The Newsroom

Russia Today

(March 2012)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
JO
johnnyboy Founding member
Steve in Pudsey posted:
Alan de Robson posted:


It clearly is the case.

Isolated examples of its application in contexts that differ from its standard biased usage in no way diminish the truth of my assertion.


So you accuse elmarco of only being interested in evidence which supports his world view but then you dismiss out of have evidence which contradicts your conspiracy theorist's world view? With due respect, I don't think it works that way.


No, sir. It was the other way around.

It was elmarco who made him- or herself the sole arbiter of what is a reliable source, not me. That's how conspiracy theorists work - by seeking out sources that conform to your point of view, not anyone else's.

Not guilty, son.
LL
London Lite Founding member
Alan de Robson posted:
London Lite posted:
Alan de Robson posted:
[
Fox News was obviously criticised from the left for being right wing and from the right for not being right wing enough. Does that mean they're getting it about right too and does that prove their impartiality?


Fox News is a commercial operation, owned by a notorious right-wing media baron whose methods are known to be dodgy, see the News of the World scandal and Fox's own sexual harassment claims for their methods. The channel has always marketed themselves as a channel for older Conservatives. The BBC is not.

The only thing that is absurd is your ridiculous assertions that the BBC is some kind of propaganda outfit. I don't see the BBC taking on young graduates, pay them more money than they'd get with the corporation (or any commercial news operation) and then get them to pump out propaganda as a way to get on the ladder.


BBC News is a government licensed, tax payer funded operation, constantly threatened by the Government of the day to tow a certain line under threat of Royal Charter removal whose methods are known to be dodgy, see the epic failing over Gulf War II, their over reliance on sourcing "facts" from biased governmental and non-governmental sources with agendas to push, their loaded vocabulary, their tendency to skew news and analysis in favour of a certain viewpoint, and the BBC's own monumental paedophile ring cover up and gender and racial pay inequalities. The corporation is primarily used by older generations and not younger people.

And some people can not see the difference between an organisation being an actual government mouthpiece and being a de facto government mouthpiece and that the existence of a graduate trainee programme does not mean that an organisation is not a de facto government mouthpiece.


So you mention the Gulf War and the paedophile ring that were some time ago to base your assertions on the BBC. Sorry, but this is a load of rocking horse manure.

You're right to say the BBC isn't perfect, but what organisation isn't? Yet as a trusted news source, there's no comparison between the Beeb and RT, Press TV, Fox News and their ilk.
EL
elmarko
Alan de Robson posted:
elmarko posted:
Also while looking for the evidence be aware that some guys blog isn’t a quality evidence source.


"Quality evidence source" = one elmarko agrees with because it supports his worldview?


*crosses off bingo card*
London Lite and UKnews gave kudos
JO
johnnyboy Founding member
London Lite posted:
Alan de Robson posted:
London Lite posted:

Fox News is a commercial operation, owned by a notorious right-wing media baron whose methods are known to be dodgy, see the News of the World scandal and Fox's own sexual harassment claims for their methods. The channel has always marketed themselves as a channel for older Conservatives. The BBC is not.

The only thing that is absurd is your ridiculous assertions that the BBC is some kind of propaganda outfit. I don't see the BBC taking on young graduates, pay them more money than they'd get with the corporation (or any commercial news operation) and then get them to pump out propaganda as a way to get on the ladder.


BBC News is a government licensed, tax payer funded operation, constantly threatened by the Government of the day to tow a certain line under threat of Royal Charter removal whose methods are known to be dodgy, see the epic failing over Gulf War II, their over reliance on sourcing "facts" from biased governmental and non-governmental sources with agendas to push, their loaded vocabulary, their tendency to skew news and analysis in favour of a certain viewpoint, and the BBC's own monumental paedophile ring cover up and gender and racial pay inequalities. The corporation is primarily used by older generations and not younger people.

And some people can not see the difference between an organisation being an actual government mouthpiece and being a de facto government mouthpiece and that the existence of a graduate trainee programme does not mean that an organisation is not a de facto government mouthpiece.


So you mention the Gulf War and the paedophile ring that were some time ago to base your assertions on the BBC. Sorry, but this is a load of rocking horse manure.

You're right to say the BBC isn't perfect, but what organisation isn't? Yet as a trusted news source, there's no comparison between the Beeb and RT, Press TV, Fox News and their ilk.


I mentioned this earlier on but I love the BBC. It's a quintessential part of Britishness to me. I love being British, am proud of our melting pot nation, and I would March on Westminster if they wanted to get rid of the license fee.

However the news department is not that good. And the numerous flaws I have pointed out with it are flaws that every news organisation shares, by accident or by design. Comparisons are therefore completely legitimate.

I only mentioned the paedo ring and the Gulf War as I was actually mocking in content and structure the post I was replying to. Check it out and see for yourself.

It might surprise you but I watch BBC News and read news on their website. What's good on their, imo, is good but there's an awful lot of opinion and government policy masquerading as impartial news.

I've got over that. Can't everyone else?
EL
elmarko
I’m not the arbiter, I just ask people to exercise the tiniest bit of critical thinking skills.

Good god, it’s hard being a left-wing rationalist sometimes.
LL
London Lite Founding member
Alan de Robson posted:


However the news department is not that good. And the numerous flaws I have pointed out with it are flaws that every news organisation shares, by accident or by design. Comparisons are therefore completely legitimate.


In your opinion.
JO
johnnyboy Founding member
BBC World Service set for fightback in ‘information war’

Quote:
A stronger World Service will help to “enhance our position as the world’s leading soft power promoting our values and interests globally” — U.K. Government


The BBC is an arm of the British government and the Government have said so.

I listen to the World Service three or four times a week. Interesting, sober, varied, and informative. But I know what it is and I don't mind that.
EL
elmarko
Also I’m not French
LL
London Lite Founding member
Alan de Robson posted:

A stronger World Service will help to “enhance our position as the world’s leading soft power promoting our values and interests globally” — U.K. Government




Does that mean broadcasting lies? No. Still no comparison to RT, but keep on going.
JO
johnnyboy Founding member
elmarko posted:
I’m not the arbiter, I just ask people to exercise the tiniest bit of critical thinking skills.

Good god, it’s hard being a left-wing rationalist sometimes.


With respect, you appointed yourself the arbiter by appearing to be the person who would decide if my sources were legit or not.

I have left and right wing leanings but there's nothing so far in our debate that makes me think that you're a rationalist or have any developed critical thinking skills. You're quite a black and white person. You have little or no understanding of subtlety and have let yourself down badly with your ad hominem comebacks. A tragically lonely sixteen year old who knows everything about the world.

"Wah, wah, wah. The BBC knows it all and anyone who doesn't subscribe to my narrow, ill-considered spewings is a conspiracy-freak, Trump-loving idiot" is my disappointing summation to your argument tactics.

That of course was also an ad hominem comeback of my own. Very dissatisfying to have someone argue at you that way, isn't it, son?

Happy to debate you but let's talk about the subject and play the ball, not the man.

I am a natural soft Tory but think Jezza Corbyn is a breath of fresh air and against many of my instincts, I would vote for him.
JO
johnnyboy Founding member
London Lite posted:
Alan de Robson posted:

A stronger World Service will help to “enhance our position as the world’s leading soft power promoting our values and interests globally” — U.K. Government




Does that mean broadcasting lies? No. Still no comparison to RT, but keep on going.


Aaaaahhhhh!!!!!!

The truth to the BBC and British government will be, to many in other countries, lies.

Just like RT will transmit what many in the British government consider lies.

What about that refuses to lodge in your skull?
EL
elmarko
Oh my that’s quite the meltdown with basically f all correct about me.

Anyway, this is hardly about TV Pres now is it?
London Lite and dosxuk gave kudos

Newer posts