Webbo Posted 3 March 2011 Posted 3 March 2011 It's called FOX. I wouldn't know,I've never seen it. I don't have Sky on principle.
unreachable Posted 3 March 2011 Posted 3 March 2011 I doubt a substantial portion of the readerships of some newspapers are even aware of a bias but take it at face value (The Sun ) Granted every outlet has some kind of bias but when you take into consideration how Sky News is syndicated through out different radio stations, choice sometimes doesn't come into it. I should learn a bit more about Sky News before pontificating - I didn't realise they were a news provider to other bodies. I withdraw from this discussion and will educate myself!
Jon the Hat Posted 3 March 2011 Posted 3 March 2011 The Mail might be more obviously offensive but The Sun, with a readership of 3million plus (excluding online) and headlines such as 'Back Blair' or 'Labour's lost it', i'd say it's pretty bias. It basically decides who runs this country. And for 2010 it chose the most spineless bunch of wet flannels you could ever imagine. The Sun picks the side it expects to win. Simple.
sdb Posted 4 March 2011 Posted 4 March 2011 The Sun picks the side it expects to win. Simple. To a large extent but i'd say there's more to it than that personally. Murdoch and Cameron were meeting up 2 years before the election. If you don't think there was a 'you scratch my back, i'll scratch yours' agreement of some sort (like we're seeing now) then i'd think that's wrong.
BoneDog Posted 4 March 2011 Posted 4 March 2011 This has reminded me of the picture that did the rounds at the time of the election.
Guest BlueBrett Posted 4 March 2011 Posted 4 March 2011 Anyone who thinks that excluding sky news from the deal will in any way limit Murdoch's influence on its output is deluded. I can't believe this is being allowed to happen.
Jon the Hat Posted 4 March 2011 Posted 4 March 2011 Anyone who thinks that excluding sky news from the deal will in any way limit Murdoch's influence on its output is deluded. I can't believe this is being allowed to happen. So is it any worse than now then?
Guest BlueBrett Posted 4 March 2011 Posted 4 March 2011 Perhaps not on the face of it. Over the course of a number of years though it could have a real impact through only airing programs that seem to confirm Mudoch's own worldview (whether subliminally or explicitly). I just feel really uncomfortable with one man having control over so much media. Like you say, it's bad enough as it is.
Zingari Posted 4 March 2011 Posted 4 March 2011 Perhaps not on the face of it. Over the course of a number of years though it could have a real impact through only airing programs that seem to confirm Mudoch's own worldview (whether subliminally or explicitly). I just feel really uncomfortable with one man having control over so much media. Like you say, it's bad enough as it is. it might actually be better at least now there is a name to the bogey man , and we don't have to employ shadowy sounding vague epithets . pretty soon it will dawn on everyone that a very few people actually rule our lives ( probably too late though )
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.