular slant and 'take' on things so I am genuinely surprised that you consider it 'neutral'.
If that's being 'patronising' then guilty as charged m'lud, but I don't think it is.
When I read a news report in The Times or Grauniad I'm as conscious of those papers' particular slant on things as I would be if I read an opinion piece in The New Statesman or Spectator. That doesn't mean that a news article and an opinion piece are the same thing, of course.
I pretty much know what I'd be likely to get on GB News because it makes no bones about what it offers. Likewise, I'd have a pretty good idea what I'd get from CNN, Fox News, Channel 4, the BBC etc etc.
What I am saying is that the selection, presentation and editorial stance will reflect the particular stance of the proprietors.
Same as with any other media outlet.
I won't go into detail for obvious reasons but some decades ago my mother was witness to a fatal accident which was widely covered by both the broadsheets and tabloids. Some of the tabloid coverage certainly was 'fake news' but mostly it consisted of sensationalised accounts of the incident. I'm no fan of The Daily Mail, for instance, but in this instance its coverage was measured and balanced and without the sensationalism that characterised the other tabloids.
The broadsheets covered the incident in an exemplary way, I thought.
As for GB News, I met someone the other week who hates it with a passion but watches it addictively and compulsively, his words, as it seems to fuel his anger and discontent. That hardly seems healthy.
It's a pity that you will not be able to give me examples of a lack of neutrality in news bulletins on GB News.
This might help: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/gb-news-uk-bias/
It is also in line with what might be expected seeing as GBNews draws from what the site refers to as 'generally credible' sources such as the BBC in a second-hand kind of way.
That said, there is a list of reporting errors and things that are factually incorrect which GBNews has reported as though they were true.
This leads the fact-check site to conclude that it is unreliable overall as a source of news.
Bias is one thing, factual inaccuracies another.
I can see why you are making the distinction between the news bulletins and the editorial. I would make that distinction too in the case of any news media, left, right or centre.
But there are instances cited where GBNews reported factual inaccuracies as actual fact.
If I were a viewer of GBNews that would cause me some concern.
It obviously doesn't seem to trouble you though.
Wrong about
vaccine effectiveness
Covid-19 and vaccines
Try installing a good (free) adblocker. They are very effective in providing a largely ad-free environment online.
They are on the site you can't be bothered to read.
In the interests of balance and fairness, there are pundits who give GB News more credit and I'll post a link to one of them tomorrow. They still conclude that it is 'right wing news for right wing people,' though, and with a very narrow and parochial focus. But then Channel 4 News is left wing News for left wing people...
It's the middle of the night and I've woken up. I need to get some sleep.
I believe in 'innocent till proven guilty' but there do appear to have instances of misreporting and factual inaccuracy as well as a lack of impartiality at times.
Other media outlets will do the same of course, only from other positions or perspectives. The station's webpage has hypertext links to other sources, such as the BBC. So it's certainly not saying that every single news item is skewed or slanted unduly or that everything it reports is factually incorrect.
The list of false claims and factually inaccuracies it cites are all related to the pandemic, which may reflect the date that the page was created.
It could also be, of course, that GBNews has cleaned up its act to some extent as it has found its feet.
I will provide a link later to the other media analysis article I mentioned which is quite complementary of some aspects of GBNews's approach and critical of more liberal mainstream media in some respects.
That's got some irritating ads on yo but it's easy to close those down.
I must admit, though @Telford that on occasion I've noticed you refuse to read articles in The Grauniad for example because of a pop-up ad asking for subscriptions or support.
This suggests to me that you either don't understand how online media works or know how to close down or avoid ads, or you are taking a 'la-la-la, I'm not listening!' approach whenever anyone presents you with material that doesn't fit or accord with views akin to your own.
Members of the jury ...
Liberal news for liberal people, maybe. Nothing particularly left wing about it.
Its looking a lot like the old Tax-and-Spend. The lowering of the NI threshhold coupled with the rise in the minimum wage, especially at the lower age ranges, isn't going to help the young unemployed.
Ofcom fines GB News £100,000 over impartiality
tax, don't spend;
spend, don't tax;
don't tax, don't spend;
tax and spend.
The first is a non-starter; the second doesn't work; the third has been tried for the past fourteen years and hasn't worked; which leaves us with the fourth.
Or, to put it another way, what would you do differently, bearing in mind the actual trade-offs involved?
The fact that tax and spend, which all governments have to do, has become a pejorative for any policy that raises taxes above a fantastic level is a symptom of something unhealthy in our public economic discourse.
Relatively. In comparison with GBNews and right-wing news outlets.
But even Sky is left wing compared with GBeebies, making it a meaningless statement.
Disgraceful attack on free speech.
Give over. The last thing we need in this country is a wannabe Fox News and thank God we have impartiality rules for TV stations aimed at preventing that.
That is to say free speech applies not only to those whom your broadcasting business or its political masters happen to favour, but also to those whose voices you’d rather suppress.
Are they feck.
The problem wasn't Sunak having his say. The problem was partiality.