« Topics
cityprod1,925 posts since 3 Oct 2005
Westcountry Spotlight
And what have you done? Immediately reach for the "WAYCIST!!! Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad" card rather than ask why the BBC would deliberately misinterpret such a figure.

IF they did, and I'm not certain they did deliberately misinterpret such a figure. Some protest organisers will deliberately inflate the numbers so they can pretend that their issue or movement is more popular than it really is.
WW Update4,599 posts since 6 Feb 2007
Furthermore, despite the fact that their attitude to the Eurovision Song Contest frankly stinks, I also find them heavily pro-European, often having to qualify any good economic news with the phrase "despite Brexit."

Do you mean anti-Brexit or culturally pro-European (since you mention the Eurovision Song Contest, which has nothing to do with the EU)? If it's the former, many Britons I know feel precisely the opposite -- some even believe that the BBC contributed to the Leave vote by failing to put enough emphasis on the likely economic and social consequences of Brexit. If it's the latter, I don't see it either. When I tune into France 24, for instance, it's obvious that I'm watching a European-based broadcaster, but BBC World News often spends more time on South Asian affairs than on news items from European countries. And the BBC's domestic channels, with the partial exception of BBC Four, show very little programming from other European broadcasters -- almost as if the UK weren't a part of Europe (which it is, regardless of Brexit).

But as a free market thinker I'm idealogically opposed to the idea of a broadcaster being funded by public money in the first place - possibly because of its bias, and at times, downright fake news.

Yes, because commercially funded broadcasters are never biased and don't spread fake news. (One surely can't imagine a privately owned news channel essentially serving as the official mouthpiece of the White House, right?) Rolling Eyes
Last edited by WW Update on 11 March 2019 12:20am - 2 times in total
tightrope78, james-2001 and London Lite gave kudos
London Lite10,203 posts since 4 Jan 2003
London London
And what have you done? Immediately reach for the "WAYCIST!!! Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad" card rather than ask why the BBC would deliberately misinterpret such a figure.

He doesn't need misinterpreting, Steve does that all himself.

This whole 'journalist' persona he's portraying for his followers is nothing short of ridiculous and his 'expose' that a journalist goes into a restaurant to drink while getting information out of a person is hardly groundbreaking.
chevron and james-2001 gave kudos
Cando1,388 posts since 8 Mar 2012
London London
Fake news is saying "about 300 people" are at a Tommy Robinson rally, when I'm watching it on Facebook Live and there's easily over a thousand in the crowd.

But then they've stitched Robbo up like a kipper recently.

Good Lord.... I should have guessed a "Tommeh" fan
chevron, London Lite and james-2001 gave kudos
WW Update4,599 posts since 6 Feb 2007
Fox News has Republican sympathies, which counter the Democrat sympathies of CNN.

"Fox News had the story of a hush money payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels to silence her claims of an affair with Donald Trump shortly before the 2016 election but opted not to run it, according to a report from The New Yorker Monday. The reporter, who had worked on the story for a number of months, was reportedly told by the head of FoxNews.com at the time that the network was killing the story because its owner, Rupert Murdoch, wanted Trump to defeat Hillary Clinton in the upcoming election."


Fox News isn't a news organization with "Republican sympathies." It's a pro-Trump mouthpiece, little different in practice from the likes of RT and Press TV.
davidhorman, chevron and 2 others
  • Inspector Sands
  • james-2001
gave kudos
TIGHazard387 posts since 3 Jan 2014
Tyne Tees Look North (North East)
Fox News has Republican sympathies, which counter the Democrat sympathies of CNN.



We considered that the different clips of Hillary Clinton featured in the programmes were not treated with “due weight” in the context of Rule 5.12. This was because the views expressed by Hillary Clinton were being dismissed and denigrated in a manner so as to support the viewpoints of, for example, the presenter Sean Hannity and guest presenter, Mike Huckabee, which were clearly highly critical of Hillary Clinton.

By contrast, the various video clips of Donald Trump that were shown in the programmes were typically used as a basis for discussions in which various programme contributors typically voiced their support for what Donald Trump had said, and in particular his criticisms of Hillary Clinton.

In addition, we noted the Licensee did not provide any evidence of the broadcast of alternative views that could reasonably be described as representing the viewpoint of Hillary Clinton and/or the Democratic Party within a series of programmes taken as a whole (i.e. more than one programme in the same service, editorially linked, dealing with the same or related issues within an appropriate period and aimed at a like audience)

Republican sympathies would be Hannity saying "I think Trump is much better on taxes, healthcare and the second amendment but Clinton is better on education"



“You’ll have four more years of Obama if you elect Hillary Clinton. Four more years. Remember this, Hillary Clinton essentially wants to take away your rights under the Second Amendment. She wants to take away your guns. She wants to take away those bullets. She wants to take away your rights. Hillary Clinton can never be trusted with national security"
davidhorman, London Lite and james-2001 gave kudos
No further posts are being accepted for this topic