This is the Guardian, so reading the drivel below the headline isn’t worth the effort.
Ofcom says GB news is not impartial, but how can that be true? It has every kind of wingnut going
Point one: GB News is not a state broadcaster, so impartiality should not be an issue. However, it is far more non partisan with its programming than the state broadcaster ever is. Their discussions include a range of voices across the spectrum and provide a level of debate the BBC could only hope to achieve.
Point two: Wingnuts? From the Guardian? This is a lack of self awareness on a planetary scale.
No, I didn’t bother to read further. I could probably write it myself.
Point three: It is long past time that Ofcom was deleted.
Marina Hyde, while more intelligent than Owen Jones or Richard Murphy, may be even more irritating – she is the doyen of smug Crouch End/ Islington/ Notting Hill Remainiacs. A woman whose head would explode if she had anything resembling an original thought, she is the ‘Phoebe Waller – Bridge’ of political commentators – garlanded with praise by those who share her beliefs but actually neither funny nor clever,
“It is long past time that Ofcom was deleted.”
It’s obviously not fit for purpose, if it ever had a purpose, if it considers an adversarial discussion putting both sides of an argument lacking in impartiality while ignoring the constant stream of one sided propaganda pumped out by the BBC.
I occasionally read newspapers to see if they are presenting a reasonable alternate set of views. Three which I heartily don’t recommend are The Grauniad, The European and the Morning Star.
It seems to me that each are monomaniacs about one main issue – being One of Us, the European Union and Socialism respectively. It colours everything. I avoid them just as I would avoid a person in the chip shop queue who could only speak about their hobby or their family to the exclusion of everything else.
The BBC is not quite so bad – but it is *supposed* to be impartial. The newspapers will stand or fall on their own efforts; arguably they already depend on just a small rump of believers. The BBC should be defunded, and if Ofcom goes too that would be a bonus.
Ignoring some blatant exceptions, the BBC is often quite good with getting both sides. The problem with the BBC is in its story selection. It simply won’t run stories that compete with its narrative.
It does half the job well, and the other half not at all. They can do it but they don’t always. Faint praise indeed.
Wingnut? I know what a wingnut is – a nut with flattened projections to make it easy to turn by hand. I’ve got a few in my box of assorted nuts. But what have they got to do with a news channel? Or has the word acquired a new meaning since I retired from engineering?
I work nights so early morning I look at BBC news online. There are often articles that are thought provoking and interesting. Later in the day these vanish, if you know what you are looking for you can search for them but if you haven’t seen them you would be oblivious to their existence. Other items remain for days, why?
Three recent ones were about energy crises in South Africa, discrepancies in pay for care workers in private sector to NHS and most recent about the most calls about modern day slavery was coming from care workers, brought over and being worked all hours, owing their agent loads of money.
That is a very interesting post. It looks as though there are people working at the BBC who actually care about doing their jobs properly but are only being allowed to do so on condition that their offerings are only available when nobody, other than shift workers, is looking.
As you say, why?