Yet the US ranks very low in terms of a free, balanced democracy. The billionaire Ellison (and friend of Trump) now owns most of the broadcast media. The politicians are bought by billionaire money or foreign influencer money. Money determines elections. If people in the US cannot see how corrupt, how bent to the influence of a limited few, how it does not work for the ordinary people - then that explains why it is such a sorry excuse for democracy.
Oh, and its getting worse in the US. Which is why we must applaud the efforts to curtail the influence of money in UK politics.
1 Like
There is certainly some serious discussions and decisions around the internet and social media with regards to politics. Iâve skipped that (for now) because it is beyond the current issues with GBNews.
Please provide evidence for this claim.
For sure, the tech billionaires definitely influence searches, streams, social media and all the rest. I trust we all take a very sceptical view of the info we are pushed. Iâve seen stuff youâve shared that perhaps you might have done a quick simple check on beforehand.
Hence the need to curtail the ability to buy influence and buy elections and buy politicians. Thanks for agreeing with that key point.
I am interested in what you mean by âalmost every countryâ. My own view would be that countries that place strong limits of buying influence might be such countries. Perhaps Canada, Belgium, South Korea are examples.
Iâve never seen or heard of the in the bill of rights.
Itâs a free economy.and they get to say what they want.
The rest is yadie yasie yadie. Nothing about freedom of other countries that are as equal to Americans freedoms.
1 Like
Check the ownership of other countries, same thing. Deflecting
1 Like
Yup, done that check. Many countries have billionaire owners of one or two broadcast channels, while the rest remain otherwise owned. No country, aside from the US and Russia and North Korea, has a single ownership of the majority of broadcast operations. Iâm amazed that you are not worried about this.
1 Like
Youâre free to turn off your tv or not read any of the newspapers, if people want to believe the BS, thatâs their right, just as itâs yours to pretend the left-wing is not as corrupt as the right-wing.
From what weâve seen in the last 30-40 years, theyâre all as corrupt as each other as soon as they get their feet under the table in Westminster.
3 Likes
Hi
I think you are wrong about that.
I worked for decades for them.
I know that at least three of them are dead genuine.
1 Like
I need to remind you that in the UK the rules around impartiality are different for newspapers than for TV. The issue is not about being able to switch off the TV or not. The issue is about GBTV signing up to these rules and then completely flaunting them. Once you have understood the issue better then you comment back.
1 Like
I understand the issue perfectly, you want to dictate to everybody, just like your leader. 
2 Likes
It does not appear that you do understand the issue as your post only referred to switching the TV off and your view that all politicians are corrupt. Neither notion has any bearing on the issue that Offcom is allowing GBNews to act as a broadcast vehicle for the reform party.
Iâm dictating nothing, Iâm just pointed out that your post and the views you shared were not relevant. That is, you were not providing any sort of answer to the issue of GBNewsâ rule breakingâŠ
Iâd also note that the suggestion of âyou can simply turn the TV offâ is the same as âI cannot see any problem here, we should let GBNews do what it wants regardless of rules, and besides I quite like a lot of what they say, but if you donât like it then reach for the remote controller.â.
I think the point here is: There are too many rules concerning freedom of speech, GB News should be able to support who and what they want as long as itâs not extremism or hatred.
You have yourself accused many news outlets of being biased one way or another, so whatâs so wrong about GB News favouring ReformâŠCall it a party political broadcast. Thatâs what the BBC do.
2 Likes
The rules governing the impartiality of TV broadcasts are not set randomly or without reason. And certainly not to disadvantage Reform. The worry that is being addressed with these rules is about the possibility of one party (I do not mean political party - I mean person, or company or institute or government) gaining ownership of a TV channel and using that to promote the political views that party supports. It is not impossible to imagine a rich individual, or a trade union, or a foreign company (perhaps directly linked to a foreign power) taking such ownership. There are 480 UK TV channels but in reality there are only about 10 of note in terms of offering news and opinion programming. So it is quite possible for that to happen to Channel 5, or Sky News or even (if sold off like some Tories wanted) Channel 4. The rules are there to prevent 24/7 push of political views from one side only. It is naive to think that this is not a possibility.
And Iâm not accusing GBNews of being biased - that is what you see when a news article favours one angle of a story. I agree that BBC and others do this. No, what GBNews does is offer entire programming to one party, hour after hour, with leaders from that party given their own platform âŠbut no such platform for other parties. That is not bias, that is endorsement.
Its very difficult, getting to the Nitty Gritty whilst remining impartial.
As far as I am aware it is not compulsory to watch GBNews - I think their viewers consist of those who agree with them anyway. As for bias - didnât the BBC splice two speeches of Trump to make it look like he said something he didnât (no I am not a fan of his - scares the bejesus out of me!)
2 Likes
So allowing censorship through rules, isnât that how state media works in China and North Korea. The only difference is in the UK, by censoring everything, they make you think that censorship is doing you a favour and is good for you. I watch the green party telling me how good they are, and if Jesus ever returned to earth he would probably subscribe to the green party, but it doesnât make me want to vote for them⊠
I will probably vote for Reform though because they are doing good things in my neck of the woods.
We are not talking about censorship, are we?
No difference between censorship and rules. If you donât want the media to cover something, just make some rules against it.
Look what they did with covid and the vaccines, and now with net zero and CO2 nobody was allowed to criticise or even question.
2 Likes
Foxy, who could have disassociated themselves from the effects of a pandemic and actually been in control of the situation? persons in a bunker?
1 Like
You need to explain how a rule that requires that a balance of views is presented is the same as censorship. To compare the two and call them the same is self-evident rubbish.
That statement is your opinion, to which you are at liberty to share, but to others it will not be rubbish. Everyoneâs opinion will differ, so please take this into account.
2 Likes