This Lineker thing

[danumdon]

Is the Guardian impartial or just always true?

It is neither.

Correct, and have no doubt, the Guardian will always have its narrative of holding any government to account on its pet likes.

Im sure the Labour party know very well that they'll be scrutinised as much if not more than the Tories by them and will not be getting an easier time. They will be expecting more and will not be happy when Labour start to prevaricate and have to take the big decisions that they talk about but have no responsibilities for at this time. Very easy to snipe fro the touchlines, (we do it at Rovers every week) but more difficult when you have to make the big decisions.

Professional agitators will agitate, its what they do.

[ncRover]

Off topic will certainly have a different dynamic after the next election.

[danumdon]

Off topic will certainly have a different dynamic after the next election.

I'll give it five minutes before some are straight at the throat of Starmer and his team, and that i'll be from this governments biggest critics.

[ncRover]

Corporation tax at 25% from Hunt! You think pressure on Starmer from the left when he keeps it at that? “Red Tory” etc.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Is the Guardian impartial or just always true?

It was simply reporting objective facts here. Unless you think Guardian journalists routinely lie on matters of Objective Truth, I'd say that's an irrelevant question.

[wilts rover]

Every time there is a discussion about leaving the BBC to fund itself on a commercial basis, it’s highest paid employees go all dewy-eyed and lecture us about how good it is. They start talking about it as if it is up there with a national institution like the NHS saying stuff like “our BBC”.

If it is so good, then surely it will flourish commercially? What are they scared of? The pushback says it all. Switching to a commercial model would probably allow it to have a higher quality output eventually because that’s the world we live in.

The license fee comes from a time where BBC was the only thing available. Even in the last 10 years, the competition in the market and choices available has gone through the roof. People can even start from nothing and become multi-millionaires on their YouTube channel.

I bet the that the BBC takes up less than 1% of an under-18s screen time. I can save myself a full hour and just watch the premier league highlights on the sky sports YouTube channel. A sour-faced Danny Murphy telling me a full-back needs to get tighter isn’t worth staying up for.

I detest commercial breaks in television and radio broadcasting.  The BBC operates three TV channels and innumerable radio stations that provide commercial-free service and in the case of radio, a good selection of speech-based stations for those who want more than music and cringeworthy local advertising.


In other words the BBC broadcasts a vastly different offering than any commercial radio station which would not exist without the funding model operated with the BBC.


And as for 'switching to a commercial model allowing it to have a higher quality output'.  Don't make me laugh.

Each to their own. I haven’t watched anything on the bbc since Peaky Blinders and don’t really listen to it’s stations either (Spotify premium does all that). But still I have to pay.

I dont have kids - but I have to pay to educate someone else's. A nuclear deterrent wont protect me (I read on here) but I have to pay not to use it. I dont drive much - but I have to pay for other people to use the roads.

Unlike watching tv I have no way of getting out of this. If you dont want to pay a tv licence - dont watch tv - easy as that.

So basically, you don't benefit from well mannered and educated kids in this country, because you don't have any?

You don't get any benefit from the country being in a position to defend itself from invaders, try talking to some poor bugger from Ukraine.

You don't drive much?, but you do benefit from a road network that gets you to where you need to be and provides you with all your life's necessities.

And you don't have any way of getting out of this?

Unbelievable. and i had the impression you wee a teacher?

If that's not some major whataboutery there then i don't know what is.

Why did you think I was a teacher? I have never been a teacher.

Obviously my mistake then, i should of relised that a teacher would of never said what you did.

So, Mr i dont drive, have kids or do anything that requires me to contribute to the state, live under a rock in the hill's do we?

I pay for things which I don't personally benefit from and don't have a problem with it - it's called benefiting society. If you dont want to contribute but are happy to benefit from others who do - like me - then perhaps you need to find your own rock in the hills to live under.

Where did I say I don't drive?

[wilts rover]

Every time there is a discussion about leaving the BBC to fund itself on a commercial basis, it’s highest paid employees go all dewy-eyed and lecture us about how good it is. They start talking about it as if it is up there with a national institution like the NHS saying stuff like “our BBC”.

If it is so good, then surely it will flourish commercially? What are they scared of? The pushback says it all. Switching to a commercial model would probably allow it to have a higher quality output eventually because that’s the world we live in.

The license fee comes from a time where BBC was the only thing available. Even in the last 10 years, the competition in the market and choices available has gone through the roof. People can even start from nothing and become multi-millionaires on their YouTube channel.

I bet the that the BBC takes up less than 1% of an under-18s screen time. I can save myself a full hour and just watch the premier league highlights on the sky sports YouTube channel. A sour-faced Danny Murphy telling me a full-back needs to get tighter isn’t worth staying up for.

I detest commercial breaks in television and radio broadcasting.  The BBC operates three TV channels and innumerable radio stations that provide commercial-free service and in the case of radio, a good selection of speech-based stations for those who want more than music and cringeworthy local advertising.


In other words the BBC broadcasts a vastly different offering than any commercial radio station which would not exist without the funding model operated with the BBC.


And as for 'switching to a commercial model allowing it to have a higher quality output'.  Don't make me laugh.

Each to their own. I haven’t watched anything on the bbc since Peaky Blinders and don’t really listen to it’s stations either (Spotify premium does all that). But still I have to pay.

I dont have kids - but I have to pay to educate someone else's. A nuclear deterrent wont protect me (I read on here) but I have to pay not to use it. I dont drive much - but I have to pay for other people to use the roads.

Unlike watching tv I have no way of getting out of this. If you dont want to pay a tv licence - dont watch tv - easy as that.

You’re conflating TV with the BBC.

Do you have Netflix Wilts?

Nope. Never even seen it. Never had Sky either.

But millions of other people do.

How would you feel if you were suddenly forced to pay for it in order to provide everyone with a better service?

Also, please provide some evidence that Sky / ITV news are less impartial than the BBC. Didn’t newsnight do that graphic of Corbyn looking like a communist revolutionary? You can’t have liked that.

https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2018/may/11/bbc-rejects-complaints-newsnight-corbyn-russian

Can't I? Who knew! Did you, being a regular Newsnight viewer?

[SydneyRover]

nc how many commercial entities are likely to be supported by public finances? oh, except for banks, oh and energy companies, oh and train companies and ..........

[ncRover]

Is the Guardian impartial or just always true?

It was simply reporting objective facts here. Unless you think Guardian journalists routinely lie on matters of Objective Truth, I'd say that's an irrelevant question.

I know, I was just speaking in general.

Unless you’re Mike Graham claiming that you can grow concrete, not many flat out lie.

A bias comes from what the paper chooses to cover and what it doesn’t.

[ncRover]

nc how many commercial entities are likely to be supported by public finances? oh, except for banks, oh and energy companies, oh and train companies and ..........

More whataboutery, yawn.

[ncRover]

Every time there is a discussion about leaving the BBC to fund itself on a commercial basis, it’s highest paid employees go all dewy-eyed and lecture us about how good it is. They start talking about it as if it is up there with a national institution like the NHS saying stuff like “our BBC”.

If it is so good, then surely it will flourish commercially? What are they scared of? The pushback says it all. Switching to a commercial model would probably allow it to have a higher quality output eventually because that’s the world we live in.

The license fee comes from a time where BBC was the only thing available. Even in the last 10 years, the competition in the market and choices available has gone through the roof. People can even start from nothing and become multi-millionaires on their YouTube channel.

I bet the that the BBC takes up less than 1% of an under-18s screen time. I can save myself a full hour and just watch the premier league highlights on the sky sports YouTube channel. A sour-faced Danny Murphy telling me a full-back needs to get tighter isn’t worth staying up for.

I detest commercial breaks in television and radio broadcasting.  The BBC operates three TV channels and innumerable radio stations that provide commercial-free service and in the case of radio, a good selection of speech-based stations for those who want more than music and cringeworthy local advertising.


In other words the BBC broadcasts a vastly different offering than any commercial radio station which would not exist without the funding model operated with the BBC.


And as for 'switching to a commercial model allowing it to have a higher quality output'.  Don't make me laugh.

Each to their own. I haven’t watched anything on the bbc since Peaky Blinders and don’t really listen to it’s stations either (Spotify premium does all that). But still I have to pay.

I dont have kids - but I have to pay to educate someone else's. A nuclear deterrent wont protect me (I read on here) but I have to pay not to use it. I dont drive much - but I have to pay for other people to use the roads.

Unlike watching tv I have no way of getting out of this. If you dont want to pay a tv licence - dont watch tv - easy as that.

You’re conflating TV with the BBC.

Do you have Netflix Wilts?

Nope. Never even seen it. Never had Sky either.

But millions of other people do.

How would you feel if you were suddenly forced to pay for it in order to provide everyone with a better service?

Also, please provide some evidence that Sky / ITV news are less impartial than the BBC. Didn’t newsnight do that graphic of Corbyn looking like a communist revolutionary? You can’t have liked that.

https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2018/may/11/bbc-rejects-complaints-newsnight-corbyn-russian

Can't I? Who knew! Did you, being a regular Newsnight viewer?

I don’t really see the relevance your sarcastic comment has to my point.

Maybe you did like it and you’re even further left than I thought.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Is the Guardian impartial or just always true?

It was simply reporting objective facts here. Unless you think Guardian journalists routinely lie on matters of Objective Truth, I'd say that's an irrelevant question.

I know, I was just speaking in general.

Unless you’re Mike Graham claiming that you can grow concrete, not many flat out lie.

A bias comes from what the paper chooses to cover and what it doesn’t.

I agree entirely that every media outlet has unconscious bias. What you want ideally is a range on information providers that try, honestly, to deliver news which doesn't deliberately distort issues of Objective Truth.

Unfortunately, our print media is hugely skewed towards right wing positions and I know from bitter personal experience that the Mail for one is quite prepared to consciously and deliberately mislead its readers by misrepresenting Objective Truth to suit its political and editorial stance.

[ncRover]

Is the Guardian impartial or just always true?

It was simply reporting objective facts here. Unless you think Guardian journalists routinely lie on matters of Objective Truth, I'd say that's an irrelevant question.

I know, I was just speaking in general.

Unless you’re Mike Graham claiming that you can grow concrete, not many flat out lie.

A bias comes from what the paper chooses to cover and what it doesn’t.

I agree entirely that every media outlet has unconscious bias. What you want ideally is a range on information providers that try, honestly, to deliver news which doesn't deliberately distort issues of Objective Truth.

Unfortunately, our print media is hugely skewed towards right wing positions and I know from bitter personal experience that the Mail for one is quite prepared to consciously and deliberately mislead its readers by misrepresenting Objective Truth to suit its political and editorial stance.

Valid point on it being skewed. I think that becomes less and less relevant nowadays though with social and alternative media. Everything is freely available to those who seek it.

For example rtid91 told me to look at Novara media and double down news that are very left wing.

But in terms of the traditional MSM:

Right

Sun
Telegraph
Mail
Express


Centre

Independent
Times
Metro


Left

Guardian
Mirror

Would you agree?

[danumdon]

Every time there is a discussion about leaving the BBC to fund itself on a commercial basis, it’s highest paid employees go all dewy-eyed and lecture us about how good it is. They start talking about it as if it is up there with a national institution like the NHS saying stuff like “our BBC”.

If it is so good, then surely it will flourish commercially? What are they scared of? The pushback says it all. Switching to a commercial model would probably allow it to have a higher quality output eventually because that’s the world we live in.

The license fee comes from a time where BBC was the only thing available. Even in the last 10 years, the competition in the market and choices available has gone through the roof. People can even start from nothing and become multi-millionaires on their YouTube channel.

I bet the that the BBC takes up less than 1% of an under-18s screen time. I can save myself a full hour and just watch the premier league highlights on the sky sports YouTube channel. A sour-faced Danny Murphy telling me a full-back needs to get tighter isn’t worth staying up for.

I detest commercial breaks in television and radio broadcasting.  The BBC operates three TV channels and innumerable radio stations that provide commercial-free service and in the case of radio, a good selection of speech-based stations for those who want more than music and cringeworthy local advertising.


In other words the BBC broadcasts a vastly different offering than any commercial radio station which would not exist without the funding model operated with the BBC.


And as for 'switching to a commercial model allowing it to have a higher quality output'.  Don't make me laugh.

Each to their own. I haven’t watched anything on the bbc since Peaky Blinders and don’t really listen to it’s stations either (Spotify premium does all that). But still I have to pay.

I dont have kids - but I have to pay to educate someone else's. A nuclear deterrent wont protect me (I read on here) but I have to pay not to use it. I dont drive much - but I have to pay for other people to use the roads.

Unlike watching tv I have no way of getting out of this. If you dont want to pay a tv licence - dont watch tv - easy as that.

So basically, you don't benefit from well mannered and educated kids in this country, because you don't have any?

You don't get any benefit from the country being in a position to defend itself from invaders, try talking to some poor bugger from Ukraine.

You don't drive much?, but you do benefit from a road network that gets you to where you need to be and provides you with all your life's necessities.

And you don't have any way of getting out of this?

Unbelievable. and i had the impression you wee a teacher?

If that's not some major whataboutery there then i don't know what is.

Why did you think I was a teacher? I have never been a teacher.

Obviously my mistake then, i should of relised that a teacher would of never said what you did.

So, Mr i dont drive, have kids or do anything that requires me to contribute to the state, live under a rock in the hill's do we?

I pay for things which I don't personally benefit from and don't have a problem with it - it's called benefiting society. If you dont want to contribute but are happy to benefit from others who do - like me - then perhaps you need to find your own rock in the hills to live under.

Where did I say I don't drive?

The only person here who was complaining about contributing to the overall good of society in general was you, not sure why you would try to turn it around onto me after i've pulled you up for it?

As for myself i've no issue whatsoever in contributing towards the benefit of people in society who are less fortunate, i'd say my contribution is more than most in tax and ni.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I'd broadly agree with that. Although:

1) The right wing tabloids have collectively a far, far bigger circulation than the Mirror

2) I'd put the Times at centre-right

3) The Guardian is nowhere near as far to the Left as the Telegraph is to the Right. The Guardian has regularly chucked its support to the LDs at Elections. The Telegraph has never to my knowledge been anything less than a 100% Tory supporting paper - it prides itself on effectively being the newspaper of the Tory party.



And yes, I'd agree that NM and DDN are very left wing (to the extent that they do what the Hard Left always does and spend as much time fighting with the rest of the Left as they do criticising the Right).

But they are minnows compared to the very right wing new media outlets.

A look at the Twitter follower numbers is instructive:


NM - 184k
DDN - 240k
GB News - 523k

Julia Hartley-Brewer alone on TalkTV has 433k followers.

[danumdon]

You both forgot to add the FT which has over the years become a left leaning paper.

Their comments sections is unbelievably left wing.

Id be interested in your view on why the right wing press has such a larger circulation?

[BillyStubbsTears]

DD.

Martin Wolf is the top economics opinion writer at the FT. Has been for 35 years.

He says his opinions on economics have remained the same throughout his adult life, but he's moved from centre right to centre left.

[ncRover]

You both forgot to add the FT which has over the years become a left leaning paper.

Their comments sections is unbelievably left wing.

Id be interested in your view on why the right wing press has such a larger circulation?

A good question

[ncRover]

I'd broadly agree with that. Although:

1) The right wing tabloids have collectively a far, far bigger circulation than the Mirror

2) I'd put the Times at centre-right

3) The Guardian is nowhere near as far to the Left as the Telegraph is to the Right. The Guardian has regularly chucked its support to the LDs at Elections. The Telegraph has never to my knowledge been anything less than a 100% Tory supporting paper - it prides itself on effectively being the newspaper of the Tory party.



And yes, I'd agree that NM and DDN are very left wing (to the extent that they do what the Hard Left always does and spend as much time fighting with the rest of the Left as they do criticising the Right).

But they are minnows compared to the very right wing new media outlets.

A look at the Twitter follower numbers is instructive:


NM - 184k
DDN - 240k
GB News - 523k

Julia Hartley-Brewer alone on TalkTV has 433k followers.

Where would you personally put Lib Dems on the political spectrum? Dead centre?

*actually where would you put them all?

[BillyStubbsTears]

You both forgot to add the FT which has over the years become a left leaning paper.

Their comments sections is unbelievably left wing.

Id be interested in your view on why the right wing press has such a larger circulation?

In the case of the Sun, because they won the tits and bingo wars of the 70s and 80s against the Mirror.

In the case of the Mail and Express, because they set themselves up to target what they saw as the aspirational working class/artisanal middle class who have traditionally been on the right of politics. There simply wasn't a historical space there for a paper of the Left, whose historical support came from the oppressed working class and the intellectual middle class.

It produced some bizarre outcomes.

My grandad was a life long Labour party member, a NUM union official and a local councillor. But he'd also been brought up as a Methodist. So he wouldn't have the Mirror in the house when it was showing bare tits every day. Instead, he bought the Express for what it provided on factual news, football reports and the cards for the horses. I never once saw him read the opinion pieces, where the Express's deeply right wing editorial policy came out.

[danumdon]

DD.

Martin Wolf is the top economics opinion writer at the FT. Has been for 35 years.

He says his opinions on economics have remained the same throughout his adult life, but he's moved from centre right to centre left.

I should of explained  myself better, i was referring to the readers comments sections which seems to have been high-jacked by some weird internationalist cabal of left wing thinking folk

If Martin Wolf says his opinions on economics have remained the same throughout his adult life, but he's moved from centre right to centre left then it just goes to show that theirs basically a gnats chuff of difference between mainstream parties these days.

The presentation is dressed up with grand rhetoric but the final implementation for a large section of society is similar.

[danumdon]

You both forgot to add the FT which has over the years become a left leaning paper.

Their comments sections is unbelievably left wing.

Id be interested in your view on why the right wing press has such a larger circulation?

In the case of the Sun, because they won the tits and bingo wars of the 70s and 80s against the Mirror.

In the case of the Mail and Express, because they set themselves up to target what they saw as the aspirational working class/artisanal middle class who have traditionally been on the right of politics. There simply wasn't a historical space there for a paper of the Left, whose historical support came from the oppressed working class and the intellectual middle class.

It produced some bizarre outcomes.

My grandad was a life long Labour party member, a NUM union official and a local councillor. But he'd also been brought up as a Methodist. So he wouldn't have the Mirror in the house when it was showing bare tits every day. Instead, he bought the Express for what it provided on factual news, football reports and the cards for the horses. I never once saw him read the opinion pieces, where the Express's deeply right wing editorial policy came out.

That is bizarre but your grandad was obviously a man of strict principle, nothing wrong with that but ironic as you were earlier mentioning how people need a cross section of opinions and ideas to form a better understanding of the way of the world.

Seems like grandad and grand son may have had a completely different outlook on the world if eventually reaching the same avenue? which is not an uncommon situation.

[SydneyRover]

nc how many commercial entities are likely to be supported by public finances? oh, except for banks, oh and energy companies, oh and train companies and ..........

More whataboutery, yawn.

Only if you consider it should be a totally user paid society along with the other things Wilts pointed out such as education.

[BillyStubbsTears]

DD.

Martin Wolf is the top economics opinion writer at the FT. Has been for 35 years.

He says his opinions on economics have remained the same throughout his adult life, but he's moved from centre right to centre left.

I should of explained  myself better, i was referring to the readers comments sections which seems to have been high-jacked by some weird internationalist cabal of left wing thinking folk

If Martin Wolf says his opinions on economics have remained the same throughout his adult life, but he's moved from centre right to centre left then it just goes to show that theirs basically a gnats chuff of difference between mainstream parties these days.

The presentation is dressed up with grand rhetoric but the final implementation for a large section of society is similar.

Sorry DD but you are missing the point that the extremely intelligent and thoughtful Wolf is making.

It's not that there's no difference between centre left and centre right. The massive change of direction in 2010 proves that.

It's that the balance of political opinion of what is "mainstream" economics has changed from a broadly Keynesian approach to a broadly Austrian approach.

Wolf has economic beliefs that would have fitted in Macmillan's Govt. The fact is that current right wing political beliefs in how to run the economy are WAY to the right of that.

That's the point he is making. If I may say so, it's reflected in many of your own contributions which are equally to the right of where we were 60 years ago, while you say you're politically neutral.

[i_ateallthepies]

You both forgot to add the FT which has over the years become a left leaning paper.

Their comments sections is unbelievably left wing.

Id be interested in your view on why the right wing press has such a larger circulation?

It all depends on where your personal fulcrum point is.  Anyone far Right would see the FT as being left of themselves.  You would need to be almost off the scale to see it as Left Wing.

[BillyStubbsTears]

How apt when we were talking about media bias

https://twitter.com/lizziedearden/status/1636470677829025797?s=20

[danumdon]

DD.

Martin Wolf is the top economics opinion writer at the FT. Has been for 35 years.

He says his opinions on economics have remained the same throughout his adult life, but he's moved from centre right to centre left.

I should of explained  myself better, i was referring to the readers comments sections which seems to have been high-jacked by some weird internationalist cabal of left wing thinking folk

If Martin Wolf says his opinions on economics have remained the same throughout his adult life, but he's moved from centre right to centre left then it just goes to show that theirs basically a gnats chuff of difference between mainstream parties these days.

The presentation is dressed up with grand rhetoric but the final implementation for a large section of society is similar.

Sorry DD but you are missing the point that the extremely intelligent and thoughtful Wolf is making.

It's not that there's no difference between centre left and centre right. The massive change of direction in 2010 proves that.

It's that the balance of political opinion of what is "mainstream" economics has changed from a broadly Keynesian approach to a broadly Austrian approach.

Wolf has economic beliefs that would have fitted in Macmillan's Govt. The fact is that current right wing political beliefs in how to run the economy are WAY to the right of that.

That's the point he is making. If I may say so, it's reflected in many of your own contributions which are equally to the right of where we were 60 years ago, while you say you're politically neutral.

In your opinion,

I wasn’t around 60 years ago so I’m, not going to make any protestations about the political climate then. However I will say that it seems very apt that someone from the left would say something like this, when you look back at the Labour Party of M Foot and J Callaghan compared to now and then add in the Tory party of M Thatcher and Major it’s pretty plain to see that there has been a sea change in political thought and deeds. The mainstream of both the left and right has started to merge into a jumble of political thought that in some instances are interchangeable. When you talk about the governments political beliefs are way to the right of McMillan then you can also make a case current Labour political beliefs being to the right of traditional Labour values. Social values from both side have seen change.

The population as a whole will have had some change in their beliefs, be they politically or socially as the times we live in change, it’s just that some will have had a far greater conversion than others, especially folk with left leaning and very liberal outlooks, who take very well to the current agendas and push them for all their worth.

I take political parties on their actions, not their words and consider good social and political policy from whichever side of the dived it comes, and would support it be it Labour or Tory.

[BillyStubbsTears]

DD.

I'm sorry but that is lazy nonsense.

There is very little similarity between the economic policies over the last 15 years of the Tory party (emphasising debt and Austerity) and those of Labour (Keynesian Reflation).

If you think they are some sort of equivalent mush, I despair.

[danumdon]

You both forgot to add the FT which has over the years become a left leaning paper.

Their comments sections is unbelievably left wing.

Id be interested in your view on why the right wing press has such a larger circulation?

It all depends on where your personal fulcrum point is.  Anyone far Right would see the FT as being left of themselves.  You would need to be almost off the scale to see it as Left Wing.

Do you read the FT?

Have you read any of the readers comments sections lately?

What was your point again?

[danumdon]

DD.

I'm sorry but that is lazy nonsense.

There is very little similarity between the economic policies over the last 15 years of the Tory party (emphasising debt and Austerity) and those of Labour (Keynesian Reflation).

If you think they are some sort of equivalent mush, I despair.

Can you explain why Labour when in power did nothing about the botched privatisations of Rail, energy, water.?

Or is it a case of sing loudly when in opposition but act very differently in government?