London Black Lives Matter Protest | Page 28 | Vital Football

London Black Lives Matter Protest

  • Thread starter Deleted member 13556
  • Start date
it's what they dont report proves the BBC are biased. I tell everyone u will only hear the truth if u listen to al Jazeera or another foreign station. luckily more and more people are beginning to believe that the main stream media are totally corrupt of good old British fair play

They are all biased. It is no good relying on just one, you need to read/watch all of them. Even then you can't just trust what you've seen or read. You need to compare and contrast them all. Even after doing that you need to retain critical thinking, and question everything. One key aspect of anarchism is: Question or challenge all authority. The media acts as an authority so challenge and question it always.

One important aspect is noticing which media outlets ignore particular stories. If you limit yourself to only one of them there is much that you will miss.

I've long been critical of the BBC and there is no way that I trust them to be completely impartial. But the fact that you and I, who have such different political views, are both critical of the BBC does actually give them some credence. If a media outlet is being criticised by both sides for a lack of impartiality, it actually suggests that they're not too biased and certainly not "totally corrupt".
 
it's what they dont report proves the BBC are biased. I tell everyone u will only hear the truth if u listen to al Jazeera or another foreign station. luckily more and more people are beginning to believe that the main stream media are totally corrupt of good old British fair play

I have said for a long time that I watch the other news channels to get my information. RT and al jazeera are very good plus the indian, japanese, french and japanese channels. Its a bit like watching only fox or CNN, you only get half a story.
 
What I wrote is still true regardless of my views. The fact is that the BBC is the only taxpayer funded news outlet and if they lost funding then they would need to find advertising and other sources of income like all the other news outlets in the UK.

Is the BBC biased? Name a news organisation that doesn't have biases and agendas.

As per a prior post, on the Brexit leaving night they didn't even attempt to have a balanced number of pro-EU and pro-Brexit experts. And on a historic night when the bells chimed, did they go over to the stage to listen to Nigel F's speech? Considering over half of the voters voted for Brexit, doing a show full of remainers implying people who voted for Brexit were racist idiots is hardly going to get people on their side.

So there it is - still sulking about brexit coverage and following the media bias of your gang.
 
I've long been critical of the BBC and there is no way that I trust them to be completely impartial. But the fact that you and I, who have such different political views, are both critical of the BBC does actually give them some credence. If a media outlet is being criticised by both sides for a lack of impartiality, it actually suggests that they're not too biased and certainly not "totally corrupt".

I have a general mistrust of the media, mostly due to a disposition by some (not all) to distort in order to make news rather than report it. But, specifically in relation to your above paragraph - "nail on the head" there, Buddha.
 
So there it is - still sulking about brexit coverage and following the media bias of your gang.

I should point out that I've not said the BBC should be defunded but I disagree with your original statement that defunding the BBC and forcing them to get funding as per other media outlets is leading down the path of totalitarianism (your word).

All news media are biased to whatever the leadership thinks the people should know and sets the tone as to how the news is interpreted and reported. The BBC is no different in this.

I've seen countless debates where the news presenter has had 3 guests on where two are arguing for one thing and the other person is arguing the opposite. By having two against one you typically see the two people getting twice as much speaking time combined and it is not unusual to see the two people speaking and shouting over the single person.

Regardless of which side you happen to agree with, the BBC is failing in its mandate to provide balanced reporting if it is stacking what should be an informing debate by favouring certain opinions by not having equal numbers on each side.

I think the Brexit coverage was interesting as the BBC did a massive own goal by implying 52% are uninformed racist idiots. By not providing a balance of pro-EU and pro-Brexit experts on the show, I wonder how many people who'd otherwise support funding of the BBC are passed off enough not to care if the BBC is defended or not.
 
Where the BBC seem to be falling down is that they should be employing newsreaders and presenters that just report the news as it has happened and not put a slant on it based on speculation or their own political view, which should remain private.

Whatever you think about the Cummings saga, for instance, Emily Maitlis's infamous Newsnight introduction should never have been allowed to be presented as if it was fact, particularly as she was talking to screen and therefore could not be challenged. That was particularly biased and cowardly.

The likes of John Humphries, Naga Munchetty and Jeremy Paxman have also acted in the past as if their personal views are of any more relevance than that of the rest of us. IMO that is not what we fund the BBC for.

Until the producers and editorial staff come down hard on these people and their behaviour, the distrust in the impartiality of the good old Beeb will continue to grow.
 
Yeah, thought you did.

Here's a great example of the BBC demonstrating their pro-Left bias:


Mr Howe is totally mistaken about the Duggan incident.
Implying that an innocent man was murdered in cold blood.
I actually know an awful lot about this incident and his version is a long way from the truth.
The officers had a second to make a decision.
There was a gun. (more than one actually)
His accomplices went down for possession of firearms with intent.
He was a career criminal and drug dealer who lived by violence including gun use.

London sleeps safer because Duggan is no longer around.
His accomplices have done their time and are now released.
I know for an absolute fact that they have gone back to their life of dealing and will either end up back in nick or dead in an alley.
 
Where the BBC seem to be falling down is that they should be employing newsreaders and presenters that just report the news as it has happened and not put a slant on it based on speculation or their own political view, which should remain private.

Whatever you think about the Cummings saga, for instance, Emily Maitlis's infamous Newsnight introduction should never have been allowed to be presented as if it was fact, particularly as she was talking to screen and therefore could not be challenged. That was particularly biased and cowardly.

The likes of John Humphries, Naga Munchetty and Jeremy Paxman have also acted in the past as if their personal views are of any more relevance than that of the rest of us. IMO that is not what we fund the BBC for.

Until the producers and editorial staff come down hard on these people and their behaviour, the distrust in the impartiality of the good old Beeb will continue to grow.

The problem is that we have a PM and a government that tries to control the flow of information. The PM refuses to do proper interviews and limits his attendance at anything and everything. Cummings leaks information to chosen media outlets while freezing out others. All this information is unattributable and deniable. Government misisters decide to refuse to appear on certain programmes, which do any sort of questioning. They prefer to go on chat show type programmes where they get to appear "ordinary" and spout trite lines on policy.

All that is anti democratic and demeans journalists and their profession. It is hardly surprising that they then react and try to get some truth out, that is their job. Why is Sturgeon giving her daily briefing in front of live questioning while ours is a hyper controlled charade? It may have escaped the notice of some right wing posters but numbers of right wing journalists and outlets have had enough of this nonsense too. Some of the sharpest criticism is coming from that quarter.

Until our government acts like the servant of its people, provides straightforward press briefings and subjects itself to proper questioning it does not deserve our trust.
 
Mr Howe is totally mistaken about the Duggan incident.
Implying that an innocent man was murdered in cold blood.
I actually know an awful lot about this incident and his version is a long way from the truth.
The officers had a second to make a decision.
There was a gun. (more than one actually)
His accomplices went down for possession of firearms with intent.
He was a career criminal and drug dealer who lived by violence including gun use.

London sleeps safer because Duggan is no longer around.
His accomplices have done their time and are now released.
I know for an absolute fact that they have gone back to their life of dealing and will either end up back in nick or dead in an alley.

My argument is that all media is as bad as each other so just picking out the bbc as a whipping boy is worrying.
 
Mr Howe is totally mistaken about the Duggan incident.
Implying that an innocent man was murdered in cold blood.
I actually know an awful lot about this incident and his version is a long way from the truth.
The officers had a second to make a decision.
There was a gun. (more than one actually)
His accomplices went down for possession of firearms with intent.
He was a career criminal and drug dealer who lived by violence including gun use.

London sleeps safer because Duggan is no longer around.
His accomplices have done their time and are now released.
I know for an absolute fact that they have gone back to their life of dealing and will either end up back in nick or dead in an alley.

Darcus Howe was the quintissential maverick and he was never presented as the voice of the BBC. I saw him live at a very small meeting on one occasion, a powerful and persuasive voice he barely gave space for understanding and reflection. He spoke some truth but also some utter BS too.

The Duggan story is a messy one and has further to run.
 
My argument is that all media is as bad as each other so just picking out the bbc as a whipping boy is worrying.

I'd agree that like newspapers, they all seem to have their own bias.
I suspect that this is a natural follow on from the views of the proprietor.

Fox in ridiculously right wing bisased
CNN is just as ridiculous, the other way.
RT is just a bit weird.
Like you I get my news from many mediums.

Anyone with a legal background should follow the Times of Malta reporting on the Daphne trial.
If it was made into a film, people would say that it's too far fetched.
Most of the high ranking people implicated are still walking around.
 
Do you think that the BBC is left-wing, val?
Yes. Undoubtably.
- Being a champion for the Public Sector

- Rarely having anything positive to say about the private sector - that creates the wealth that sustains the public sector.

- Any perceived "problem" and more government or regulation is required.

- Most statements by a disapproved of non-left source are "claims"

- Most statements by "approved" people just "are" (i.e taken as "fact")

- Disapproved interviewees are lucky to complete their first sentence without interruption.

- Championing political correctness (i.e. stifling free speech)

- Promoting the left's agenda of division by repeated use of supposed "communities"

- Anti-Brexit

- Describing any foreign political party with which it disagrees as "far right" - without a definition, explanation or justification.

- Describing statue protectors as "far right" without a shred of evidence a) that any belonged to an organisation or b) asking individuals their views on anything relevant
 
Despite the construction of Media City in Manchester and despite London being our Capital, I find, since moving up here, that the BBC and other MSM are too London-centric.
Lancs.
It's worse than that. Arguably the MSM is too Zone 1 (and Chiswick !).

And this might be "evidence":>
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-brexit-paradox-that-spells-doom-for-the-independent-group

>>>
by James Kanagasooriam 06 Mar 19
"When I worked on the Remain campaign......

When you mathematically model down to postcode level the Leave and Remain vote in England and Wales, it becomes clear that a large number of local communities (comprising half-a-million voters in total) exist where almost the entire postcode voted 90 per cent upwards for Remain.

What is fascinating is that there is no similar big pool of uniformly Leave streets or communities.

The 53.3 per cent Leave vote is spread much more thinly across England and Wales, and the 46.7 per cent Remain vote is much more heavily concentrated in London, Bristol, Cardiff, Oxford and Cambridge.

This is not just a mathematical quirk. This unequal distribution of Remain and Leave voters tells us why the referendum was such an upset and shock to some. It tells us why Remainers were shocked, but Leavers less so.

This pattern of asymmetric distribution explains why you get Remain voters who say that they don’t have any Leave friends, but you get far fewer Leave voters who say the same thing of Remainers.

The EU referendum was a perfect storm for faulty forecasting because the talking heads and political commentators most likely to pop up on television happened to be the people least likely to know, understand or have even engaged with a Leave voter. At the same time, they were being asked to forecast what was actually going on.

What’s more, group-think – which also contributed to this sense of shock in the days and weeks after June 23rd 2016 – is a phenomena more likely to occur in metropolitan environments, than in rural ones.

This distribution also sheds some light on why Leavers are more likely to be tolerant of people’s differing political beliefs than Remainers are – the tolerance comes from engagement and personal experience.

<<<

Remember, this was written by a Remain campaigner.