|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Feb 11, 2021 12:33:48 GMT
And to be clear, we're putting *checks notes* Andrew Neil and Dan Wootton as your bastions of those things? Best of luck... Absolutely. Might want to read up a bit on Neil and some of the 'common sense' stuff he's done over the years...
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on Feb 11, 2021 12:48:36 GMT
Might want to read up a bit on Neil and some of the 'common sense' stuff he's done over the years... Always seemed like a straight shooter to me - a nightmare whatever an interviewee's political persuasion! Got any examples of what you're referring to?
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Feb 11, 2021 12:59:08 GMT
Might want to read up a bit on Neil and some of the 'common sense' stuff he's done over the years... Always seemed like a straight shooter to me - a nightmare whatever an interviewee's political persuasion! Got any examples of what you're referring to? The campaign he backed regarding HIV/AIDS when he was editor of The Sunday Times, for starters.
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on Feb 11, 2021 13:39:41 GMT
Always seemed like a straight shooter to me - a nightmare whatever an interviewee's political persuasion! Got any examples of what you're referring to? The campaign he backed regarding HIV/AIDS when he was editor of The Sunday Times, for starters. Must admit I was looking for something a tad more contemporary!
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Feb 11, 2021 13:47:54 GMT
The campaign he backed regarding HIV/AIDS when he was editor of The Sunday Times, for starters. Must admit I was looking for something a tad more contemporary! Yeah the Aids piece was years ago. Every journalist in the world has produced articles that with hindsight weren't correct. Has Neil over the course of 40 odd years more often than not been accurate and factual? Undoubtedly. He's produced some brilliant work over the years and has often provided a voice where so many have been afraid to speak out.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Feb 11, 2021 13:48:08 GMT
The campaign he backed regarding HIV/AIDS when he was editor of The Sunday Times, for starters. Must admit I was looking for something a tad more contemporary! Sorry, didn't realise there was a statue of limitations? It wasn't like he was a naive young tyro at the time, he was a grown man and editor of one of the country's best selling newspapers?
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Feb 11, 2021 13:49:08 GMT
Must admit I was looking for something a tad more contemporary! Yeah the Aids piece was years ago. Every journalist in the world has produced articles that with hindsight weren't correct. Has Neil over the course of 40 odd years more often than not been accurate and factual? Undoubtedly. He's produced some brilliant work over the years and has often provided a voice where so many have been afraid to speak out. It wasn't a 'piece' it was a campaign. And who cares if it was years ago, why is it that relevant?
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Feb 11, 2021 13:51:43 GMT
Yeah the Aids piece was years ago. Every journalist in the world has produced articles that with hindsight weren't correct. Has Neil over the course of 40 odd years more often than not been accurate and factual? Undoubtedly. He's produced some brilliant work over the years and has often provided a voice where so many have been afraid to speak out. It wasn't a 'piece' it was a campaign. And who cares if it was years ago, why is it that relevant? It just seems a fairly tedious way to smear a journalists exceptional reputation by pulling out a mistake from 35 years ago against an otherwise incredibly good record.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Feb 11, 2021 13:55:17 GMT
It wasn't a 'piece' it was a campaign. And who cares if it was years ago, why is it that relevant? It just seems a fairly tedious way to smear a journalists exceptional reputation by pulling out a mistake from 35 years ago against an otherwise incredibly good record. It's a fairly prolonged 'mistake'... I can point you in the direction of some good, old-fashioned hypocrisy if you like? Like how this champion of free speech hardly ever includes actual climate scientists in any of his debates on climate change? Or how he banned the Co Op from advertising in The Spectator? Sounds an awful lot like 'cancel culture' to me...
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on Feb 11, 2021 14:27:25 GMT
Must admit I was looking for something a tad more contemporary! Sorry, didn't realise there was a statue of limitations? It wasn't like he was a naive young tyro at the time, he was a grown man and editor of one of the country's best selling newspapers? HaHa! It's easy to look back with hindsight and criticize but it obviously wasn't such an outrageous proposition at the time. His Wiki page suggests he is a free thinker as opposed to toeing a particular party line. I only know him from This Week etc and he seems to be what we sadly lack in this country.... a real journalist who wishes to get to the truth, whether or not it suits his personal views (I honestly had no idea of his past affiliations as his robust interview style does not change, irrespective of the interviewee's political bias). I think it's his ability to be a Devils Advocate and cut through bullshit that makes him and GB News a target for the Left. If it ever gets off the ground we'll see where it sits politically, (maybe it will occupy the space abandoned by the BBC) - but the fact that a 'News' channel is being strangled at birth by political opponents should unite all but the extremists in support of its right to launch.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Feb 11, 2021 15:10:27 GMT
Sorry, didn't realise there was a statue of limitations? It wasn't like he was a naive young tyro at the time, he was a grown man and editor of one of the country's best selling newspapers? HaHa! It's easy to look back with hindsight and criticize but it obviously wasn't such an outrageous proposition at the time. His Wiki page suggests he is a free thinker as opposed to toeing a particular party line. I only know him from This Week etc and he seems to be what we sadly lack in this country.... a real journalist who wishes to get to the truth, whether or not it suits his personal views (I honestly had no idea of his past affiliations as his robust interview style does not change, irrespective of the interviewee's political bias). I think it's his ability to be a Devils Advocate and cut through bullshit that makes him and GB News a target for the Left. If it ever gets off the ground we'll see where it sits politically, (maybe it will occupy the space abandoned by the BBC) - but the fact that a 'News' channel is being strangled at birth by political opponents should unite all but the extremists in support of its right to launch. In what way is it being' strangled at birth', sorry? Given the names signed up to it so far and who's backing it, I don't think it's difficult to see where it'll sit politically? And it was a preposterous proposition at the time, yes, given he was still trying to argue it in 1996...
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Feb 11, 2021 16:30:13 GMT
BBC cancelled in China.
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on Feb 11, 2021 16:47:09 GMT
HaHa! It's easy to look back with hindsight and criticize but it obviously wasn't such an outrageous proposition at the time. His Wiki page suggests he is a free thinker as opposed to toeing a particular party line. I only know him from This Week etc and he seems to be what we sadly lack in this country.... a real journalist who wishes to get to the truth, whether or not it suits his personal views (I honestly had no idea of his past affiliations as his robust interview style does not change, irrespective of the interviewee's political bias). I think it's his ability to be a Devils Advocate and cut through bullshit that makes him and GB News a target for the Left. If it ever gets off the ground we'll see where it sits politically, (maybe it will occupy the space abandoned by the BBC) - but the fact that a 'News' channel is being strangled at birth by political opponents should unite all but the extremists in support of its right to launch. In what way is it being' strangled at birth', sorry? Given the names signed up to it so far and who's backing it, I don't think it's difficult to see where it'll sit politically? And it was a preposterous proposition at the time, yes, given he was still trying to argue it in 1996... I would say that Leftist organisations pressuring advertisers to not deal with a fledgling channel is an attempt to kill it before it gets off the ground, wouldn't you? It depends who has editorial control as to where the channel will sit politically. Best wait and see. A quick search re: your 1996 reference would seem to indicate that Neil was proven right and vindicated for his stance on HIV/AIDS which makes me wonder why you brought it up in the first place!
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Feb 11, 2021 16:53:03 GMT
In what way is it being' strangled at birth', sorry? Given the names signed up to it so far and who's backing it, I don't think it's difficult to see where it'll sit politically? And it was a preposterous proposition at the time, yes, given he was still trying to argue it in 1996... I would say that Leftist organisations pressuring advertisers to not deal with a fledgling channel is an attempt to kill it before it gets off the ground, wouldn't you? It depends who has editorial control as to where the channel will sit politically. Best wait and see. A quick search re: your 1996 reference would seem to indicate that Neil was proven right and vindicated for his stance on HIV/AIDS which makes me wonder why you brought it up in the first place! Are you really counting one Twitter hashtag as an attempt to 'strangle at birth'? It's hardly the Zinoviev letter, is it? Where do you think editorial control is likely to sit, based on who's involved thus far? Just because he claimed he was vindicated doesn't mean he actually was?
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on Feb 11, 2021 19:21:35 GMT
I would say that Leftist organisations pressuring advertisers to not deal with a fledgling channel is an attempt to kill it before it gets off the ground, wouldn't you? It depends who has editorial control as to where the channel will sit politically. Best wait and see. A quick search re: your 1996 reference would seem to indicate that Neil was proven right and vindicated for his stance on HIV/AIDS which makes me wonder why you brought it up in the first place! Are you really counting one Twitter hashtag as an attempt to 'strangle at birth'? It's hardly the Zinoviev letter, is it? Where do you think editorial control is likely to sit, based on who's involved thus far? Just because he claimed he was vindicated doesn't mean he actually was? 'Stop Funding Hate' are driving the campaign and have had enough pull in the past to get face to face meetings with representatives of National Publications in order to push their political agenda. So yes it is a serious attempt by a serious organisation. People involved with the launch of GB News have insisted it will be 'fiercely independent' and if Neil is at the helm I believe (and hope!) it will be. The stated facts seem to vindicate his stance. Do you dispute them? Please point me to any facts that you believe support your assertion that he was wrong re HIV/AIDS transmission rates. I've tried but can't find any!
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Feb 11, 2021 19:40:33 GMT
Are you really counting one Twitter hashtag as an attempt to 'strangle at birth'? It's hardly the Zinoviev letter, is it? Where do you think editorial control is likely to sit, based on who's involved thus far? Just because he claimed he was vindicated doesn't mean he actually was? 'Stop Funding Hate' are driving the campaign and have had enough pull in the past to get face to face meetings with representatives of National Publications in order to push their political agenda. So yes it is a serious attempt by a serious organisation. People involved with the launch of GB News have insisted it will be 'fiercely independent' and if Neil is at the helm I believe (and hope!) it will be. The stated facts seem to vindicate his stance. Do you dispute them? Please point me to any facts that you believe support your assertion that he was wrong re HIV/AIDS transmission rates. I've tried but can't find any! The argument he backed was that heterosexual AIDS was a myth, but he seemed to be basing that largely on cases in Britain alone. In fact in the US alone cases among heterosexuals rose by 3% the previous year to the article.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Feb 11, 2021 20:32:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Goonie on Feb 11, 2021 20:34:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Feb 11, 2021 20:46:36 GMT
I see Project Veritas have been suspended on Twitter.
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on Feb 11, 2021 21:33:02 GMT
'Stop Funding Hate' are driving the campaign and have had enough pull in the past to get face to face meetings with representatives of National Publications in order to push their political agenda. So yes it is a serious attempt by a serious organisation. People involved with the launch of GB News have insisted it will be 'fiercely independent' and if Neil is at the helm I believe (and hope!) it will be. The stated facts seem to vindicate his stance. Do you dispute them? Please point me to any facts that you believe support your assertion that he was wrong re HIV/AIDS transmission rates. I've tried but can't find any! The argument he backed was that heterosexual AIDS was a myth, but he seemed to be basing that largely on cases in Britain alone. In fact in the US alone cases among heterosexuals rose by 3% the previous year to the article. That doesn't contradict his stance at all. What are the actual figures and how do they compare (for context) to the transmission of AIDS through gay sexual activity over the same timeframe? The stated figures support his assertion that rampant Heterosexual AIDS transmission was a myth (remember we were repeatedly told straight sex was as dangerous as gay sex back then) Here's the quote/figures I'm referring to...... Of the 12,565 people in Britain who have developed Aids since the disease was first diagnosed in 1982, a mere 161 have been heterosexuals not exposed to a high-risk category, such as drug abusers or bisexual men. Even that tiny number is probably an exaggeration: just because the authorities have been unable to establish exposure does not mean some of the 161 did not also catch Aids from well-known risks...... I'm open to relevent new info if you can find any..... but for now it seems to me he was justified in his assertions.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Feb 12, 2021 7:35:10 GMT
The argument he backed was that heterosexual AIDS was a myth, but he seemed to be basing that largely on cases in Britain alone. In fact in the US alone cases among heterosexuals rose by 3% the previous year to the article. That doesn't contradict his stance at all. What are the actual figures and how do they compare (for context) to the transmission of AIDS through gay sexual activity over the same timeframe? The stated figures support his assertion that rampant Heterosexual AIDS transmission was a myth (remember we were repeatedly told straight sex was as dangerous as gay sex back then) Here's the quote/figures I'm referring to...... Of the 12,565 people in Britain who have developed Aids since the disease was first diagnosed in 1982, a mere 161 have been heterosexuals not exposed to a high-risk category, such as drug abusers or bisexual men. Even that tiny number is probably an exaggeration: just because the authorities have been unable to establish exposure does not mean some of the 161 did not also catch Aids from well-known risks...... I'm open to relevent new info if you can find any..... but for now it seems to me he was justified in his assertions. You can find figures easily, look at what was happening in Latin America and the Caribbean, look at what was happening in Africa, where 80% of cases were heterosexual. Why do you think he only focused on Britain? Promoting the idea that heterosexual aids was ‘a myth’ was dangerous in 1990 and was dangerous in 1996. www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.pu.11.050190.001015en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Africa?wprov=sfti1www.nature.com/articles/422679apubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3147680/
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on Feb 12, 2021 8:39:54 GMT
That doesn't contradict his stance at all. What are the actual figures and how do they compare (for context) to the transmission of AIDS through gay sexual activity over the same timeframe? The stated figures support his assertion that rampant Heterosexual AIDS transmission was a myth (remember we were repeatedly told straight sex was as dangerous as gay sex back then) Here's the quote/figures I'm referring to...... Of the 12,565 people in Britain who have developed Aids since the disease was first diagnosed in 1982, a mere 161 have been heterosexuals not exposed to a high-risk category, such as drug abusers or bisexual men. Even that tiny number is probably an exaggeration: just because the authorities have been unable to establish exposure does not mean some of the 161 did not also catch Aids from well-known risks...... I'm open to relevent new info if you can find any..... but for now it seems to me he was justified in his assertions. You can find figures easily, look at what was happening in Latin America and the Caribbean, look at what was happening in Africa, where 80% of cases were heterosexual. Why do you think he only focused on Britain? Promoting the idea that heterosexual aids was ‘a myth’ was dangerous in 1990 and was dangerous in 1996. www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.pu.11.050190.001015en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Africa?wprov=sfti1www.nature.com/articles/422679apubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3147680/ He focused on the UK because that's where his readership lived and he thought resources would be better spent on protecting those at most risk (Gays' Drug Users etc) ?
|
|
|
Post by ColonelMustard on Feb 12, 2021 9:02:23 GMT
I have no idea of GB news funding model, and how do they square up in terms of tax patriotism? We have a huge issue with people who hate this country and base their tax affairs overseas being allowed to own vast swathes of our media. It's obvious theres a conflict of interest there. I really dont see why non doms or companies based in tax havens should be allowed to own any of our media (or put money into politics for that matter)
So who funds this thing?
I've just done a 2 minute google and came up with -Some US media company. -A hedge fund guy who is one of the biggest shorters of UK companies and received half of his initial funding from George Soros. - And a company based in Dubai.
These all sound like real patriots but I'm open to information from the fans of the proposed channel.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Feb 12, 2021 9:27:15 GMT
I have no idea of GB news funding model, and how do they square up in terms of tax patriotism? We have a huge issue with people who hate this country and base their tax affairs overseas being allowed to own vast swathes of our media. It's obvious theres a conflict of interest there. I really dont see why non doms or companies based in tax havens should be allowed to own any of our media (or put money into politics for that matter) So who funds this thing? I've just done a 2 minute google and came up with -Some US media company. -A hedge fund guy who is one of the biggest shorters of UK companies and received half of his initial funding from George Soros. - And a company based in Dubai. These all sound like real patriots but I'm open to information from the fans of the proposed channel. Andrew Neil lives in the EU funnily enough.
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on Feb 12, 2021 9:32:31 GMT
I have no idea of GB news funding model, and how do they square up in terms of tax patriotism? We have a huge issue with people who hate this country and base their tax affairs overseas being allowed to own vast swathes of our media. It's obvious theres a conflict of interest there. I really dont see why non doms or companies based in tax havens should be allowed to own any of our media (or put money into politics for that matter) So who funds this thing? I've just done a 2 minute google and came up with -Some US media company. -A hedge fund guy who is one of the biggest shorters of UK companies and received half of his initial funding from George Soros. - And a company based in Dubai. These all sound like real patriots but I'm open to information from the fans of the proposed channel. I agree with the sentiment (Xenophobic as it is!), but which privately funded News outlets actually fulfil your criteria? Obvs BBC and Ch4 do but they are publically funded and have proven themselves to be not fit for purpose with regards to their mandates re impartiality - if they had done there would be no appetite for GB News at all.
|
|
|
Post by ColonelMustard on Feb 12, 2021 9:39:58 GMT
I have no idea of GB news funding model, and how do they square up in terms of tax patriotism? We have a huge issue with people who hate this country and base their tax affairs overseas being allowed to own vast swathes of our media. It's obvious theres a conflict of interest there. I really dont see why non doms or companies based in tax havens should be allowed to own any of our media (or put money into politics for that matter) So who funds this thing? I've just done a 2 minute google and came up with -Some US media company. -A hedge fund guy who is one of the biggest shorters of UK companies and received half of his initial funding from George Soros. - And a company based in Dubai. These all sound like real patriots but I'm open to information from the fans of the proposed channel. I agree with the sentiment (Xenophobic as it is!), but which privately funded News outlets actually fulfil your criteria? Obvs BBC and Ch4 do but they are publically funded and have proven themselves to be not fit for purpose with regards to their mandates re impartiality - if they had done there would be no appetite for GB News at all. It's not xenophobic at all old chap. I really dont care where anyone was born. I care where they live, and where they pay taxes. The are many Britain hating cnuts who were born here and avoid paying their share towards our NHS, public services and armed forces, and many who were born elsewhere who live here, work here and contribute every penny. My post was not an attack on GB news specifically. Not at all. I'd just like to see more made of tax patriotism. And the influence of Britain haters on our media and politics.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Feb 12, 2021 9:42:54 GMT
We cancelled CGTN in the UK so I guess we can't complain.....
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on Feb 12, 2021 9:50:11 GMT
I agree with the sentiment (Xenophobic as it is!), but which privately funded News outlets actually fulfil your criteria? Obvs BBC and Ch4 do but they are publically funded and have proven themselves to be not fit for purpose with regards to their mandates re impartiality - if they had done there would be no appetite for GB News at all. It's not xenophobic at all old chap. I really dont care where anyone was born. I care where they live, and where they pay taxes. The are many Britain hating cnuts who were born here and avoid paying their share towards our NHS, public services and armed forces, and many who were born elsewhere who live here, work here and contribute every penny. My post was not an attack on GB news specifically. Not at all. I'd just like to see more made of tax patriotism. And the influence of Britain haters on our media and politics. Apologies. I should have put a instead of an ! in the brackets.
|
|
|
Post by ColonelMustard on Feb 12, 2021 9:59:49 GMT
It's not xenophobic at all old chap. I really dont care where anyone was born. I care where they live, and where they pay taxes. The are many Britain hating cnuts who were born here and avoid paying their share towards our NHS, public services and armed forces, and many who were born elsewhere who live here, work here and contribute every penny. My post was not an attack on GB news specifically. Not at all. I'd just like to see more made of tax patriotism. And the influence of Britain haters on our media and politics. Apologies. I should have put a ;) instead of an ! in the brackets. Ahhhh... I'm increasingly mellow as my years advance but this issue will see me have sense of humour blind spots. The faux nationalism leveraged by international tax avoiders to further their interests is the scourge of our time.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Feb 12, 2021 10:26:11 GMT
He focused on the UK because that's where his readership lived and he thought resources would be better spent on protecting those at most risk (Gays' Drug Users etc) ? That’s fine. He just shouldn’t have tried to act like it was a ‘myth’ and state it wasn’t a thing when it clearly was. That’s irresponsible.
|
|