Grooming Gangs + Tommy Robinson Thread
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Teddy Eagle  22 Mar 23 9.42pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Who I approve is pretty irrelevant in the scale of things. I might approve of everything that's legal, but that doesn't mean I like it or trust it. Except every link is dismissed as being from a biased source or lacking context or being agenda driven or rabble rousing or sensationalist or pandering or something else.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
 Wisbech Eagle  Truro Cornwall 22 Mar 23 10.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Except every link is dismissed as being from a biased source or lacking context or being agenda driven or rabble rousing or sensationalist or pandering or something else. Depends on who it comes from. I instinctively distrust anything coming from multimillionaires with a political agenda. People like Lord Rothermere, the Barclay brothers and, of course, Rupert Murdoch. So I gravitate towards sources that are free of such influence. Which is almost impossible to find in the newspapers, whether on paper or online. So the BBC are my go to, primary source.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| georgenorman 23 Mar 23 7.14am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Depends on who it comes from. I instinctively distrust anything coming from multimillionaires with a political agenda. People like Lord Rothermere, the Barclay brothers and, of course, Rupert Murdoch. So I gravitate towards sources that are free of such influence. Which is almost impossible to find in the newspapers, whether on paper or online. So the BBC are my go to, primary source. Surely you subscribe to Bakery Insider and Cakenomics - if only to ensure that any icing is on message?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
PalazioVecchio  south pole 23 Mar 23 8.16am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
the BBC are my go to, primary source. that would explain a lot.
Eze Peasy at Anfield.... |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 23 Mar 23 9.08am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by PalazioVecchio
that would explain a lot. This might be more appropriate in the BBC thread, but as it is in the context of a comparison with newspapers I'll leave it here. BBC mission statement, in its charter:-"to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which ​inform, educate​ and ​entertain​." The BBC is funded by us, via a licence fee, is independent of government, and free of commercial pressures and the need to be "popular", in order to attract advertising revenue. So you explain why sources controlled by multimillionaires with open political agendas are likely to provide a better quality experience? Those who express distrust or dislike for the BBC inevitably do so because of their own political standpoint, whether that's on the left or the right. Most of us prefer information presented without any political spin.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| georgenorman 23 Mar 23 9.22am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
This might be more appropriate in the BBC thread, but as it is in the context of a comparison with newspapers I'll leave it here. BBC mission statement, in its charter:-"to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which ​inform, educate​ and ​entertain​." The BBC is funded by us, via a licence fee, is independent of government, and free of commercial pressures and the need to be "popular", in order to attract advertising revenue. So you explain why sources controlled by multimillionaires with open political agendas are likely to provide a better quality experience? Those who express distrust or dislike for the BBC inevitably do so because of their own political standpoint, whether that's on the left or the right. Most of us prefer information presented without any political spin. Yes, but what about you?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| PalazioVecchio south pole 23 Mar 23 10.16am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
This might be more appropriate in the BBC thread, but as it is in the context of a comparison with newspapers I'll leave it here. BBC mission statement, in its charter:-"to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which ​inform, educate​ and ​entertain​." The BBC is funded by us, via a licence fee, is independent of government, and free of commercial pressures and the need to be "popular", in order to attract advertising revenue. So you explain why sources controlled by multimillionaires with open political agendas are likely to provide a better quality experience? Those who express distrust or dislike for the BBC inevitably do so because of their own political standpoint, whether that's on the left or the right. Most of us prefer information presented without any political spin. are you on drugs ? and if so, can you please only log onto HOL when you are feeling the need for another fix. And not when you are 'coming up' ? Edited by PalazioVecchio (23 Mar 2023 10.22am)
Eze Peasy at Anfield.... |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| georgenorman 23 Mar 23 10.30am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
This might be more appropriate in the BBC thread, but as it is in the context of a comparison with newspapers I'll leave it here. BBC mission statement, in its charter:-"to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which ​inform, educate​ and ​entertain​." The BBC is funded by us, via a licence fee, is independent of government, and free of commercial pressures and the need to be "popular", in order to attract advertising revenue. So you explain why sources controlled by multimillionaires with open political agendas are likely to provide a better quality experience? Those who express distrust or dislike for the BBC inevitably do so because of their own political standpoint, whether that's on the left or the right. Most of us prefer information presented without any political spin. Those who express trust or admiration for the BBC inevitably do so because of their own political standpoint, whether that's on the left or the right.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Forest Hillbilly  in a hidey-hole 23 Mar 23 1.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
This might be more appropriate in the BBC thread, but as it is in the context of a comparison with newspapers I'll leave it here. BBC mission statement, in its charter:-"to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which ​inform, educate​ and ​entertain​." The BBC is funded by us, via a licence fee, is independent of government, and free of commercial pressures and the need to be "popular", in order to attract advertising revenue. So you explain why sources controlled by multimillionaires with open political agendas are likely to provide a better quality experience? Those who express distrust or dislike for the BBC inevitably do so because of their own political standpoint, whether that's on the left or the right. Most of us prefer information presented without any political spin. This is just absolute GOLD
"The facts have changed", Rishi Sunak |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
^^^| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 23 Mar 23 8.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
Yes, but what about you? I manage it. I use, bound by its charter, the unbiased BBC.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| the silurian The garden of England.(not really) 23 Mar 23 8.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I manage it. I use, bound by its charter, the unbiased BBC. hahahah!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 23 Mar 23 9.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
Those who express trust or admiration for the BBC inevitably do so because of their own political standpoint, whether that's on the left or the right. Please explain what part of "to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services" you don't understand. Especially the word "impartial". The way the right, and indeed the left, constantly perceive bias in the BBC and moan about it is nothing new. It's just unfortunate that this site has a majority of right leaning posters whose prejudices against the BBC are laid bare in threads like this. So we regularly witness a festival of mutual bias confirmation which says so much more about them than ever it does about the BBC. Some of the recent posts are typical of this. It's both embarrassing to recognise that people really believe this, and amusing to see delusion.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.