A founding member since 8 January 2002

User activity

Local TV


Islam Channel
TV Moments
Tranvestite Home

Latest post

johnnyboy Founding member

September 11th attacks - 19 years ago

Damn, this was a really interesting thread until conspiracy theories were brought up.

True. My apologies for falling for the bait.

On a pres note, I hated and still hate the News 24 pres of that era - biege and purple captions, that pokey studio with the small monitors, etc.

Would have preferred the 93-99 era look for something that important and world changing.

Highest kudoed post

johnnyboy Founding member


If the opening was factual, accurate, truthful, then why are we so hung up on this damn idea of being "impartial"???

There's nothing "impartial" or "objective" about reporting both the truth, and a lie about it, and treating them as though they have equal weight. If one is obviously true, and the other is obviously false, it should be reported as such, or better still, don't report the lie at all.

This is what Emily actually said...

“Dominic Cummings broke the rules, the country can see that, and it's shocking the Government cannot. He should understand that public mood now. One of fury, contempt and anguish.

"He made those who struggled to keep to the rules feel like fools, and has allowed many more to assume they can now flout them.

"The Prime Minister knows all this, but despite the resignation of one minister, growing unease from his backbenchers, a dramatic early warning from the polls, and a deep national disquiet, Boris Johnson has chosen to ignore it.

"Tonight we consider what this blind loyalty tells us about the workings of Number 10."

There are multiple parts of this opening whose "truth" is patently not objective.

Durham Police have decided not to prosecute - the evidence is, it would seem, not strong enough. Where is the evidence that the "public of fury, contempt, and anguish"? Who has decided that it's "shocking"? Where is the evidence that "many more (will) assume that they can flout the rules".

Your statement about "fantasies their fevered overactive imaginations have cooked up" applies just as much to this as it does to Infowars, Newsmax, etc.

I could go on.

Whether or not people agree with the sentiments expressed, this is Fox News/Daily Mail/Guardian-style editiorialisation. Just look at the emotively loaded language - "broke the rules", "fury, contempt, and anguish", "flout", "dramatic early warning", "deep national disquiet", "chosen to ignore it", and "blind loyalty".

We're all intelligent enough here to know that facts can be presented in such a way to create an impression and this was clearly Emily's goal in delivering this opening.

I'm no fan of Boris or Cummings - I am also no fan of the BBC editorialising. And, right now more than ever, it puts the BBC in danger.