All Tories Are Cunts thread

[Carbomb]

2 minutes ago, patiirc said:

So, starting from a position of bias, claiming bias of another thing because it doesn't do the 'thing' that the original thing wants is a-ok then? 

No. But we don't have any completely impartial news outlets who are "doing the thing". Starting from a position of claimed total non-bias is at best even more naif than you're purporting I'm being, and at worst disingenuous.

2 minutes ago, patiirc said:

It's not. It is the exact same baws that Trumpists claimed with fake news, and so forth. 

No, it isn't. When the Tories have lied, they've actually lied. The Trumpists claiming "fake news" are actually denying verifiable issues.

2 minutes ago, patiirc said:

However if the left media and supporters are keen to do the rights job for them by destroying the BBC, as its always the BBC, then carry on listening and regurgitating.

Dont moan when everything is partisanal,  and the population cant trust 'any' news source. Et voila, Cummings et al job is done. 

Very few on the left are asking for the BBC to be defunded, abolished, or removed in the way that the right is. All they're asking for is that the journalists being paid by the licence fee actually cover things with impartiality.

2 minutes ago, patiirc said:

Mainstream Media are holding things to account, its just not being done in the way you want, because it doesnt agree with your news sources view of what is and what should be news according to them. 

Except they're not holding them to account, in a way that we know they can and have done in the past. Again: Paxman was a Tory, and yet still didn't give them anywhere near the shrift that this current lot do. 

There are comparable precedents to draw from as references. That's why people are able to say the BBC (and other media outlets) are not doing the job they say they are.

2 minutes ago, patiirc said:

Pretty piss poor state we find ourself in when opinions floated on the net count more than anything else, because some tweeter or some severly biased sources say it must be so. 

It's the very definition of being brainwashed and radicalised via social media.  In older times it'd be akin to getting all of your information ftom the village gossip and taking that as truth opposed to making a sound rational judgement about evidence presented and weigh up the pros and cons of the source. 

That we're even having this discussion shows how utterly ridiculous society has become if it is getting het up and bent out of shape by the way news paper headlines are shown on one programme that doesnt have the reach that those people moaning about it think it does. 

I suspect the tweet and retweets and embedding reached more than the number of people who a), actually watched the programme and b) thought, 'oh gosh! the BBC have not put the mirror front and centre, they must be biased towards the government for doing that' 

Rabid frenzies on social media are fast becoming my most unfavourite things on this planet. They present rumour or misinformation as truth and pump it out to the masses via measures that do not have stringent editorial or impartiality standards and 'everyone' who agrees with position xyz laps it up, regigitates it and furthers that position. 

Piss poor state of affairs and not one that is absolved by, doubling down on the same bollocks as if it makes it any more important. 

Houchen's just posted a better response as I was typing.

2 minutes ago, patiirc said:

Boris Johnson had an affair, the Mirror brought this to a 'World Exclusive' and the BBC programme has debated it

If you want more from it than that and are 'that' incensed by it, then write to your MP, complain to the police, parliamentary standards do the things someone who really gave a shit about it would rather than getting bent out of shape on Social Media.

and dont vote Tory, obvs. 

We're discussing it on a forum because someone posted it. That's the point of this place. I don't come onto a thread called "The Tories Are Cunts" to do anything more than vent and share opinions with other people, because it helps de-stress to know there's an outlet for it and to remind myself there are enough like-minded people out there to stop me feeling alone. 

I don't believe I've said anything to indicate that I'm "incensed". I'm actually resigned, because it's all a river of shite that continues to flow unabated. All the stuff you've listed to do, I'm not going to do because I believe, in the current political climate, nothing will be done. 

[Keith Houchen]

3 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

I'm actually resigned, because it's all a river of shite that continues to flow unabated. All the stuff you've listed to do, I'm not going to do because I believe, in the current political climate, nothing will be done. 

They know they have an 80 seat majority and can do whatever the fuck they want. Come next election, people aren’t going to remember Marcus Rashford making sure hungry children are fed, or care we have the highest death rate in Europe for Covid. If media was holding them to account it might be remembered. Saying that though, ITVs GMB did pull up the Tory minister when she said they were doing the stuff Rashford campaigned for anyway. 
 

It’s not conspiracy to say the BBC have at its head a Tory donor who wants to cut down on wokeism and left wing comedy. It’s actual fact. It’s not conspiracy to see the flak the breakfast presenters got for laughing at a Tory having a massive flag behind him. 

[BomberPat]

What are these "left wing news sources" anyway?

[Keith Houchen]

5 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

What are these "left wing news sources" anyway?

According to Derek on Facebook, BBC, Sky News, and all the papers. Did you see what Ash Sarkar mentioned the other day? She was on a show and was going to be introduced as from the left wing media company Novara. She was asked if that was a problem and said of course not, as long as you say anyone from Spiked, The Spectator and The Sun were from right wing media companies. 

[WyattSheepMask]

It’s 2021 and Fawlty Towers is currently on BBC 1. We truly are through the looking glass

[patiirc]

2 hours ago, Keith Houchen said:

It’s not the affair that’s the issue, it’s him giving over a hundred grand of public money to one of his mistresses that’s the issue. The fact that only one national newspaper even mentioned it, let alone had it front page, shows the depth of client journalism in place. Even the state broadcaster didn’t have a mention of something that was usually considered a political career ender until recently on its news website says so much. 
 

it isn’t about left v right, it’s about accountability and I don’t think the fourth estate are holding the government to account. You do though, so examples would be appreciated as I tend to not read them these days so would have missed this. 

Hi Keith thanks for clarifying. 

The Mirror has form for printing bollocks see Iraq and faked photos.  However in this instance, a world exclusive, sorry,  bombshell exclusive is effectively for that publication only. Since they're the one's who investigated it. 

The online version of their report seems to relate to the salacious nature of the incident and are keen to make note that this relates to his time as London Mayor and the breaking of the Nolan principles. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/29/pm-has-no-case-to-answer-over-jennifer-arcuri-allegations-says-no-10

Political career enders went out with Trump's presidency indeed, there tends to be more , after the fact things that are more prevalent. Sarkozy being jailed amongst others recently. 

In terms of  the Fourth Estate. 

What do you want to happen?

Else would be a case of reeling off a load of criticisms such as Emily Maitlis, reported in the Daily Fail https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8249363/Coronavirus-UK-Two-thirds-say-journalists-NOT-doing-good-job-questioning-ministers.html responding to a poll where the perception was that Journalists were not doing a good enough job. 

Each person seems to want something different. If you want scandals, we have them, see the ongoing case or the Priti Patel bullying case as reported by the BBC here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55016076

Or is it openly wondering if there should be a new Beveridge Report https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56515028 which seems pretty scathing over the Government's record in backing up or keeping it's promises.

It's that tempering by other sources that has shifted perception because they read and regurgitate only what they want to read. As @Carbomb alludes to they wont do 'anything' because they do not feel it will change anything. However if people arent going to even scratch the surface, or even spend more than a few moments checking stuff then it's really really easy to paint whatever narrative people want to paint In this case the BBC are biased, or the Forth Estate are not holding the Government to account  yet stuff like Channel 4's Dispatches produced this massive response from the Government https://healthmedia.blog.gov.uk/2020/06/03/response-to-channel-4-dispatches-britains-coronavirus-catastrophe-did-the-government-get-it-wrong/

There's lots out there but theirs either a blindness to it being there or if it is their it does not go far enough and we end up in situations like this where a bombshell exclusive is pushed out of the way, because of the brouhaha around how it's been reported and not the actual story itself. 

 

Regarding the below, multiquoting has messed up, so will do in Bold 

1 hour ago, Carbomb said:

No. But we don't have any completely impartial news outlets who are "doing the thing". Starting from a position of claimed total non-bias is at best even more naif than you're purporting I'm being, and at worst disingenuous.

That's your view not mine regarding sources. Everything has bias, everyone has bias, so unless you want to go through the nth degree on semiotics regarding bias we could be here until the cows come home. I suppose a better way of framing things would be sources that tend to be trustworthy. It's not naive, because some one who has interest in something will usually read more than one source about the thing they are interested in. If all those things say that the thing is wrong, then they will go with that irrespective of bias. 

1 hour ago, Carbomb said:

 

No, it isn't. When the Tories have lied, they've actually lied. The Trumpists claiming "fake news" are actually denying verifiable issues.

There's a uk study about misinformation for kids conducted in 2020 for the UK.. https://news.sky.com/story/fake-news-half-of-uk-kids-saw-more-online-misinformation-in-2020-survey-finds-12213722

More than half of those surveyed saw 'fake news' 

Both sides here are just as bad as the other, doing the same thing does not give 'moral superiority' nor does it give any idea of righteousness. For every Guido there's a Another Angry Voice, and so on. Bloggers and commentators who have taken their take and spread it to the masses showing distrust in mainstream media  for promoting the 'truth' resulting in people becoming distrustful of it. 

 AAV here https://www.facebook.com/185180654855189/posts/the-bbc-literally-dont-give-a-damn-about-bothering-to-maintain-the-pretence-any-/3329532997086590/

Guido here https://order-order.com/2020/06/15/bbc-impartiality-advisers-ultra-partisan-anti-boris-anti-brexit-tweets/

 Spread that to the masses and it becomes the same side of a coin. Some will say horseshoe theory. However when left and right are attacking using the same methods then they are the same as each other

1 hour ago, Carbomb said:

 

I

1 hour ago, Carbomb said:

 

Very few on the left are asking for the BBC to be defunded, abolished, or removed in the way that the right is. All they're asking for is that the journalists being paid by the licence fee actually cover things with impartiality.

Well, what is impartial. See the likes of the Canary( pro Corbyn, anti BBC and of questionable content elsewhere) https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2019/12/04/no-ones-buying-the-bbcs-latest-claims-of-impartiality/ Is that what you mean, or something else?

Ofcom, seem to think that the Beeb is impartial https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/207228/third-bbc-annual-report.pdf

Quote

The BBC is the most-used news source in the UK and has an important role to play in informing the nation. In our News Consumption Survey, seven in ten regular viewers of BBC TV news agreed it was accurate and trustworthy. This is in line with ITV, Channel 4 and the Sky News channel. In an increasingly polarised political and cultural landscape, ensuring due impartiality in news and current affairs remains critical, and it is an area that many feel strongly about. During the year we did not find the BBC to have breached the due impartiality or due accuracy requirements of the Broadcasting Code. However, our BBC Performance Tracker shows that only 54% of adults perceive BBC news as being impartial. We know that audience perceptions of impartiality are shaped by a range of factors, which are not all directly related to the BBC’s news content. Our research last year found that people with strong political views generally saw the BBC as too left or right wing, depending on their personal political persuasion. Analysis of social media suggested that those with the strongest political views were the most likely to make critical comments about the BBC. However, there is a risk that future relationships with audiences could be jeopardised if audience concerns around impartiality continue to grow. Last year, we said the BBC should have the confidence to be bolder in its approach to due impartiality, as our research had shown that audiences had respect for the calibre of the BBC’s journalism and expected its reporters to investigate, analyse and explain events. We maintain this view and welcome the new DirectorGeneral’s commitment in this area.

 

1 hour ago, Carbomb said:

Except they're not holding them to account, in a way that we know they can and have done in the past. Again: Paxman was a Tory, and yet still didn't give them anywhere near the shrift that this current lot do. 

See above, it's perception that they are not, not actuality. But it's easier to spread a myth and make it believable it would appear due to the rapidity and amount of content on socials etc

1 hour ago, Carbomb said:

There are comparable precedents to draw from as references. That's why people are able to say the BBC (and other media outlets) are not doing the job they say they are.

Houchen's just posted a better response as I was typing.

See above and Ofcom's respone

1 hour ago, Carbomb said:

We're discussing it on a forum because someone posted it. That's the point of this place. I don't come onto a thread called "The Tories Are Cunts" to do anything more than vent and share opinions with other people, because it helps de-stress to know there's an outlet for it and to remind myself there are enough like-minded people out there to stop me feeling alone. 

I don't believe I've said anything to indicate that I'm "incensed". I'm actually resigned, because it's all a river of shite that continues to flow unabated. All the stuff you've listed to do, I'm not going to do because I believe, in the current political climate, nothing will be done. 

If you do nothing, and some one else does nothing and someone else does nothing and so forth and so on, Is it any wonder that we're left with slacktivism and ennui because no one will do anything and prefer to moan about it online?

It's the worlds easiest get out for all parties and actions, if you do nothing, not my fight jack, yet continue to be 'rawr', Tories are cunts,but then how does anything get changed? Simply willing it to isnt going to work, so what else would you suggest?

 

50 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

What are these "left wing news sources" anyway?

Not exhaustive, by any means, but wiki has a list here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_left-wing_publications_in_the_United_Kingdom

[Thunderplex]

Pat.  What’s your opinion on the pedestrianisation of Norwich city centre?

[Keith Houchen]

1 hour ago, patiirc said:

The Mirror has form for printing bollocks see Iraq and faked photos.  However in this instance, a world exclusive, sorry,  bombshell exclusive is effectively for that publication only. Since they're the one's who investigated it. 

This isn’t a breaking news story though. It’s essentially her having her say on her terms. This was a breaking story last year and if only one of the main national papers is investigating it, that kind of is my point. Nobody in politics has got off scrutiny as much as Johnson. The majority of the industry are complicit in this.

Perhaps with rolling news and instant breaking news and getting clicks has changed the focus of journalism as to what matters, but as I always say when Meltzer is called a journalist, a journalist doesn’t say “My sources tell me it’s raining, however other sources deny this”. They investigate who is right. 
 

Bias doesn’t come into it when it comes to facts. Everyone has their own opinion but they don’t have their own facts. Tories gaslight the nation constantly but they are hardly ever called out on it. They’re literally on camera saying stuff that is bollocks but aren’t ever pulled on it, or if they do it’s hardly adversarial. 

[Carbomb]

EDIT: Fuck it, this has been dragged out longer than it should have.

Only thing I'm keeping is the below.

Quote

See above and Ofcom's respone

If you do nothing, and some one else does nothing and someone else does nothing and so forth and so on, Is it any wonder that we're left with slacktivism and ennui because no one will do anything and prefer to moan about it online?

It's the worlds easiest get out for all parties and actions, if you do nothing, not my fight jack, yet continue to be 'rawr', Tories are cunts,but then how does anything get changed? Simply willing it to isnt going to work, so what else would you suggest?

Again: this is a thread on a forum where we discuss things and vent spleen. It's not the entirety of our political lives. We're not witness to what everyone on here does outside it, unless they tell us.

I'm not doing nothing, I've never been a "slacktivist". I'm from a union family, raised to have been involved in the union movement from as soon as I was old enough to do so, and frequently assisted my father in his efforts in contributing to the Pan-African movement, especially in the area of literary and academic access. I'm just not doing the things you specifically suggest, because my trust in official channels and institutions has been eroded severely, not just recently, but over the years.

As it is, what I do is make sure to vote in every election happening, and participate in my local community, specifically in promoting the co-operative movement, starting with the bookshop and events space that I and others in my community founded, because it's more effective to persuade people of the efficacy of socialism and co-operativism by demonstrating it as a working model at grassroots level. Could I do more? Probably. That's something I'm trying to work on.

Edited March 29, 2021 by Carbomb

[patiirc]

4 hours ago, Thunderplex said:

Pat.  What’s your opinion on the pedestrianisation of Norwich city centre?

Dead against it. Traders will need access to Dixons. 

ETA will reply to the others tomorrow 

Edited March 30, 2021 by patiirc

[Joe Blog]

Bloody hell, Pat's replies remind of when you used to be asked to write an essay at school about a castle or such like and you just googled it and proceeded to copy and past every mention of it you could find.

[SuperBacon]

4 hours ago, patiirc said:

ETA will reply to the others tomorrow 

Blimey, that's an extreme response. 

Stay safe @Carbomb!!!!

[Fog Dude]

13 hours ago, patiirc said:

For every Guido there's a Another Angry Voice, and so on.

Not really a fair comparison, is it? They may have both started as one-man operations, but the Guido Fawkes site is now a multi-person professional operation creating anti-democracy propaganda on a daily basis. AAV is still run by just one bloke in Yorkshire who burned himself out in his more prolific days, and now only seems to make a single new blog post every few months.

You can hardly claim that the two balance each other out. 

[Chris B]

We've been through Pat's refusal to understand reach and cultural importance before. It wasn't long ago she tried to make out that newspapers weren't a factor in voting anymore because everyone's reading the internet instead.

There are left and right wing publications, therefore both sides create as much damage as the other - let's ignore that the Mirror has a circulation of 300,000 compared to the Sun and the Mail at well over 1 million each. Let's ignore which dominate news headlines. Let's ignore which are more likely to be on as guests. Let's ignore that there are right-wing press companies that are exceptionally well-funded and are launching multiple 24/7 news channels. There's a left-wing and a right-wing, therefore it's an even playing ground and both sides are as bad as each other and are as equally able to cause damage.

It's sixth-form level 'I see the bigger picture' stuff, trying to make out there's a deeper, smugger, understanding than anyone else has.

 

[CavemanLynn]

One takeaway I have from this is that I've discovered Wikipedia has a page for Left-wing publications in the UK, but not Right-wing publications in the UK.

In journalism, it's one thing to present all the details and emphasise which ones you regard as more important. It's another to disregard those other details entirely without choosing or being able to offer an explanation why.

What the BBC has done in not showing the front page of the Mirror in that clip is deliberate deflection. It's an extension of the old adage about good speechifying being mostly what you look like, some how you sound and a little what you actually say. In a visual medium, to not show something is purposeful omission, even if the item in question is discussed at all.