JO
To be fair, I think the discussion hadn’t gone off the rails at post 3 and remained like the first two posts, it probably would have survived.
BR
To be fair JKDerry was only following the rules by limiting discussion to the visual aspect of GB News.
So what will Metropol talk about now?
BR
Yes, it's censorship pure and simple. You don't see people from proper news broadcasters tweeting their support for Tommy Robinson. Alastair Stewart was sacked for far less which was widely discussed, but a new news channel which claims to be offering an impartial voice to the marginalised in society but whose appointments suggest otherwise is off limits.
Thankfully the majority of the membership here see through it all, even if the moderators don't want us too. If they truly think we're wrong in calling out the appointments GB News are making and coming to a conclusion about what that says the identity of the channel then join in the discussion and post their arguments, rather than just shutting down the argument. I'm sure most of us here would welcome views which challenge our own, especially in an era when much of what we see elsewhere is curated by algorithms designed to pretty much reenforce our own views.
It's all turning into a bit of a farce. If presenters are not part of 'presentation' then what are they?
This place never used to be like this a few years ago. We're not turning into cancel culture snowflakes are we?
This place never used to be like this a few years ago. We're not turning into cancel culture snowflakes are we?
Yes, it's censorship pure and simple. You don't see people from proper news broadcasters tweeting their support for Tommy Robinson. Alastair Stewart was sacked for far less which was widely discussed, but a new news channel which claims to be offering an impartial voice to the marginalised in society but whose appointments suggest otherwise is off limits.
Thankfully the majority of the membership here see through it all, even if the moderators don't want us too. If they truly think we're wrong in calling out the appointments GB News are making and coming to a conclusion about what that says the identity of the channel then join in the discussion and post their arguments, rather than just shutting down the argument. I'm sure most of us here would welcome views which challenge our own, especially in an era when much of what we see elsewhere is curated by algorithms designed to pretty much reenforce our own views.
Last edited by Brekkie on 21 February 2021 10:52am
So what will Metropol talk about now?
BF
Indeed it does seem odd at first glance that on a news channel forum that discussion about a new news channel is pretty much out of bounds but it’s absolutely fine to have pages of discussion about the possible death of somebody who as far as we know is very much alive.
I mean I don’t mind the latter thread but it seems slightly more garish than some of the chats that are barred on here. Of course the mods choose rules of their site and that’s all well and good but I think it’s fair enough if posters do critique those.
I mean I don’t mind the latter thread but it seems slightly more garish than some of the chats that are barred on here. Of course the mods choose rules of their site and that’s all well and good but I think it’s fair enough if posters do critique those.
Last edited by BFGArmy on 21 February 2021 11:10am
The seeming desperation to discuss GB News’ press releases is quite startling. I’m not going to keep babysitting threads that have repeatedly gone off track, regardless of the subject. There’s only so many times we should have to warn/ban/post requesting people to behave. Particularly in the absence of ANY graphics, music, set details or even a schedule!
BR
It's the desperation to block discussion about it which really is startling - why are you so confused about members wanting to talk about the impending launch of a news channel on a forum that has been discussing news channels for over 20 years? The NBC Sky News thread last year had plenty of non-presentation related discussion about the upcoming channel - at no time were members told to only discuss things the presentational side of the channel.
And why do you have such a problem with people questioning the ideology of a British news channel yet have permitted discussion on Fox News, RT, Sky News Australia etc. over the years and also in recent months OAN and Newsmax?
There are schedule details out there - today's latest announcement confirms a primetime show - but under your rules we can't even mention the hiring, and if we did would be banned for wondering about anything other than her graphics.
And why do you have such a problem with people questioning the ideology of a British news channel yet have permitted discussion on Fox News, RT, Sky News Australia etc. over the years and also in recent months OAN and Newsmax?
There are schedule details out there - today's latest announcement confirms a primetime show - but under your rules we can't even mention the hiring, and if we did would be banned for wondering about anything other than her graphics.
So what will Metropol talk about now?
JO
There does seem to be two conflicting reasons given for not allowing the discussion.
1) We don’t have the full picture about this channel.
2) Any talk will quickly turn political.
So which is it? If it’s the first, surely we get a better idea about that with each appointment. If it’s the second surely the discussion is going to be the same once anything pres related is revealed. In that case they’ll never be a GB News thread as people will want to talk about the channels agenda and whether it’s working as a commercial proposition and in that conversation political viewpoints are surely going to come out.
Also as Brekkie says, if it’s the latter why are similar discussions about Fox News, CNN and RT also allowed?
I just don’t see what the big distinction between this thread is and other discussions that cover more than the onscreen pres of programming.
1) We don’t have the full picture about this channel.
2) Any talk will quickly turn political.
So which is it? If it’s the first, surely we get a better idea about that with each appointment. If it’s the second surely the discussion is going to be the same once anything pres related is revealed. In that case they’ll never be a GB News thread as people will want to talk about the channels agenda and whether it’s working as a commercial proposition and in that conversation political viewpoints are surely going to come out.
Also as Brekkie says, if it’s the latter why are similar discussions about Fox News, CNN and RT also allowed?
I just don’t see what the big distinction between this thread is and other discussions that cover more than the onscreen pres of programming.
Last edited by Jon on 21 February 2021 2:26pm
AJ
I find it all a bit odd and off really.
Of course, there's no obligation to provide a platform to talk about GB News at all, but then it is a platform for talking about TV Presentation.
Like it or not, presenters are part of presentation. This channel, and the News UK one, are likely going to be the biggest channel launches and changes this year, and so it's natural that people will want to speculate and talk about them. Speculation is more than half of what TVF does after all!
Shutting down conversation before it even gets going seems overkill, especially in the context of other discussions.
Of course, there's no obligation to provide a platform to talk about GB News at all, but then it is a platform for talking about TV Presentation.
Like it or not, presenters are part of presentation. This channel, and the News UK one, are likely going to be the biggest channel launches and changes this year, and so it's natural that people will want to speculate and talk about them. Speculation is more than half of what TVF does after all!
Shutting down conversation before it even gets going seems overkill, especially in the context of other discussions.
Can we also ban people talking about how they can't talk about a channel that doesn't exist yet because that's also very tedious
ELM 2011:
I am sick of been persicuted by you immature TV Forumers!
There is a big difference about talking about existing news channels and GB News. It's simple enough that editorial of those channels are already in the public eye and counts as presentation discussion.
GB News on the other hand has announced a mix of presenters, some impartial, others may be considered to be of the right, but it still hasn't launched and despite some prime-time announcements, we still don't know much about their editorial that justifies another thread.
The fact GB News threads are derailed so fast tells you why they have to be closed.
Those moaning about not being able to discuss it are just as bad as those who they also claim will be targeted by GB News.
GB News on the other hand has announced a mix of presenters, some impartial, others may be considered to be of the right, but it still hasn't launched and despite some prime-time announcements, we still don't know much about their editorial that justifies another thread.
The fact GB News threads are derailed so fast tells you why they have to be closed.
Those moaning about not being able to discuss it are just as bad as those who they also claim will be targeted by GB News.
JO
Might not be a bad thing in the long run!
Can we also ban people talking about how they can't talk about a channel that doesn't exist yet because that's also very tedious
Might not be a bad thing in the long run!