The MSM - Are they scum sucking leeches or beyond reproach?

Are they scum sucking leeches or beyond reproach?

  • Scum sucking leeches

  • Beyond reproach


Results are only viewable after voting.
Perhaps when the Covid dust settles and the BBC look to the driving factors behind the loss of its Royal Charter and the loss of its funding by compulsory taxation...

Perhaps then they will exact their own retribution upon those within who contributed most to its change of status from ‘Corporation' to Co. Ltd.

The likes of Kuennsberg should be very proud. Oh, and very unemployed.
She'll get ditched on trumped up grounds the moment that she has to be sacrificed in a vain attempt to save the corporation. BBC HR will have something on her which top-level management are keeping in their back pocket until they need to use it. If she thinks that she is invulnerable, she is sadly mistaken.
 
I really hope that the first item on the Agenda of the House of Commons is the removal of its Royal Charter, full public access to its archive and the privatisation of its news gathering and reporting operations.

A ceremonial burning of compliance, diversity, box-ticking roles will be hilarious to watch as would the fighting like rats in a sack of administrative staff wanting to keep their overpaid jobs.
Brilliant, then we can get Fox News in to do a proper bang up, unbiased, straight down the middle job on current affairs then.

You only hate the BBC because they stubbornly fail to conform to your World view.

When the press savaged Abbott and Vaz y'all lapped it up, couldn't get enough of it, but Brexiteers?

Oh no, nothing to see here.

Worried your possibly deficient eyesight might cause a fatal accident? Take your wife and child for a spin and see how it all pans out. Any father would have done the same thing.

Sauce Gander Goose
 
The press are generally scum, anything ive had to do with them I’ve ensured I’ve viewed and had the final say before release. I turned a lot down, despite large sums of money offered. The piece I did with GQ I doubt I’d have done it with any other publication and I did it to raise awareness.
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
Brilliant, then we can get Fox News in to do a proper bang up, unbiased, straight down the middle job on current affairs then.

You only hate the BBC because they stubbornly fail to conform to your World view.

When the press savaged Abbott and Vaz y'all lapped it up, couldn't get enough of it, but Brexiteers?

Oh no, nothing to see here.

Worried your possibly deficient eyesight might cause a fatal accident? Take your wife and child for a spin and see how it all pans out. Any father would have done the same thing.

Sauce Gander Goose
I rather like the "y'all" bit, makes it sound real redneck stuff.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
I really hope that the first item on the Agenda of the House of Commons is the removal of its Royal Charter, full public access to its archive and the privatisation of its news gathering and reporting operations.

A ceremonial burning of compliance, diversity, box-ticking roles will be hilarious to watch as would the fighting like rats in a sack of administrative staff wanting to keep their overpaid jobs.
I don't want to see that happen. I really do think we need a national broadcaster, as per numerous of my previous posts. It just doesn't need to be this one.

Actually, I'll re-phrase slightly that as I fully agree with some other posters' comments. The local news-reporting is very good. But even those in BBC local news teams or of the opinion that whenever someone turns up from the London/Media City team, they'll arrive intending to put a certain spin on things.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
The press are generally scum, anything ive had to do with them I’ve ensured I’ve viewed and had the final say before release. I turned a lot down, despite large sums of money offered. The piece I did with GQ I doubt I’d have done it with any other publication and I did it to raise awareness.
Out here in the wastelands of technical journalism, I habitually send interviews to those I've spoken to for them to look at. I caveat, in the sense that if something's been said and they subsequently get cold feet, then tough - they've said it and it's on the record. But, if the detail of something is fundamentally wrong then I'm happy to work with them to make sure it's right to avoid embarrassment to those interviewed as well as myself.

But where I am is a place far away from the tabloids/TV, and when I explain why I do it to some from a 'pure news' background, they look horrified. That said, the times I've seen people come into what I do from a 'pure news' background they've not stayed long as they just seem unable to do straight, factual reporting. They're always looking for the conspiracy theories and spin.
 

Grownup_Rafbrat

LE
Book Reviewer
Brilliant, then we can get Fox News in to do a proper bang up, unbiased, straight down the middle job on current affairs then.

You only hate the BBC because they stubbornly fail to conform to your World view.

When the press savaged Abbott and Vaz y'all lapped it up, couldn't get enough of it, but Brexiteers?

Oh no, nothing to see here.

Worried your possibly deficient eyesight might cause a fatal accident? Take your wife and child for a spin and see how it all pans out. Any father would have done the same thing.

Sauce Gander Goose
Put the bleach away, and go back to bed. Grownups are talking.
 

Grownup_Rafbrat

LE
Book Reviewer
I'm not aware of any special privileges in fact it could be argued that the Press is subject to greater controls than the public in terms of placing information into the public domain. The various D or Defence notices are examples of that.
You have a point in your first sentence. The fact that the Press (and the rest of the Media) do put material into the public domain means that they have to be aware of the laws regarding privilege, contempt of court and libel, and, to a rather less degree in practice these days, blasphemy and sedition. (many people, however, seem unaware that posters on social media websites are actually also subject to basically the same restrictions)

I'm a bit surprised to read your second sentence. It's worth checking the Defence and Security Media Advisory Committee's website.


Reference to D-Notices has been made in many posts here, with people still being apparently unaware of what they were (there haven't been D Notices for many years) and how the current system operates. It has never been helped by drama productions including such nonsense as "We'll get a D Notice slapped on that....."

At the core, however, is the following:

The DSMA-Notice System is a means of providing advice and guidance to the media about defence and security information, the publication of which would be damaging to national security. The system is voluntary, it has no legal authority and the final responsibility for deciding whether or not to publish or broadcast rests solely with the editor or publisher concerned.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
As soon as they decriminalise non payment, the BBC licence fee is toast.
In reality there would be little difference. Yes many will stop paying but I would expect the BBC to act as councils do now. They just put a list of rent arrears people in front of a beak who just signs off the list, no attendance at court to explain. This allows the council to chase debt and more importantly, start to include costs, which mount up quickly. Most people faced with this will pay.

The system will help look after one of their own! :(
 
Can we burn down live on TV the set of the BBC's Woke World of Walford?
"Too bloody right guv, it don't do us east end blokes and birds any bleedin favours, I mean, wot the Fcuk they finkin abaht, Gordon bennet, nuffin like the east end, never as bean, nevar will.. "

OK, that's the piss take out of the way. My east end bares no relation to the travesty portrayed by the joke, as envisaged by the script writers. Danny Dyer and the other professional gobby east end actors are as real, as James bond is to the real world of MI5-6.
 
Last edited:

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Brilliant, then we can get Fox News in to do a proper bang up, unbiased, straight down the middle job on current affairs then.

You only hate the BBC because they stubbornly fail to conform to your World view.

When the press savaged Abbott and Vaz y'all lapped it up, couldn't get enough of it, but Brexiteers?

Oh no, nothing to see here.

Worried your possibly deficient eyesight might cause a fatal accident? Take your wife and child for a spin and see how it all pans out. Any father would have done the same thing.

Sauce Gander Goose
Actually, what most people seem to be asking for here - from where I'm sat at least - is less partiality.

Of course, that might just be my world view.

Kuenssberg's coverage of Starmer after his first PMQs was positively fawning. She hates BoJo and it seeps out. If she can't control that, she shouldn't be in post as she's not objective.

Of course, that also might just be my world view.
 
In reality there would be little difference. Yes many will stop paying but I would expect the BBC to act as councils do now. They just put a list of rent arrears people in front of a beak who just signs off the list, no attendance at court to explain. This allows the council to chase debt and more importantly, start to include costs, which mount up quickly. Most people faced with this will pay.

The system will help look after one of their own! :(
Can we come on your property to see if you have a TV?
No, FOAD Crapita scum
 
You have a point in your first sentence. The fact that the Press (and the rest of the Media) do put material into the public domain means that they have to be aware of the laws regarding privilege, contempt of court and libel, and, to a rather less degree in practice these days, blasphemy and sedition. (many people, however, seem unaware that posters on social media websites are actually also subject to basically the same restrictions)

I'm a bit surprised to read your second sentence. It's worth checking the Defence and Security Media Advisory Committee's website.


Reference to D-Notices has been made in many posts here, with people still being apparently unaware of what they were (there haven't been D Notices for many years) and how the current system operates. It has never been helped by drama productions including such nonsense as "We'll get a D Notice slapped on that....."

At the core, however, is the following:

The DSMA-Notice System is a means of providing advice and guidance to the media about defence and security information, the publication of which would be damaging to national security. The system is voluntary, it has no legal authority and the final responsibility for deciding whether or not to publish or broadcast rests solely with the editor or publisher concerned.

You are correct in that official DSMA Notices, requested via a committee, are voluntary but there is an implicit threat attached which a News Editor would be unwise to ignore. Depending on the severity of the potential breach of security, this can range from a 'blacklist' from certain official information outlets to a threat of exclusion from the Honours list. I kid you not.

Individuals, such as citizen journalists, would probably get a visit from the one of the Specialist Crime Directorates (SDC8?) and then a sudden 'coincidental' microscopic interest in their affairs by HMRC.

In fact official 'DSMA notices' have been applied very recently. I'm aware of one in particular.

The expression 'D-Notice' nowadays applies to any quasi-official strong arming of an editor, wether it be regarding a very serious potential political scandal or something a Royal has got up to, in other words matters that would be unlikely to appear on the DSMA committee's agenda.
 
I don't want to see that happen. I really do think we need a national broadcaster,
Fair comment but a national broadcaster that operates fully with the terms of its Charter rather than within the terms of it own agenda/s.

The BBC will never be that national broadcaster and thus, I don’t want to fund it simply in order to legally watch channels more to my liking.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
Nicked from FB but so true

FB_IMG_1590489167354.jpg
 
"Too bloody right guv, it don't do us east end blokes and birds any bleedin favours, I mean, wot the Fcuk they finkin abaht, Gordon bennet, nuffin like the east end, never as bean, nevar will.. "

OK, that's the piss take out of the way. My east end bares no relation to the travesty portrayed by the joke, as envisaged by the script writers Danny Dyer and the other professional gobby east end actors are a real, as James bond is to the real world of MI5-6.
And yet ironically the storylines in Eastenders are more believable than your fairy tales.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Fair comment but a national broadcaster that operates fully with the terms of its Charter rather than within the terms of it own agenda/s.

The BBC will never be that national broadcaster and thus, I don’t want to fund it simply in order to legally watch channels more to my liking.
I think we're saying very much the same thing, just using different words.
 
Top