BBC (again)

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

BBC (again)

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 171 of 435 < 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 >

Nicholas91 The Democratic Republic of Kent 15 Sep 22 10.20am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Isn't that what the national broadcaster is supposed to do? It isn't political. Its job is to reflect opinion and not direct it. Thus, when I say "reflected the mood of the nation", it's doing what it is supposed to do and, in my opinion, always does do. That some don't like it is inevitable, but so long as they come from both sides of politics, as they do, then they are getting things broadly right. It's just that you don't get the left posting here, so you don't get to read their bitching. Yes I agree to a certain extent, perhaps I misread or jumped to a predetermined conclusion of your intention. My point would be that, let's call it a 'woke culture' is the order of the day and therefore the BBC seeks to pander to this audience and that is the essence of the gripe. Typically, the result of that will be commentary such as 'they should just report the news' which again I do agree with. Therefore, my point was that whilst still pandering to what is deemed to be an appetite, or expectance of 'left-leaning wokery', they will also of course report and provide coverage of an historic and 'headline' worthy event. I think the nature of the comments on here are disgruntlement on the media alignment with the current sociopolitical landscape, which the BBC can then be seen to be endorsing/promoting, as opposed to it's stance on neutrality, which the BBC clearly is not. Furthermore my initial reply was based solely on the fact I do not acknowledge any correlation between politically motivated reporting and that of an historic event. They'll of course seek to incorporate both into their activities somewhat irrespective of one another. Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!
Alert a moderator to this post

Nicholas91

The Democratic Republic of Kent 15 Sep 22 10.20am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Isn't that what the national broadcaster is supposed to do? It isn't political. Its job is to reflect opinion and not direct it.

Thus, when I say "reflected the mood of the nation", it's doing what it is supposed to do and, in my opinion, always does do.

That some don't like it is inevitable, but so long as they come from both sides of politics, as they do, then they are getting things broadly right. It's just that you don't get the left posting here, so you don't get to read their bitching.

Yes I agree to a certain extent, perhaps I misread or jumped to a predetermined conclusion of your intention.

My point would be that, let's call it a 'woke culture' is the order of the day and therefore the BBC seeks to pander to this audience and that is the essence of the gripe. Typically, the result of that will be commentary such as 'they should just report the news' which again I do agree with. Therefore, my point was that whilst still pandering to what is deemed to be an appetite, or expectance of 'left-leaning wokery', they will also of course report and provide coverage of an historic and 'headline' worthy event.

I think the nature of the comments on here are disgruntlement on the media alignment with the current sociopolitical landscape, which the BBC can then be seen to be endorsing/promoting, as opposed to it's stance on neutrality, which the BBC clearly is not. Furthermore my initial reply was based solely on the fact I do not acknowledge any correlation between politically motivated reporting and that of an historic event. They'll of course seek to incorporate both into their activities somewhat irrespective of one another.

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 15 Sep 22 12.00pm
The incessant coverage of every aspect of the Queen's demise have led some to rename the BBC 'MournHub'. Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham
Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt

Clapham on the Back 15 Sep 22 12.00pm

The incessant coverage of every aspect of the Queen's demise have led some to rename the BBC 'MournHub'.

Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 15 Sep 22 12.42pm
Originally posted by Cucking Funt The incessant coverage of every aspect of the Queen's demise have led some to rename the BBC 'MournHub'. I worried that we would see a period of repetitive tributes and self indulgent stories of personal encounters, such as we have seen in the past. I think though that the coverage has been fresh and captured the mood perfectly. It’s a huge event. We are living through, and part of history and the BBC is our window through which the world views us. I think they have done supremely well. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 15 Sep 22 12.42pm

Originally posted by Cucking Funt

The incessant coverage of every aspect of the Queen's demise have led some to rename the BBC 'MournHub'.

I worried that we would see a period of repetitive tributes and self indulgent stories of personal encounters, such as we have seen in the past.

I think though that the coverage has been fresh and captured the mood perfectly. It’s a huge event. We are living through, and part of history and the BBC is our window through which the world views us. I think they have done supremely well.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

puncheon_judy 15 Sep 22 12.45pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Isn't that what the national broadcaster is supposed to do? It isn't political. Its job is to reflect opinion and not direct it. Thus, when I say "reflected the mood of the nation", it's doing what it is supposed to do and, in my opinion, always does do. That some don't like it is inevitable, but so long as they come from both sides of politics, as they do, then they are getting things broadly right. It's just that you don't get the left posting here, so you don't get to read their bitching. Spot on. It's a fantastic institution. The only problem is that it has become a punch bag for the vocal minority. The BBC is an amazing British export, that is still seen as the gold standard of television by commissioners around the world.
Alert a moderator to this post

puncheon_judy

15 Sep 22 12.45pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Isn't that what the national broadcaster is supposed to do? It isn't political. Its job is to reflect opinion and not direct it.

Thus, when I say "reflected the mood of the nation", it's doing what it is supposed to do and, in my opinion, always does do.

Spot on.

It's a fantastic institution. The only problem is that it has become a punch bag for the vocal minority.

The BBC is an amazing British export, that is still seen as the gold standard of television by commissioners around the world.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 15 Sep 22 1.23pm
Originally posted by Nicholas91 Yes I agree to a certain extent, perhaps I misread or jumped to a predetermined conclusion of your intention. My point would be that, let's call it a 'woke culture' is the order of the day and therefore the BBC seeks to pander to this audience and that is the essence of the gripe. Typically, the result of that will be commentary such as 'they should just report the news' which again I do agree with. Therefore, my point was that whilst still pandering to what is deemed to be an appetite, or expectance of 'left-leaning wokery', they will also of course report and provide coverage of an historic and 'headline' worthy event. I think the nature of the comments on here are disgruntlement on the media alignment with the current sociopolitical landscape, which the BBC can then be seen to be endorsing/promoting,as opposed to it's stance on neutrality, which the BBC clearly is not. Furthermore my initial reply was based solely on the fact I do not acknowledge any correlation between politically motivated reporting and that of an historic event. They'll of course seek to incorporate both into their activities somewhat irrespective of one another. The BBC don't though either endorse or promote anything. They report it. It is just that some see that reporting as endorsement and support. With regard to the BBC "clearly" not being neutral, this is just untrue. It is simply a biased opinion of both the right and the left, both of whom feel the BBC supports the other. Edited by Wisbech Eagle (15 Sep 2022 1.24pm) For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 15 Sep 22 1.23pm

Originally posted by Nicholas91

Yes I agree to a certain extent, perhaps I misread or jumped to a predetermined conclusion of your intention.

I think the nature of the comments on here are disgruntlement on the media alignment with the current sociopolitical landscape, which the BBC can then be seen to be endorsing/promoting,as opposed to it's stance on neutrality, which the BBC clearly is not. Furthermore my initial reply was based solely on the fact I do not acknowledge any correlation between politically motivated reporting and that of an historic event. They'll of course seek to incorporate both into their activities somewhat irrespective of one another.

The BBC don't though either endorse or promote anything. They report it. It is just that some see that reporting as endorsement and support. With regard to the BBC "clearly" not being neutral, this is just untrue. It is simply a biased opinion of both the right and the left, both of whom feel the BBC supports the other.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (15 Sep 2022 1.24pm)

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 15 Sep 22 1.28pm
Originally posted by Nicholas91 Orrrr.... The BBC is primarily concerned with aligning to whatever the current zeitgeist is. The order of the day has been the death of our longest reigning monarch, naturally. Soon it will return to liberal gibberish and nonsense. I admire your efforts however. Tbf the BBC never holds back on pomp and ceremony broadcasting significant royal family events. They never really give much of a platform to republicans. COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 15 Sep 22 1.28pm

Originally posted by Nicholas91

Orrrr....

The BBC is primarily concerned with aligning to whatever the current zeitgeist is.

The order of the day has been the death of our longest reigning monarch, naturally. Soon it will return to liberal gibberish and nonsense.

I admire your efforts however.

Tbf the BBC never holds back on pomp and ceremony broadcasting significant royal family events. They never really give much of a platform to republicans.

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

Nicholas91 The Democratic Republic of Kent 15 Sep 22 1.30pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle The BBC don't though either endorse or promote anything. They report it. It is just that some see that reporting as endorsement and support. With regard to the BBC "clearly" not being neutral, this is just untrue. It is simply a biased opinion of both the right and the left, both of whom feel the BBC supports the other. Edited by Wisbech Eagle (15 Sep 2022 1.24pm) Yes I see the validity in that stance. Perhaps then it is the far more sensitivity of one side to make note of the other's coverage and deem this to be more than their own? Equally, it could be either side suggesting that the other does not deserve coverage and therefore any amounts to endorsement. From my perspective, there is a lot on the BBC that I would not deem as 'news' or at the very least 'newsworthy' as it seems to be a ringing endorsement of what I deem to be sociopolitical conditioning. See above however for my openness to the fact that this may be incorrect although I am yet willing to concede it is. Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!
Alert a moderator to this post

Nicholas91

The Democratic Republic of Kent 15 Sep 22 1.30pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (15 Sep 2022 1.24pm)

Yes I see the validity in that stance.

Perhaps then it is the far more sensitivity of one side to make note of the other's coverage and deem this to be more than their own? Equally, it could be either side suggesting that the other does not deserve coverage and therefore any amounts to endorsement.

From my perspective, there is a lot on the BBC that I would not deem as 'news' or at the very least 'newsworthy' as it seems to be a ringing endorsement of what I deem to be sociopolitical conditioning. See above however for my openness to the fact that this may be incorrect although I am yet willing to concede it is.

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 15 Sep 22 1.30pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle The BBC don't though either endorse or promote anything. They report it. It is just that some see that reporting as endorsement and support. With regard to the BBC "clearly" not being neutral, this is just untrue. It is simply a biased opinion of both the right and the left, both of whom feel the BBC supports the other. Edited by Wisbech Eagle (15 Sep 2022 1.24pm) Haven't noticed any difference between the coverage on the BBC and that on Sky.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

15 Sep 22 1.30pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (15 Sep 2022 1.24pm)

Haven't noticed any difference between the coverage on the BBC and that on Sky.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 15 Sep 22 2.09pm
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman Tbf the BBC never holds back on pomp and ceremony broadcasting significant royal family events. They never really give much of a platform to republicans. Why would they hold back? You have only to see the way people have responded this week to realise how close to their hearts this is. A lesser Royal than the Queen would not receive anything like the same coverage. I don't know what % of us are truly republicans, but I suspect it is a tiny minority. Indifference, perhaps. Concerned about costs, probably, but wanting our constitutional monarchy replaced? I don't see it myself. So I am unsurprised they aren't given a platform. What Charles will do remains to be seen, and that could alter the balance somewhat. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 15 Sep 22 2.09pm

Originally posted by Rudi Hedman

Tbf the BBC never holds back on pomp and ceremony broadcasting significant royal family events. They never really give much of a platform to republicans.

Why would they hold back? You have only to see the way people have responded this week to realise how close to their hearts this is. A lesser Royal than the Queen would not receive anything like the same coverage.

I don't know what % of us are truly republicans, but I suspect it is a tiny minority. Indifference, perhaps. Concerned about costs, probably, but wanting our constitutional monarchy replaced? I don't see it myself. So I am unsurprised they aren't given a platform.

What Charles will do remains to be seen, and that could alter the balance somewhat.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

silvertop Portishead 15 Sep 22 2.21pm
The BBC is like The Times. "Pro" whatever happens to be the establishment of the day. In its case it has to be because of Charter. It is also annoyingly woke/zeitgeist due to its (and Ch 4's) regulatory link to the Equality Act. I accept that the journos are probably all lefties. Then again, a mate writes for the Mail on Sunday and I happen to know he always votes Labour. He says that all journos are lefties; it is only the owners and a few leader writers who are on the right. All the while, the BBC seeks to steer a middle path of neutrality notwithstanding the pulls in all directions and the hate and allegation of partiality largely coming from BOTH ends of the political spectrum.
Alert a moderator to this post

silvertop

Portishead 15 Sep 22 2.21pm

The BBC is like The Times. "Pro" whatever happens to be the establishment of the day. In its case it has to be because of Charter.

It is also annoyingly woke/zeitgeist due to its (and Ch 4's) regulatory link to the Equality Act.

I accept that the journos are probably all lefties. Then again, a mate writes for the Mail on Sunday and I happen to know he always votes Labour. He says that all journos are lefties; it is only the owners and a few leader writers who are on the right.

All the while, the BBC seeks to steer a middle path of neutrality notwithstanding the pulls in all directions and the hate and allegation of partiality largely coming from BOTH ends of the political spectrum.

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 15 Sep 22 2.31pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Why would they hold back? You have only to see the way people have responded this week to realise how close to their hearts this is. A lesser Royal than the Queen would not receive anything like the same coverage. I don't know what % of us are truly republicans, but I suspect it is a tiny minority. Indifference, perhaps. Concerned about costs, probably, but wanting our constitutional monarchy replaced? I don't see it myself. So I am unsurprised they aren't given a platform. What Charles will do remains to be seen, and that could alter the balance somewhat. I agree with you WE. I think there's a bit of general cynicism involved as well. I have two good friends who are old-style Union men who don't understand all the coverage. Or claim not to anyway. I'm seeing them tomorrow for a drink and imagine we'll stick to music and football for most of the conversation.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

15 Sep 22 2.31pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

What Charles will do remains to be seen, and that could alter the balance somewhat.

I agree with you WE. I think there's a bit of general cynicism involved as well.
I have two good friends who are old-style Union men who don't understand all the coverage. Or claim not to anyway.
I'm seeing them tomorrow for a drink and imagine we'll stick to music and football for most of the conversation.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 15 Sep 22 2.35pm
I was quite amazed to see this article on the BBC. If I'm being cynical I would say it's not critical of DeSantis purely because of the establishment vendetta against Trump. [Link] 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

15 Sep 22 2.35pm

I was quite amazed to see this article on the BBC.

If I'm being cynical I would say it's not critical of DeSantis purely because of the establishment vendetta against Trump.

[Link]

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 171 of 435 < 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

BBC (again)

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors