Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on May 29, 2016, 03:44:01 PM
-
In my opinion No.
-
Yes
-
I think that the BEEB have been guilty of going for the sensational headlines at the expense of the more serious arguments. However, they have also produced some quite serious programs and attempted to present both sides of the debate.
I was particularly struck by this one I heard last night:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07c4tqf
-
In my opinion No.
Vlad, I've been impressed by how neutral the Beeb has been on this matter, producing some excellent programmes that have put other media, as well as the Bremain and Brexit camps to shame.
-
Vlad, I've been impressed by how neutral the Beeb has been on this matter, producing some excellent programmes that have put other media, as well as the Bremain and Brexit camps to shame.
I've just been watching Andrew Neil making mischief.
On tonight's performance I rather think he'll let Farage talk unchallenged while he cleans Mr Farage's boots.
-
Vlad, it is - in part - why I try not to listen to politicians spouting on the issue. In fact, I wrote to the BBC's Newswatch recently, suggesting that they stop interviewing politicians on the issue on account of the fact that they have precious little understanding what they are speaking about, suggesting instead that they use experts who have a better, albeit imperfect, understanding.
-
Keunsberg stirring it on the news tonight with more biased reporting. Pictures of Gordon Brown taken at Odd angles, Keunsberg shown frequently, Boris Johnson filmed like Churchill in WW 2.
-
The problem with the BBC's coverage is rather like the situation we had with the MMR vaccine. One side of the argument were making outrageous claims that did not stand up to scrutiny while the other side just stated the well established facts and warned of the dangers. The BEEB, in their infinite wisdom, saw their role to give equal coverage to both sides - with the result that cases of measles (in particular) spread alarmingly and children died.
I would say that although the BEEB have duty to give both side equal opportunity to present their arguments - they should not let either side get away with with outright lies are they been doing.
-
The problem with the BBC's coverage is rather like the situation we had with the MMR vaccine. One side of the argument were making outrageous claims that did not stand up to scrutiny while the other side just stated the well established facts and warned of the dangers. The BEEB, in their infinite wisdom, saw their role to give equal coverage to both sides - with the result that cases of measles (in particular) spread alarmingly and children died.
Unfortunately, there isn't as straight-forward a comparison in this case, LA. One side is making 'outrageous claims' whilst the other is making warning advisories - but both sides' arguments are untried and untested, simply because nothing quite like this has happened before.
Mind you, it is interesting to compare the situation that Europe finds itself in today with the situation that the Roman Empire found itself in, in the fourth and fifth century; a single market with a single currency that was collapsing and a growing immigrant problem (from the N.E. then and the S. E. now)
-
Unfortunately, there isn't as straight-forward a comparison in this case, LA. One side is making 'outrageous claims' whilst the other is making warning advisories - but both sides' arguments are untried and untested, simply because nothing quite like this has happened before.
Mind you, it is interesting to compare the situation that Europe finds itself in today with the situation that the Roman Empire found itself in, in the fourth and fifth century; a single market with a single currency that was collapsing and a growing immigrant problem (from the N.E. then and the S. E. now)
First of all, how can the status quo be tried and untested?
Secondly I've just been with a Brexitter who sees this as the chance to stick one on the establishment......He wasn't swayed when I told him that Brexit was the establishment.
Finally, the last great traditional cinema epic from the Golden age was ''The fall of the Roman Empire''.......Would the investors have put money into ''The gradual and considered wind-down of the Roman Empire'' I doubt it.....anyway the point is that if the media had the choice of engineering either the status quo or a dramatic ''fucking disaster'' with a cast of millions....I know what my money would be on.
-
Unfortunately, there isn't as straight-forward a comparison in this case, LA. One side is making 'outrageous claims' whilst the other is making warning advisories - but both sides' arguments are untried and untested, simply because nothing quite like this has happened before.
It might not be completely straightforward, but I believe it should be possible to do a hell of a lot better than they are doing. For example when Brexit camp claim that Britain would save £350million per week by leaving the EU - it is just a plain lie by any standards as Nicola Sturgeon pointed out in the recent debate with Johnson (though I think Boris might have got entirely the wrong idea when she referred to his 'whopper')
On the other hand the Remain camp would have a very much stronger case if they actually explained the full context of their predictions. Financial models are never perfect but are generally a hell of a lot better than just crossing your fingers and hoping for the best, which is all Brexit can offer.
Mind you, it is interesting to compare the situation that Europe finds itself in today with the situation that the Roman Empire found itself in, in the fourth and fifth century; a single market with a single currency that was collapsing and a growing immigrant problem (from the N.E. then and the S. E. now)
I seem to remember reading that things didn't go well when we left Europe that time - Our standard of living nose-dived, we lost technology and Britain became overwhelmed by invaders. Still that couldn't happen again could it?
-
The government in waiting......Gove, Johnson have promised the saved money to the Farmers and scientists......source BBC.
-
Sun have come out for Brexit...............More potentially newsworthy than a Bremain I suppose.
-
Sun have come out for Brexit...............More potentially newsworthy than a Bremain I suppose.
And in other news rain is wet.
-
Sun have come out for Brexit...............More potentially newsworthy than a Bremain I suppose.
. . . and . . . shock horror - the Pope is a Catholic!
-
The government in waiting......Gove, Johnson have promised the saved money to the Farmers and scientists......source BBC.
No. The source is the liar Gove and the cheating Johnson.
The BBC have reported it and also reported the remain side pointing out how many times they've already spent the same money.
-
No. The source is the liar Gove and the cheating Johnson.
The BBC have reported it and also reported the remain side pointing out how many times they've already spent the same money.
Exactly.
The degree of lying is sickening.
-
Exactly.
The degree of lying is sickening.
No I seriously believe a Gove Johnson government would Rob Peter to bribe Paul and make good on the promise to certain beneficieries.
-
When are people going to realise that everyone in news has a vested interest in a Brexit disaster with years of potential material about unemployment, home loss, family break up etc,etc,etc ?
-
When are people going to realise that everyone in news has a vested interest in a Brexit disaster with years of potential material about unemployment, home loss, family break up etc,etc,etc ?
Good point. Let's hope this is realised before the vote on 23rd.
-
When are people going to realise that everyone in news has a vested interest in a Brexit disaster with years of potential material about unemployment, home loss, family break up etc,etc,etc ?
There is no denying that disasters are newsworthy.
-
er yes ... but helping bring them about for your own gain is undeniably unethical.
-
er yes ... but helping bring them about for your own gain is undeniably unethical.
I'm not sure that 'ethics' is very high on the agenda of the editor of the Sun - or indeed, most of the rest of the UK press.
-
The government in waiting......Gove, Johnson have promised the saved money to the Farmers and scientists......source BBC.
And to the BBC, to the NHS, to education, to defence, to job creation, to tax cuts, oh, and the NHS again - of course - several times over. source Gove/Johnson/Farage/Skinner/...
-
And to the BBC, to the NHS, to education, to defence, to job creation, to tax cuts, oh, and the NHS again - of course - several times over. source Gove/Johnson/Farage/Skinner/...
100 million to be paid to the NHS OVER SUCCESSIVE Parliaments (AKA ''sing!'')
Which means that the GOVEment in waiting have time to cut by 300Million before they start paying the 100 Million.
For some kind of guide of who would hold power under a GOVEment you had to look at who held it during the Petrol Strike
which was also supported by Joe Public and some who should have known better until the reality began to bite.
-
100 million to be paid to the NHS OVER SUCCESSIVE GOVERNMENTS
Which means that the GOVEment in waiting have time to cut by 300Million before they start paying the 100 Million.
But they've already pledged the £300m several times over in the lifetime of the present administration, Vlad. It looks as if they'll have to either borrow or throw in massive tax hikes across the board to fulfil those pledges across the life of a single administration.
-
Let's not forget either that the Brexit leaders are two Journalists.
-
Let's not forget either that the Brexit leaders are two Journalists.
Neither of whom have ever been employed by the BBC (apart from one episode of Have I Got News For You).
-
Neither of whom have ever been employed by the BBC (apart from one episode of Have I Got News For You).
Wouldn't you say they all 'Piss in the same pot?'.
-
Programme on balance in referendum debate. Equal time for both sides discussed but they should also look at number of times the word Brexit, bremain, leave and stay were mentioned.
I suspect Brexit was mentioned most. If that is true. All BBC political editors and sub editors should be sacked.
-
Bearing in mind this referendum is being inflicted on us by a combination of Tory unrest and the inexplicable profile of UKIP, and also that perhaps it was offered in the expectation that it wouldn't actually happen, that the 'debate' has moved from turgid to tragic (in view of recent events).
So, I'm for stay: the prospect of the like of Gove, Duncan Smith, Johnson or (even worse) Farage leading UP politics is distasteful to me. If that happens then hopefully at least we in Scotland might find an escape route.
-
Bearing in mind this referendum is being inflicted on us by a combination of Tory unrest and the inexplicable profile of UKIP, and also that perhaps it was offered in the expectation that it wouldn't actually happen, that the 'debate' has moved from turgid to tragic (in view of recent events).
So, I'm for stay: the prospect of the like of Gove, Duncan Smith, Johnson or (even worse) Farage leading UP politics is distasteful to me. If that happens then hopefully at least we in Scotland might find an escape route.
I'd pretty much endorse most of that Gordon, lets just hope we get a strong Remain vote then some of these characters will have to slither back into the woodwork.
-
Wouldn't you say they all 'Piss in the same pot?'.
No.
To take two examples, Polly Toynbee has spent her career investigating poverty, the effects of poverty and writing about the impact off cuts in government spending on poverty and is backing the remain campaign.
Boris Johnson has spent his career writing shit about Brussels making up shit about Europe and is backing the make Me PM runaway and hide from the foreigners campaign.
If you actually bothered to look, you'd find that those journalists who do investigate poverty and understand the impact are far more likely to want less poverty. Your witless attempt to suggest otherwise is dangerously close to seeking to dehumanise an entire profession.
-
Bearing in mind this referendum is being inflicted on us by a combination of Tory unrest and the inexplicable profile of UKIP, and also that perhaps it was offered in the expectation that it wouldn't actually happen, that the 'debate' has moved from turgid to tragic (in view of recent events).
So, I'm for stay: the prospect of the like of Gove, Duncan Smith, Johnson or (even worse) Farage leading UP politics is distasteful to me. If that happens then hopefully at least we in Scotland might find an escape route.
I think distasteful is a very mild word - I'd say 'horrified', 'ghastly'etc!
-
No.
To take two examples, Polly Toynbee has spent her career investigating poverty, the effects of poverty and writing about the impact off cuts in government spending on poverty and is backing the remain campaign.
Boris Johnson has spent his career writing shit about Brussels making up shit about Europe and is backing the make Me PM runaway and hide from the foreigners campaign.
If you actually bothered to look, you'd find that those journalists who do investigate poverty and understand the impact are far more likely to want less poverty. Your witless attempt to suggest otherwise is dangerously close to seeking to dehumanise an entire profession.
Of course there are exceptions and in the BBC and usually it is there courage in outside broadcast and independence of journalism which is rightly praised.
But most of the people in control of what we read are from the sensationalist wing of journalism including the political editorship of BBC news IMHO.
They talk to each other and regard each others views as paramount regarding themselves as somehow representing me.
Complain about them and one receives short shrift. This was not the case a couple of years ago.
I feel you believe these people who should and are above reproach.
All of a sudden parliament is revealed by the press as a workplace full of hard working normal people.
That is a radical departure from what the press and BBC were presenting before Thursday.
Why weren't Robinson, Kavanagh, Keunsberg etc......showing us that earlier?
And you are accusing me of dehumanising.
-
Here's Stewart Lee on Michael Gove's journalistic incarnation
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/19/michael-gove-bit-of-an-animal
-
No.
To take two examples, Polly Toynbee has spent her career investigating poverty, the effects of poverty and writing about the impact off cuts in government spending on poverty and is backing the remain campaign.
Boris Johnson has spent his career writing shit about Brussels making up shit about Europe and is backing the make Me PM runaway and hide from the foreigners campaign.
If you actually bothered to look, you'd find that those journalists who do investigate poverty and understand the impact are far more likely to want less poverty. Your witless attempt to suggest otherwise is dangerously close to seeking to dehumanise an entire profession.
But most of the high profile "journalists" fall into the former characterisation rather than the latter.
-
But most of the people in control of what we read are from the sensationalist wing of journalism including the political editorship of BBC news IMHO.
They talk to each other and regard each others views as paramount regarding themselves as somehow representing me.
I can't speak for the television news, of course, but I listen to a lot of news and current affairs on Radio 4 and my impression is that most of the journalists are probably Remainers but are bending over backwards not to appear biased. Then there is the excellent More Or Less crew who try to analyse the facts behind the claims.
-
Pienaar still being extremely bias against Labour.
-
Here we are in October. The Conservatives are back from their holidays and steeped in Brexit mire, Ukip are taking the Biffo approach and yet the BBC are still obsessed by Corbyn.
Good luck to Cliff Richard who wants to take the Beeb down for millions. Now that is worth the licence fee.