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

Silentcorner

Tell me how wrote: »

They don't about mic-check though apparently, what's that about?

Well tune out if you don't like it...

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

They started broadcasting, that's what got them angry...the campaign to pressure the advertisers has obviously been planned for some time.

The Industry knows all about this, so you'd imagine they knew it was coming.

Hey, you didn't answer on if you think people should be prevented from organised boycotts? Also, worth considering that plenty of companies simply don't want to advertise on the channel. :pac:

Silentcorner

Deleted User wrote: »

Hey, you didn't answer on if you think people should be prevented from organised boycotts? Also, worth considering that plenty of companies simply don't want to advertise on the channel. :pac:

Sorry must have missed that...

I'll put it to you this way...this is a media outlet....

There are avenues to make complaints, even orchestrated campaigns to the relevant authorities and your concerns can be heard in due course, we see this all the time.

So for instance, just say you took offense to someone cursing during a tv show, or they showed young people fornicating and you were outraged and thought that was a bad influence on the general public...you should be allowed to make complaints, protest that the content being broadcast is deeply offensive to you...

But, in my opinion, you have no right to attempt to undermine the business model of the media outlet by targeting advertisers because you can't tolerate a tv channel showing young one's fornicating...it circumvents the Broadcasting authorities.

Morgans

Silentcorner wrote: »

Sorry must have missed that...

I'll put it to you this way...this is a media outlet....

There are avenues to make complaints, even orchestrated campaigns to the relevant authorities and your concerns can be heard in due course, we see this all the time.

So for instance, just say you took offense to someone cursing during a tv show, or they showed young people fornicating and you were outraged and thought that was a bad influence on the general public...you should be allowed to make complaints, protest that the content being broadcast is deeply offensive to you...

But, in my opinion, you have no right to attempt to undermine the business model of the media outlet by targeting advertisers because you can't tolerate a tv channel showing young one's fornicating...it circumvents the Broadcasting authorities.

But companies can be allowed to choose not to advertise on a channel if its in their commercial best interest?

Inquitus

Silentcorner wrote: »

Sorry must have missed that...

I'll put it to you this way...this is a media outlet....

There are avenues to make complaints, even orchestrated campaigns to the relevant authorities and your concerns can be heard in due course, we see this all the time.

So for instance, just say you took offense to someone cursing during a tv show, or they showed young people fornicating and you were outraged and thought that was a bad influence on the general public...you should be allowed to make complaints, protest that the content being broadcast is deeply offensive to you...

But, in my opinion, you have no right to attempt to undermine the business model of the media outlet by targeting advertisers because you can't tolerate a tv channel showing young one's fornicating...it circumvents the Broadcasting authorities.

Complete BS, if Advertisers are concerned about the Public's reaction to a Channel, and the impact it might have on their brands, both the public have the right to air their views, and the brands have the right to pull their adverts

Silentcorner

Morgans wrote: »

But companies can be allowed to choose not to advertise on a channel if its in their commercial best interest?

IF Coca Cola thinks people cursing on a tv show is not to their taste, they can do as they choose.

But if you organise a mob to target Coca Cola to pull their ads then no, a line has been crossed.

You can complain to the regulators, that is why they are there.

Silentcorner

Inquitus wrote: »

Complete BS, if Advertisers are concerned about the Public's reaction to a Channel, and the impact it might have on their brands, both the public have the right to air their views, and the brands have the right to pull their adverts

They'd have loved you in Ireland back in the 60s....you wouldn't have let the youth listen to Rock and Roll...you hero you!!!

If there is no market for their content which is consistent with broadcasting standards, then the advertisers won't go near them...they can't be forced by unelected entities.

Morgans

Silentcorner wrote: »

IF Coca Cola thinks people cursing on a tv show is not to their taste, they can do as they choose.

But if you organise a mob to target Coca Cola to pull their ads then no, a line has been crossed.

You can complain to the regulators, that is why they are there.

No they arent. Regulators will adjudicate if something is legal or within broadcasting standards.

Its perfectly legal for Coca-Cola to advertise on porn channels if they want - normally they would make the decision regarding what is in the best interests of the organisation. The "mob" are making them aware of that there are commercial consequences to their decision where they advertise, even if its legal. Coca-Cola can make their decision to maintain their advertising or advertise elsewhere. There is nothing to stop Coca-Cola from upping their advertising.

Silentcorner

Morgans wrote: »

No they arent. Regulators will adjudicate if something is legal or within broadcasting standards.

Its perfectly legal for Coca-Cola to advertise on porn channels if they want - normally they would make the decision regarding what is in the best interests of the organisation. The "mob" are making them aware of that there are commercial consequences to their decision where they advertise, even if its legal. Coca-Cola can make their decision to maintain their advertising or advertise elsewhere. There is nothing to stop Coca-Cola from upping their advertising.

Well, you support cancel culture.

I don't especially when it comes to media outlets...

Morgans

Silentcorner wrote: »

Well, you support cancel culture.

I don't especially when it comes to media outlets...

There was always cancel culture - just that now those who were once doing the cancelling are getting a taste of their own medicine. And all they can do is whine.

Inquitus

Silentcorner wrote: »

If there is no market for their content which is consistent with broadcasting standards, then the advertisers won't go near them...they can't be forced by unelected entities.

Well actually they can, and have been. Public opinion can be freely disseminated, and if advertisers wish to listen it's their prerogative.

I haven’t seen this channel yet, nor am I in a great rush to watch it.

I would guess it is following the Chris Eubank philosophy though, where half the people watching it are doing so with the intention of tweeting their disgust while the other half believe what it says.

Meanwhile, like Chris, they don’t care why people are watching it, as long as they watch it.

If you don’t like it, don’t watch it and it will die a death.

Silentcorner

Morgans wrote: »

There was always cancel culture - just that now those who were once doing the cancelling are getting a taste of their own medicine. And all they can do is whine.

The Church were the last entity to attempt to exert undue influence in this country....and you are the same as them...fair enough!!

hatrickpatrick

Deleted User wrote: »

Hey, you didn't answer on if you think people should be prevented from organised boycotts?

People have every right to boycott whatever they want. However, if the purpose behind a boycott is to pressure companies into essentially silencing opinions you disagree with, then you're being an unimaginable asshole. Of course, being an asshole is well within your rights - as is calling you one within mine.

Boycotting in order to stifle free expression is, indeed, strictly speaking itself an example of free expression. But as with so many legal concepts around the letter vs the spirit of the law, while it is strictly speaking covered by free expression, it's an incredibly anti-free expression use of that free expression.

Anyone who calls for another's voice to be silenced, hidden, or obscured from public view is an authoritarian gobsh!te. Regardless of whether they self-identify as liberal or leftist. They are no better than the likes of the Catholic Church or "family values" conservatives.

Stating "Calling for the removal of someone else's free speech is just me exercising my free speech" isn't some kind of "gotcha". Nobody ever questioned that. Calling for the removal of, for instance, a woman's right to vote, or a child's right to an education, is also a fair exercising of free expression. But the person doing it is still a miserable, insufferable bollocks.

Silentcorner

It reminds me of that weird phase back in the 90s, people in the US and beyond convincing themselves and every one around them that Satan was sending messages through Heavy Metal tracks....they thought they were saving our souls then too!!!

hatrickpatrick

Silentcorner wrote: »

It reminds me of that weird phase back in the 90s, people in the US and beyond convincing themselves and every one around them that Satan was sending messages through Heavy Metal tracks....they thought they were saving our souls then too!!!

The sheer number of urban legends I can remember from school back in the cassette tape walkman era (anyone feel old yet? ) wherein you could play one song or another backwards and get anything from "Smoking pot is good for you" to "The dark one will rise and all will be fire"

Morgans

Silentcorner wrote: »

The Church were the last entity to attempt to exert undue influence in this country....and you are the same as them...fair enough!!

Not at all, you already got it wrong (who would have thought). You said to earlier poster that he wouldnt have allowed rock and roll. Ultimately there wasnt enough people power to prevent the church from exerting its influence. There was no skin in the game for them exerting their influence and could do so with impunity. Could say the same with the GAA. And same with media channels. Cancel culture now is making sure that they have skin in the game.

No one is banning Coca-Cola from advertising, no one is stopping anyone from setting up a TV station. Best of luck to them but cancel culture lets them know there are consequences to their decisions.

alchemist33

Is there actually an organised boycott or are people making this up to get outraged about?

For Forks Sake

Morgans wrote: »

I hope its around in November just to see the size of the poppies.

They'll need to do something spectacular to outdo the Beeb putting a poppy on the f*cking Cookie Monster.

Silentcorner

Morgans wrote: »

No one is banning Coca-Cola from advertising, no one is stopping anyone from setting up a TV station. .... but cancel culture lets them know there are consequences to their decisions.

You have already clearly stated you support Cancel Culture, I'd don't know why you feel the need to say it again.

Morgans

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

People have every right to boycott whatever they want. However, if the purpose behind a boycott is to pressure companies into essentially silencing opinions you disagree with, then you're being an unimaginable asshole. Of course, being an asshole is well within your rights - as is calling you one within mine.

Boycotting in order to stifle free expression is, indeed, strictly speaking itself an example of free expression. But as with so many legal concepts around the letter vs the spirit of the law, while it is strictly speaking covered by free expression, it's an incredibly anti-free expression use of that free expression.

Anyone who calls for another's voice to be silenced, hidden, or obscured from public view is an authoritarian gobsh!te. Regardless of whether they self-identify as liberal or leftist. They are no better than the likes of the Catholic Church or "family values" conservatives.

Stating "Calling for the removal of someone else's free speech is just me exercising my free speech" isn't some kind of "gotcha". Nobody ever questioned that. Calling for the removal of, for instance, a woman's right to vote, or a child's right to an education, is also a fair exercising of free expression. But the person doing it is still a miserable, insufferable bollocks.

They have set up their own TV station and no one on this thread or anywhere has claimed it shouldnt be allowed to broadcast. There are lots of people pretending that there are calls for it to be banned. Advertisers can decide to support the station or nor. People are making companies known that who they advertise with have consequences. No one is looking to ban advertising.

hatrickpatrick

Morgans wrote: »

No one is banning Coca-Cola from advertising, no one is stopping anyone from setting up a TV station. Best of luck to them but cancel culture lets them know there are consequences to their decisions.

There shouldn't be consequences for facilitating free expression. Anyone who thinks there should, quite frankly doesn't believe in the basic tenets of democratic freedom.

MisterAnarchy

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Oh the Boards cancel gang are all over this thread The station must be doing something right

Its amazing the way that they are attracted to topics that they seemingly hate, GBNews, Trump thread etc.

In hindsight perhaps I should have labelled the thread " The GBNews fanatics and appreciation thread".

Morgans

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

There shouldn't be consequences for facilitating free expression. Anyone who thinks there should, quite frankly doesn't believe in the basic tenets of democratic freedom.

So, forced advertising then? Companies shouldn't be allowed to choose who they advertise with?

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

Sorry must have missed that...

I'll put it to you this way...this is a media outlet....

There are avenues to make complaints, even orchestrated campaigns to the relevant authorities and your concerns can be heard in due course, we see this all the time.

So for instance, just say you took offense to someone cursing during a tv show, or they showed young people fornicating and you were outraged and thought that was a bad influence on the general public...you should be allowed to make complaints, protest that the content being broadcast is deeply offensive to you...

But, in my opinion, you have no right to attempt to undermine the business model of the media outlet by targeting advertisers because you can't tolerate a tv channel showing young one's fornicating...it circumvents the Broadcasting authorities.

You're sounding pretty anti democratic and anti free speech... Boycotts have been done for plenty of different reasons for decades.

Inquitus

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

There shouldn't be consequences for facilitating free expression. Anyone who thinks there should, quite frankly doesn't believe in the basic tenets of democratic freedom.

Expressing your opinion to an advertiser that they shouldn't support a particular news show is also free expression, so maybe you don't support the basic tenets of democracy?

Silentcorner

Deleted User wrote: »

You're sounding pretty anti democratic and anti free speech... Boycotts have been done for plenty of different reasons for decades.

Inquitus wrote: »

Expressing your opinion to an advertiser that they shouldn't support a particular news show is also free expression, so maybe you don't support the basic tenets of democracy?

Lads...ye'd have made great priests!!!

hatrickpatrick

Morgans wrote: »

They have set up their own TV station and no one on this thread or anywhere has claimed it shouldnt be allowed to broadcast. There are lots of people pretending that there are calls for it to be banned. Advertisers can decide to support the station or nor. People are making companies known that who they advertise with have consequences. No one is looking to ban advertising.

Ok, let me break this down for you.

I, Hatrickpatrick, disagree with what you, Morgans, have to say on this topic.

I can currently see an ad for Gear4Music on the top of the page as I type this reply to you.

I can contact Gear4Music and tell them that I won't be buying from them anymore, because their ads run on a website which allows you, Morgan, to speak your mind.

I can further encourage others who share a similarly authoritarian mindset to do the same.

If we send G4M enough emails, threatening their profits, they may indeed contact Boards and tell Boards that they must either ban you from posting, or lose their income stream.

If we do this to enough advertisers, ultimately either Boards will have to capitulate, or they will go bankrupt from lack of advertising revenue.

Do I have the right to do something like this, under the principle of free expression? Absolutely.

Does doing so make me an unimaginable asshole who doesn't actually believe in the principle I am exploiting in order to do this? Again, absolutely.

If I take any action with the ultimate intention of restricting what another person can say on one platform or another, does that make me an authoritarian who believes in censorship and opposes free expression?

Again, absolutely.

Do I have the right to hold authoritarian, anti-democratic views? Of course I do. Do others have the right to call me an unimaginable piece of sh!t for choosing to do so? Once again, absolutely.

Ergo, yes, people have the right to call for an advertiser boycott of this new TV station. And if they do so, I and many other people have every right to tell them that they are part of a movement which is exceptionally dangerous to democracy, and, ultimately, a bunch of f*ckers.

Tell me how

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

There shouldn't be consequences for facilitating free expression. Anyone who thinks there should, quite frankly doesn't believe in the basic tenets of democratic freedom.

Such as the freedom from companies to not use a particular platform....

hatrickpatrick

Morgans wrote: »

So, forced advertising then? Companies shouldn't be allowed to choose who they advertise with?

Of course they should. I never said that they shouldn't.

I am saying that in my view, contacting a company and threatening them with a boycott because they advertise on a platform which prioritises free expression ultimately means that you, the person making the threat, do not believe in free expression. And that, in my view, makes you a pr*ck.