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

Smee_Again

Smee_Again wrote: »

I’ve noticed this too, and I’d add that a few have resorted to throwing around childish insults (bedwetters and the like) because so far it’s not possible to objectively defend either the output or the production on GB News.

Silentcorner wrote: »

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

You know a poster is struggling when they start trying to insult other posters.

hatrickpatrick

Tell me how wrote: »

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

Are you even reading what I'm saying? I'm not denying that such a freedom exists. I'm stating that in my view, choosing to exercise that freedom makes the person calling for the boycott an asshole.

I have the freedom to stand on a street corner making homophobic speeches if I so choose, even under current hate speech laws which don't cover everything. If I choose to do it, yes, I have the legal right to do so. I'm also an unimaginable piece of sh!t for choosing to do it. Are we at least agreed on this?

Tell me how

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Are you even reading what I'm saying? I'm not denying that such a freedom exists. I'm stating that in my view, choosing to exercise that freedom makes the person calling for the boycott an asshole.

I have the freedom to stand on a street corner making homophobic speeches if I so choose, even under current hate speech laws which don't cover everything. If I choose to do it, yes, I have the legal right to do so. I'm also an unimaginable piece of sh!t for choosing to do it. Are we at least agreed on this?

Why shouldn't people advocate against an entity that they believe is ultimately a danger to their safety/security/freedom?

You might think that is dramatic, what do you think advocating for Brexit and the resultant loss of freedom of movement that came along with it?
Or when GB news starts advocating for the breakup of the NHS and the impact on access to healthcare that would likely come from that?
Or when they advocate against lockdown to deal with Covid and the impact of more people catching the disease?

GB News have specifically said that they are there to challenge the narrative that they think exists elsewhere in the media and to counter what they feel is a PC and 'woke' culture?

They drew the battlelines, why shouldn't people challenge them?

I know GB News has gone through its glitches and suffered a fair number of internal gremlins, but that doesn't mean that Andrew Neil has lost his touch.

His premium interview tonight with Chancellor Sunak, for instance, is one such example - and shows why he remains one of the best in the business for political interviews that extract and expose relevant detail.

Morgans

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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.

Thanks for the breakdown.

Yes, G4M are free to make that decision and Boards are free to make that decision. Advertisers can choose to advertise elsewhere, Boards can run without advertising if they want to. Morgans or Hatrickpatrick can go onto another outlet to have their discussion. Heck, they can set up a tv channel and discuss it 24 hours a day if they wish. They aren't "cancelled". No one is stopping them. Boards, G4M can make the decision that is in their best interests.

Finally, if those who claim cancel culture is a threat to democracy were nearly as worried about the democratic freedoms as they pretend to be there wouldn't be any need for the phenomenon.

hatrickpatrick

Tell me how wrote: »

Why shouldn't people advocate against an entity that they believe is ultimately a danger to their safety/security/freedom?

You might think that is dramatic, what do you think advocating for Brexit and the resultant loss of freedom of movement that came along with it?
Or when GB news starts advocating for the breakup of the NHS and the impact on access to healthcare that would likely come from that?
Or when they advocate against lockdown to deal with Covid and the impact of more people catching the disease?

GB News have specifically said that they are there to challenge the narrative that they think exists elsewhere in the media and to counter what they feel is a PC and 'woke' culture?

They drew the battlelines, why shouldn't people challenge them?

In a democracy, freedom of expression is the most important freedom. Democracy in its true sense cannot exist without it. Choosing to try and dilute this freedom makes you anti-democratic. Doing so out of a believe that the political opinions expressed using this freedom would, if they gained enough traction, damage other freedoms is literally saying "I don't believe in true democracy". What you're actually saying is that certain ideologies shouldn't be given a fair hearing for the public to decide upon, which means that democracy is not pure. It's Democracy-lite. It's Democracy on restricted mode.

If such people would be upfront and honest about this, that would at least make me respect them somewhat. But in my view, anyone who wants to restrict democracy is by far the worse of the two evils, compared with the person advocating horrible ideas, but submitting to the democratic process in order to implement them.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Why shouldn't people advocate against an entity that they believe is ultimately a danger to their safety/security/freedom?

You might think that is dramatic, what do you think advocating for Brexit and the resultant loss of freedom of movement that came along with it?

Jesus wept, a news channel that is subject to all the laws of the land is a danger to your safety/security/freedom?? Get a grip

Also Brexit is what the British people wanted, just because it annoys pro-EU people doesn't change that.

Tell me how

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In a democracy, freedom of expression is the most important freedom. Democracy in its true sense cannot exist without it. Choosing to try and dilute this freedom makes you anti-democratic. Doing so out of a believe that the political opinions expressed using this freedom would, if they gained enough traction, damage other freedoms is literally saying "I don't believe in true democracy". What you're actually saying is that certain ideologies shouldn't be given a fair hearing for the public to decide upon, which means that democracy is not pure. It's Democracy-lite. It's Democracy on restricted mode.
If such people would be upfront and honest about this, that would at least make me respect them somewhat. But in my view, anyone who wants to restrict democracy is by far the worse of the two evils, compared with the person advocating horrible ideas, but submitting to the democratic process in order to implement them.

No one is restricting democracy, they're exercising their right to tell businesses that if they associate their brand with a platform which stated specific ideals that they are going to push.

This is on GB News for stating so forcefully that they had a specific agenda and that they weren't just a news channel.

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

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

You want to limit the right to engage in organised boycotting... Because consumers might stop buying a product due to associations with an opinion news platform. How about the historical boycott of The Sun? That's organised, should it be made illegal? Would you call it cancel culture?

Personally, I could not care less if this news channel exists or not, I also respect the right to boycott companies that support them. You are perfectly free to do the same and I respect your right to do so. You seem fairly loose on the right to freedom of expression etc..

greenfield21

Had a good laugh reading the gbnewsfails twitter account.

https://twitter.com/adampacitti/status/1405274140358037509

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

Jesus wept, a news channel that is subject to all the laws of the land is a danger to your safety/security/freedom?? Get a grip

Also Brexit is what the British people wanted, just because it annoys pro-EU people doesn't change that.

You must have missed the news about the micro-targetting ad buys bought by the Leave campaign in the final days before the vote.

No majority of Brexiteers can even say what it is that they want, all they've ensured is that everyone feels that things aren't what they wanted.

If you don't think TV platforms aren't influential in how elections and policy play out then I don't know what to tell you.
There's no shortage of evidence of this being the case.

Donald would never have gotten near the WH without Fox pushing him as they did and we saw how capable he was and how he handled Covid when he got there. Can't get much more of a real life example than him getting in to power, admitting that he downplayed Covid and then watching as nearly 500K people died on his watch.

That literally happened. This is not any type of hypothetical or analogy.

Morgans

greenfield21 wrote: »

Had a good laugh reading the gbnewsfails twitter account.

https://twitter.com/adampacitti/status/1405274140358037509

That's next level stuff.

Morgans

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In a democracy, freedom of expression is the most important freedom. Democracy in its true sense cannot exist without it. Choosing to try and dilute this freedom makes you anti-democratic. Doing so out of a believe that the political opinions expressed using this freedom would, if they gained enough traction, damage other freedoms is literally saying "I don't believe in true democracy". What you're actually saying is that certain ideologies shouldn't be given a fair hearing for the public to decide upon, which means that democracy is not pure. It's Democracy-lite. It's Democracy on restricted mode.

If such people would be upfront and honest about this, that would at least make me respect them somewhat. But in my view, anyone who wants to restrict democracy is by far the worse of the two evils, compared with the person advocating horrible ideas, but submitting to the democratic process in order to implement them.

Dont know your political views, and not interested. However it is remarkable how many of those who detest cancel culture and claim it is as a threat to democracy are ok to downplay insurrections, minimise corruption in the police force, own multiple papers and media outlets and generally carry the water for the moneyed interests. None of these issues are seen as a threat to democracy in any way. Obviously, if you have expressed these fears on boards previously, Id stand corrected.

Cancel culture came from a long and painful recognition, that all media outlets ultimately are self-interested and not nearly as concerned with the open discourse, service to democracy that you pretend or idealise them as being. i find the claims of love of pure democracy (are we going back to ancient greece here) and the democratic process as disingenuous. The only way those whose voice was ignored could be heard was in group action. Cancel culture is a resistance to authoritarians having seen the 'democratic' system ignore them historically.

mcmoustache

eskimohunt wrote: »

I know GB News has gone through its glitches and suffered a fair number of internal gremlins, but that doesn't mean that Andrew Neil has lost his touch.

His premium interview tonight with Chancellor Sunak, for instance, is one such example - and shows why he remains one of the best in the business for political interviews that extract and expose relevant detail.

Fair play for at least making the case that the channel has some quality instead of whining about how unfair the world is.


Still. Andrew Neil is a lefty, if Ben Shapiro is to be believed.

osarusan

mcmoustache wrote: »

if Ben Shapiro is to be believed.

:pac:

Muahahaha

Oh the ironing

https://twitter.com/GBNewsFails/status/1405234243702181888

ohnonotgmail

Muahahaha wrote: »

Oh the ironing

https://twitter.com/GBNewsFails/status/1405234243702181888

I've had zoom meetings with better production values.

Muahahaha

Muahahaha wrote: »

Oh the ironing

https://twitter.com/GBNewsFails/status/1405234243702181888

What we're seeing here is pure undiluted gloating that a new channel has teething issues, rather than any seriousness about the channel itself.

How things would be seen as different if the channel had a Left-leaning bias!

suicide_circus

Wow...people are really upset by the existence of this channel

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What we're seeing here is pure undiluted gloating that a new channel has teething issues, rather than any seriousness about the channel itself.

In fairness, they haven't offered a reason for us to take them seriously... So the comedy of struggling to even put a channel together is the entertainment.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

In fairness, they haven't offered a reason for us to take them seriously... So the comedy of struggling to even put a channel together is the entertainment.

That's precisely because of your bias. I have no doubt in my mind you had no intent on taking them "seriously" to begin with, but you come on here as if that were your sole intention.

Give me, and the rest of us, a break.

You're gloating.

You want the channel to fail, fail, fail - no matter what, no matter how good or bad the production is or happens to be.

ohnonotgmail

eskimohunt wrote: »

That's precisely because of your bias. I have no doubt in my mind you had any intent on taking them "seriously", but you come on here as if that were your sole intention.

Give me, and the rest of us, a break.

You're gloating. You want the channel to fail, fail, fail - no matter what, no matter how good or bad the production is or happens to be.

they have Dan Wooton as a presenter. Dan feckin Wooton. One-time showbiz editor for a redtop and even that was probably above his mental abilities. how can you take that seriously?

osarusan

eskimohunt wrote: »

How things would be seen as different if the channel had a Left-leaning bias!

The posts would be exactly the same, just the posters would be different.

mcmoustache

suicide_circus wrote: »

Wow...people are really upset by the existence of this channel

Are you sure? Might it be that you're interpreting all this píss-taking as "upset" to make yourself feel better? What you're saying sounds like what a mother does when she tells her child that the other kids are just jealous when he gets picked on.

pjohnson

suicide_circus wrote: »

Wow...people are really upset by the existence of this channel

Some seem upset that democracy exists and that companies are able to control where their own adverts are placed.

And the old reliable of "free speech" = "freedom of consequence"

suicide_circus

mcmoustache wrote: »

Are you sure? Might it be that you're interpreting all this p-taking as "upset" to make yourself feel better? What you're saying sounds like what a mother does when she tells her child that the other kids are just jealous when he gets picked on.

Wut? Look, if these salty barstewards want to promote this chanel by giving it the oxygen of attention, i'm sure thats fine with the owners.

ohnonotgmail

suicide_circus wrote: »

Wut? Look, if these salty barstewards want to promote this chanel by giving it the oxygen of attention, i'm sure thats fine with the owners.

yeah, we're really bigging it up. I'm sure that people will flock to it in droves after reading this thread.

suicide_circus

pjohnson wrote: »

Some seem upset that democracy exists and that companies are able to control where their own adverts are placed.

And the old reliable of "free speech" = "freedom of consequence"

What opinions which you hold are in danger of having "consequences"? Or are you careful to hold approved opinions?

mcmoustache

osarusan wrote: »

The posts would be exactly the same, just the posters would be different.

And yet we have no threads that were started to extol the virtues of any left-wing channels. This is the only thread on the front page and it was started by some guy called MisterAnarchy. What even are the leftwing channels anyway?

suicide_circus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

yeah, we're really bigging it up. I'm sure that people will flock to it in droves after reading this thread.

Youre doing the lords work