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

listermint · 17-06-2021 02:43PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is what I've been saying since the outbreak of the culture war in the 2010s. The left, which spent the 2000s advocating for unfettered free speech, has become every bit as bad as the conservatives they spent so long opposing.

They think it's different because of which content they're trying to censor. So we've shifted from "it's wrong to censor people's views", to "it's ok to censor peoples' views as long as those views are wrong". And that is a f*cking travesty about which I will always be deeply angry and dismayed.

They're as sanctimonious and authoritarian as any Catholich archbishop. They just believe that it's ok to be authoritarian about some things because the end justifies the means. Which it doesn't.

Two posts previous you said you were the left. So you are describing yourself.

What you and people like you fail to understand. Respectiving another person for just being a person isn't PC, it's common decency. Believing it's authoritarian for telling someone it's uncool the use homophobic slurs or abuse someone racially or otherwise in public or the workplace isn't PC gone nuts. Its a decency and respect that used to always exist. But you seem to think that it's crawling on your home's and sleeping with your wife invasion.

Tell me how · 17-06-2021 02:46PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is what I've been saying since the outbreak of the culture war in the 2010s. The left, which spent the 2000s advocating for unfettered free speech, has become every bit as bad as the conservatives they spent so long opposing.

They think it's different because of which content they're trying to censor. So we've shifted from "it's wrong to censor people's views", to "it's ok to censor peoples' views as long as those views are wrong". And that is a f*cking travesty about which I will always be deeply angry and dismayed.

They're as sanctimonious and authoritarian as any Catholich archbishop. They just believe that it's ok to be authoritarian about some things because the end justifies the means. Which it doesn't.

How would they compare to the current Christian evangelicals? Such as those saying they didn't need any Covid restrictions because they were covered in the blood of Christ.

Or how about the Republican President who was asked if he spoke to his father, who was a former President before going to war in Irag in 2003 and he responded and said he didn't need to because he had spoken to God?

I am proud to say I support those who are genuinely advocating for the good of some in society who are disenfranchised or all of society in general and who say they have a right to do so while simultaneously saying that they have a problem with those who are advocating in some form towards keeping those who are in advantageous positions at the cost of others.

Free speech is not a singular entity which is absolute. It has already been shown to be the case with the presence of laws against hate speech. After that, the merits for and against can and are argued on a case by case basis.

beakerjoe · 17-06-2021 02:52PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

RTE were caught colluding with a privately funded lobby group to write and air segments on COVID-19 through the Claire Byrne show. This is the kind of bias which leads people, even leftists like myself, to believe that there should always, always be an alternative to the dominant zeitgeist narrative. That's why I, as a leftist, support the existence of a right wing mouthpiece in a world in which most of the mass media is a mouthpiece for my own side of the political divide.

I like having an alternate view even if its one I disagree with.

My issue would be that neither side look at the others POV. I hate both CNN and Fox News for example because they are so biased.

But I like having both so I can make my own mind up, which is usually somewhere in the middle.

I see no issue with GB News. You dont have to agree or even watch, but I like the fact they exist.

Hadron Collider · 17-06-2021 02:56PM

listermint wrote: »

Two posts previous you said you were the left. So you are describing yourself.

The left is hardly a monolith. Given his free-speech views, hatrickpatrick would probably fall into the left-libertarian camp, while proponents of cancel culture are left-authoritarian.

Believing it's authoritarian for telling someone it's uncool the use homophobic slurs or abuse someone racially or otherwise in public or the workplace isn't PC gone nuts.

Getting people fired from their jobs, mobbing them until they commit suicide, or otherwise setting out to destroy their lives goes way beyond "telling [them] it's uncool."

hatrickpatrick · 17-06-2021 03:06PM

listermint wrote: »

Two posts previous you said you were the left. So you are describing yourself.

And that is precisely why I am utterly disillusioned with the mainstream left, and have been for some time. I'm a leftist, but I do not believe that what currently qualifies as leftism is genuine leftism. As another poster put it, I am left-libertarian - to me, left-authoritarian is itself an oxymoron.

What you and people like you fail to understand. Respectiving another person for just being a person isn't PC, it's common decency. Believing it's authoritarian for telling someone it's uncool the use homophobic slurs or abuse someone racially or otherwise in public or the workplace isn't PC gone nuts. Its a decency and respect that used to always exist. But you seem to think that it's crawling on your home's and sleeping with your wife invasion.

And does opposing Repeal of the Eighth on grounds of personal experience somehow qualify as disrespecting others?

Does opposing large scale immigration on economic or cultural protectionist grounds somehow qualify as disrespecting others?

Does believing that the level of COVID restrictions we've had in Ireland up until very recently did more harm than good somehow qualify as disrespecting others?

Does opposing the ruthless policing of language around gender, language which was only very very recently entirely reclassified and redefined to mean something entirely different to what it used to mean, somehow count as disrespecting others?

Does opposing racist, and sexist sloganeering justified on the grounds of "punching up" (#KillAllMen for example) somehow qualify as disrespecting others?

These are things which the mainstream media currently will not touch with a barge pole, and about which anyone who dares to speak out on the likes of Twitter or Facebook faces a relentless and vicious campaign of harassment including attempts to get that person more or less barred from the internet, calls to that person's workplace demanding they be fired, harassment of that person's friends and family, etc etc etc.

I'm a leftist. The aforementioned tactics are utterly fascist in nature and in my view have no place on the left, which is why I have repeatedly stated that as a leftist, I am angry and bitterly disappointed in my former comrades for adopting the far right conservative playbook on the grounds that "it's ok, because we're the good guys and we're using these tactics against the bad guys".

That's not how right and wrong works, and it never was. It repulses me that this is now regarded as "leftism".

listermint · 17-06-2021 03:10PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And that is precisely why I am utterly disillusioned with the mainstream left, and have been for some time. I'm a leftist, but I do not believe that what currently qualifies as leftism is genuine leftism. As another poster put it, I am left-libertarian - to me, left-authoritarian is itself an oxymoron.

And does opposing Repeal of the Eighth on grounds of personal experience somehow qualify as disrespecting others?

Does opposing large scale immigration on economic or cultural protectionist grounds somehow qualify as disrespecting others?

Does believing that the level of COVID restrictions we've had in Ireland up until very recently did more harm than good somehow qualify as disrespecting others?

Does opposing the ruthless policing of language around gender, language which was only very very recently entirely reclassified and redefined to mean something entirely different to what it used to mean, somehow count as disrespecting others?

Does opposing racist, and sexist sloganeering justified on the grounds of "punching up" (#KillAllMen for example) somehow qualify as disrespecting others?

These are things which the mainstream media currently will not touch with a barge pole, and about which anyone who dares to speak out on the likes of Twitter or Facebook faces a relentless and vicious campaign of harassment including attempts to get that person more or less barred from the internet, calls to that person's workplace demanding they be fired, harassment of that person's friends and family, etc etc etc.

I'm a leftist. The aforementioned tactics are utterly fascist in nature and in my view have no place on the left, which is why I have repeatedly stated that as a leftist, I am angry and bitterly disappointed in my former comrades for adopting the far right conservative playbook on the grounds that "it's ok, because we're the good guys and we're using these tactics against the bad guys".

That's not how right and wrong works, and it never was. It repulses me that this is now regarded as "leftism".

Tbf none of your views above make you on the left.

Btw I don't subscribe to leftism or whatever it is.

Note that people believing the internet is the real world and living solely on a twitteraty bubble of what they perceive live is like is odd too.

Morgans · 17-06-2021 03:11PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And that is precisely why I am utterly disillusioned with the mainstream left, and have been for some time. I'm a leftist, but I do not believe that what currently qualifies as leftism is genuine leftism. As another poster put it, I am left-libertarian - to me, left-authoritarian is itself an oxymoron.

And does opposing Repeal of the Eighth on grounds of personal experience somehow qualify as disrespecting others?

Does opposing large scale immigration on economic or cultural protectionist grounds somehow qualify as disrespecting others?

Does believing that the level of COVID restrictions we've had in Ireland up until very recently did more harm than good somehow qualify as disrespecting others?

Does opposing the ruthless policing of language around gender, language which was only very very recently entirely reclassified and redefined to mean something entirely different to what it used to mean, somehow count as disrespecting others?

Does opposing racist, and sexist sloganeering justified on the grounds of "punching up" (#KillAllMen for example) somehow qualify as disrespecting others?

These are things which the mainstream media currently will not touch with a barge pole, and about which anyone who dares to speak out on the likes of Twitter or Facebook faces a relentless and vicious campaign of harassment including attempts to get that person more or less barred from the internet, calls to that person's workplace demanding they be fired, harassment of that person's friends and family, etc etc etc.

I'm a leftist. The aforementioned tactics are utterly fascist in nature and in my view have no place on the left, which is why I have repeatedly stated that as a leftist, I am angry and bitterly disappointed in my former comrades for adopting the far right conservative playbook on the grounds that "it's ok, because we're the good guys and we're using these tactics against the bad guys".

That's not how right and wrong works, and it never was. It repulses me that this is now regarded as "leftism".

Yeah, you aren't on the left. You think you are cos some of social issues.

17-06-2021 03:11PM

listermint wrote: »

What you and people like you fail to understand. Respectiving another person for just being a person isn't PC, it's common decency. Believing it's authoritarian for telling someone it's uncool the use homophobic slurs or abuse someone racially or otherwise in public or the workplace isn't PC gone nuts. Its a decency and respect that used to always exist. But you seem to think that it's crawling on your home's and sleeping with your wife invasion.

Actually, we must move beyond this.

Many Christians and Muslims hold socially conservative values around homosexuality and so on. However, that wouldn't stop me being friends with someone of that persuasion. And I say that as a practicing homosexual. I can completely understand the reasons why they believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. It's not a view I share, but I nonetheless respect it.

Similarly, my views are more in alignment with the Christian community on so-called "trans-rights". I'm against the teaching of this in schools, because I believe it's a matter for adults or, at the very minimum, late teenagers. I do not see any advantage, only disadvantage, to introducing multigender theory to young children.

So, the point is this: there is a diversity of views both among and between communities. We have lost the ability to disagree agreeably and to respect the fact that most people hold views in good faith, and are not intent on fascistically trying to impose these views onto everyone else, but are simply airing what they believe to be genuine concerns.

hatrickpatrick · 17-06-2021 03:12PM

Tell me how wrote: »

How would they compare to the current Christian evangelicals? Such as those saying they didn't need any Covid restrictions because they were covered in the blood of Christ.

Some of the more extreme ideas they push around gender "fluidity" would, in my view, 100% qualify as being just as ridiculous as the bullsh!t pushed out by the evangelical right. Ideas such as the idea that modern concepts around fluidity means that people aren't entitled to a sexual preference, as was the subject of a very recent internet sh!tstorm. The fact that one cannot question or criticise this sh!te without being attacked, censored, and having one's life invaded by bullies is batsh!t insane.

Or how about the Republican President who was asked if he spoke to his father, who was a former President before going to war in Irag in 2003 and he responded and said he didn't need to because he had spoken to God?

See above. Fairytale sh!te pervades both the far left and far right.

I am proud to say I support those who are genuinely advocating for the good of some in society who are disenfranchised or all of society in general and who say they have a right to do so while simultaneously saying that they have a problem with those who are advocating in some form towards keeping those who are in advantageous positions at the cost of others.

So am I. I guess we just differ on what that means. Isn't it great that we can openly and freely debate this, right here on Boards? Unfortunately, Boards is a small Oasis of freedom in an increasingly restricted and locked down world of discourse, and that's why I support any and all start-ups from the currently silenced side which attempt to circumvent that.

Free speech is not a singular entity which is absolute. It has already been shown to be the case with the presence of laws against hate speech. After that, the merits for and against can and are argued on a case by case basis.

I don't agree with this paradigm and never have. There is no such thing as a right and wrong political ideology, only one which enjoys consensus support and one which does not. Such is the nature of humanity. The very concept of right and wrong was only arrived at through millennia of discourse and debate.

Difficult to create such concepts, which do a lot of good in the world, when you are not free to discuss them without parameters.

Tony EH · 17-06-2021 03:16PM

joe40 wrote: »

Absolutely. I watched question time quite a lot during the brexit debates and there was always a wide range of opinions. Some nights There were hardly any on the panel I agreed with. (not necessarily a bad thing it was a UK programme) There was plenty of balance.

Well, I watch it every week, when it's on, and the idea that its leans in any particular direction is just bloody laughable, because you'll hear a vast range of opinions expressed, some of which one won't agree with. It's pathetic to hear anyone crying about so called "bias" when it comes to QT.

Fucking childish whingers. :pac:

17-06-2021 03:20PM

Tony EH wrote: »

Well, I watch it every week, when it's on, and the idea that its leans in any particular direction is just bloody laughable, because you'll hear a vast range of opinions expressed, some of which one won't agree with. It's pathetic to hear anyone crying about so called "bias" when it comes to QT.

Fucking childish whingers. :pac:

I defy you to produce one episode of Question Time that starred Nigel Farage in which he was not constantly hectored, interrupted, or shouted down from a vast panel of pro-EU politicians and journalists.

No balance whatsoever between pro-Brexit advocates and pro-EU forces.

The bias most definitely exists.

hatrickpatrick · 17-06-2021 03:21PM

Morgans wrote: »

Yeah, you aren't on the left. You think you are cos some of social issues.

Ok, here we go:

Economically: I believe in taxing the ever living sh!t out of Wall St billionaires. I believe fundamentally that asking for rent in exchange for the use of something you don't personally need is greedy and morally wrong. I believe that the state should be the only legal landlord. I believe that the state should intervene in order to suppress the cost of living and ensure living standards for citizens. I believe that essential services, such as housing, healthcare, education, justice, etc should be 100% free and publicly funded at the point of a citizen's use of them. I believe that the financial system should be entirely redesigned to remove the power of currency creation from people with a profit motive. I believe that companies should distribute their revenue far far more evenly among their employees than they currently do.

This is just a quick stream of consciousness, by the way, as I'm currently heading out the door. I can give a much more detailed breakdown later if you like.

Socially: I believe fundamentally in sexual liberation and sexual freedom, for both genders. I believe fundamentally in gay marriage. I have always believed fundamentally in the right to abortion and have been advocating for this since I was a teenager in the 2000s. I believe 100% in access to contraception. I believe 100% in the legalisation of all drugs for personal use and consumption. I believe 100% in getting rid of licensing laws which put time limits and minimum prices on places which serve alcohol. I believe 100% in doing away with TV censorship of "indecent" content by the likes of the BAI. I believe 100% in comprehensive sex education and I do not believe that parents should be allowed to exempt their children from same. I believe 100% in artistic expression without limits or parameters. I believe 100% in removing societal and social taboos so that people are free to live as they wish, with the only restriction being that they must respect others' consent in doing so. I oppose 100% the power of the state to engage in warrantless surveillance or internet censorship, I oppose 100% the new power of the Gardaí to compel phone unlocking on foot of a force-signed warrant, I oppose 100% the imprisonment of individuals for non-violent crimes, I oppose 100% the obvious discrepancy in both the reporting and policing of crimes between "rough" areas and "posh" areas.

Shall I go on?

To tell me I'm not a leftist because I don't buy into moronic modern identity politics or oppose the right of those who disagree with me to freely state what they do believe in, is absolutely, astoundingly, amazingly asinine.

Tony EH · 17-06-2021 03:22PM

listermint wrote: »

What does Bill Maher in the US have to do with Irish people who are centre or center left ?

Genuinely ?

Absolutely fuck all. But it's a sure fire indication of where some people derive their "opinions" from. They sit in front of US bullshit all day absorbing nonsense about things that they won't even see in their own daily lives and then act as a foghorn for that bullshit elsewhere, endlessly bleating inanities about "tHe lEft" or "cOmMunIstS" like it was 1955 or something.

listermint · 17-06-2021 03:23PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Actually, we must move beyond this.

Many Christians and Muslims hold socially conservative values around homosexuality and so on. However, that wouldn't stop me being friends with someone of that persuasion. And I say that as a practicing homosexual. I can completely understand the reasons why they believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. It's not a view I share, but I nonetheless respect it.

Similarly, my views are more in alignment with the Christian community on so-called "trans-rights". I'm against the teaching of this in schools, because I believe it's a matter for adults or, at the very minimum, late teenagers. I do not see any advantage, only disadvantage, to introducing multigender theory to young children.

So, the point is this: there is a diversity of views both among and between communities. We have lost the ability to disagree agreeably and to respect the fact that most people hold views in good faith, and are not intent on fascistically trying to impose these views onto everyone else, but are simply airing what they believe to be genuine concerns.

Move beyond what. Where did I reference Muslims or trans or any of that.

You seem to have gone off on your own tirade about being friends with people of multi faith? None of that in my post or referenced at all.

I believe people who hold so called right wing conservative views just want to be a bit pricky and decide other people's lives. Simply put. Like you say you want freedom for people's choices but you want to own women's choices. And you say you want religious expression but not if it's another kind other than yours. Too much of those mosques going up etc etc. I could go on .

It's a lack of deceny and respect and recognising we are all human. And humans have a space. Just start treating others as you'd like to be treated don't be complete ****.

Morgans · 17-06-2021 03:24PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Some of the more extreme ideas they push around gender "fluidity" would, in my view, 100% qualify as being just as ridiculous as the bullsh!t pushed out by the evangelical right. Ideas such as the idea that modern concepts around fluidity means that people aren't entitled to a sexual preference, as was the subject of a very recent internet sh!tstorm. The fact that one cannot question or criticise this sh!te without being attacked, censored, and having one's life invaded by bullies is batsh!t insane.

A libertarian seeing gender-fluidity as preventing someone from having a sexual preference. Having a gender-fluid position doesnt prevent you from being heterosexual.

It does mean that someone who doesnt believe themselves to be heterosexual can live their life also.

Morgans · 17-06-2021 03:27PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Ok, here we go:

Economically: I believe in taxing the ever living sh!t out of Wall St billionaires. I believe fundamentally that asking for rent in exchange for the use of something you don't personally need is greedy and morally wrong. I believe that the state should be the only legal landlord. I believe that the state should intervene in order to suppress the cost of living and ensure living standards for citizens. I believe that essential services, such as housing, healthcare, education, justice, etc should be 100% free and publicly funded at the point of a citizen's use of them. I believe that the financial system should be entirely redesigned to remove the power of currency creation from people with a profit motive. I believe that companies should distribute their revenue far far more evenly among their employees than they currently do.

This is just a quick stream of consciousness, by the way, as I'm currently heading out the door. I can give a much more detailed breakdown later if you like.

Socially: I believe fundamentally in sexual liberation and sexual freedom, for both genders. I believe fundamentally in gay marriage. I have always believed fundamentally in the right to abortion and have been advocating for this since I was a teenager in the 2000s. I believe 100% in access to contraception. I believe 100% in the legalisation of all drugs for personal use and consumption. I believe 100% in getting rid of licensing laws which put time limits and minimum prices on places which serve alcohol. I believe 100% in doing away with TV censorship of "indecent" content by the likes of the BAI. I believe 100% in comprehensive sex education and I do not believe that parents should be allowed to exempt their children from same. I believe 100% in artistic expression without limits or parameters. I believe 100% in removing societal and social taboos so that people are free to live as they wish, with the only restriction being that they must respect others' consent in doing so. I oppose 100% the power of the state to engage in warrantless surveillance or internet censorship, I oppose 100% the new power of the Gardaí to compel phone unlocking on foot of a force-signed warrant, I oppose 100% the imprisonment of individuals for non-violent crimes, I oppose 100% the obvious discrepancy in both the reporting and policing of crimes between "rough" areas and "posh" areas.

Shall I go on?

To tell me I'm not a leftist because I don't buy into moronic modern identity politics or oppose the right of those who disagree with me to freely state what they do believe in, is absolutely, astoundingly, amazingly asinine.

I dont see enough of this on the media. Delighted for those supporting you thoughout this thread.

Do borders and immigration when you come back.

17-06-2021 03:31PM

listermint wrote: »

I believe people who hold so called right wing conservative views just want to be a bit pricky and decide other people's lives. Simply put. Like you say you want freedom for people's choices but you want to own women's choices. And you say you want religious expression but not if it's another kind other than yours. Too much of those mosques going up etc etc. I could go on .

I don't want to own women's choices. Women should own those choices, and not have biological men who identify as women own those choices.

Religious expression of opinion is perfectly acceptable, unless it trespasses across the law into incitement to hate or violence. The same principle we apply to everyone else. And I say that as a practicing atheist, too.

So my position is crystal clear. Yours remains abundantly opaque and, dare I say it, veering into 'argument from emotion' territory.

silverharp · 17-06-2021 03:34PM

Tony EH wrote: »

Absolutely fuck all. But it's a sure fire indication of where some people derive their "opinions" from. They sit in front of US bullshit all day absorbing nonsense about things that they won't even see in their own daily lives and then act as a foghorn for that bullshit elsewhere, endlessly bleating inanities about "tHe lEft" or "cOmMunIstS" like it was 1955 or something.

A slightly ironic post given this is a thread on the media situation in another country :pac:

nj27 · 17-06-2021 03:37PM

A girlfriend once broke up with me for being "outrageously right wing". So the question for me is will GB news be right wing enough for me?

17-06-2021 03:38PM

nj27 wrote: »

A girlfriend once broke up with me for being "outrageously right wing". So the question for me is will GB news be right wing enough for me?

Sounds like you had a lucky escape. :pac:

Tell me how · 17-06-2021 03:43PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Difficult to create such concepts, which do a lot of good in the world, when you are not free to discuss them without parameters.

Difficult but not impossible and the human race and the societies in which must of us live are still largely susceptible to group think and as we have seen when nefarious individuals, groups or even governments seek to create a narrative about a particular demographic then things can already get out of hand and become dangerous while a tiny minority are discussing it impartially out of sight somewhere.

Words are evocative and they can, and are frequently used to identify, group, demean and castigate individuals or groups of people and when this is applied and manipulated, bad things happen.

We've seen everything from the spread of hate and derogatory language towards asians after the outbreak of Covid, the spread of hate and derogatory language towards Jews after Israel's treatment of Palestinians, the spread of hate and derogatory language towards muslims after terrorist attacks etc. And aside from the fact that they are hurtful for even a single individual to experience, all these mindsets can grow and formulate and increase to outright targeting of specific groups at a national level which unfortunately, there are all too many examples of.

The human race has evolved to try to work to identify the root cause of such devastating events and has acted to try to minimise them happening.

While people on all sides are capable and guilty of hyperbole, the impact of many on the left trying to bring about a particular public discourse agenda is that it might be boring and extra cautious for people to think before speaking, the impact should those on the right have their uninhibited public discourse agenda is, in my view, that hatred is more likely to fester, formulate and grow.
And that topics will be hijacked for those focused on their own agenda rather than allowing society to discuss things openly with a view towards finding a reasonable outcome for everyone.

Larbre34 · 17-06-2021 03:46PM

nj27 wrote: »

A girlfriend once broke up with me for being "outrageously right wing". So the question for me is will GB news be right wing enough for me?

It'll be too right wing for you.

I had it on for a few mins last night watching squealing hag Michelle Dewberry presenting her few hours of a car crash and my missus says to me (knowing I'm right of centre) "I can't believe you're watching these guys"

Says I, I'm not watching them for inspiration my love, I'm watching them for the comedy value.

After a few minutes of viewing herself, she got the idea.

Tony EH · 17-06-2021 03:56PM

beakerjoe wrote: »

I like having an alternate view even if its one I disagree with.

My issue would be that neither side look at the others POV. I hate both CNN and Fox News for example because they are so biased.

But I like having both so I can make my own mind up, which is usually somewhere in the middle.

I see no issue with GB News. You dont have to agree or even watch, but I like the fact they exist.

It's always good to get the basics on any news item, corroborate it, and then form an informed opinion on the matter.

However, blatant propaganda does nothing to inform and that is the issue with the likes of GB so called "News". It's a bad step to something akin to what exists in America, where news is now just opinion designed to appeal to a "side" and has nothing to do with delivering any kind of basic fact to form an opinion on. It's designed to just massage already formed opinions and to inflame rather than inform.

And it's true, one doesn't have to watch. In fact, there may be more and more people not watching until the backers see that there's no shillings for them in their game and it dies a miserable death, no doubt to the tune of the usual whingers crying about some woke conspiracy that got it "cancelled".

silverharp · 17-06-2021 03:58PM

eskimohunt wrote: »

Sounds like you had a lucky escape. :pac:

Thats like the one

Son: what time was I born?
Mum: nope, stop talking to her

Tony EH · 17-06-2021 04:05PM

silverharp wrote: »

A slightly ironic post given this is a thread on the media situation in another country :pac:

You may need to look up the definition of "ironic", because that isn't the zinger you think it is.

silverharp · 17-06-2021 04:10PM

Tony EH wrote: »

You may need to look up the definition of "ironic", because that isn't the zinger you think it is.

Im well aware of the Ed Byrne sketch, its definitely not unfortunate

Hadron Collider · 17-06-2021 04:18PM

Tony EH wrote: »

It's always good to get the basics on any news item, corroborate it, and then form an informed opinion on the matter.

However, blatant propaganda does nothing to inform and that is the issue with the likes of GB so called "News".

The possibility that COVID-19 stemmed from a Wuhan lab leak was dismissed by all the "respectable" (i.e., left-wing) media outlets as a fringe conspiracy theory, due to the fact that Donald Trump promoted it. Discussion of such a possibility was banned entirely on Facebook. The mainstream media clung to their self-established "fact" that COVID-19 had emerged from human contact with an infected animal.

Guess what ... it is now known that three scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology were hospitalized in late 2019 with symptoms consistent with COVID-19, and Biden has ordered a fresh investigation into the virus's origins.

The media now has egg on its face because, for ideological reasons due to its implacable opposition to Trump, it failed to investigate a plausible origin of COVID. Instead, it sat sneering at the right-wingers and their crazy ideas.

The line between fact and propaganda is often not so obvious, and it's not always GB News or Fox News that is on the wrong side of it.

listermint · 17-06-2021 04:21PM

Hadron Collider wrote: »

The possibility that COVID-19 stemmed from a Wuhan lab leak was dismissed by all the "respectable" (i.e., left-wing) media outlets as a fringe conspiracy theory, due to the fact that Donald Trump promoted it. Discussion of such a possibility was banned entirely on Facebook. The mainstream media clung to their self-established "fact" that COVID-19 had emerged from human contact with an infected animal.

Guess what ... it is now known that three scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology were hospitalized in late 2019 with symptoms consistent with COVID-19, and Biden has ordered a fresh investigation into the virus's origins.

The media now has egg on its face because, for ideological reasons due to its implacable opposition to Trump, it failed to investigate a plausible origin of COVID. Instead, it sat sneering at the right-wingers and their crazy ideas.

The line between fact and propaganda is often not so obvious, and it's not always GB News or Fox News that is on the wrong side of it.

Isn't that then therefore a testament to what everyone is saying. If you talk bollix most of the time then people stop believing what you are saying.

This has nothing to do with the media more so the past form of lying daily and promoting lying and disinformation through all of your actions.

You know the story clearly about the boy and the wolf.

uptherebels · 17-06-2021 04:30PM

Hadron Collider wrote: »

The possibility that COVID-19 stemmed from a Wuhan lab leak was dismissed by all the "respectable" (i.e., left-wing) media outlets as a fringe conspiracy theory, due to the fact that Donald Trump promoted it. Discussion of such a possibility was banned entirely on Facebook. The mainstream media clung to their self-established "fact" that COVID-19 had emerged from human contact with an infected animal.

Guess what ... it is now known that three scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology were hospitalized in late 2019 with symptoms consistent with COVID-19, and Biden has ordered a fresh investigation into the virus's origins.

.

Was it because Trump promoted it? Or because Trump was using it, with no evidence to try and deflect from his own failings and issues with China in general, and resulted in increased aggression towards asians in the states?

MisterAnarchy · 17-06-2021 04:31PM

DubInMeath wrote: »

Well in fairness it's a channel aimed at dickheads and those with a very poor grasp on reality, so their output so far is pretty much on target.

And 3 hours later its still here.

Any of you far left pariahs behind this Twitter account ?
GBNews Fails , 47k followers.

Some people really need to get out more.

https://twitter.com/GBNewsFails/status/1405529072340332552

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

Comments