• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

What would Jenas do?

Danishfurniturelover said:
Well let's hope Boris succeeds.

I watch with the mute on. What can anyone teach me about football?
Click to expand...

I feel like this as well, that football pundits never teach me anything. When I watch tennis I’m constantly learning from the commentators. But think I might be overly dismissive of football pundits. Maybe they do occasionally say something worthwhile?
 
Rorschach said:
For all its flaws, killing the BBC would be just another step down the road to authoritarianism in the UK.
Click to expand...

Or payback for ever increasing partisan rubbish. It is the fox news of the UK just the opposite political view point.

I sure as hell should not have to pay for it. Just like if Sky news went all fox news I would not pay money into them either.

I mean who even watches the BBC anymore? I watch about 4 shows a year. Is mental to pay that on an entertainment level. So just paying for political propaganda even if you like its message is not value for money.
 
Mosquito_Coasting said:
I feel like this as well, that football pundits never teach me anything. When I watch tennis I’m constantly learning from the commentators. But think I might be overly dismissive of football pundits. Maybe they do occasionally say something worthwhile?
Click to expand...

Nope they never do. I am not just saying this but I think us on here have more knowledge then them.

The blogs on the web teach you far more then them. As @scaramanga said they only got their jobs because they are ex pros. Most talk not to dissimilar to me. I want someone who does not stutter and is quick and coherent.

Cycling commentators are usually pretty good. I love Cavendish but he is absolutely awful, sometimes getting reporters in who have a high intellect they can understand a sport and break it down for an audience far better then an ex pro who is only doing it to keep his wife in botox and fillers.
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
Or payback for ever increasing partisan rubbish. It is the fox news of the UK just the opposite political view point.

I sure as hell should not have to pay for it. Just like if Sky news went all fox news I would not pay money into them either.

I mean who even watches the BBC anymore? I watch about 4 shows a year. Is mental to pay that on an entertainment level. So just paying for political propaganda even if you like its message is not value for money.
Click to expand...
That is complete rubbish. The BBC is painful in it's attempt to both sides everything, even when it shouldn't. In the election just gone, both Tories and Labour were accusing it of bias when airing the opposite point of view. It was trying for balance, and possibly failing, but having an independent arbiter of truth not beholden to dark money is a bulwark against authoritarian tendencies. Why do you think Trump coined fake news on day one?
If you remove a neutral broadcaster like the BBC, or one that is at least trying to be neutral, then all you have left is the propaganda outlets like Fox spewing Murdochs's bile.

Personally I believe in paying for news - I pay for a number of publications even though I could get them free. The 4th estate is more critical now than ever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
Rorschach said:
That is complete rubbish. The BBC is painful in it's attempt to both sides everything, even when it shouldn't. In the election just gone, both Tories and Labour were accusing it of bias when airing the opposite point of view. It was trying for balance and possibly failing but having an independent arbiter of truth not beholden by dark money is a bulwark against authoritarian tendencies. Why do you think Trump coined fake news on day one?
If you remove a neutral broadcaster like the BBC, or one that is at least trying to be neutral, then all you have left is the propaganda outlets like Fox spewing Murdochs's bile.

Personally I believe in paying for news - I pay for a number of publications even though I could get them free. The 4th estate is more critical now than ever.
Click to expand...
How does the Grauniad or the Mirror fit into that viewpoint?
 
scaramanga said:
Correction: Both are heavily left leaning.

More importantly, neither are "then all you have left is the propaganda outlets like Fox spewing Murdochs's bile," however naive their political viewpoints are.
Click to expand...
Ah...you're in pedant mode. Not this evening darling, I have a headache.
 
Rorschach said:
That is complete rubbish. The BBC is painful in it's attempt to both sides everything, even when it shouldn't. In the election just gone, both Tories and Labour were accusing it of bias when airing the opposite point of view. It was trying for balance, and possibly failing, but having an independent arbiter of truth not beholden to dark money is a bulwark against authoritarian tendencies. Why do you think Trump coined fake news on day one?
If you remove a neutral broadcaster like the BBC, or one that is at least trying to be neutral, then all you have left is the propaganda outlets like Fox spewing Murdochs's bile.

Personally I believe in paying for news - I pay for a number of publications even though I could get them free. The 4th estate is more critical now than ever.
Click to expand...

It is a tax pure and simple. Not one we should have to pay.
 
Rorschach said:
Ah...you're in pedant mode. Not this evening darling, I have a headache.
Click to expand...
It's not pedantry, it's a very important distinction

You may not agree with their politics, but they're independent media outlets with open political views. The BBC is a state funded organisation that claims to be neutral without ever being so. I know which I fear the most when it comes to authoritarianism.
 
scaramanga said:
It's not pedantry, it's a very important distinction

You may not agree with their politics, but they're independent media outlets with open political views. The BBC is a state funded organisation that claims to be neutral without ever being so. I know which I fear the most when it comes to authoritarianism.
Click to expand...
If the BBC became state TV like RT, then sure it has become another weapon of oppression but it's not that nor ever would be realistically. I'm all for a free and independent journalism but that is all the more reason for something like the BBC. Otherwise, you fall into something like the epistemic crisis they are having in the US, where the polarisation is that bad that the right and the left cannot even agree on actual facts any more - not opinions or bias -alternative facts. This for me is why an outlet like the BBC is necessary and why they must stay as apolitical as possible. And Cummins agrees with me and that is why he is trying to muzzle it.

Reduce the license fee if that is what is required.
 
Rorschach said:
If the BBC became state TV like RT, then sure it has become another weapon of oppression but it's not that nor ever would be realistically. I'm all for a free and independent journalism but that is all the more reason for something like the BBC. Otherwise, you fall into something like the epistemic crisis they are having in the US, where the polarisation is that bad that the right and the left cannot even agree on actual facts any more - not opinions or bias -alternative facts. This for me is why an outlet like the BBC is necessary and why they must stay as apolitical as possible. And Cummins agrees with me and that is why he is trying to muzzle it.

Reduce the license fee if that is what is required.
Click to expand...
Reduce it to zero and I'll agree with your solution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back