... I find that GB News criticises the government on a daily basis.
For not sinking enough small boats? For not deliberately ramming them and letting their passengers drown? For delay and too much sensitivity in sending people to Rwanda? For attempting, even if unsuccessfully and lackadaisically, to negotiate with the EU about anything at all?
Do we think that, as some people are saying, the. Cons are not doing much now because they think they will lose the next election and then it will be another parties problem (likely Lab)
Do we think that, as some people are saying, the. Cons are not doing much now because they think they will lose the next election and then it will be another parties problem (likely Lab)
That might explain their current behaviour but not the previous 13 years.
Of course it isn't. Every news editor has, at the very least, to decide which stories (and you can only get 6 or 7 on a half-hour bulletin) are news-worthy, and then decide how they should be covered. That point was made by Malcolm Muggeridge in his lectures "Christ and the Media" back in the mid-70s - and he, as a long time journalist, knew how things worked!
Telford's position is perfectly logical, if you start from the assumption that those presenting GBNews are all upright true-blue patriotic beefeating straightforward clean-living Englishmen/Britishers, whereas the BBC is staffed by long-haired vegan Woke non-binary cosmopolitan fellow-travelling Hampstead intellectuals - the truth probably does lie somewhere in between.
Telford reminds me of My Old Mum, who used to say that If It's In The Paper/On The Noos It Must Be True. They Wouldn't Be Allowed To Say It Otherwise - That's The LAW.
You could hear the capital letters as she said it...
How do you know? How would you know if a side in an argument was not represented?
Let me give you an example. They have a debate on Just stop oil protests. One of the organisers is invited along to explain themselves. They get a chance to do this without being shouted down.
Ok, but what about those who think Just Stop Oil aren't going far enough? And where does offering all sides of an argument drift into giving a platform to people who are making provably false claims? And why is it that JSO are expected to "explain themselves" as if they're somehow the problem. Do they also get the oil companies on to "explain themselves" about why they lied about climate change for so long? How arguments are framed, what questions are asked, and who or what is chosen as representing a "side" are all areas prone to manipulation. Even who gets treated as an "expert" vs an "activist" vs a "vested interest" matters a lot.
People get very annoyed by the antics of Just stop oil. It gives them the opportunity to persuade the public that the protests are justified.
See, that's the sort of biased framing I'm talking about (not least because the GBeebies crew are the ones encouraging people to rage against JSO). Can you not see how that is going produce a very different discussion from (for example) "the climate crisis requires urgent action, what are the fastest and most effective ways to push the government and private business to do what is necessary"?
Perhaps the most telling aspect of the systemic bias at play here is that this supposed balance has resulted repeatedly in you parroting inaccurate far right talking points and never, not once, an argument from the left.
But that's what most other posters already do.
If someone repeatedly parroted inaccurate left-wing talking points which on questioning always came from the same source, then you'd have an equivalence.
I find that GB News criticises the government on a daily basis.
I would be intrigued to learn that any of those criticisms were that it's too right wing and harming marginalised groups.
Sounds like an excellent reason to spend a few hours watching it.
How do you know? How would you know if a side in an argument was not represented?
Let me give you an example. They have a debate on Just stop oil protests. One of the organisers is invited along to explain themselves. They get a chance to do this without being shouted down.
Ok, but what about those who think Just Stop Oil aren't going far enough? And where does offering all sides of an argument drift into giving a platform to people who are making provably false claims? And why is it that JSO are expected to "explain themselves" as if they're somehow the problem. Do they also get the oil companies on to "explain themselves" about why they lied about climate change for so long? How arguments are framed, what questions are asked, and who or what is chosen as representing a "side" are all areas prone to manipulation. Even who gets treated as an "expert" vs an "activist" vs a "vested interest" matters a lot.
People get very annoyed by the antics of Just stop oil. It gives them the opportunity to persuade the public that the protests are justified.
See, that's the sort of biased framing I'm talking about (not least because the GBeebies crew are the ones encouraging people to rage against JSO). Can you not see how that is going produce a very different discussion from (for example) "the climate crisis requires urgent action, what are the fastest and most effective ways to push the government and private business to do what is necessary"?
Perhaps the most telling aspect of the systemic bias at play here is that this supposed balance has resulted repeatedly in you parroting inaccurate far right talking points and never, not once, an argument from the left.
But that's what most other posters already do.
If someone repeatedly parroted inaccurate left-wing talking points which on questioning always came from the same source, then you'd have an equivalence.
I find that GB News criticises the government on a daily basis.
I would be intrigued to learn that any of those criticisms were that it's too right wing and harming marginalised groups.
Sounds like an excellent reason to spend a few hours watching it.
If you think I'm going to sift through hours of Neil Oliver, Greasy Smug, Nigel Toadface Farage and the other assorted deplorables who lair at GB News in the hope of finding something vaguely progressive you must think I have less brain than Lee Anderson has compassion.
How do you know? How would you know if a side in an argument was not represented?
Let me give you an example. They have a debate on Just stop oil protests. One of the organisers is invited along to explain themselves. They get a chance to do this without being shouted down.
Ok, but what about those who think Just Stop Oil aren't going far enough? And where does offering all sides of an argument drift into giving a platform to people who are making provably false claims? And why is it that JSO are expected to "explain themselves" as if they're somehow the problem. Do they also get the oil companies on to "explain themselves" about why they lied about climate change for so long? How arguments are framed, what questions are asked, and who or what is chosen as representing a "side" are all areas prone to manipulation. Even who gets treated as an "expert" vs an "activist" vs a "vested interest" matters a lot.
People get very annoyed by the antics of Just stop oil. It gives them the opportunity to persuade the public that the protests are justified.
See, that's the sort of biased framing I'm talking about (not least because the GBeebies crew are the ones encouraging people to rage against JSO). Can you not see how that is going produce a very different discussion from (for example) "the climate crisis requires urgent action, what are the fastest and most effective ways to push the government and private business to do what is necessary"?
Perhaps the most telling aspect of the systemic bias at play here is that this supposed balance has resulted repeatedly in you parroting inaccurate far right talking points and never, not once, an argument from the left.
But that's what most other posters already do.
If someone repeatedly parroted inaccurate left-wing talking points which on questioning always came from the same source, then you'd have an equivalence.
I find that GB News criticises the government on a daily basis.
I would be intrigued to learn that any of those criticisms were that it's too right wing and harming marginalised groups.
Sounds like an excellent reason to spend a few hours watching it.
If you think I'm going to sift through hours of Neil Oliver, Greasy Smug, Nigel Toadface Farage and the other assorted deplorables who lair at GB News in the hope of finding something vaguely progressive you must think I have less brain than Lee Anderson has compassion.
Admittedly after watching hours of them you would have about that much functioning brain.
(Note the typo in the above...not sure if they mean Sunak, Sunk, or Swank )
I don't know what you all think about wind power - whether offshore on onshore - but it does seem to me to be a much more positive way forward than yet more gas or oil prospecting, and something that any proper government would be getting to grips with.
How do you know? How would you know if a side in an argument was not represented?
Let me give you an example. They have a debate on Just stop oil protests. One of the organisers is invited along to explain themselves. They get a chance to do this without being shouted down.
Ok, but what about those who think Just Stop Oil aren't going far enough? And where does offering all sides of an argument drift into giving a platform to people who are making provably false claims? And why is it that JSO are expected to "explain themselves" as if they're somehow the problem. Do they also get the oil companies on to "explain themselves" about why they lied about climate change for so long? How arguments are framed, what questions are asked, and who or what is chosen as representing a "side" are all areas prone to manipulation. Even who gets treated as an "expert" vs an "activist" vs a "vested interest" matters a lot.
People get very annoyed by the antics of Just stop oil. It gives them the opportunity to persuade the public that the protests are justified.
See, that's the sort of biased framing I'm talking about (not least because the GBeebies crew are the ones encouraging people to rage against JSO). Can you not see how that is going produce a very different discussion from (for example) "the climate crisis requires urgent action, what are the fastest and most effective ways to push the government and private business to do what is necessary"?
Perhaps the most telling aspect of the systemic bias at play here is that this supposed balance has resulted repeatedly in you parroting inaccurate far right talking points and never, not once, an argument from the left.
But that's what most other posters already do.
If someone repeatedly parroted inaccurate left-wing talking points which on questioning always came from the same source, then you'd have an equivalence.
I find that GB News criticises the government on a daily basis.
I would be intrigued to learn that any of those criticisms were that it's too right wing and harming marginalised groups.
Sounds like an excellent reason to spend a few hours watching it.
If you think I'm going to sift through hours of Neil Oliver, Greasy Smug, Nigel Toadface Farage and the other assorted deplorables who lair at GB News in the hope of finding something vaguely progressive you must think I have less brain than Lee Anderson has compassion.
Arethosemyfeet, I think you may have failed to notice the little word 'If' at the beginning of my post. I do not share the assumptions posited, nor, I zuzpect, do many of our shipmates.
Arethosemyfeet, I think you may have failed to notice the little word 'If' at the beginning of my post. I do not share the assumptions posited, nor, I zuzpect, do many of our shipmates.
It's more that I didn't grasp that you intended the "golden mean" type point to be conditional on the "if", I thought you were implying the truth lay somewhere between those assumptions and, y'know, reality. Apologies for the confusion.
Apparently (and perhaps anecdotally) there were more EU flags being waved than England's Butcher's Apron!!
Maybe people are trying to say something to the government, the Brexiteers, and the Gammon in general, although apoplectic fits may have prevented the message getting through...
I would say there were marginally more British that EU flags, but it was a Close-Run Thing. The flags were allegedly distributed by a group outside the hall. I understand the BBC has pointed out that they hac nothing to do with it, and that no-one had to accept a flag.
It cheered me up no end when I heard this from a friend this morning who linked me to this report. I'd watched the C Minor Mass on Friday evening (excellant) and thought of watching last night's, but assumed it would be totally dominated by Union Jacks and Brexitist jingoism. I couldn't face it.
There was a row from the Brexitists when people produced EU flags in a previous year. I think the last time the event occurred the ever-servile BBC was reported as searching concert-goers to make sure nobody was sneaking in any flags to wave other than the approved UK emblem that May and Johnson had taken to appearing flanked by.
The BBC's own news report on the event, unsurprisingly, makes no reference to this display of identification with the deprecated cause that it would like to pretend withered away seven years ago.
The extra little snippet of pleasure from that article is that anything that annoys Isabel Oakeshott is automatically and inherently a 'Good Thing'.
Apparently (and perhaps anecdotally) there were more EU flags being waved than England's Butcher's Apron!!
Maybe people are trying to say something to the government, the Brexiteers, and the Gammon in general, although apoplectic fits may have prevented the message getting through...
I did see many people waving EU flags and singing Rule Britannia with gusto.
The LNOTP is usually a flag-shagging occasion for the Gammon, so for them to be confronted with rivals must have been annoying, to say the least.
No doubt Sushi Rinak will take the opportunity to renew his allegiance to The Sacred Flag, whilst Thirty-Pee Lee and Company tell the EU-loving wokerati to *fuck off to Yurp*, or something.
AFAIK, no-one has yet come up with a list (however brief) of positive things which Brexit has achieved...
It's not exactly the first time. EU flags have been distributed in their 1000s since 2017, and have been present in comparable numbers (if not slightly larger) as the union flag most years. It's been a few years since the Brexiteers have had the chance to complain - last year the Last Night didn't happen, and 2020 and 21 were small affairs with covid restrictions - and they might have forgotten how strongly musicians and music fans detest Brexit for the very substantial negative impact on the arts and music in particular.
Apparently (and perhaps anecdotally) there were more EU flags being waved than England's Butcher's Apron!!
Maybe people are trying to say something to the government, the Brexiteers, and the Gammon in general, although apoplectic fits may have prevented the message getting through...
I did see many people waving EU flags and singing Rule Britannia with gusto.
It's not exactly the first time. EU flags have been distributed in their 1000s since 2017, and have been present in comparable numbers (if not slightly larger) as the union flag most years. It's been a few years since the Brexiteers have had the chance to complain - last year the Last Night didn't happen, and 2020 and 21 were small affairs with covid restrictions - and they might have forgotten how strongly musicians and music fans detest Brexit for the very substantial negative impact on the arts and music in particular.
Apparently (and perhaps anecdotally) there were more EU flags being waved than England's Butcher's Apron!!
Maybe people are trying to say something to the government, the Brexiteers, and the Gammon in general, although apoplectic fits may have prevented the message getting through...
I did see many people waving EU flags and singing Rule Britannia with gusto.
It is a rousing tune, to be sure.
The tune is great - one of Arne's best - even if the words are complete and utter Tripe, written by a Scotsman...
A good point, and it's perhaps as well to remember that the song was not written specifically as a patriotic anthem, but as part of a masque which is nowadays entirely ignored...the link to James Thomson (above) explains this.
Comments
That might explain their current behaviour but not the previous 13 years.
Of course it isn't. Every news editor has, at the very least, to decide which stories (and you can only get 6 or 7 on a half-hour bulletin) are news-worthy, and then decide how they should be covered. That point was made by Malcolm Muggeridge in his lectures "Christ and the Media" back in the mid-70s - and he, as a long time journalist, knew how things worked!
Please, God, no!
O no. What worries me is your apparent inability to distinguish between truth and lies.
A case of nominative determinism if ever there was one.
Sushi now has yet another byelection to cope with, although Pincher had a large majority, so it won't necessarily be a walk-over.
A sad end to his career, though, and one can't help but feel some sympathy for his family.
Telford reminds me of My Old Mum, who used to say that If It's In The Paper/On The Noos It Must Be True. They Wouldn't Be Allowed To Say It Otherwise - That's The LAW.
You could hear the capital letters as she said it...
Could you perhaps describe what you think this "truth" looks like? Because it sounds like the fallacy of the golden mean, to me.
'What is truth?' Said jesting Pilate and would not stay for an answer
The irony being, in Bacon's view, that he had asked the one person who could have told him.
Sounds like an excellent reason to spend a few hours watching it.
If you think I'm going to sift through hours of Neil Oliver, Greasy Smug, Nigel Toadface Farage and the other assorted deplorables who lair at GB News in the hope of finding something vaguely progressive you must think I have less brain than Lee Anderson has compassion.
Admittedly after watching hours of them you would have about that much functioning brain.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/sep/07/suank-offshore-wind-auction-bidders-government-energy-bills
(Note the typo in the above...not sure if they mean Sunak, Sunk, or Swank
I don't know what you all think about wind power - whether offshore on onshore - but it does seem to me to be a much more positive way forward than yet more gas or oil prospecting, and something that any proper government would be getting to grips with.
And don't use the slippery option of "what you said" or "your comment" or whatever. I'm tired of playing silly buggers with you.
It's more that I didn't grasp that you intended the "golden mean" type point to be conditional on the "if", I thought you were implying the truth lay somewhere between those assumptions and, y'know, reality. Apologies for the confusion.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/08/legionella-found-onboard-the-bibby-stockholm-is-most-deadly-strain
Yes! Our True-Blue English prison ships are deadlier than anyone else's!
Apparently (and perhaps anecdotally) there were more EU flags being waved than England's Butcher's Apron!!
Maybe people are trying to say something to the government, the Brexiteers, and the Gammon in general, although apoplectic fits may have prevented the message getting through...
There was a row from the Brexitists when people produced EU flags in a previous year. I think the last time the event occurred the ever-servile BBC was reported as searching concert-goers to make sure nobody was sneaking in any flags to wave other than the approved UK emblem that May and Johnson had taken to appearing flanked by.
The BBC's own news report on the event, unsurprisingly, makes no reference to this display of identification with the deprecated cause that it would like to pretend withered away seven years ago.
The extra little snippet of pleasure from that article is that anything that annoys Isabel Oakeshott is automatically and inherently a 'Good Thing'.
I did see many people waving EU flags and singing Rule Britannia with gusto.
No doubt Sushi Rinak will take the opportunity to renew his allegiance to The Sacred Flag, whilst Thirty-Pee Lee and Company tell the EU-loving wokerati to *fuck off to Yurp*, or something.
AFAIK, no-one has yet come up with a list (however brief) of positive things which Brexit has achieved...
It is a rousing tune, to be sure.
Indeed.
The tune is great - one of Arne's best - even if the words are complete and utter Tripe, written by a Scotsman...
Aye, bootlickers abound in every age.
It would seem so:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Thomson_(poet,_born_1700)
Is that any better? Worse?
Neither. It’s still a horrible sentiment, but even so, means something completely different from what most people think it means.