Jump to content

'The Alex Salmond Show' - On Russia Today


Jambo-Jimbo

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

And you CyberNats hate it when folk present evidence to counter your nonsensical ravings.

What nonsensical ravings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 147
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 minutes ago, yabadabadoo1874again said:

 

 

CyBritNat!!! 

 

Kinda rolls off the tongue...?

 

If you've had a stroke.

 

1 minute ago, Roxy Hearts said:

What nonsensical ravings?

 

Your nonsense about the majority of Scots voted Yes.

 

Mind numbing gibberish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

If you've had a stroke.

 

 

Your nonsense about the majority of Scots voted Yes.

 

Mind numbing gibberish.

Scots born 52.7% voted yes. If it was a Scots only vote then we would have. 

 

Away with your serfdom and subservience. No respect for your ranting garbage.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yabadabadoo1874again
6 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

If you've had a stroke.

 

 

Your nonsense about the majority of Scots voted Yes.

 

Mind numbing gibberish.

 

The online rantings of a CyBritNat...???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Roxy Hearts said:

Scots born 52.7% voted yes. If it was a Scots only vote then we would have. 

 

Away with your serfdom and subservience. No respect for your ranting garbage.

 

 

You seem to be of the belief that your respect means anything to me, you're literally words on a screen to me.

 

Laughable words at that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

You seem to be of the belief that your respect means anything to me, you're literally words on a screen to me.

 

Laughable words at that.

 

Well if it's only words then why the need to call a person you don't know a "dangerous individual" on the basis that that person has more respect for his fellow Scots men and women running their own affairs? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

Calling me a dangerous individual nullifies any respect for your responses. 

 

You Britnats really are something when you're up against it.

 

 

Up against it ☺

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Roxy Hearts said:

Well if it's only words then why the need to call a person you don't know a "dangerous individual" on the basis that that person has more respect for his fellow Scots men and women running their own affairs? 

 

Those nasty foreigners ruining it for you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

I didn't take part in any of those polls.

 

Did they send that out to every voter? Polls mean nothing in these debates.

I can have fun with some of the britnats on here but you're just a loony. Bye 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

Those nasty foreigners ruining it for you. 

Absolutely not considering I'm part Italian and Irish. I was just making a point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Roxy Hearts said:

It's some of the types of attitudes on this thread that turned me to independence a long time ago. Playing the man as usual.

 

I know we all do it but he doesn't represent every thought for Scots and we did vote for independence it was others who lost it for us. That includes propaganda.

 

Most people been playing RT 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Salmond is the key culprit for the defeat in 2014 and his actions since have done him or the yes movement no favours. The SNP surge was Sturgeon. He has rode a wave.

 

My issue is there's a lot of duplicity here and a bit of smoke and mirrors. If you look into the company he set up (Slainge Media Ltd) there's a few startling revelations to cast doubt on his "editorial independence" on RT.

 

1. He says it was a company set up after the success of his show in order to meet the request for a permanent show. Check Companies House (we all can for free) https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC572513. Set up before the Fringe run in July.

 

2. The company has a share capital of £2. Two share holders - Mr Salmond and Tasmina Ahmed Sheikh. A £1 each. There are no standard securities, unsecured loans or cautionary obligations on the company. So the operating budget will be a £2 as that is the operating budget of Slainte Media Ltd. The statement from Salmond is he will produce the show and sell it to RT. On £2? Really?

 

I'd add there is an ability to underwrite the shareholding. But that is nearly always (to secure a creditors credit) matched by a standard security. None are registered. These must be registered against the company on CH within 21 days. But this show is apparently already being produced.

 

3. If we put these two together the question to be asked is where is the funding to make a show for RT coming from if the company has a capital of £2? If it is RT, then he and Tasmina Ahmed Sheikh are being paid by RT to make a show by RT and packaged as being by his company then he will be bound to adhere to RT editorial guidelines and therefore not free to speak his mind - as he has claimed.

 

There's a bit to this if the surface is scratched. It's clearly why Sturgeon has moved to distance herself from him yesterday and by virtue the SNP.

Good post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

If only he had been given a half hour slot a week on the BBC then this would never have happened :-D

Could you imagine the Britnat cringers? They can't cope at the moment. The BBC should do it as it isn't going to change anything now as the cringers think he's a busted flush...... etc, etc, etc.

 

 

..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel
5 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

Could you imagine the Britnat cringers? They can't cope at the moment. The BBC should do it as it isn't going to change anything now as the cringers think he's a busted flush...... etc, etc, etc.

 

 

..

 

The Brit Nats are counting down the last days of the UK entity, it’s funny as ****. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

The Brit Nats are counting down the last days of the UK entity, it’s funny as ****. 

They're posting links to all sorts of stuff. They're a bunch of weirdos. They should be comfortable with the lovely, cuddly uk we live in. It's equally perfect for everyone....!

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel
5 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

They're posting links to all sorts of stuff. They're a bunch of weirdos. They should be comfortable with the lovely, cuddly uk we live in. It's equally perfect for everyone....!

 

 

 

 

The English empire is on its final knees, it’s all over bar the singing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Space Mackerel said:

If only he had been given a half hour slot a week on the BBC then this would never have happened :-D

Apart from his regular appearances on the Beeb did he need a show?

 

Equally, what part of impartially is served  by the BBC giving him a show? Which ex-patty leader has their own show?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

michael_bolton
8 hours ago, Phil Dunphy said:

Let's have a closer look at some of the numbers.

 

122,036 votes cast in Dumfries and Galloway - 65.67% voted against. So the majority of those people weren't from Scotland.

 

61.10% of 378,012 votes cast in Edinburgh were No. The majority of those people weren't from Scotland either?

 

206,486 votes in Aberdeenshire, 60.36% majority against. Loads of non-Scottish people in the Grampian area then.

 

This the majority of Scots voted Yes nonsense is laughable.

 

I don't know whether or not the majority of Scots voted for independence, but I do hate to see poor arguing go unchallenged.

 

This post is simply statistically illiterate.

 

Your focusing in on individual areas is irrelevant to the point you're arguing against. This wasn't a local election, it was a national, first over the line referendum.

 

No won by just under 400,000 votes. The 2011 census shows around  million non-Scottish born people living in Scotland. I have no Scotland-specific evidence, but since net migration to the UK rose in that period and Scotland's projected population grew, I'd suggest that number of non-Scottish born Scots had probably risen a smidgen by 2014.

 

Poles have shown that non-Scottish British nationals voted No at around 72%, meaning over 300,000 of the No votes are already accounted for before taking into account that non-British born voters voted No at around 60%. If you remove these groups, that less-than-400,000 majority for No starts to look pretty shaky. Your glib dismissal of the (unprovable, but perfectly feasible) idea that non-Scots swung the referendum does no credit to your analytical skills.

 

You highlighted three areas that were always likely to produce a majority for No due to a combination of economic, demographic and geographical reasons. Yet the nationwide trends show that it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that the non-native vote won it for No. I don't recall this even being a particularly controversial idea at the time. I think it's to Scotland's immense credit as a society that this has been accepted. In lots of parts of the world non-natives would have been denied a say and would then have been widely vilified for influencing the result. It's proof of Scotland's robust democracy that neither of these things happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

michael_bolton

Back on topic, there seems to be an incredible level of naivety when discussing Russia Today. Especially in comparison to other 'acceptable' organisations.

 

I'm not for one second suggesting that RT is particularly desirable from a moral viewpoint, but you're living in a fantasy land if you think its competitors are, and you're living there as a result of the media you're used to receiving.

 

The BBC may be more willing to be critical of UK political figures than RT is of Russian ones, but the BBC also produces much more morally questionable output on wars around the world than RT does. How do those two factors balance out? As for levels of being a state mouthpiece, Owen Jones quotes a senior BBC journalist as telling him that the BBC is 'set up to be the transmitter of mainstream ideology'. But that can't be right, since only the Russians do that... A Cardiff University (one of the UK's main journalist providers) study showed that BBC output generally has a strong bias towards the government of the day. In discussions about the EU, the BBC is significantly more likely to present the views of business leaders than ITV News is, for example. Business representatives outnumber trade union representatives almost twenty to one on the BBC. It's  a right-wing mouthpiece representing the government's viewpoint, in the same way as RT. But it's different, because...?

 

The Russian government may murder journalists, but I think anyone who genuinely believes that the UK government doesn't have blood on its hands on a regular basis is a fantasist. How do we balance out different kinds of state-sanctioned death? I see Dr David Kelly's body was cremated recently. Is Russian state-sanctioned death somehow worse?

 

This is just a stick to beat an individual with. It's daft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, michael_bolton said:

Back on topic, there seems to be an incredible level of naivety when discussing Russia Today. Especially in comparison to other 'acceptable' organisations.

 

I'm not for one second suggesting that RT is particularly desirable from a moral viewpoint, but you're living in a fantasy land if you think its competitors are, and you're living there as a result of the media you're used to receiving.

 

The BBC may be more willing to be critical of UK political figures than RT is of Russian ones, but the BBC also produces much more morally questionable output on wars around the world than RT does. How do those two factors balance out? As for levels of being a state mouthpiece, Owen Jones quotes a senior BBC journalist as telling him that the BBC is 'set up to be the transmitter of mainstream ideology'. But that can't be right, since only the Russians do that... A Cardiff University (one of the UK's main journalist providers) study showed that BBC output generally has a strong bias towards the government of the day. In discussions about the EU, the BBC is significantly more likely to present the views of business leaders than ITV News is, for example. Business representatives outnumber trade union representatives almost twenty to one on the BBC. It's  a right-wing mouthpiece representing the government's viewpoint, in the same way as RT. But it's different, because...?

 

The Russian government may murder journalists, but I think anyone who genuinely believes that the UK government doesn't have blood on its hands on a regular basis is a fantasist. How do we balance out different kinds of state-sanctioned death? I see Dr David Kelly's body was cremated recently. Is Russian state-sanctioned death somehow worse?

 

This is just a stick to beat an individual with. It's daft.

Good post.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AlphonseCapone

Spacey gets constant grief on here on almost every post, yet he posted several tweets pointing out the hypocrisy of the reaction to all of this and only one poster made one comment on one of them.

 

Is it because most politicians of all persuasions are hypocritical, self-serving, lying sacks of shit? Yet some folk want to make out that it only applies to one side because they treat politics like football.

 

Life tip; if you think the Conservatives, SNP, Labour etc genuinely care about you over power, seek help.

 

The fact is, all media is biased in their own ways and some are more biased than others. Many politicians have taken RT money while in office and I'd bet given the opportunity to make more money after, would do the same thing.

 

Ruth Davidson and Anas Sarwar both tried to turn this into a political point scoring exercise by making it about the SNP or Sturgeon. Fact, Salmond is currently a punter like you and I. He can do what he likes within the rules of law. Bizzare that more folk are more upset about what a former first minister is doing than with our head of state for having offshore accounts. But then again not that bizzare given the British propensity for subservience under the class system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

Spacey gets constant grief on here on almost every post, yet he posted several tweets pointing out the hypocrisy of the reaction to all of this and only one poster made one comment on one of them.

 

Is it because most politicians of all persuasions are hypocritical, self-serving, lying sacks of shit? Yet some folk want to make out that it only applies to one side because they treat politics like football.

 

Life tip; if you think the Conservatives, SNP, Labour etc genuinely care about you over power, seek help.

 

The fact is, all media is biased in their own ways and some are more biased than others. Many politicians have taken RT money while in office and I'd bet given the opportunity to make more money after, would do the same thing.

 

Ruth Davidson and Anas Sarwar both tried to turn this into a political point scoring exercise by making it about the SNP or Sturgeon. Fact, Salmond is currently a punter like you and I. He can do what he likes within the rules of law. Bizzare that more folk are more upset about what a former first minister is doing than with our head of state for having offshore accounts. But then again not that bizzare given the British propensity for subservience under the class system.

Thing is though, it's not really about hypocrisy or beggar thy neighbour type stuff.

 

This is a huge lapse in judgement. RT has been active part of the Russian disinformation campaign in the west. Watch the Adam Curtis documentary on BBC iPlayer - Hypernormalisation. Explains it very well and how western media and campaigns (Fox, Brexit, Trump) have began using similar tactics partly in pay of Russian outliers and agents.

 

To it's credit the SNP and indy-movement unlike other groups (Catalonia's Puidgemont has met with the likes of Assange a man clearly in the orbit of Russia by his actions for example) have managed to keep clear of this.  But there's always been those happy to lap up the type of fake news that furthers the destabilisation agenda on the fringes. Salmond carries weight in the movement. He is a trusted and almost sanctified figure within Yes. By accepting the RT rouble and having a show on their network he's giving them credibility within the movement and tugging a part of the movement into that worrying orbit.

 

It's a huge misjudgement on his part. Huge.

 

Granted your average punter won't care.

 

Really recommend the documentary Hypernormalisation. Very interesting and explores a lot of this stuff about media credibility and disinformation being used here, in the States and Europe and it's origins in Russia via the Kremlin through Sputnik News and RT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

Spacey gets constant grief on here on almost every post, yet he posted several tweets pointing out the hypocrisy of the reaction to all of this and only one poster made one comment on one of them.

 

Is it because most politicians of all persuasions are hypocritical, self-serving, lying sacks of shit? Yet some folk want to make out that it only applies to one side because they treat politics like football.

 

Life tip; if you think the Conservatives, SNP, Labour etc genuinely care about you over power, seek help.

 

The fact is, all media is biased in their own ways and some are more biased than others. Many politicians have taken RT money while in office and I'd bet given the opportunity to make more money after, would do the same thing.

 

Ruth Davidson and Anas Sarwar both tried to turn this into a political point scoring exercise by making it about the SNP or Sturgeon. Fact, Salmond is currently a punter like you and I. He can do what he likes within the rules of law. Bizzare that more folk are more upset about what a former first minister is doing than with our head of state for having offshore accounts. But then again not that bizzare given the British propensity for subservience under the class system.

 

This is something which always amazes me, how some people take politics so seriously, genuinely thinking and pushing a narrative that somehow their party is better than the others, that their party is morally superior than the others, that their party is whiter than white and is more trustworthy and honest than the other parties. 

When the fact is the vast majority of them are nothing more than a bunch of self-serving lying hypocritical arseholes, who lie through their teeth just to get your vote and once gotten will completely disregard any and all promises made to you, (just ask any student about student fees for example), yet these things seem to be conveniently forgotten by their supporters, who defend them time and time again.

 

I have seen many Labour & Tory Governments on a national level make a complete pigs ear of things, and end up embroiled in sleaze & corruption, only to be replaced by the other party promising to clean things up and bring real change, only for once they get in power, for the cycle to start all over again, all that's different is the faces and names of the sleazebags, oh and the colour of their rosettes. 

 

It's true that Salmond is a free agent, however where it would become a real problem for the SNP is if he were to still be an official spokesperson for the SNP, that in my opinion would be a massive political gift to all of the SNP's opponents both at Holyrood and Westminster.

The SNP needs to fully distance itself from Salmond whilst he is working for/on behalf of RT, whose paymasters it should not be forgotten have a dedicated branch to try and meddle in and influence other countries elections and if Salmond were to still be a spokesperson for the SNP he and the SNP would just be labelled as mouth pieces for the Kremlin by their opponents.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AlphonseCapone
35 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

Thing is though, it's not really about hypocrisy or beggar thy neighbour type stuff.

 

This is a huge lapse in judgement. RT has been active part of the Russian disinformation campaign in the west. Watch the Adam Curtis documentary on BBC iPlayer - Hypernormalisation. Explains it very well and how western media and campaigns (Fox, Brexit, Trump) have began using similar tactics partly in pay of Russian outliers and agents.

 

To it's credit the SNP and indy-movement unlike other groups (Catalonia's Puidgemont has met with the likes of Assange a man clearly in the orbit of Russia by his actions for example) have managed to keep clear of this.  But there's always been those happy to lap up the type of fake news that furthers the destabilisation agenda on the fringes. Salmond carries weight in the movement. He is a trusted and almost sanctified figure within Yes. By accepting the RT rouble and having a show on their network he's giving them credibility within the movement and tugging a part of the movement into that worrying orbit.

 

It's a huge misjudgement on his part. Huge.

 

Granted your average punter won't care.

 

Really recommend the documentary Hypernormalisation. Very interesting and explores a lot of this stuff about media credibility and disinformation being used here, in the States and Europe and it's origins in Russia via the Kremlin through Sputnik News and RT.

 

But Salmond isn't think about the SNP and Independence anymore (he'll always support it of course), he is more interested in being a TV star. It all started with his Fringe show. Many top level politicians move onto more money spinning ventures when they are done; often advising businesses or doing keynote speeches. Salmond has simply done this but combined it with his desire to constantly be in the limelight.

 

The SNP and Sturgeon have distanced themselves from it already. It's possibly a misjudgement from Salmond, but it certainly has little political capital despite how desperately Davidson and Anas try to make it so.

 

I'll check out that documentary though cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AlphonseCapone
33 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

This is something which always amazes me, how some people take politics so seriously, genuinely thinking and pushing a narrative that somehow their party is better than the others, that their party is morally superior than the others, that their party is whiter than white and is more trustworthy and honest than the other parties. 

When the fact is the vast majority of them are nothing more than a bunch of self-serving lying hypocritical arseholes, who lie through their teeth just to get your vote and once gotten will completely disregard any and all promises made to you, (just ask any student about student fees for example), yet these things seem to be conveniently forgotten by their supporters, who defend them time and time again.

 

I have seen many Labour & Tory Governments on a national level make a complete pigs ear of things, and end up embroiled in sleaze & corruption, only to be replaced by the other party promising to clean things up and bring real change, only for once they get in power, for the cycle to start all over again, all that's different is the faces and names of the sleazebags, oh and the colour of their rosettes. 

 

It's true that Salmond is a free agent, however where it would become a real problem for the SNP is if he were to still be an official spokesperson for the SNP, that in my opinion would be a massive political gift to all of the SNP's opponents both at Holyrood and Westminster.

The SNP needs to fully distance itself from Salmond whilst he is working for/on behalf of RT, whose paymasters it should not be forgotten have a dedicated branch to try and meddle in and influence other countries elections and if Salmond were to still be a spokesperson for the SNP he and the SNP would just be labelled as mouth pieces for the Kremlin by their opponents.

 

 

I don't understand it either. Each party (even the Tories!) usually have a few good manifesto pledges and between them you could come up with something decent. Voting is basically going for the one with the most pledges that resonate with you. But the folk that think everyone of their party's pledges is the best are folk I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them. But then the problem is, how many of them actually follow through with them.

 

I think the SNP and Sturgeon have distanced themselves tbf. If he still has any position in the SNP bar regular member, which I don't think he does, then it would be wise for them to drop him from it. Likewise in any future campaigns they'd be best placed to keep him at a distance.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seymour M Hersh
17 hours ago, Phil Dunphy said:

Let's have a closer look at some of the numbers.

 

122,036 votes cast in Dumfries and Galloway - 65.67% voted against. So the majority of those people weren't from Scotland.

 

61.10% of 378,012 votes cast in Edinburgh were No. The majority of those people weren't from Scotland either?

 

206,486 votes in Aberdeenshire, 60.36% majority against. Loads of non-Scottish people in the Grampian area then.

 

This the majority of Scots voted Yes nonsense is laughable.

 

Has there ever been a breakdown of how the EU nationals who were given the chance to vote ended up voting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thunderstruck
On 11/11/2017 at 12:47, JamboX2 said:

 

Salmond is the key culprit for the defeat in 2014 and his actions since have done him or the yes movement no favours. The SNP surge was Sturgeon. He has rode a wave.

 

My issue is there's a lot of duplicity here and a bit of smoke and mirrors. If you look into the company he set up (Slainge Media Ltd) there's a few startling revelations to cast doubt on his "editorial independence" on RT.

 

1. He says it was a company set up after the success of his show in order to meet the request for a permanent show. Check Companies House (we all can for free) https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC572513. Set up before the Fringe run in July.

 

2. The company has a share capital of £2. Two share holders - Mr Salmond and Tasmina Ahmed Sheikh. A £1 each. There are no standard securities, unsecured loans or cautionary obligations on the company. So the operating budget will be a £2 as that is the operating budget of Slainte Media Ltd. The statement from Salmond is he will produce the show and sell it to RT. On £2? Really?

 

I'd add there is an ability to underwrite the shareholding. But that is nearly always (to secure a creditors credit) matched by a standard security. None are registered. These must be registered against the company on CH within 21 days. But this show is apparently already being produced.

 

3. If we put these two together the question to be asked is where is the funding to make a show for RT coming from if the company has a capital of £2? If it is RT, then he and Tasmina Ahmed Sheikh are being paid by RT to make a show by RT and packaged as being by his company then he will be bound to adhere to RT editorial guidelines and therefore not free to speak his mind - as he has claimed.

 

There's a bit to this if the surface is scratched. It's clearly why Sturgeon has moved to distance herself from him yesterday and by virtue the SNP.

 

Ah-ha, “The Chronicles of the Deer” MkII - a device to avoid paying top rate of personal tax on top slice income. All perfectly legal if morally questionable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yabadabadoo1874again
1 hour ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

Nats comparing RT to the BBC :rofl:

 

BritNats and...British Broacasting Co + unquestioning conditioned advocacy = congratulations your kept very well informed.... by your own standards that is...!!! LOL ??????  !!!  

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BBC  is a joke

 

To feart to offend anyone

 

Also a Synagogue at prayer for some  oops sorry thats a no no

 

To think the  so in so's who run the gaff didny want  the funders  to find out what wages were dished out sickened me to the core

 

Get rid of it and the over paid arseholes in charge  of the  corporation  they are worse than Politicians  when begging scrounging and free loading is at hand

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dusk_Till_Dawn
4 hours ago, yabadabadoo1874again said:

 

BritNats and...British Broacasting Co + unquestioning conditioned advocacy = congratulations your kept very well informed.... by your own standards that is...!!! LOL ??????  !!!  

 

 

 

 

 

You’ve obviously never watched Russia Today son. Although let’s be honest, that goes without saying

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MacDonald Jardine
4 hours ago, jambo1961 said:

The BBC  is a joke

 

To feart to offend anyone

 

Also a Synagogue at prayer for some  oops sorry thats a no no

 

To think the  so in so's who run the gaff didny want  the funders  to find out what wages were dished out sickened me to the core

 

Get rid of it and the over paid arseholes in charge  of the  corporation  they are worse than Politicians  when begging scrounging and free loading is at hand

WTF is the reference to a synagogue about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yabadabadoo1874again
1 hour ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

 

You’ve obviously never watched Russia Today son. Although let’s be honest, that goes without saying

 

We have no option but to provide finance to a British Broadcasting Corp...whose principal activity is to...at all cost... protect the British state...ipso facto...if you choose to believe what they tell you and how they tell you without questioning then that's your lookout mr!!!

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, yabadabadoo1874again said:

 

We have no option but to provide finance to a British Broadcasting Corp...whose principal activity is to...at all cost... protect the British state...ipso facto...if you choose to believe what they tell you and how they tell you without questioning then that's your lookout mr!!!

 

 

 

 

You do realise that the BBC makes more programmes than just the news, take for example 'The Blue Planet 2' which is on in 10 mins.

 

I don't know the figures, but they will be out there somewhere how much of the licence payers money is spent on BBC news as compared to all the hundreds of other programmes it makes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, yabadabadoo1874again said:

 

We have no option but to provide finance to a British Broadcasting Corp...whose principal activity is to...at all cost... protect the British state...ipso facto...if you choose to believe what they tell you and how they tell you without questioning then that's your lookout mr!!!

 

 

 

 

It's actually to: inform, educate and entertain.

 

It's a public service broadcaster. Not a state or commercial broadcaster.

 

It was set up by John Reith (a Scot) to do those three things for the whole nation.

 

Perhaps dropping the conspiracy theory for a while wouldn't harm the debate around the BBC in Scotland. We'd be worse without it especially given plans to totally commercialise C4.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

It's actually to: inform, educate and entertain.

 

It's a public service broadcaster. Not a state or commercial broadcaster.

 

It was set up by John Reith (a Scot) to do those three things for the whole nation.

 

Perhaps dropping the conspiracy theory for a while wouldn't harm the debate around the BBC in Scotland. We'd be worse without it especially given plans to totally commercialise C4.

 

 

Conspiracy theory ?

 

There's that term used once again to dismiss any argument against the status quo.

You make good arguments .Wished you wouldn't go down that lazy route.

The fact is it's illegal to not pay for the BBC.

An organisation who historically and presently is run by Oxbridge.

That's not conspiracy it's fact.

Also it's worth noting the studies done on the bias nature of it's news editorials.

You can exclude what happened in Scotland's referendum.

Take a look at how they handled Corbyn.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yabadabadoo1874again
1 hour ago, JamboX2 said:

 

It's actually to: inform, educate and entertain.

 

It's a public service broadcaster. Not a state or commercial broadcaster.

 

It was set up by John Reith (a Scot) to do those three things for the whole nation.

 

Perhaps dropping the conspiracy theory for a while wouldn't harm the debate around the BBC in Scotland. We'd be worse without it especially given plans to totally commercialise C4.

 

 

 

The debate about the British Broadcasting Corp is versus another news media organisation.

 

You can trust them or not?

 

What conspiracy?  Are the BBC magically above Agitprop...

 

Would they actually tell you of all people if they were up to no good?  How laughable.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

michael_bolton
4 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

It's actually to: inform, educate and entertain.

 

It's a public service broadcaster. Not a state or commercial broadcaster.

 

It was set up by John Reith (a Scot) to do those three things for the whole nation.

 

Perhaps dropping the conspiracy theory for a while wouldn't harm the debate around the BBC in Scotland. We'd be worse without it especially given plans to totally commercialise C4.

 

 

 

And the point is that it does these things with a political slant. Its own employees have even admitted this to other journalists and this is backed up by statistical analysis of its news output. There's also the issue of the Balen Report, which the BBC has spent literally hundreds of thousands of pounds to avoid making public, which it is suspected writes of substantial anti-Israel bias in the BBC's coverage. There's the BBC's famously skewed coverage of the 'Arab Spring' and in particular its grossly biased and politically slanted reports (and non-reports) from Bahrain.

 

Then there's the Scottish referendum in 2014 when the BBC was accused of bias by a research team from UWS and then allowed Better Together to use their facilities to make a promotional video. Paul Mason, a former BBC journalist, wrote at the time: "Not since Iraq have I seen BBC News working at propaganda strength like this." Not political?

 

However, leave behind the news and move on to its documentary output (inform and entertain). The BBC has been accused and in some cases has had to fess up to misleading viewers in a documentary about Primark's work conditions in the developing world (clearly political), misleading the public in nature documentaries (conceivably political). Perhaps this is what Andrew Marr meant when the Daily Mail reported him as saying "It (the BBC) has a liberal bias, not so much a party-political bias. It is best described as a cultural liberal bias".

 

There are literally dozens of examples of BBC output being influenced by political considerations and, seemingly, bias.

 

You'd have to actively have your head in the sand to believe otherwise.

 

I'm actually pro-BBC. I think it is important for Britain to have it. But I think it needs a complete overhaul. Sadly, I think my desire for it to change will be frustrated. While it's not technically speaking a 'state broadcaster', it is very hard for any broadcaster funded by the government to avoid being political in nature. It's naive to suggest otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/11/2017 at 02:29, michael_bolton said:

However, leave behind the news and move on to its documentary output (inform and entertain). The BBC has been accused and in some cases has had to fess up to misleading viewers in a documentary about Primark's work conditions in the developing world (clearly political), misleading the public in nature documentaries (conceivably political). Perhaps this is what Andrew Marr meant when the Daily Mail reported him as saying "It (the BBC) has a liberal bias, not so much a party-political bias. It is best described as a cultural liberal bias".

 

 

Can you give examples of this please? I'm aware of them using captive animals for certain sequences and using footage of various different penguins and pretending it's a specific penguin for narrative purposes. To my mind his kind of thing is harmless so I'm assuming that you're thinking of something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Under investigation by Ofcom for allegedly 'breaching accuracy rules'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-42398607

 

Seems to be about tweets being read out on the show which Mr Salmond said had been selected from an "avalanche of tweets and emails" which they'd received.

Only problem was, that one of the tweets was from one of the show's own director's and all the other read out tweets couldn't be found anywhere online by Ofcom, suggesting that they were perhaps fictitious and made up.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...