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

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761037#Comment_117761037

Except those are actual news channels. GB News is more of a cult propaganda network that's a generation late.

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761037#Comment_117761037

It wasn't a news show? They would also be fired for giving their opinions like Farage does.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761046#Comment_117761046

Whether you define GB News as a news channel is neither here nor there; GB News had protocols in place on how staff should conduct themselves.

That journalist clearly breached these protocols by making an overtly political gesture. It would be the same if a member of staff suddenly performed a Nazi salute in the middle of a show. Same principle, different circumstances of course.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761006#Comment_117761006

Firstly, it's not a news channel, and the programme in particular was an opinion programme.

Secondly, you avoided the question about what ethos was broken considering the ethos of the channel is about free speech and he ran it past his producers before the show.

Thirdly, as I stated if you believe that a political gesture is a breach of the ethos, then outright saying that you refuse to kneel is an equally political gesture, it's just not one which has a physical representation attached to it. Farage didn't have to say he'd never kneel or refuses to kneel, he outright stated his position, just like Harri did. Harri just carried out the physical representation of it.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761006#Comment_117761006

Nope, Farage saying he wouldn't is equally an overt political gesture. You said the channel stands for the freedom of speech but it's pretty clear they oppose certain kinds of free speech.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761108#Comment_117761108

If Nigel Farage stated that he would never perform a Nazi salute, would you argue that just uttering these words is still a "political gesture"?

Seriously!?

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761135#Comment_117761135

Are you comparing the act of taking a knee to a Nazi salute?

Farage's words were in response to Guto Harri being suspended/fired for taking the knee. Farage was outright and explicitly making a (verbal) gesture in opposition. If Guto Harri's act is a breach of the ethos of the channel (and you're once again ignoring he was given the okay by the producers and that the channel's ethos is centered around free speech and differing opinions), then so is Farage's, unless the ethos of the channel is "free speech that most of our viewers already agree with".

joe40

GB news were entitled to sack the presenter. But let's stop the hypocrisy that they are the arbiters of free speech and cancel culture.

When someone did something they don't like they were sacked. Simple as that.

GB news don't want free speech, they want to promote a very specific message.

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761135#Comment_117761135

Surely that is obviously a political gesture to say you will never do a Nazi salute? I mean it is a very popular political gesture and I would agree with anyone saying it but political all the same. It would be taking an anti Nazi stance. However the main difference is that the vast majority of people have doing Nazi salutes as wrong while kneeling is a bit more varied in opinion. This makes it an awkward example since all mainstream stations will have an anti Nazi opinion. This is closer to saying you will never support a Labour candidate which you would be against given your previous statements.

Obviously GB news has a stance on kneeling and has made it clear it does not support it and will ensure its employees follow this.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761163#Comment_117761163

So to work your way out of the problem, you have unilaterally redefined a "political gesture" to be either physical or a verbal statement.

That's quite some acrobatics at work.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761080#Comment_117761080

Nobody at GB News is a journalist. They're there to shove this anti-woke drivel down people's throats and for some demented reason they opted to do so via a TV news channel of all things.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761232#Comment_117761232

You've again ignored the points about the ethos of the channel and Harri being given the okay by his producers, so don't try to claim I'm the one "working my way out of the problem".

Regardless, there is no physical gesture tied to not taking the knee. However the point remains that Farage's comments were a clear intention to demonstrate that he opposes taking the knee. It is the polar opposite of what Harri did (which was demonstrating that he supports taking the knee).

The physical act is not in question. It's how does one person taking the knee to show support for the gesture breach the ethos of the channel, while another person stating opposition for taking the knee doesn't?

joe40

Wearing a Poppy in November is a political gesture. Refusing to wear one is also a political gesture as James McClean knows only to well.

If GB news is still about then the Poppy wearing will be in over drive. So much for no political gestures.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761322#Comment_117761322

That journalist performed a physical political gesture. Whether it's a Nazi salute, or taking the knee, or any other form of physical political gesture, he acted inappropriately and in violation of the ethos of the channel.

This is almost circular reasoning: you're arguing that stating you won't perform a political gesture is the same as performing a political gesture.

You can't get to redefine language like that.

Hence my analogy with Nazi salutes. You are arguing that my saying I won't perform a Nazi salute, to you means I'm performing a political gesture.

Gestures are physical acts.

ancapailldorcha

Taking the knee = Nazi salutes. I'm not even surprised at this point.

By the way, in case anybody missed it, the Conservatives in USA are busy scrubbing all records (or at least trying to) of Trump's involvement in the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Never mind that he orchestrated it last year, or that he purposely chose the date for the withdrawal to be after the 2020 election.......so, it would take place either a) after he was re-elected (meaning the backlash didn't affect his re-election chances) or b) when his successor had to deal with the backlash.

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1427018983379640323?s=20

What was that about 1984, again?

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761361#Comment_117761361

Nazi salute is a symbol/gesture of hate, not a "political gesture". It's not comparable with taking the knee.

And again (until you answer it), it was okayed by his producers. And you still haven't pointed out how it's a breach of the ethos of the channel, something not even GB News claimed.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761379#Comment_117761379

You were called out on inappropriately redefining language, and have now decided to shift the goalposts to the ethos and his producers having okayed it.

To answer your first point, GB News get to decide the ethos of the channel - and staff were aware of this when they signed their contracts on what was permissible and what was not permissible. All channels have protocols and editorial standards in place that staff are obliged to follow. Indeed, this applies to pretty much all forms of paid employment.

To answer your second point, there is no evidence that producers okayed the decision. That journalist can make the claim, but GB News deemed otherwise. It's hearsay.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761367#Comment_117761367

I thought I'd pop back into this thread, see how the conversation is going. I see the answer is swimmingly. There's some spectacular attempt at specious reasoning going on here. Whether or not one agrees with "taking the knee" (and as usual, the smallest gesture enrages those broadly right-aligned), the attempt to draw any kind of equivalence with the Nazis is a spectacularly Bad Faith take.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761439#Comment_117761439

I've stepped back. This is perfectly par for the course sadly.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761404#Comment_117761404

The ethos and the producers okaying it were in my first response to you. Those goalposts have remained entirely in place.

GB News also didn't deny that Harri okayed it with the producers, so what are you basing the idea that he's lying on?

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761404#Comment_117761404

It has already been said that GBNews can define their own ethos but lets not pretend that it has anything to do with free speech.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761469#Comment_117761469

I'm not suggesting that he's a liar. Perhaps he misunderstood what his producers suggested? I simply don't know. Neither do you.

What we do know is that that journalist breached editorial standards as set out by GB News. The same standards that would apply to any other news channel re: political gestures.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761484#Comment_117761484

Again, not a News channel, which means different rules apply to GB News than actual news channels. Comparisons to BBC or Channel 4 are invalid.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761404#Comment_117761404

GB News can operate however it wants and clearly can given the lax enforcement of broadcast regulations. The "ethos" can be whatever they want and they've clearly opted for a safe space for trolling and spoonfeeding right wing snowflakes exactly what they want to hear. Hari committed thoughtcrime by dissenting and had to go and we saw the hysterical overreaction from said snowflakes more or less immediately.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761496#Comment_117761496

Freedom of speech / expression does not mean you can do whatever you like, whenever you like; it's not some laissez-faire theory where anything goes.

Where there are standards in employment, those standards must be complied with.

If, in your paid employment, you breach standards as set out in the employment contract, you cannot argue that it's your right to freedom of speech / expression to breach those conditions. If you verbally or sexually abuse another member of staff, you cannot resort to your inalienable right to freedom of expression / speech. Freedom of speech has always had limits, and these limits are spelled out in employment contracts.

That journalist agreed to those conditions, and breached those conditions.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761484#Comment_117761484

Also, Guto Harri said in his letter to the CEO "Before I took the knee on air I discussed it with my producer, director, co-presenters and head of newsroom. After I did it, GB News captured the moment and proactively cascaded it on social media."

He was also only suspended two days later, after there was a backlash from viewers.

You're right, neither of us know what happened there. But Guto Harri does, and his is the only account of those events we have. So unless someone else who was there comes forward to give an alternative account (and no one has this far), then Harri's account should be accepted.

So if he knew in his contract and the guidelines he signed up what he was and wasn't allowed to say, and he ran it past producers, directors etc and was given the okay, and they took no action against him for two days until viewers started complaining, then what part of the guidelines did he breach?

KildareP

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761404#Comment_117761404

(1) GB News promoted the clip in question for several hours, without comment, before it became clear it wasn't positively received amongst their audience. It was only at this point they suddenly swivelled to the line that it was against "ethos" and that Harri should subsequently be suspended (almost 48 hours after going to air). Strange it took them so long to establish something was against their ethos and only after they were receiving a fairly hostile reception?

(2) Two senior members of staff, one a senior producer, each with a wealth of experience amongst established and respected broadcasters, departed the channel very quickly after it all blew up. They wouldn't have resigned because they agreed all along it was against ethos?

Further to your points, if you want to make the somewhat off-taste comparison of taking the knee and doing a nazi salute:

• Not taking the knee and not performing a nazi salute, in and of themselves, are not political statements
• Explicitly stating, unprompted, "I will never perform a Nazi salute" does then make it a political statement, just as explicitly stating, unprompted, "I will never take the knee" does. Why would you feel you have to explicitly state something if not to make a point?

One eyed Jack

The whole raison d'être of the channel, is making an overtly political gesture!

Implying that they have an ethos suggests they have principles, integrity or some moral code they adhere to. That’s clearly bollocks 😂

joe40

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761514#Comment_117761514

What conditions did he breach. Did you see his employment contract.

He did something and was sacked "cancelled if you like" as a result of uproar on social media.

Exactly the sort of thing GB news claim to oppose.

They can sack whoever they want but less of the hypocrisy that they support "free speech" they're promoting a very specific agenda not unbiased news.

It's worth noting that Harri was not "cancelled" by GB News.

It was Harri who chose to resign.

Harri cancelled himself.

KildareP

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761584#Comment_117761584

Resigned, after being very publicly suspended. Had he been employed longer it could well have been a constructive dismissal.

ancapailldorcha

Or he was given either that option or the sack and chose to resign. Let's be honest, we've no way of knowing for sure but GB News is precisely the sort of trolling echo chamber that would absolutely sack someone for having any sort of independent thought.

banie01

I find it far more interesting just what and who Farage will kneel for.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-knighthood-young-girl-hates-foreigners-russia-today-sam-delayney-a7610866.html

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761598#Comment_117761598

It's only humiliating for the minority of vocal people who argue that Farage "doesn't like foreigners".

The fact that an innocent 6-year old has been indoctrinated and exploited by parents to make a political point is far more concerning.

Very worrying footage indeed.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761617#Comment_117761617

You mean the man who's only solution to any problem is fewer foreigners? The only time he'll ever talk about issues is when he can push some sort xenophobic narrative so yeah, that's one awfully astute six year old right there.

Rawr

One thing I that has me wondering about is the financial longevity of the channel. I believe that I may have read at one point (and I can be wrong here) that their initial investment alone would probably keep them going at least a year, all going well.

Costs-wise I'm imagining a very lean operation with perhaps no more than 2 dozen people at their studio, and that might even include the presenters. There was mention once of them using a lot of automated studio equipment. If true, I can imagine most shows generally consisting of the presenter, and perhaps no more than one or two on-set producers in the room to switch everything on and try to make sure that nothing much goes wrong.

So all in, you've got the staff costs for a small to medium sized office, the presenter fees (which I guess Farage is taking the larger share of) and then any other costs related to rental of a central London location + operating costs of the channel.

But against that, how is the channel's income? Their biggest potential source of income as a TV channel is advertising...but with low ratings the value of that advertising will also be low. Their most valuable block of advertising is probably around the Farage show, but in there you might get slate of advertisers keeping their distance from that kind of programming as has happened with Sainsburys. If they are monitised at all on YouTube, their income from that might at best pay for the staffer who manages that channel.

Without actually knowing the state of their income, and just using my imagination, I can see a situation where GB News is just buring through their investment cash to keep things ticking over until they hope they can get to a point where the advert revenue will become valuable enough for them to break even and very best-case to turn a profit. Failing that, they may hope to get another invester involved by the end of the year.

Failing either, the channel will likely run out of cash at some point when the investment runs out. Then I imagine it'll be more of a question of:

a) Last minute investment to keep them going a bit longer

b) Defaulting on all of their debts and being forced to close a few months later.

c) Seeing the writing on the wall and planning a closure of the channel.

So I feel it's all down to the value of advertising. They need to improve that, or it's just a matter of time before the channel will likely close.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761367#Comment_117761367

from the same school of thought as "doing charity work = paedophile".

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117760955#Comment_117760955

You mean he expressed his right to free speech/expression? And the anti cancel culture crowd cancelled him?

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761702#Comment_117761702

I appreciate that you've put in a fair bit of effort with this but all I can think of is why the f*ck someone in 2021 would start a TV news channel. BBC and Sky's channel's would not be started in 2021. That's a commercial decision that wouldn't be made for obvious reasons as they're obviously relics of a time when people actually watched TV.

Honestly, I think the only avenue for GB News now is to just go full on Fox News, anti-vax, great replacement like the dying ideology it's trying so desperately and failing so miserably to spread. Not even Conservatives and Brexit voters want to watch it. I remember respecting it as a threat to the standards of debate at one point. I never thought it would such a petty, ignominious failure.

A news channel in 2021 when VOD and Youtube exist. It's true that a fool and their cash are easily parted I suppose.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761723#Comment_117761723

False representation, and you know it. I've clarified this 1,000 times at this stage.

Rawr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761871#Comment_117761871

Oh for sure, that alone is an excellent point. I was just pondering when they'd run out of cash.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761949#Comment_117761949

The reality is that we simply don't know enough about their finances. All of this is pure conjecture.

This is the equivalent of an individual seeing some object in the sky, concluding "...it must be a UFO!!!", rather than just admitting they just don't know what it is.

Better to admit ignorance rather than cling to blind certainties.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761439#Comment_117761439

It's funny to pop in every few days to see nothing has changed.

It's just out Inuit friend going round in circles and willing to say absolutely anything to defend his master's

The silent majority is listening though and any day now they are gonna tune in in their millions.

Any day now.....

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761932#Comment_117761932

It really isn't. What you said is still there for anyone who cares to read it and no amount of "what I really meant" changes that. Your words and indeed your repeated reinforcing posts make very clear what you said.

It wasn't a leaving cert poem, a Bible verse it was clear prose from you not requiring any interpretation or clarification.

You made the link you drew with charity, paedophilia and Marcus Rashford crystal clear.

You wanting to move on from your statements, wanting to clarify, or just wanting every other poster on the thread to forget what you posted and indeed reiterated multiple times? Do you think that those insights into your thought process will be omitted solely because you want to move on, or that you think they've been dealt with?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117762018#Comment_117762018

I 100 percent stand by my comments.

I wouldn't change one syllable.

The problem is that my comments have been deliberately misconstrued.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117762018#Comment_117762018

They think they can gaslight people but forget that we have the receipts in black and white. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117762041#Comment_117762041

Nope, you claim they have been but as I said. What you posted paints a crystal clear picture of your thought process and that you stand by every syllable?

Well it just reinforces the picture.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117762050#Comment_117762050

Not at all. I've made my comments clear.

Either they were misinterpreted, misremembered, or deliberately misconstrued is another question.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117762002#Comment_117762002

Ah yes, the old Silent Majority. As always translating to misplaced hubris about one's own views, it being alien to think they might be ever a minority one. It's a beautiful conceit really: can't prove they exist, can't prove they don't exist either (well, you can with polls, but something-something, mainstream media). I remember the Silent Minority well from that time our marriage and abortion referenda - or indeed our Presidential election - were shot down by this simmer demographic of upstanding citizens; those we were told had had enough of this liberal dystopia / nanny-state we lived under.

... Oh.