GB news already dead?

[a1ex2001]

Don't worry about Andrew Neil. I'm sure he'll either have a show or be a regular on his old friend Murdochs Talk TV next year.

People talking about Fox News when the BBC are actively stoking up a fuel crisis

Comparing the BBC to Fox News is like comparing a the danger posed by a domestic kitten with a hungry wild adult tiger. British television news is some of the most unbiased in the world as mandated by ofcom which is the major challenge faced by anyone trying to setup Fox News in the UK as they simply won’t be allowed to operate as a news network if they are that biased and don’t actually report the news!

 

[Roar87]

If projection makes you sleep easy

You're literally defending a show made for low IQ people. Have a bit of self awareness.

This is a non-argument

 

[Roar87]

Comparing the BBC to Fox News is like comparing a the danger posed by a domestic kitten with a hungry wild adult tiger. British television news is some of the most unbiased in the world as mandated by ofcom which is the major challenge faced by anyone trying to setup Fox News in the UK as they simply won’t be allowed to operate as a news network if they are that biased and don’t actually report the news!

You do realise that Fox News is pro Conservative and CNN is pro Democrat right? It's not like there's Fox News in isolation, CNN is Fox News for the left. The thing about Fox News is they aren't claiming they're anything except pro Conservative, that's their audience. If you aren't watching Fox News then you're basically seeing half of the Political news because CNN will never report negative stuff on the Democrats. They'll run with a Trump Russia propaganda story for 3 years straight while reporting BLM riots as "mostly peaceful" with a burning building in the background.

 

[dLockers]

You do realise that Fox News is pro Conservative and CNN is pro Democrat right? It's not like there's Fox News in isolation, CNN is Fox News for the left. The thing about Fox News is they aren't claiming they're anything except pro Conservative, that's their audience. If you aren't watching Fox News then you're basically seeing half of the Political news because CNN will never report negative stuff on the Democrats. They'll run with a Trump Russia propaganda story for 3 years straight while reporting BLM riots as "mostly peaceful" with a burning building in the background.

You live in the UK. We don't have this problem at all. Our main stream media is pretty bang on central. What you are looking for is someone to feed you with opinions rather than facts.

 

[BowdonUK]

Comparing the BBC to Fox News is like comparing a the danger posed by a domestic kitten with a hungry wild adult tiger. British television news is some of the most unbiased in the world as mandated by ofcom which is the major challenge faced by anyone trying to setup Fox News in the UK as they simply won’t be allowed to operate as a news network if they are that biased and don’t actually report the news!

I agree with you that there is a different between the unregulated American news channels and our Ofcom based system here. I think to a degree the news selections here is more based on class rather than a direct political agenda.

I doubt a Fox News style channel would work over here anyway. Because I think the geography of our country is different. It is a lot easier to wind up people in the US who rarely bump in to someone with a different opinion. Whereas here we're forced to interact with all kinds of people, unless we go out of our way to avoid them.

I doubt any partisan channel would work here. That's why I was happy to see that GB News have invited many 'left wing' people on the different shows. People want to see debates, and the clashing of ideas.

 

[a1ex2001]

You do realise that Fox News is pro Conservative and CNN is pro Democrat right? It's not like there's Fox News in isolation, CNN is Fox News for the left. The thing about Fox News is they aren't claiming they're anything except pro Conservative, that's their audience. If you aren't watching Fox News then you're basically seeing half of the Political news because CNN will never report negative stuff on the Democrats. They'll run with a Trump Russia propaganda story for 3 years straight while reporting BLM riots as "mostly peaceful" with a burning building in the background.

Neither of them are really news channels due to the nature of US broadcast rules but CNN is certainly more balanced and less hyped with conspiracy nut jobs. I don’t see how this is relevant as we live in the uk where regulation means you cannot have a partisan channel labelled news?

 

[a1ex2001]

I agree with you that there is a different between the unregulated American news channels and our Ofcom based system here. I think to a degree the news selections here is more based on class rather than a direct political agenda.

I doubt a Fox News style channel would work over here anyway. Because I think the geography of our country is different. It is a lot easier to wind up people in the US who rarely bump in to someone with a different opinion. Whereas here we're forced to interact with all kinds of people, unless we go out of our way to avoid them.

I doubt any partisan channel would work here. That's why I was happy to see that GB News have invited many 'left wing' people on the different shows. People want to see debates, and the clashing of ideas.

GB news have no choice but to invite a cross section of view otherwise they loose the right to broadcast as a news channel.

 

[Greebo]

GB news have no choice but to invite a cross section of view otherwise they loose the right to broadcast as a news channel.

Which they are very close to happening.

 

[Roar87]

Neither of them are really news channels due to the nature of US broadcast rules but CNN is certainly more balanced and less hyped with conspiracy nut jobs. I don’t see how this is relevant as we live in the uk where regulation means you cannot have a partisan channel labelled news?

You mean like the virus being created in a Chinese lab being called a conspiracy theory, then actually when Biden is on office they decide to do a serious investigation?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57260009

You'll literally just call something a conspiracy theory based on who is saying it, complete lack of objectivity.

 

[Apex]

Who doesn't think it's still a conspiracy?

You're of the view that as Biden is looking into it, must be true.

Not quite how things work.

It's still just a conspiracy no matter which government looks into it.

The difference is, trump says it happened with no evidence, Bidens admin (unless there's other quotes the BBC didn't include) says they just want to investigate it, perhaps to put the stupid theory to rest. You investigate, show that the theory is total nonsense just as everything else trump said, use that against trump and his team, and then have a load of donkeys still parrot the China man made conspiracy any way and now have a conspiracy that the investigation was set up, all because it didn't go the way they want it to

 

[a1ex2001]

You mean like the virus being created in a Chinese lab being called a conspiracy theory, then actually when Biden is on office they decide to do a serious investigation?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57260009

You'll literally just call something a conspiracy theory based on who is saying it, complete lack of objectivity.

Lol it’s still a conspiracy theory, the previous US president presented it as fact the current occupant of the role says they will investigate. It will cease being a conspiracy theory when someone (anyone) presents credible evidence that it is true.

 

[Murphy]

You mean like the virus being created in a Chinese lab being called a conspiracy theory, then actually when Biden is on office they decide to do a serious investigation?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57260009

You'll literally just call something a conspiracy theory based on who is saying it, complete lack of objectivity.

Just because something is investigated it doesn't mean it's not a conspiracy. If the police or secret services' investigate a suspected terrorist bomb plot it doesn't mean people are or are not actually conspiring to blow something up, it means they want to establish the truth of the matter.

 

[Roar87]

Who doesn't think it's still a conspiracy?

You're of the view that as Biden is looking into it, must be true.

Not quite how things work.

It's still just a conspiracy no matter which government looks into it.

The difference is, trump says it happened with no evidence, Bidens admin (unless there's other quotes the BBC didn't include) says they just want to investigate it, perhaps to put the stupid theory to rest. You investigate, show that the theory is total nonsense just as everything else trump said, use that against trump and his team, and then have a load of donkeys still parrot the China man made conspiracy any way and now have a conspiracy that the investigation was set up, all because it didn't go the way they want it to

Oh I didn't realise you were privy to the same information that a sitting President has, it's good to know that he had no evidence even though he obviously get's top secret briefings he can't discuss the specifics of in public

 

[Apex]

Oh I didn't realise you were privy to the same information that a sitting President has, it's good to know that he had no evidence even though he obviously get's top secret briefings he can't discuss the specifics of in public

only you are actually claiming to know this information at the moment everyone else is aware that they don't know, and it's still just a conspiracy even when being investigated. you on the other hand...

 

[james.miller]

It's only a conspiracy theory if you believe it was released intentionally from the lab.

 

[Roar87]

only you are actually claiming to know this information at the moment everyone else is aware that they don't know, and it's still just a conspiracy even when being investigated. you on the other hand...

I haven't claimed to know any information, no where have I said that. Why are you putting words in my mouth?

 

[Murphy]

Oh I didn't realise you were privy to the same information that a sitting President has, it's good to know that he had no evidence even though he obviously get's top secret briefings he can't discuss the specifics of in public

While true the summary has been declassified, i would guess in an attempt to debunk the theory that China engineered it as a weapon or that it accidentally escaped from a lab.

We judge the virus was not developed as a biological weapon. Most agencies also assess with low confidence that SARS-CoV-2 probably was not genetically engineered; however, two agencies believe there was not sufficient evidence to make an assessment either way. Finally, the IC assesses China’s officials did not have foreknowledge of the virus before the initial outbreak of COVID-19 emerged.

After examining all available intelligence reporting and other information, though, the IC remains divided on the most likely origin of COVID-19. All agencies assess that two hypotheses are plausible: natural exposure to an infected animal and a laboratory-associated incident.

You can read the rest for yourself and makeup your own mind, the summery is only a page long.

 

[Roar87]

While true the summary has been declassified, i would guess in an attempt to debunk the theory that China engineered it as a weapon or that it accidentally escaped from a lab.

You can read the rest for yourself and makeup your own mind, the summery is only a page long.

The summary you just quoted said they're divided on it being a laboratory associated incident; I don't think China deployed it as a bio-weapon, even they're not that stupid.

 

[Apex]

I haven't claimed to know any information, no where have I said that. Why are you putting words in my mouth?

bit of a silly post to make roar87 having just made this post before hand.

Oh I didn't realise you were privy to the same information that a sitting President has, it's good to know that he had no evidence even though he obviously get's top secret briefings he can't discuss the specifics of in public

no where have i said that.

it's pointless to post with you as it just goes in circles and you can't admit anything, but reality is, trump has made claims but provided no evidence. at a time of an election that trump was losing, partly due to covid and his lies, he could very easily declassify the intel that shows china as doing what he'd claimed. he never did. there was no evidence shown [to us] back then, and no evidence now.

you claim that things aren't a conspiracy theory any more are just you trying to put words in others mouths. no one has said this isn't a conspiracy theory any more. just like you were trying to pretend i said i had insider information. i never said that, i said "trump says it happened with no evidence [provided to us]".

any way, i know you will now argue back, rather than admit you mistook what i posted and move on. i'll let you have the last word as i know you need it and then give up with you as it's rather boring.

 

[BowdonUK]

I was watching EuroNews earlier and they were trying to tie any general election fraud questions to election conspiracies. This was inspired by the recent German election.

The first example he showed shows the calibre of thick idiots we have in the media. The post he was debunking was that someone had said they could open a ballot box with 2 knives. So the evidence that this was fake news was a statement released by the German equivalent of the electoral commission saying it couldnt be done, and that the boxes were always monitored.

Neither response answers the actual question of if the box could be opened by 2 knives or not.

We're living in the era of the Ministry of Truth of 1984... and some people don't realise.