Its akin to stormfront disliking immigration.
Boring Pap.
Originally posted by @Barry-Sanchez
Its akin to stormfront disliking immigration. Boring Pap.
Didn’t realise that’s where you got your ideas from.
I always assumed you visited some far right version of Club Penguin.
I wouldn’t read such shite as that Pap, usual extreme left mud slinging to deviate and petty point score.
Boring Pap that lad.
Originally posted by @Barry-Sanchez
I wouldn’t read such shite as that Pap, usual extreme left mud slinging to deviate and petty point score. Boring Pap that lad.
By all means vote with your feet, Bazza. If you can’t stand the heat of the Sotonians kitchen, step out. Don’t tell us how hot it fucking is.
Originally posted by @pap
Decent piece here on how the BBC has become a mouthpiece for the 1%. Written by Occupy, just to give it its proper context.
The billionaires’ ownership and sponsorship of corporate media helps explain why the corporate media narrative serves their interests. In Britain, five billionaires own 80% of print media. This represents a trend happening in Britain and globally. And here’s why it matters.
For one, despite bloodshed occurring across the planet, our mainstream media is constantly beating the drums of war, because war profits the 1%. The mainstream media cheerleads for fossil fuels despite the intensifying climate crisis. It ignores endemic corruption and it prevents the public from truly understanding how austerity policies have failed society.
But the corruption of our news media isn’t happening only in private hands: it is a standard feature of state-owned media as well, which is arguably worse since that media carries an air of impartiality. In 2014, Occupy.com reported how the globally respected British state broadcasters, the BBC, have effectively become news by and for the 1%. Recent charges against the broadcaster include rigging the 2015 UK General Election and exhibiting a blatant pro-union bias in the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum.
http://www.occupy.com/article/state-media-troubles-bbc-biased-banker-friendly-and-corrupt
You are not going to get a balanced viewpoint from Occupy pap, they have more axes to grind than a lumberjacks convention. You pulled up Chertsey on another thread because he was quoting biased sources.
With regards to the BBC, I am not sure what I would miss these days. I listen to 5live, although I would only really miss fighting talk. I would miss the website. However, as regards to the TV, I am not sure how much I actually watch any more - It would be interesting to see how much everyone did. What I am sure of is that I don’t get £140 of value from it.
I’d miss Radio 4. And Fiona Bruce. 
Oh, and Luther too (if they ever make anymore of them)
Originally posted by @CB-Saint
You are not going to get a balanced viewpoint from Occupy pap, they have more axes to grind than a lumberjacks convention. You pulled up Chertsey on another thread because he was quoting biased sources.
With regards to the BBC, I am not sure what I would miss these days. I listen to 5live, although I would only really miss fighting talk. I would miss the website. However, as regards to the TV, I am not sure how much I actually watch any more - It would be interesting to see how much everyone did. What I am sure of is that I don’t get £140 of value from it.
No he didn’t, he pointed out the source, and explained the issues of presenting that source as impartial and purely factual.
Nowt wrong with posting a subjective article, forums are all about opinions after all, but just making sure they are labelled as such.
Pap said it was from Occupy, and never claimed the source was objective.
1 Like
** ** Wow! I most certainly do. It’s a bit of an exception to find us watching any other channel to be honest. Let me think - recent programmes - Dickensian, War and Peace, Death in Paradise, Silent Witness, Happy Valley, Shetland and that’s just drama. I get the lack of balance in news coverage these days but it’s still a bloody sight better than any other TV news offerings. Excellent documentaries and nature programmes and I’m even enjoying Michael Portillo’s latest railway offering. Sport is still good in spite of being curtailed. I don’t like the ‘reality’ shows e.g. The Voice but, if we’re stuck for something to watch, we invariably end up with something BBC. Better than the Sky crap anytime and that costs 6 times the annual BBC fee.
3 Likes
Originally posted by @CB-Saint
You are not going to get a balanced viewpoint from Occupy pap, they have more axes to grind than a lumberjacks convention. You pulled up Chertsey on another thread because he was quoting biased sources.
Either I’m a really shit writer, or you’ve missed the point.
I know I pulled Cherts up the other day, which is precisely why I introduced the source. Did you, for a picosecond, think I actually thought it was going to be an objective article? If so, whatever gave you that impression?
Quoting from a subjective source is fine. If anyone needs me to explain what Occupy is, or what they stand for, then I’ll happily explain. My assertion was that people would recognise the source, and they did. You did.
Huge fucking difference between Occupy, an international organisation which is upfront about what it does, and orgs like the Adam Smith Institute and the Henry Jackson society, which are presented as impartial (as they were with Cherts) and get away with it because few people know who the fuck they are.
That’s the crux of it. You get think you get good value, I don’t think £140 is good value for the services I use. If i don’t think I get good value from Sky / netflix etc then I can turn off the subscription, however I don’t have the choice (not easily) of opting out of the BBC.
With regards to the drama - would this be picked up by other networks anyway?
Ulitmately it is getting expensive to watch telly these days and you should be able to choose where you put your “TV dollars”
That’s the crux of it. You get think you get good value, I don’t think £140 is good value for the services I use. If i don’t think I get good value from Sky / netflix etc then I can turn off the subscription, however I don’t have the choice (not easily) of opting out of the BBC.
With regards to the drama - would this be picked up by other networks anyway?
Ulitmately it is getting expensive to watch telly these days and you should be able to choose where you put your “TV dollars”
Pap you are a shit writer and he didn’t miss the point, you have an agenda and you used a biased source that you thought you could further it with.
I did write this but there we go, you’ll never listen lad.
FFS Pap, why are you quoting sources like Occupy after the other day 
I think we need to all start being a bit careful with impartiality in quoted sources. There are few, if no, news outlets that are impartial. However, it doesn’t mean that the article are wrong, or that parts of the articles don’t have merit and truth to them. Dismissing an article as biased because you don’t have a counter for their positions is the easiest thing to do, and if we’re going to start dismissing articles straight away just because they’re written from a perceived impartial position then we’re not going to be able debate anything written.
So, from now on, why don’t we argue what is written, and not the source.
1 Like
This is turning into the Pap gets handed his arse for trying to be smart thread…
See, we get great value out of Sky, and I don’t watch any of the above as have too many ‘across the pond’ drama’s to watch on Sky Atlantic (the best channel on TV).
Also, Partridge is back, and only on Sky.
I think the bbc is worth the money for the radio, tv and internet services alone but added to this is the history, tradition and respect it has. The bbc is synonymous with Britain and dies an important job in carrying the British flag abroad. Britains power is diminishing around the world and our cultural presence is more important than ever before. I think that when people abroad think of Britain they think of the bbc almost as much as they think of Shakespeare.
7 Likes
To be fair Pap, if anyone should be able to judge what a shit writer is, Barry is your man.
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
So, from now on, why don’t we argue what is written, and not the source.
I mostly agree with your post, but assessing the source, is often key to assesing the content. So to entirely ignore the source doesn’t seem prudent.
Thanks Cherts, I know a shit writer when I see one, did you need two comma’s in there?