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.

Oops

War Hero
Watching the beeb news, as I type, they're overtly showing the 'Meedya scrum' as he gets into his waiting vehicle...
Rising above??

Oh, apparently not, Scouse Bishop after him now!
 
BBC News 24 or do you mean the low budget South African News 24. How many personnel do they have on the ground in the Middle East at the moment or China? They pick up their news from Reuters and repackage it.

As does France 24

Al Aljazeera, the 'trainset' of the Emir of Qatar, promoting the the Muslim Brotherhood whenever possible.


You missed out RT
My mistake, I meant to say France 24, as I did the last time I answered the question. As for RT, I've never watched it.
As for repackaging Reuters, that's a good tip. Looks like I'll be adding them to my list.
 
Serious question. Is door stepping part of the curriculum for journalist and camera men ?
I bloody hate it and luckily can avoid it most of the time. However it can be a good source for comment.
Occasionally I've been sent down to a Cabinet Minister's place to 'bump into them' so they can deliver an 'off the cuff' statement. Boris was good at that.

What they should be doing is sending one pool crew down to cover the event for all four main Broadcasters.
 
We've all seen the events of the past few weeks with regards to the Daily Covid 19 Breifing, with the representatives of the MSM asking question after question even though that question has been asked and answered. Are they actually performing as they should, which is as the information sharing platforms for the public or do they have an agenda? This weekend's shenanigans with regards to Cummings has seen a new low even for them. The breifing is about Covid 19, yet it has all been about Cummings and his trip to Durham (this is not another Cummings thread btw). Are they doing the job we want/need them to do or is it all about who can score the most points over the Govt and the Establishment?
And the award for Most Rhetorical Question Posed On ARRSE goes to...
 
Whenever I watch the daily briefings (I watch less and less now), I always bear 3 things in mind.

1. If it was a Labour government they would have the same health advisors advising them on Covid 19, so they would have made the same decisions as Bojo or gone against scientific advice, which is ludicrous.
2. The media are Brexit hating, points scoring, ego maniacs, hypocrites, hell bent on making the front page / top story at any cost.
3. We are in uncharted territory, nothing like this has ever happened before in modern society, so no one knows where we are going or what exactly to do, hind sight is a wonderful field of view, but no good for looking forward, mistakes are made, it’s a best guess game of chance, with high stakes that most of us would not like to make decisions on.

As I sit and watch I keep these 3 things in mind and you know what, I’m proud of Bojo's Government and the steps they are taking, the media are all ******* and the public is not brave enough to step-up.
 

Truxx

LE
But that is exactly what the editor bint said on Marr yesterday, this came about through good old fashioned journalism! Aye right!
Old fashioned being the expression of the moment for reporting on something that happened 2 months ago something that the media knew about at the time but chose not to report until now (when other issues are likely to start creeping back into public consciousness again)

That sort of old fashioned you mean?
 
My mistake, I meant to say France 24, as I did the last time I answered the question. As for RT, I've never watched it.
As for repackaging Reuters, that's a good tip. Looks like I'll be adding them to my list.
The BBC feed Reuters and vice versa. It's all very incestuous.

The bottom line is that the BBC, like them or not, have the resources to actually get boots on the ground at far flung spots. The deliver the news as they see it.

Sometimes this will be things you don't want to hear. Sometimes they won't cover what you think they should cover: Dianne Abbot's son possibly?
 
I bloody hate it and luckily can avoid it most of the time. However it can be a good source for comment.
Occasionally I've been sent down to a Cabinet Minister's place to 'bump into them' so they can deliver an 'off the cuff' statement. Boris was good at that.

What they should be doing is sending one pool crew down to cover the event for all four main Broadcasters.

Is it taught as part of a journalist's education or is it something that networks have decided ?
 
**** me...another "I hate the MSM, they're beastly" thread.
 
As I sit and watch I keep these 3 things in mind and you know what, I’m proud of Bojo's Government and the steps they are taking, the media are all ******* and the public is not brave enough to step-up.
QED
 

UncivilServant

Old-Salt
Do you not think that someone ought to or do we passively accept everything that government tells us?

How would that work out if Saint Jeremy were in charge?

The press might not be perfect but they're the only organisation that we have that can hold the government's feet to the fire.
Nice idea, but this is just a witch hunt.
 
The BBC feed Reuters and vice versa. It's all very incestuous.

The bottom line is that the BBC, like them or not, have the resources to actually get boots on the ground at far flung spots. The deliver the news as they see it.

Sometimes this will be things you don't want to hear. Sometimes they won't cover what you think they should cover: Dianne Abbot's son possibly?
Well, hopefully they may have a lot fewer resources in the not too distant future. They are going to be on thin ice if there is any chink in their licence fee armour.
 
I'd be quite interested to know where those who reject the MSM go to in order to source their news, opinion and comment. Twitter? Facebook? Blogs? Vlogs? A wetted finger held aloft?

All vastly superior, I'm sure.
Reuters is generally pretty good. In its general reporting, it tends to be long on facts and shorter on opinion. Where there is opinion, it's represented as such. Bloomberg, on the other hand, is far more opinion than fact.

Print newspapers these days are little more than comics, from the Sun through to the FT.

TV news is plagued by presenters who ernestly believe themselves to be "celebrities", and act as though they are absolutely entitled to answers to every question imaginable. They are not, nor should they be.

I haven't watched the TV news in Australia since moving here in Jan '19. It's an extremely liberating experience, and I thoroughly recommend it.
 
I’m really rather sick of them, trial by media and hounding people is disgraceful.
Are you having a laugh? Have a look at the frothy mouths on the Harry & Meghan thread. Supposed adults getting outraged because the Daily Mail/Express/Mirror/Sun has made up some bollocks and they believe it.

There is a thread with the story of Corbyn who was being followed down a road by some bellend from the press who kept asking him questions when it was clear he didnt want to talk to him, the majority of posters were backing the press (Not me obviously, because Im not a bandwagon jumping sheep).

The public ( or at least the spastics who believe the tabloids) like nothing better than a trial by media it gives them something to be angry about.

The press are only wrong, when they are having a pop at someone that the public (Or posters on here) likes.
 
The BBC feed Reuters and vice versa. It's all very incestuous.

The bottom line is that the BBC, like them or not, have the resources to actually get boots on the ground at far flung spots. The deliver the news as they see it.

Sometimes this will be things you don't want to hear. Sometimes they won't cover what you think they should cover: Dianne Abbot's son possibly?
The point is no so much the information but its how it is presented and what goes in the decision making to put a narrative with any piece of news. Which brings us back to the most important question for me - Do you think the BBC is impartial ?
 

Truxx

LE
The BBC feed Reuters and vice versa. It's all very incestuous.

The bottom line is that the BBC, like them or not, have the resources to actually get boots on the ground at far flung spots. The deliver the news as they see it.

Sometimes this will be things you don't want to hear. Sometimes they won't cover what you think they should cover: Dianne Abbot's son possibly?
When working on the other side of the fence, as it were, we took the view that there were two challenges. Incident (media) management and consequence management.

With "proper" organisations like the BBC the first was always straightforward (well relatively straightforward anyway) and news was delivered, as you say, as news. The real challenge was the subsequent consequence management. The trick was to spot the emerging agenda (more often than not a propensity to generalise from the specific) whilst at the same time putting across our point of view.

More recently I have seen a blurring of this, with consequence introduced right at the outset presumably by those in media positions of influence situating the appreciation right from the outset.
 
Is it taught as part of a journalist's education or is it something that networks have decided ?
It's not a new practice. If someone had done or said something of note then in order to confirm or expand you have to ask them about it. They come to you or you go to them.

What has changed is the vast numbers of 'journalists' that pitch up. Nowadays that includes citizen journalists paparazzi and the public with smartphones.
 
The point is no so much the information but its how it is presented and what goes in the decision making to put a narrative with any piece of news. Which brings us back to the most important question for me - Do you think the BBC is impartial ?
I know the people I work with strive to be.

Maybe we should start a thread about it? ;)
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
Are you having a laugh? Have a look at the frothy mouths on the Harry & Meghan thread. Supposed adults getting outraged because the Daily Mail/Express/Mirror/Sun has made up some bollocks and they believe it.

There is a thread with the story of Corbyn who was being followed down a road by some bellend from the press who kept asking him questions when it was clear he didnt want to talk to him, the majority of posters were backing the press (Not me obviously, because Im not a bandwagon jumping sheep).

The public ( or at least the spastics who believe the tabloids) like nothing better than a trial by media it gives them something to be angry about.

The press are only wrong, when they are having a pop at someone that the public (Or posters on here) likes.
Except when you are jumping on the "anti bandwagon" bandwagon! :)
 
Top