the BBC

From: william (WILLIAMA)21 May 22:38
To: Manthorp 1 of 13
I came here because I don't want to discuss this on twitter and I've probably upset enough of my friends on other forums. I loathe the BBC in so many ways. Mainly because it's not a genuinely independent body. It's tied to the wealthy figures of the establishment and now has Tim Davie, a tory activist as its Director General and Richard Sharp, another tory who was an advisor to Boris Johnson as Chairman of the Governors. For years, at least since the 70s when, like Skynet, it became self-aware and realised it was tory, it has been subtly - and not so subtly - distorting language so that the Conservative party always wins an election whereas the Labour party always seizes power. It promotes the left, at the same time as the heart of the nation, Mrs Brown, shits on those lefty pretenders. It lusts after Nish Kumar, but batters him with its wanking hand.

Problem is, it's all we have. That is, it's all we have that is paid for by all of us who watch television in the UK. So it's kind of important. 

And now it's going to die at the hands of a fake scandal over an interview with Lady Di. Ambitious knob-head Martin Bashir wanted to interview a sad, depressive, upper-middle who had ruined her life by saying yes to Royal-robo-prince, Charles, a man totally at home in the cyber-world of wealth 'n privilege. Bash-boy tried to guarantee his opportunity by faking up some documents that made those royals seem worse than  more or less the same as they were. What a tit; she was well up for a public-airing anyway. She'd been stabbed and rubbished and shat on by everybody since she said "yes". Oddly enough, the same people who are now saying what a bastard Bash is for doing wrong by her. Oh, and they're all saying the BBC needs to be reviewed.

Review /rɪˈvjuː/ 1) assess (something) formally with the intention of instituting change which is patently necessary because of the clear woke bias. 2) a process of withdrawing funding because it's MY money and I don't want to pay for POOR and LAZY people to be entertained. Public funds are supposed to go in my trough for my snout.

Jesus - we stand to lose public-service broadcasting with the fucking royal family as an excuse (yes guvn'r yer dead right m'lord. couldn't 'ave a better cause lord luv yer - they're our betters an' all that).

So, bye bye to all that. Hello to, what, fascism? Couldn't happen here.

Edit: Oh yes, now after sober reflection - apologies to Mr Manthrob to whom this is addressed. It was inspired by one of your postings out in the Twittersphere
 
EDITED: 22 May 09:12 by WILLIAMA
From: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)22 May 13:12
To: william (WILLIAMA) 2 of 13
This is an odd story. I'm liking this headline in our local paper: "Reporter used deceit to connect with Diana." Like, wow, really?
From: william (WILLIAMA)22 May 14:02
To: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX) 3 of 13
Papers such as the Sun, News of the World, the Telegraph, Daily Express, Daily Mail, all right wing and frequently tipping into the extreme right wing, incessantly published gossip, inuendo, salacious rumours, paparazzi photos etc etc. about Diana. Alongside this, not only did she (apparently) get zero support from the Royals, her lovely old man, Charles, was busy shagging Camilla Parker Bowles, the wife of Brigadier and all-round aristo-knob, Andrew Parker Bowles.

Finally, in a fit of pique, and possibly desparation, she pored out the whole story in the notorious Martin Bashir BBC interview. Shortly after, marriage ends, she gets killed alongside Dodi Fayed as their half-pissed driver, Henri Paul, attempted to escape yet more paparazzi.

Now that Bashir's ham-fisted, and probably unnecessary duplicity has emerged, the same papers who caused all the grief are all "Bastards Bashir and BBC. YOU caused the marriage to fail, you basically killed our beloved Lady Di." The tory party, who loathe public provision much as vampires hate sunlight, can't wait to twist the BBC even harder. Personally, I doubt they'll sell it off. They'll simply force it to follow the tory party line even more closely. After all, it's got a big audience and the public pays for it. 
From: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)22 May 14:40
To: william (WILLIAMA) 4 of 13
"Bashir" (nudge, wink) is the villain of the piece? Clever!
From: Manthorp 1 Jun 00:27
To: william (WILLIAMA) 5 of 13
Soz WmA, only just seen this.

I worked closely with the BBC when I built Bradford's big screen and found them insufferably arrogant, and often wrong. What Bashir did to secure his interview with Diana was execrable, and very much par for the media course at the time, Shire Tories believe that the BBC is a hotbed of Communism.

I despise them all: the BBC, Martin Bashir, the monarchy, the popular media, Shire Tories and - come to that - Communism.

But I'm not signed up to the doctrine of despair that says, 'X is a shit option, but it's the least bad we've got'. I think we need to discover new, probably more granular forms of news reporting, that can be supported by a liberal audience starting to recognise that we're going to have to pay for news, unless we want to read news that's been paid for by someone else, for their own reasons.

I've long subscribed to the Grauniad, but I've also more recently added the Yorkshire Post - historically crusty Tory, but envigorated recently by the new editor James Mitchinson; and Yorkshire Bylines. They've both done some sterling reporting - the entire 'Bylines' network especially so.

As print news media takes its last gasps, I think the field is wide open for new models of funding, including the 'many a mickle' model.

I'm certainly prepared to continue to support the BBC, but is news their forte any more? They're desperately compromised. After two years of denouncing Trump for his mendacity, if they're not prepared to admit that Johnson lies on an almost daily basis, what can we trust them on?
From: milko 7 Jun 13:20
To: Manthorp 6 of 13
I pretty much use 'the internet' (twitter/reddit/y-combinator/etc) and the Guardian these days, haven't read the BBC news site in a long time. I'm increasingly unpleased by the Guardian as well to be honest. Yet to find a suitable alternative, annoyingly.
EDITED: 7 Jun 13:21 by MILKO
From: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX) 8 Jun 14:54
To: milko 7 of 13
What do you find unpleasing about The Guardian? (I personally find a fair bit, but interested in your opinion). I also read Yanqui news: NYTs, WaPo semi-frequently, but the Guardian is my morning go-to.
From: milko 8 Jun 15:13
To: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX) 8 of 13
I will definitely forget some things but here's a few:

Fucking awful centrism "FBPE" type bollocks that saw them join the host of useful idiots around the remain side of Brexit that did plenty to actually enable its awful reality by fighting against the actual potential ways to come out of it as 'least badly' as possible via Corbyn's Labour. 
Similarly their anti-Corbyn bollocks that helped enable the criminal shitshow we have running the UK now and the fucking useless state of the Labour opposition we're left with. This is probably the main one for me really, we appear to be doomed to at least a decade or so more of this shit now and they're among the culpable. And like seemingly all of the people I'd accuse of that, they seem genuinely unable to see that it was a mistake, which makes me think they actually prefer the current state of affairs.
Their shamefully anti-trans agenda (you may not see this as much in Canada, I know the US arm of the paper isn't so inclined).
Their cutting down of actual journalism and expanding of "hey I'm a moron with an opinion about something" 'comment' articles.
Similarly cuts to their sports journalism although it's sport so whatever it's not really that important.
Advertorial from some horrible sources.

They're not a total lost cause maybe, but on the other hand I'm not sure they have any motivation to do anything about all that. I think part of the issue for me is recognising that they're not at all a paper of the Left, they're a neolib centrist product ideal for the Lib Dems and English Green Party politics. About which I have plenty more rant material I'm sure! I currently feel pretty far outside having a political or news 'home' anywhere. It's still my daily news site, gah.
From: william (WILLIAMA) 8 Jun 15:49
To: milko 9 of 13
Yes, basically that wot you said.

 
From: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX) 8 Jun 16:55
To: milko 10 of 13
That's all true. I might have lower expectations going in, as far as them hewing to a particular party line. To be sure there were some shadowy influences at work in seeing off the threat of Corbynism (cough 'friends of Israel' cough). Apart from UK domestic issues, which I don't have a dog in the hunt, I find they generally do a better job in covering Euro/International stories. I also like their op-ed cartoons, which are often brilliant.
From: milko 9 Jun 09:55
To: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX) 11 of 13
The disingenuous weaponisation of anti-semitism to see off Corbyn is nothing short of a tragedy, in that it's fucked Labour for a long time to come even if he's not involved *and* made things worse for Jewish people anyway. Some cynical evil people and whole mass of wallet inspector victims behind that one, what a mess.
From: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX) 9 Jun 11:39
To: milko 12 of 13
Starmer has proved himself a nothingburger. He seemed better as deputy leader in opposition. What a disappointment (to this furriner).

The left-progressive media standard bearers here are the CBC (radio, tv) and Toronto Star (newspaper -- literally a shadow of its former self). I think they have most unwisely bet the farm on favourable political trends under the benevolent neglect of a center-left regime that could well be gone like a puff of smoke tomorrow.
EDITED: 9 Jun 11:45 by DSMITHHFX
From: william (WILLIAMA) 9 Jun 12:08
To: milko 13 of 13
It hasn't helped that Labour has elected a leader who has surrounded himself with those within the party who helped to coordinate the attacks on Corbyn. They are intent on maintaining the narrative that Labour is riddled with antisemites, but they also have related agendas which have nothing at all to do with opposing the tory party or winning elections - or helping the British public for that matter.