|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jun 30, 2017 18:07:03 GMT
Yesterday it took them 20 minutes to mention Corbyn's Night Of The Long Knives. Of course, this would have highlighted Labour's divide over Europe. Agenda? Is that newsworthy? Are you being serious? Shadow Cabinet Ministers being sacked and 49 MP's defying the Leaders whip.
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Jun 30, 2017 18:09:17 GMT
Are you being serious? Shadow Cabinet Ministers being sacked and 49 MP's defying the Leaders whip. Yes. Why do you think this should be the first thing on the news?
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Jun 30, 2017 18:10:23 GMT
So who do you think does provide "the" news as you put it? No one. This is down to the word "due". OfcomThe BBC should provide "the news" because they are the state broadcaster who's funding is taken from citizen's of every type of political persuasion. So go back to my first post in this ridiculous thread and you'll have your answer.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jun 30, 2017 18:14:48 GMT
Are you being serious? Shadow Cabinet Ministers being sacked and 49 MP's defying the Leaders whip. Yes. Why do you think this should be the first thing on the news? Er... I didn't say it should have been the first thing on the news but as we're in the middle of unprecedented political times and only two weeks after a GE with live Queen Speech amendment votes shown on the BBC news channel then yes, the fact that the new Messiah JC has had to yet again ditch some front benchers and have 20% of his MP's tell him to fuck off then it's odd that it wasn't more prominent.
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Jun 30, 2017 18:15:57 GMT
Yes. Why do you think this should be the first thing on the news? Er... I didn't say it should have been the first thing on the news but as we're in the middle of unprecedented political times and only two weeks after a GE with live Queen Speech amendment votes shown on the BBC news channel then yes, the fact that the new Messiah JC has had to yet again ditch some front benchers and have 20% of his MP's tell him to fuck off then it's odd that it wasn't more prominent. Do you know what was on first?
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jun 30, 2017 18:16:29 GMT
No one. This is down to the word "due". OfcomThe BBC should provide "the news" because they are the state broadcaster who's funding is taken from citizen's of every type of political persuasion. So go back to my first post in this ridiculous thread and you'll have your answer. What, is it against the law? Yes I think so. Channel 4 (and the BBC) broke Ofcom's due impartiality rules and you've admitted that yourself by saying that C4 are "definitely left leaning" and "Lots of broadcasters are not impartial".
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Jun 30, 2017 18:35:59 GMT
So go back to my first post in this ridiculous thread and you'll have your answer. What, is it against the law? Yes I think so. Channel 4 (and the BBC) broke Ofcom's due impartiality rules and you've admitted that yourself by saying that C4 are "definitely left leaning" and "Lots of broadcasters are not impartial". Which law is it against?
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jun 30, 2017 18:40:00 GMT
Er... I didn't say it should have been the first thing on the news but as we're in the middle of unprecedented political times and only two weeks after a GE with live Queen Speech amendment votes shown on the BBC news channel then yes, the fact that the new Messiah JC has had to yet again ditch some front benchers and have 20% of his MP's tell him to fuck off then it's odd that it wasn't more prominent. Do you know what was on first? Acid attack or Grenfell? Here's the Queen's Speech section. Fifth story into the News broadcast and Jezza's sackings and rebels mentioned 4 minutes into a 4:40 clip, just before the comedy insert of not having to wear ties in the HoC. As I said. A perfect example of London-centric match reporting after we've played Arsenal.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jun 30, 2017 18:42:22 GMT
What, is it against the law? Yes I think so. Channel 4 (and the BBC) broke Ofcom's due impartiality rules and you've admitted that yourself by saying that C4 are "definitely left leaning" and "Lots of broadcasters are not impartial". Which law is it against? So you didn't read the Ofcom link then..... Relevant legislation includes, in particular, sections 319(2)(c) and (d), 319(8) and section 320 of the Communications Act 2003, the BBC Charter and Agreement, and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Jun 30, 2017 19:01:33 GMT
So you didn't read the Ofcom link then..... Relevant legislation includes, in particular, sections 319(2)(c) and (d), 319(8) and section 320 of the Communications Act 2003, the BBC Charter and Agreement, and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.No I didn't. Is Ofcom a judicial body now?
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Jun 30, 2017 19:02:25 GMT
Do you know what was on first? Acid attack or Grenfell? Here's the Queen's Speech section. Fifth story into the News broadcast and Jezza's sackings and rebels mentioned 4 minutes into a 4:40 clip, just before the comedy insert of not having to wear ties in the HoC. As I said. A perfect example of London-centric match reporting after we've played Arsenal. Is the acid attack or greenfell not more important in your "unbiased" view?
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Jun 30, 2017 19:05:49 GMT
So you didn't read the Ofcom link then..... Relevant legislation includes, in particular, sections 319(2)(c) and (d), 319(8) and section 320 of the Communications Act 2003, the BBC Charter and Agreement, and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.I have read your link now. Where does it say Channel 4 broke their legislation?
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jun 30, 2017 21:00:14 GMT
So you didn't read the Ofcom link then..... Relevant legislation includes, in particular, sections 319(2)(c) and (d), 319(8) and section 320 of the Communications Act 2003, the BBC Charter and Agreement, and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.No I didn't. Is Ofcom a judicial body now? What do you mean by now?
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Jun 30, 2017 21:03:05 GMT
No I didn't. Is Ofcom a judicial body now? What do you mean by now? Well, are Channel 4 breaking laws or legislation?
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jun 30, 2017 21:14:23 GMT
Acid attack or Grenfell? Here's the Queen's Speech section. Fifth story into the News broadcast and Jezza's sackings and rebels mentioned 4 minutes into a 4:40 clip, just before the comedy insert of not having to wear ties in the HoC. As I said. A perfect example of London-centric match reporting after we've played Arsenal. Is the acid attack or greenfell not more important in your "unbiased" view? No they're not more important. But that's not my unbiased view. There's hundreds of acid attacks every year. 454 corrosive substance attacks in London alone last year. There's no new information about Grenfell and won't be for months and months. The SWP organised marches on Downing Street claiming May has blood on her hands were bullshit but that won't stop the media stirring the shit pot. There's one vote on the Queen's Speech and we have a hung parliament. Much more unique. But even if you decide the running order should be acid, Grenfell, QS it's still obvious that C4 slipped in the fact that Corbo had nearly 50 MP's disagreeing with him and he had to sack 3 Shadow Ministers.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jun 30, 2017 21:18:21 GMT
Well, are Channel 4 breaking laws or legislation? Statutory Law? They're the same thing. Tell you what. Why don't you go and do some research so you have half an idea about what you're talking about while I enjoy my pint.
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Jul 1, 2017 8:03:51 GMT
Is the acid attack or greenfell not more important in your "unbiased" view? No they're not more important. But that's not my unbiased view. There's hundreds of acid attacks every year. 454 corrosive substance attacks in London alone last year. There's no new information about Grenfell and won't be for months and months. The SWP organised marches on Downing Street claiming May has blood on her hands were bullshit but that won't stop the media stirring the shit pot. There's one vote on the Queen's Speech and we have a hung parliament. Much more unique. But even if you decide the running order should be acid, Grenfell, QS it's still obvious that C4 slipped in the fact that Corbo had nearly 50 MP's disagreeing with him and he had to sack 3 Shadow Ministers. To clarify, your opinion on what is and isn't news is not biased? Is that what you're saying?
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Jul 1, 2017 8:05:15 GMT
Well, are Channel 4 breaking laws or legislation? Statutory Law? They're the same thing. Tell you what. Why don't you go and do some research so you have half an idea about what you're talking about while I enjoy my pint. So can they be prosecuted by Ofcom for breaking the law and served with custodial sentences?
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jul 1, 2017 8:33:55 GMT
PotteringThrough you've posted 17 times on this thread, which you've called ridiculous, 13 posts have been questions. It's fast approaching the most boring exchange on the forum, not really debate, it's more a 6th Form Q&A session. If you haven't got an opinion that's fine. If you want to know some detail just browse Google.
|
|
|
Post by rat on Jul 1, 2017 11:37:52 GMT
PotteringThrough you've posted 17 times on this thread, which you've called ridiculous, 13 posts have been questions. It's fast approaching the most boring exchange on the forum, not really debate, it's more a 6th Form Q&A session. If you haven't got an opinion that's fine. If you want to know some detail just browse Google. no wonder he can't learn anything when discussing things with someone who cites Google as the place for answers .
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Jul 1, 2017 19:30:33 GMT
PotteringThrough you've posted 17 times on this thread, which you've called ridiculous, 13 posts have been questions. It's fast approaching the most boring exchange on the forum, not really debate, it's more a 6th Form Q&A session. If you haven't got an opinion that's fine. If you want to know some detail just browse Google. I know the detail, I'm asking questions to help you come to the correct conclusion independently. I can see you're struggling with it. Put simply Channel 4 do report news. Regardless of perceived impartiality or bias from some on here they do report news. Their editor is entitled to publish the news stories in the order they want to as long as it's reported without bias. Which the majority of times it is. That's the simple answer.
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Jul 2, 2017 2:29:21 GMT
Is the acid attack or greenfell not more important in your "unbiased" view? No they're not more important. But that's not my unbiased view. There's hundreds of acid attacks every year. 454 corrosive substance attacks in London alone last year. There's no new information about Grenfell and won't be for months and months. The SWP organised marches on Downing Street claiming May has blood on her hands were bullshit but that won't stop the media stirring the shit pot. There's one vote on the Queen's Speech and we have a hung parliament. Much more unique. But even if you decide the running order should be acid, Grenfell, QS it's still obvious that C4 slipped in the fact that Corbo had nearly 50 MP's disagreeing with him and he had to sack 3 Shadow Ministers. Thanks for your help in pointing that out. It's indefensible and I don't think it is ridiculous to highlight it!
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Jul 2, 2017 7:46:00 GMT
No they're not more important. But that's not my unbiased view. There's hundreds of acid attacks every year. 454 corrosive substance attacks in London alone last year. There's no new information about Grenfell and won't be for months and months. The SWP organised marches on Downing Street claiming May has blood on her hands were bullshit but that won't stop the media stirring the shit pot. There's one vote on the Queen's Speech and we have a hung parliament. Much more unique. But even if you decide the running order should be acid, Grenfell, QS it's still obvious that C4 slipped in the fact that Corbo had nearly 50 MP's disagreeing with him and he had to sack 3 Shadow Ministers. Thanks for your help in pointing that out. It's indefensible and I don't think it is ridiculous to highlight it! You clearly needed help on this one, my post above covers it. It is ridiculous and they do report "the" news.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 2, 2017 8:00:25 GMT
PotteringThrough you've posted 17 times on this thread, which you've called ridiculous, 13 posts have been questions. It's fast approaching the most boring exchange on the forum, not really debate, it's more a 6th Form Q&A session. If you haven't got an opinion that's fine. If you want to know some detail just browse Google. I know the detail, I'm asking questions to help you come to the correct conclusion independently. I can see you're struggling with it. Put simply Channel 4 do report news. Regardless of perceived impartiality or bias from some on here they do report news. Their editor is entitled to publish the news stories in the order they want to as long as it's reported without bias. Which the majority of times it is. That's the simple answer. I could see where that was going posts back and still Todger blundered ahead, until finally the penny dropped and off he scuttled, with the most ironic of posts that YOU should some research so that you know what you're talking about! Classic Todger lol
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jul 2, 2017 8:11:40 GMT
Statutory Law? They're the same thing. Tell you what. Why don't you go and do some research so you have half an idea about what you're talking about while I enjoy my pint. So can they be prosecuted by Ofcom for breaking the law and served with custodial sentences? All TV broadcasting companies are regulated. There are rules saying they must be impartial in presenting politics for example. This does not apply to newspapers (no idea why). If they breach the rules they would probably be fined and have to give some form of apology. Despite the right's view that channel 4 are biased towards labour and the left's view that the bbc are anti-Corbyn, particularly over the election coverage, neither have breached the impartiality rules to my knowledge. My view is channel 4 are generally left leaning and bbc generally right leaning (particularly on Brexit where kunssberg (sp) was very pro Brexit). But the regulator has a tough job objectively assessing this and so in reality impartiality rules are not often enforced.
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Jul 2, 2017 9:01:26 GMT
So can they be prosecuted by Ofcom for breaking the law and served with custodial sentences? All TV broadcasting companies are regulated. There are rules saying they must be impartial in presenting politics for example. This does not apply to newspapers (no idea why). If they breach the rules they would probably be fined and have to give some form of apology. Despite the right's view that channel 4 are biased towards labour and the left's view that the bbc are anti-Corbyn, particularly over the election coverage, neither have breached the impartiality rules to my knowledge. My view is channel 4 are generally left leaning and bbc generally right leaning (particularly on Brexit where kunssberg (sp) was very pro Brexit). But the regulator has a tough job objectively assessing this and so in reality impartiality rules are not often enforced. I agree, the impartiality aspect is not in the stories but how they are reported. Channel 4 present the facts in the news they report.
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Jul 2, 2017 9:36:52 GMT
Thanks for your help in pointing that out. It's indefensible and I don't think it is ridiculous to highlight it! You clearly needed help on this one, my post above covers it. It is ridiculous and they do report "the" news. Never in question. They don't report it impartially, which is obvious to anyone with an open mind. I await another ridiculous comeback lacking in wit or reason.
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Jul 2, 2017 9:49:21 GMT
You clearly needed help on this one, my post above covers it. It is ridiculous and they do report "the" news. Never in question. They don't report it impartially, which is obvious to anyone with an open mind. I await another ridiculous comeback lacking in wit or reason. You've got all the reasoning above, re-read the post. The best part is you've sat there, watched them report the news and then because you don't agree with the news they've reported you start a thread on here complaining about it. No wit required because that's funny in itself.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 2, 2017 13:38:23 GMT
Never in question. They don't report it impartially, which is obvious to anyone with an open mind. I await another ridiculous comeback lacking in wit or reason. You've got all the reasoning above, re-read the post. The best part is you've sat there, watched them report the news and then because you don't agree with the news they've reported you start a thread on here complaining about it. No wit required because that's funny in itself. Yes, exactly. The idea that there are only certain people with minds open enough to see which news is accurate and which is biased or indeed fake is, ironically, one which appeals only to those with the kind of closed mind they themselves decry. There's a circular irony there which is enough to blow the minds of those people entirely, if they're even able to figure it out lol
|
|
|
Post by Parkhall Wanderer on Jul 2, 2017 13:48:40 GMT
Do you know what was on first? Acid attack or Grenfell? Here's the Queen's Speech section. Fifth story into the News broadcast and Jezza's sackings and rebels mentioned 4 minutes into a 4:40 clip, just before the comedy insert of not having to wear ties in the HoC. As I said. A perfect example of London-centric match reporting after we've played Arsenal. Todge keep the Arse out of this debate you will have me swearing in a minute. It's bad enough with politics but bringing them scumbags into the debate is below the belt. Enough I say Enough😁
|
|