New Alternative News Channel "GB News" chaired by Andrew Neil launching - read OP before posting

Tell me how

Silentcorner wrote: »

They are attacking the companies advertisers.

It is wrong.

Now, if GBNews didn't see this coming that is their own fault, but this is not the free market if media companies are being pressured by groups, who we know little of, are exerting undue influence on advertisers.

We wouldn't tolerate this from the Church, we shouldn't tolerate it from these head bangers either.

Why is it?
Many people have been severely impacted with the direction uber-nationalism has pushed the UK in recent years.
It seemed clear that there was no singular majority for any version of Brexit which had any sort of hope in reality and yet there was a narrative pushed by strong media outlets and individuals which ultimately brought the UK to where it is today.

The same could be said about Johnson, there isn't a singular example from any point of his career where he has proven to be a competent strategic thinker or strong diplomat or natural leader and yet he was guided in to the role of PM at a time when the UK was experiencing the two most significant events of his lifetime which were happening simultaneously.

And then people had to watch as he flat out lied about his deal and how it would be implemented and then mismanaged the response to Covid. And that's being kind to him in both respects.

So why shouldn't people try to influence the emergence of an organisation which is likely to enable more of the same to come about.
Bear in mind, GB News has said that it is taking a lot from Fox News and how it operates and why shouldn't people try to minimise this if they feel it is a bad thing to happen.

Silentcorner

fly_agaric wrote: »

Don't really care about this whole circus, but are you being a bit hysterical about "dangerous" people etc?

This is nothing at all like the days of the pomp of the Catholic Church in Ireland. The fact you think it is indicates you are very young, or maybe not Irish. Page you linked earlier appears to be exhorting people (presume in the UK since it is "GB News" that is involved) to complain directly to the companies about them supporting/giving money to GB News (via buying adverts).

If general public (beyond a few angry activists setting up such campaigns) don't care about these companies spending money on GB News ad slots the companies will safely ignore it.

If companies choosing to advertise there don't really care about having the kind of people (perhaps fairly politically active + left wing) who will complain to them as customers, again they will ignore it.

There appears to be no difference between this type of thing and any other politically motivated campaign aimed at companies and how they spend their money in or around "politics", e.g. trying to get them not to donate/to donate to certain political parties or political causes etc. It seems to be standard political fare of a democracy to me.
What am I missing that is so sinister here?

I'm old enough to remember when the church wouldn't allow us listen to a song about Seven Drunken Nights....

If you don't like the content of the channel then don't watch it...that is the free market.

Orchestrated campaigns targeting advertisers is not something that should be tolerated in a free society...that is just my opinion, when an entity is given more power it hasn't earned it ain't healthy, whether that is the Church or any ideological entity.

Silentcorner

pjohnson wrote: »

Its a grand parody of competence.


Since they are mostly all banned from anything relevant they have to make their own channel to have an echo chamber. The same reason Bitchute and Parler exist :pac:

Silentcorner wrote: »

Then what are they mostly banned from?

pjohnson wrote: »

A refusal/inability to engage in discussion is exactly why GBNews exists :pac:

Says the man who runs away from engaging in discussion.

pjohnson

Silentcorner wrote: »

Says the man who runs away from engaging in discussion.

Adorable try.

Silentcorner

Tell me how wrote: »

Why is it?
Many people have been severely impacted with the direction uber-nationalism has pushed the UK in recent years.
It seemed clear that there was no singular majority for any version of Brexit which had any sort of hope in reality and yet there was a narrative pushed by strong media outlets and individuals which ultimately brought the UK to where it is today.

The same could be said about Johnson, there isn't a singular example from any point of his career where he has proven to be a competent strategic thinker or strong diplomat or natural leader and yet he was guided in to the role of PM at a time when the UK was experiencing the two most significant events of his lifetime which were happening simultaneously.

And then people had to watch as he flat out lied about his deal and how it would be implemented and then mismanaged the response to Covid. And that's being kind to him in both respects.

So why shouldn't people try to influence the emergence of an organisation which is likely to enable more of the same to come about.
Bear in mind, GB News has said that it is taking a lot from Fox News and how it operates and why shouldn't people try to minimise this if they feel it is a bad thing to happen.

Are you afraid of another Brexit? Is that it...

There have been ample opportunities in various elections since the Brexit vote, there isn't a hint of regret from the electorate.

ancapailldorcha

Silentcorner wrote: »

I'm old enough to remember when the church wouldn't allow us listen to a song about Seven Drunken Nights....

If you don't like the content of the channel then don't watch it...that is the free market.

Orchestrated campaigns targeting advertisers is not something that should be tolerated in a free society...that is just my opinion, when an entity is given more power it hasn't earned it ain't healthy, whether that is the Church or any ideological entity.

People have the right to speak in a free society, like it or not. That's all they're doing. They're entitled to think that brands should affiliate themselves with a channel that's defended a paedophile and the brands themselves are allowed to decide if they want to associate with such an organisation.

Freedom cuts both ways. If I don't like it, I won't watch it and I can tell the companies sponsoring this drivel that I won't be patronising them if I so choose.

hatrickpatrick

eskimohunt wrote: »

Woke is not synonymous with being on the Left of politics. Many of those who reside on the centre-left, for example, would not be subscribers to what is known as wokeism.

So the comparison fails, spectacularly.

I'm as far left as you can get and I've been railing against cancel culture under all of its various buzzword labels since 2013-2014 or thereabouts. There are more of us out there than you'd think.

Silentcorner

pjohnson wrote: »

Adorable try.

Spot on I'd say...I have asked you on numerous times to elaborate and you have run away each time.

Smee_Again

Silentcorner wrote: »

Correct, let's try and keep it that way.

By banning activism?

pjohnson

Silentcorner wrote: »

Spot on I'd say...I have asked you on numerous times to elaborate and you have run away each time.

Elaborate on what? Your faux cluelessness as to why this channel that you are fangirling over exists?

Thats on you buddy if you dont know the people what you are cheering for.

Not many channels excuse pedophiles, and then cry when sponsors start jumping from the rats nest.

joe40

Silentcorner wrote: »

I'm old enough to remember when the church wouldn't allow us listen to a song about Seven Drunken Nights....

If you don't like the content of the channel then don't watch it...that is the free market.

Orchestrated campaigns targeting advertisers is not something that should be tolerated in a free society...that is just my opinion, when an entity is given more power it hasn't earned it ain't healthy, whether that is the Church or any ideological entity.

But if it is a truly "free society" how/why should campaigns be stopped.

Smee_Again

Silentcorner wrote: »

Are you afraid of another Brexit? Is that it...

There have been ample opportunities in various elections since the Brexit vote, there isn't a hint of regret from the electorate.

fly_agaric

Silentcorner wrote: »

I'm old enough to remember when the church wouldn't allow us listen to a song about Seven Drunken Nights....

If you don't like the content of the channel then don't watch it...that is the free market.

Orchestrated campaigns targeting advertisers is not something that should be tolerated in a free society...that is just my opinion, when an entity is given more power it hasn't earned it ain't healthy, whether that is the Church or any ideological entity.

Whoever set that up is only going to be as powerful as number of bodies they can get behind it and "noise" they can generate.

It is not the same IMO as a Bishop being able to ring up a government minister and wield direct influence on politics, or priests being able to control what might be broadcast on RTE. That was why I took issue with comparing it to the Church in Ireland.

If enough people are "woke" (lol) now in the UK (as some CA IMHO posters would call it) or have become "bedwetters" as a poster charming(ly) termed it earlier, I suppose it will determine whether such a grassroots effort to influence the advertisers like that takes off or not.

As said, I just have to disagree and don't see what is so special or dangerous about such a campaign. If they were directly trying to get GB News "banned" of the airwaves by edict of the government or something you'd have more of a point.

In fact banning such political campaigns directed at companies + how they spend their money (is that what you suggest?) seems a lot more sinister to me.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Silentcorner wrote: »

It's not a genuine question.

I won't engage with a wind up merchant.

A better question world be, what can be done about it?

Either you ban it (goes against free speech) or you tolerate it (clearly not an option) - what other options are there?

Like it or not, fair or not, this is a tactic that is getting results and as long as it gets results and isn't against the law, people are going to keep doing it.

Tell me how

Silentcorner wrote: »

Are you afraid of another Brexit? Is that it...

There have been ample opportunities in various elections since the Brexit vote, there isn't a hint of regret from the electorate.

Brexit has happened. It's a done deal.

Even in the latest election in which the Tories received an 80 seat majority, more people voted for non-hard Brexit supporting parties but FPTP manner of elections these people must sit and watch what is happening.

I suspect the idea of changing that to the more accurate voting system of proportional representation would be heavily argued against on this new channel.

Brexit has happened, but the NHS is still there to be stripped for parts, the dismantling of the BBC to some degree will likely happen when I expect they will first see changes to their funding model. The continued practice of contracts being awarded to friends and families of Tory politicians and light touch oversight and regulation being applied to deal with shenanigans going on within the government, all the way up to the PM are all likely to continue with GB News focusing nightly on Woke Leftists to distract attention.

An overtly partisan media, such as GB News media has unashamedly claimed it is going to be is a bad bad thing in the greater scheme of things. Just look at the US in this respect.
The fact that people from both sides claim the BBC, ITV, CH4 etc and some people on platforms such as Sky are biased in favour of both sides probably says that they aren't doing too badly.

ohnonotgmail

Silentcorner wrote: »

They are attacking the companies advertisers.

It is wrong.

Now, if GBNews didn't see this coming that is their own fault, but this is not the free market if media companies are being pressured by groups, who we know little of, are exerting undue influence on advertisers.

We wouldn't tolerate this from the Church, we shouldn't tolerate it from these head bangers either.

groups would not be able to pressurise anybody if there were not people who supported what they do.

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

Correct, let's try and keep it that way.

Boycotting products etc is a freedom and the fact that you seem to think it's like something out of North Korea is more ignorance. If you're classifying it as cancel culture, then the Irish invented it about 150 years ago. It's not undemocratic as you seem to think it is.

Morgans

Deleted User wrote: »

Boycotting products etc is a freedom and the fact that you seem to think it's like something out of North Korea is more ignorance. If you're classifying it as cancel culture, then the Irish invented it about 150 years ago. It's not undemocratic as you seem to think it is.

Yeah. The lads/lasses, decrying cancel culture now would be the defenders of the landlords against the 'woke' peasants in 1880s. The plebs should know their place.

Timberrrrrrrr

I dont buy Israeli products

Am I boycotting that country or am I trying to "cancel" it?

1800_Ladladlad

Morgans wrote: »

I think the bedwetters would be screeching even more incessently if it wasnt so laughably awful. I can't believe how little money it has to spend on production given its donors. Thought it was a cant miss opportunity. I hope its around in November just to see the size of the poppies.

it is awful and destined for failure that there are movements spending every waking moment on applying pressure to companies to pull advertising from the channel

Tell me how

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I dont buy Israeli products

Am I boycotting that country or am I trying to "cancel" it?

Well, you're definitely an anti-semite, I know that much. :pac:
Can you please provide your name and address so I can get some 'insomniks'* to go about cancelling you.

* A play on insomniacs ie constantly awake or, you know, 'woke' and beatniks, the post war socialist movement. :cool:

Timberrrrrrrr

Tell me how wrote: »

Well, you're definitely an anti-semite, I know that much. :pac:
Can you please provide your name and address so I can get some 'insomniks'* to go about cancelling you.

* A play on insomniacs ie constantly awake or, you know, 'woke' and beatniks, the post war socialist movement. :cool:

I'm actually not, but nice try at a weak ad hominen attack.

1800_Ladladlad

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

it is awful and destined for failure that there are movements spending every waking moment on applying pressure to companies to pull advertising from the channel

It's their democratic right, why are you so annoyed about people exercising their freedoms? Do you think they shouldn't be allowed to organise a boycott?

Morgans

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

it is awful and destined for failure that there are movements spending every waking moment on applying pressure to companies to pull advertising from the channel

Whoever is funding Fox News has to do with without the help of many advertisers. They are free to do so. Deplatforming and pressure groups have been very successful. If GB News want to get access to millions of people, good luck to them. Make it more costly for their donors.

Smee_Again

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I'm actually not, but nice try at a weak ad hominen attack.

Ah you’ve definitely taken up that poster the wrong way.

Tell me how

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I'm actually not, but nice try at a weak ad hominen attack.

Sarcasm filter not working no?

Timberrrrrrrr

Tell me how wrote: »

Sarcasm filter not working no?

I'm in work, it's been a long day

mcmoustache

Deleted User wrote: »

Boycotting products etc is a freedom and the fact that you seem to think it's like something out of North Korea is more ignorance. If you're classifying it as cancel culture, then the Irish invented it about 150 years ago. It's not undemocratic as you seem to think it is.

There's probably some writings from back then by Brits decrying the unfairness of it all too.

KildareP

I've been watching along for a good while today.
It's definitely an interesting concept compared to what else is out there and I'm sure the content will bed in after they get the hang of things.

But jesus the tech ops must all be newbies. Every single outside broadcast has problems - PMQs cut to HOC with no sound, then back to studio with no sound from there either while the presenters carried on talking, then the sound of both studio and HOC talking over one another, back to HOC several minutes late but lost sound once more, then it sounded like someone pointed a mic at a monitor with the HOC feed on it to get the sound back, then we had that mic sound echoing on top of the HOC sound which kept drifting in and out.

Another live link with a panel of reporters was like a My first Zoom meeting.

I can understand teething issues but it seems like they are all just winging it, I can picture a control room with someome doing a Homer Simpson eenie-meenie on which button to press on the sound desk to get the audio through to air.

Snake Plisken

Oh the Boards cancel gang are all over this thread The station must be doing something right
Count pretty much summed up the lefties salt

https://twitter.com/CountDankulaTV/status/1404204382686752773?s=19