President Trump & the USA

[Collymore]

I actually think CR's sacking has highlighted just how corrupt the media are. The Mirror and similar monstrosities are just bothered about click bait and would say anything  to get more views, they're probably the least harmful as most people with an IQ don't take them seriously. 

 

The bigger organisations obviously have other agendas being controlled in the shadows. 

 

Trump is bang on with his criticism of the media but unfortunately he's just as bad as them with his totalitarian control. "Don't listen to them, they're all fake, listen to me" Yeah alright Donald, everything you say must be true because they're all corrupt! 

[Thracian]

10 hours ago, Facecloth said:

 

And the evidence youve served up in this thread to prove their bias was laughable too. 

 

Bring me evidence of bbc bias or gtfo.

 

10 hours ago, Facecloth said:

 

And the evidence youve served up in this thread to prove their bias was laughable too. 

 

Bring me evidence of bbc bias or gtfo.

 

10 hours ago, Facecloth said:

 

And the evidence youve served up in this thread to prove their bias was laughable too. 

 

Bring me evidence of bbc bias or gtfo.

 

 

All the evidence I could possibly present wouldn't see you convinced because you've no intentions of being convinced.

So why don't you just view the BBC for a week or so with the determination to spot bias and just perhaps you'll see for yourself.

It's hardly hidden. They're almost like a left-leaning political party in themselves.

 And if you really couldn't see the bias of their Brexit coverage - that being just one isolated example - then I can only imagine you wear an eyeless mask when watching tv and it is therefore quite pointless arguing with you.

It's been just the same with Trump. Big noise about one-point-something million signing a highly questionable petition about the queen not seeing the President of our most important trading partner, and no mention of the 68 ,million who hadn't signed. How biased can you get?           

Edited 27 February 2017 by Thracian

[Rincewind]

BBC=left wing bias=

[bovril]

48 minutes ago, Thracian said:

It's been just the same with Trump. Big noise about one-point-something million signing a highly questionable petition about the queen not seeing the President of our most important trading partner, and no mention of the 68 ,million who hadn't signed. How biased can you get?           

"Tonight, 3 people were killed in a tragic road accident in Durham. But our main news tonight is that nothing happened to 68 million people in the UK. For more, over to Gavin Hewitt who is talking to one of these people about his normal day..."

[Facecloth]

13 minutes ago, Thracian said:

 

 

 

 

All the evidence I could possibly present wouldn't see you convinced because you've no intentions of being convinced.

So why don't you just view the BBC for a week or so with the determination to spot bias and just perhaps you'll see for yourself.

It's hardly hidden. They're almost like a left-leaning political party in themselves.

 And if you really couldn't see the bias of their Brexit coverage - that being just one isolated example - then I can only imagine you wear an eyeless mask when watching tv and it is therefore quite pointless arguing with you.

It's been just the same with Trump. Big noise about one-point-something million signing a highly questionable petition about the queen not seeing the President of our most important trading partner, and no mention of the 68 ,million who hadn't signed. How biased can you get?           

I ask you for evidence, your first sentence is you refusing to give it. If you can't provide evidence to support you claim how are people supposed to change their view.

 

Your refusal says more about your own pre conceived ideas than it does mine.

[Darkon84]

As per usual, people and the media are blowing this way out of proportion. And as per usual, where was all this apparent outrage when everyone's darling Obama shut out the media etc? It's all getting very boring now.

[Thracian]

20 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

I ask you for evidence, your first sentence is you refusing to give it. If you can't provide evidence to support you claim how are people supposed to change their view.

 

Your refusal says more about your own pre conceived ideas than it does mine.

Quite apart from the BBC barely even pretending to hide their Brexit bias you've nothing to say about the BBC shouting about 1.6 million signatures they clearly approved of and 68 million non signatories they chose not to mention. Says it all to me for all that it is just recent example. As I said, make your own observations and have the honesty not to let your own bias cloud your eyes.      

[Thracian]

38 minutes ago, bovril said:

"Tonight, 3 people were killed in a tragic road accident in Durham. But our main news tonight is that nothing happened to 68 million people in the UK. For more, over to Gavin Hewitt who is talking to one of these people about his normal day..."

Totally irrelevent. The subject has no specific connection with political bias or attempts to manipulate opinion, although selective figures on road accidents and other things are used for that effect and quite frequently by those with specific agendas.     

Edited 27 February 2017 by Thracian

[Thracian]

12 hours ago, Collymore said:

I actually think CR's sacking has highlighted just how corrupt the media are. The Mirror and similar monstrosities are just bothered about click bait and would say anything  to get more views, they're probably the least harmful as most people with an IQ don't take them seriously. 

 

The bigger organisations obviously have other agendas being controlled in the shadows. 

 

Trump is bang on with his criticism of the media but unfortunately he's just as bad as them with his totalitarian control. "Don't listen to them, they're all fake, listen to me" Yeah alright Donald, everything you say must be true because they're all corrupt! 

Couldn't agree more. I think his attitude is to recognise the bias against him, to accept his own bias and, being the guy in power, impose his own bias instead of putting up with the bias of others. Everyone has their own beliefs and, for some, they become agendas.

Quite why any leader would willingly invite opposition I don't know..

They've challenged for power and have their own agenda by definition.

The BBC is not in that position. They are declaredly supposed to be unbiased. Not the manipulators they're increasingly becoming.    

Trump's not much different from Erdogan, Putin, Juncker, Ferguson or Ranieri when it comes to accepting opposition. None of them like it, and I'd doubt anyone on here would, if they were in charge.    

Edited 27 February 2017 by Thracian

[SpacedX]

1 hour ago, Thracian said:

 

 

 

 

All the evidence I could possibly present wouldn't see you convinced because you've no intentions of being convinced.

So why don't you just view the BBC for a week or so with the determination to spot bias and just perhaps you'll see for yourself.

It's hardly hidden. They're almost like a left-leaning political party in themselves.

 And if you really couldn't see the bias of their Brexit coverage - that being just one isolated example - then I can only imagine you wear an eyeless mask when watching tv and it is therefore quite pointless arguing with you.

It's been just the same with Trump. Big noise about one-point-something million signing a highly questionable petition about the queen not seeing the President of our most important trading partner, and no mention of the 68 ,million who hadn't signed. How biased can you get?           

So still on this one man, one dimensional tirade against supposed editorial Trotskyism at the Beeb? You speak of bias, yet the Goebbles-esque rhetoric of Sean Spicer and Trump's declaration of war against the liberal press does not concern you? Significantly, in respect of the latter, the Third Reich did exactly the same thing. And actually, you are now claiming outright bias, where previously you termed this as 'subtle'. Two very different things.

 

Also, I must have imagined the 30 minute interview with Peter Whittle yesterday on the Andrew Marr Show then. 

 

Right let's go again. As I suggested before, the BBC impartiality that you speak of is considerably less than the blatant agendas pursued by Murdoch/Rothermere and as you yourself termed it in our previous discussion, any such 'subtle bias', tends to be informed by a moral standpoint which is more than can be said for the latter. I don't think that their coverage of the European referendum was entirely neutral but then given the outright lies and blatant deception of the Leave campaign it was if anything, an insignificant counterweight. I do agree however that as a public service the BBC has a responsibility to remain objective and apolitical in its editorial policy and avoid any such agenda however nuanced. As an organisation, these days they seem more preoccupied with their relentless corporate self promotion and rating battles than in maintaining any leaning to the left in the newsroom. 

 

We live in a post truth age. Seriously, I'd be more concerned about waging the war against genuine fake news outlets - a battle which Trump now appears to have dishonestly framed and appropriated to give legitimacy to his attempts to stymie and silence the freedom of the legitimate free press.

[Thracian]

26 minutes ago, Line-X said:

So still on this one man, one dimensional tirade against supposed editorial Trotskyism at the Beeb? You speak of bias, yet the Goebbles-esque rhetoric of Sean Spicer and Trump's declaration of war against the liberal press does not concern you? Significantly, in respect of the latter, the Third Reich did exactly the same thing. And actually, you are now claiming outright bias, where previously you termed this as 'subtle'. Two very different things.

 

Also, I must have imagined the 30 minute interview with Peter Whittle yesterday on the Andrew Marr Show then. 

 

Right let's go again. As I suggested before, the BBC impartiality that you speak of is considerably less than the blatant agendas pursued by Murdoch/Rothermere and as you yourself termed it in our previous discussion, any such 'subtle bias', tends to be informed by a moral standpoint which is more than can be said for the latter. I don't think that their coverage of the European referendum was entirely neutral but then given the outright lies and blatant deception of the Leave campaign it was if anything, an insignificant counterweight. I do agree however that as a public service the BBC has a responsibility to remain objective and apolitical in its editorial policy and avoid any such agenda however nuanced. As an organisation, these days they seem more preoccupied with their relentless corporate self promotion and rating battles than in maintaining any leaning to the left in the newsroom. 

 

We live in a post truth age. Seriously, I'd be more concerned about waging the war against genuine fake news outlets - a battle which Trump now appears to have dishonestly framed and appropriated to give legitimacy to his attempts to stymie and silence the freedom of the legitimate free press.

To be clear, the BBC effects outright bias and subtle bias when they shouldn't be biased at all.  

 

All the lies of the European referendum campaign disappointed me - lies always do. But that doesn't mean the lies/half-truths and selective focus of Brexiteers and Remainers came as any surprise - both sides were blatantly biased to the point of being calculatingly misleading and there's nothing new in that for anyone with political beliefs and ambition.

 

But that's not the remit of the BBC as you seem to accept. And they have no right to act as a counterweight to one side or another. Just to report the truth fairly and with dee balance.

 

None of what I've said is a defence of Trump or anyone else who seeks to dominate utterly.

Indeed no-one has been more emphatic than me about the autocratic manouevering of President Erdogan in Turkey but we make far more noise about Trump.

 

 To be plain I neither support nor oppose Trump. He seems dangerously reactionary to me, but that doesn't condemn all his ideas as bad ones. And he's a long way to go before he ever does the damage Blair's managed.

 

Yet I don't recall the BBC ever being as vehemently anti-Blair as they are towards Trump...or even anti-Blair at all in a general sense. Or anti-Juncker and there's no-one more blatantly biased towards a federalism that many of us don't want, than him.

 

But then the EU pumps so much money into our national broadcaster, so anything the  BBC says about Europe is hardly likely to be independent or apolitical, as you rightly say it should be.  

 

Just by way of recent example...

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2512134/bbc-trousers-millions-in-secret-cash-from-brussels-with-300000-coming-after-brexit-vote/

Edited 27 February 2017 by Thracian

[RobHawk]

57 minutes ago, Thracian said:

To be clear, the BBC effects outright bias and subtle bias when they shouldn't be biased at all.  

 

All the lies of the European referendum campaign disappointed me - lies always do. But that doesn't mean the lies/half-truths and selective focus of Brexiteers and Remainers came as any surprise - both sides were blatantly biased to the point of being calculatingly misleading and there's nothing new in that for anyone with political beliefs and ambition.

 

But that's not the remit of the BBC as you seem to accept. And they have no right to act as a counterweight to one side or another. Just to report the truth fairly and with dee balance.

 

None of what I've said is a defence of Trump or anyone else who seeks to dominate utterly.

Indeed no-one has been more emphatic than me about the autocratic manouevering of President Erdogan in Turkey but we make far more noise about Trump.

 

 To be plain I neither support nor oppose Trump. He seems dangerously reactionary to me, but that doesn't condemn all his ideas as bad ones. And he's a long way to go before he ever does the damage Blair's managed.

 

Yet I don't recall the BBC ever being as vehemently anti-Blair as they are towards Trump...or even anti-Blair at all in a general sense. Or anti-Juncker and there's no-one more blatantly biased towards a federalism that many of us don't want, than him.

 

But then the EU pumps so much money into our national broadcaster, so anything the  BBC says about Europe is hardly likely to be independent or apolitical, as you rightly say it should be.  

 

Just by way of recent example...

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2512134/bbc-trousers-millions-in-secret-cash-from-brussels-with-300000-coming-after-brexit-vote/

In defence of the BBC and other new outlets, its hard to report the truth when the likes of Trump and those involved in the referendum (both sides) are spouting so much shit, its impossible to know what is true and what isn't anymore. Its hard to be impartial when the line has been crossed out and redrawn so many times you don't know where it is anymore.

 

You say the BBC supported Remain during brexit and were not impartial, but Farage was everywhere and on everything. This is the leader of a political party with 1 MP - so i think both sides were definately represented. Brexit side may have been grilled more, but thats because of the nature of the referendum and the fact that leave was/is a huge unknown and nobody really had answers to alot of the questions being asked (and they still don't). It was easier for remain to answer questions as that was the status quo. 

 

[Webbo]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9475479/Heres-how-we-counter-the-BBCs-liberal-bias.html

 

Quote

 As Andrew Marr once put it: “The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It’s a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities, and gay people. It has a liberal bias, not so much a party political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.”

 

[Rincewind]

The BBC likes to keep in the good books of the in power govt because among other things  they make the final decisions regarding the license fee. The BBC does not want any government Tory or Labour to do away with it.

Programmes made by different companies are different but still have to be approved. 

The DG is also pally with a lot of MP's and ministers often attending the same functions and maybe have a friendly natter at the bar.

 

This is just my cynical view of things and my mistrust in career politicians. You do not have to agree. I have heard many people say the BBC have a right wing bias and do not watch it because of that reason. 

So which is it? They cannot have a left and right bias can they?

 

I would hate to think how far right the views are of the ones that say the BBC is left wing.

Edited 27 February 2017 by Rincewind

[Detroit Blues]

I think the media ban is just further proof that the Trump Administration does not know how to accept criticism. Trump's insecurities are so flamboyant that simply reporting the news, without bias, makes any news organization appear to hold political bias.

 

Now sure, it would be naive to say that media organizations do not hold biases, but the federal government should not be controlling the access of information to news organizations that "play ball." As citizens, we rely on investigative journalism to uncover the truth, even if it exposes our leaders and paints them in a negative light. By denying access to news organizations who are willing to ask tough questions, or report stories that paint the trump administration in a negative light, the White House is actively limiting the freedom of the press.

 

This should not be a left/right or conservative/liberal issue. My biggest gripe is that, no matter which party controls the presidential office, the ruler is always authoritarian in nature. Go back and look at how Obama handled the Edward Snowden controversy. Look at how Trump is handling issues with leaks, and his battles with the press. Using federal power to clamp down on critics, whistle blowers, etc. is an issue for both parties. Although both parties may debate the differences they hold, it's the things that they both do in common that frighten me, because you can't simply vote them out of office to change it.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Rincewind said:

The BBC likes to keep in the good books of the in power govt because among other things  they make the final decisions regarding the license fee. The BBC does not want any government Tory or Labour to do away with it.

Programmes made by different companies are different but still have to be approved. 

The DG is also pally with a lot of MP's and ministers often attending the same functions and maybe have a friendly natter at the bar.

 

This is just my cynical view of things and my mistrust in career politicians. You do not have to agree. I have heard many people say the BBC have a right wing bias and do not watch it because of that reason. 

So which is it? They cannot have a left and right bias can they?

 

I would hate to think how far right the views are of the ones that say the BBC is left wing.

They get accused of being left and right depending on who the accuser is and their political leaning.

 

[Strokes]

35 minutes ago, Emilio Lestavez said:

They get accused of being left and right depending on who the accuser is and their political leaning.

 

Yeah I think you are right on this, I think it can depend on who is reporting or presenting things as to which way they lean. I've complained about the BBC before and no doubt will again but on the whole, I think it's reasonably balanced.

[Webbo]

57 minutes ago, Emilio Lestavez said:

They get accused of being left and right depending on who the accuser is and their political leaning.

 

Andrew Marr is left wing and he admits they have a cultural liberal bias, which I would say is correct. They don't plan to be biased but they only see things through their world view. They bang on about cuts and austerity but they never complain about taxes being too high.

 

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

Andrew Marr is left wing and he admits they have a cultural liberal bias, which I would say is correct. They don't plan to be biased but they only see things through their world view. They bang on about cuts and austerity but they never complain about taxes being too high.

 

 

See. Point proved. Thanks Webbo

[Webbo]

Just now, Emilio Lestavez said:

See. Point proved. Thanks Webbo

Quote

He was once a member of the Socialist Campaign for a Labour Victory, an offshoot of the International-Communist League, now known as the Alliance for Workers' Liberty. At Cambridge, Marr says he was a "raving leftie", and he acquired the nickname 'Red Andy'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Marr

 

A self proclaimed lefty who works for the BBC says the BBC is biased. That kinda proves my point.

[Guest]

Just now, Webbo said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Marr

 

A self proclaimed lefty who works for the BBC says the BBC is biased. That kinda proves my point.

Does he work for every single outlet? Nope. Does he consume all of it's content? Doubtful. He might be left wing and he might perceive it to be so but it's viewed through his political leaning and you should have seen the sort of messages complaining about leniency in his interviews of prominent tories. So is he left or concerned he might be viewed as too left under that scenario?

 

Point being it's almost impossible to achieve complete impartiality as they're people presenting it and you view things through your world view which is based on your experience and the type of media you've consumed.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Emilio Lestavez said:

Does he work for every single outlet? Nope. Does he consume all of it's content? Doubtful. He might be left wing and he might perceive it to be so but it's viewed through his political leaning and you should have seen the sort of messages complaining about leniency in his interviews of prominent tories. So is he left or concerned he might be viewed as too left under that scenario?

 

Point being it's almost impossible to achieve complete impartiality as they're people presenting it and you view things through your world view which is based on your experience and the type of media you've consumed.

I think Andrew Marr is very fair, he has a bias but doesn't show it. Andrew Neil is right wing but he's the same, gives both sides a hard time.

 

It might be right wing compared to momentum but in general it's left of centre.

[Rincewind]

4 hours ago, Emilio Lestavez said:

They get accused of being left and right depending on who the accuser is and their political leaning.

 

This. Anyone who is left of left will say they are right and anyone that is right of right will think they are left.

In some programmes they have given Corbyn a hard time. Protests against cuts have been relegated to 30 second spots.

At the other end of the scale Panorama have made some hard hitting reports about what affect cuts have made to some people.

Have there been any mention about the defeat the govt are facing about proposed cuts to disabled people. Mainly removing those with dementia off PIP list?

[Izzy]

This made me chuckle. The disrespectful old tart 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39114161

[Thracian]

22 hours ago, Emilio Lestavez said:

Does he work for every single outlet? Nope. Does he consume all of it's content? Doubtful. He might be left wing and he might perceive it to be so but it's viewed through his political leaning and you should have seen the sort of messages complaining about leniency in his interviews of prominent tories. So is he left or concerned he might be viewed as too left under that scenario?

 

Point being it's almost impossible to achieve complete impartiality as they're people presenting it and you view things through your world view which is based on your experience and the type of media you've consumed.

No but the others Marr mentions are would cover a lot of bases between them. The bias is glaring and my comments vindicated. The place is rammed full of activists of one kind or another.