Davie P

Sky News breaks ranks and covers this story .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5649FAF3_ws

Watter, how have Sky News broken ranks? 

A quick Google will turn up coverage of this story from pretty much any news agency you can name, particularly Murdoch's empire, and you've been proving the amount of coverage it has had by posting links to these stories on a near daily basis.

Do you think that equates to a cover-up?

Here ya go.

I watched the video and it makes some bold accusations, but true to form for Project Veritas, there seems to be many dubious techniques used to put together this narrative.

According to the report below, there are accusations from individuals featured in the Project Veritas 'expose' that they were bribed, their comments were taken out of context and others have since backtracked (and it's a report from Fox9, a right leaning channel)

 

I agree that the source is very relevant, and there's a vast difference between good quality investigative journalism and opinion masquerading as news.

 

Also, it's a little tiresome when folk are just posting links to articles and videos and don't bother engaging in conversation or have the courtesy to reply to the responses to their posts. 

Project veritas has a way better record than the bloody BBC or CNN.

Did you see the one on the illegal ballot harvesting for the democrats? interesting stuff!

What do you say about google making sure that their search engines manipulate data to play partisan politics and interfere in elections by giving a false picture of reality?... like the fake news does.

They've all done a very good job at lying to the masses, dividing the nation, fostering hatred by promoting identity politics and generating unending Trump Derangement Syndrome in the low info folks.

No wonder all the democrat cities are on fire and rioting for about 130 odd days now.

 

I'm not sure what Project Veritas has a 'way better record' in than the BBC or CNN. They're a one-trick pony, not a news agency, and I consider them to be too partisan and have too checkered a track record to be reliable or to invest any time in.

And no, I didn't see their "illegal ballot harvesting for the democrats" for the reasons above. Both sides are accusing the other of the same thing with little or no evidence. If you have a reliable and factual source I'd be happy to read it.

Re: "google making sure that their search engines manipulate data", "fake news" etc etc. It's easy to bandy this type of rhetoric around. Again, if you have some reliably sourced information then please do come with it.

Re: "lying to the masses, dividing the nation, fostering hatred by promoting identity politics and generating unending Trump Derangement Syndrome in the low info folks" - it's difficult to know how to respond to this as it's just opinion, but I note your perception is one of 'hatred' and that you consider yourself better informed that 'the low info folks'

Re: "No wonder all the democrat cities are on fire and rioting for about 130 odd days now." - rounding off with a little extreme exageration doesn't help

Watter, are you just goung to keep posting links to the Daily Mail and not bother with actually discussing anything with anybody?

I agree that the source is very relevant, and there's a vast difference between good quality investigative journalism and opinion masquerading as news.

Also, it's a little tiresome when folk are just posting links to articles and videos and don't bother engaging in conversation or have the courtesy to reply to the responses to their posts. 

^ It's probably poor show to quote myself, but...

It's not really a story though. It's just news agencies reporting on how other news agencies reported the 'story'. It's vapour, and elements of the right are getting their knickers in a knot because the centralist 'mainstream' media aren't taking the bait.

It's not really a story though. It's just news agencies reporting on how other news agencies reported the 'story'. It's vapour, and elements of the right are getting their knickers in a knot because the centralist 'mainstream' media aren't taking the bait.

Unfortunately for the right, Biden's politics is so moderate and he is so uncontroversial that there's few labels or dirt they can get to stick. Calling him a member of the 'radical left' is quite frankly laughable - he's so centralist that he might as well be a moderate Republican than a moderate Democrat.

Journalists refuse to cover Biden corruption story to help his election chances

Most journalists aren't covering the story because the sources and evidence aren't reliable or credible.

I note that the media organisations you have linked to Watter (Daily Mail and NY Post) are themselves not reliable or credible.

The FBI are looking into the case so hopefully the evidence will go through due process rather than just being rinsed through the rightwing scandal rags.

It's foolhardy to try to brush the NY Times recent "Long-concealed records show Trump’s chronic losses and years of tax avoidance" story away as fake or biased news given the pedigree of the investigative journalists who wrote it (two of them, Susanne Craig and Russ Buettner, won a Pulitzer Prize for previous stories on Trump's finances).

I think the right leaning media know that and seem to be attempting to portray Trump as some sort of ordinary guy who is just doing what anyone else would do to avoid paying tax, pay his family members inflated wages and use his position to enrich himself. Trump himself seems to be the only person trying to deny the story.

But if he has conducted his business affairs unethically or outwith the law, will it really sway his voter base? It certainly won't be the first time his dubious ethics and disregard for legalities has strengthened his standing amongst his fans.

And interestingly his reported personal debt liabilities could well see a sitting president be declared bankrupt should he win in November.

But never mind all that, quick, look over there. Hilary's email.... and there's some new accusations against Biden's son etc etc

Indeed Capeesh. Stomping around shouting about taking back control might win populist votes domestically but will count for nothing when regions sit down to negotiate with each other.

I hope the negotiations are approached with more finesse and skill than the preposterous electioneering.

Edinburgh and Westminster can blow back and forth to each other to their heart's content, and Westminster can trumpet the 'taking back control' rhetoric, but it'll all come down to the negotiations with the EU. The Westminster legislation is likely to have to be watered down significantly, and the Tories have a grim track record of supporting fisheries when it comes to EU negotiations. I'm not sure why people believe this will be any different.

Here is the Press and Journals take on the SNP attempt to keep the CFP in place and block the UK taking back control of its fishing grounds . Fishermen should remember this at next years Scottish elections .  https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/uk-politics/2456053/douglas-ross-snp-have-betrayed-the-wishes-of-scotlands-fishermen/

It's hardly the "Press and Journals take" - it's just a statement from Douglas Ross which is riddled with misrepresentations.

Sometimes I wonder if you read the articles you post links to as your one-line summaries are often way off the mark. 

Luckily, however, it was not the S.N.P. that signed the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community. That was done by Westminster in 1957, and one ore two of the Liberal Party used to hang around there I believe. That is what inflicted the European Union upon us.

For the sake of accuracy, the UK wasn't a signatory of the 1957 The Treaty of Rome/ Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (it was signed by Belgium, West Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg & Netherlands). It's been pointed out many times over the years when you mistakenly post that.

The BBC seem to hate Britian . https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8655351/BBC-considering-dropping-Rule-Britannia-Land-Hope-Glory-Night-Proms.html

I was very pleased to hear the BBC are planning to tone down the jingoistic nationalism of the Last Night of the Proms. I very much look forward to and enjoy Proms season but I feel 'Last Night' sticks out like a sore thumb compared to the other concerts. It's like a parody of the end of a Tory Party conference.

There have long been calls for the BBC to make changes to Last Night programming (which I personally find to be extremely dull and predictable) but I expect whatever they do they'll be under fire from the right wing who will no doubt go into a frenzy about traditional Britishness being under attack etc etc.

I'm sure there are many people who will be getting offended by the potential change who don't engage with The Proms or appreciate the work the BBC put into supporting and promoting British classical music throughout the entirety the 8 week Proms season, and throughout the rest of the year for that matter.

 

^ or perhaps it's just the standard use of a third-person personal pronoun

What about the people using Theyself as their pronoun

Folk can crack on however they want.

^ or perhaps it's just the standard use of a third-person personal pronoun

All the books containing these offensive terms especially schools books will have to be removed and replaced with the offensive terms removed .     .https://observer.com/2020/08/nasa-racist-star-name-changes-hq-name/

 

Again, the article you link to makes no mention of your claim.

NASA haven't found 'offensive' planets, nor will they be changing their names! They're ditching some out-of-date nicknames, as they've done previously, and will be using the International Astronomical Union names instead, as most other organisations already do.
 
Re: "Eskimo Nebula". Inuits (meaning 'people' in native language) don't like being called 'Eskimo' because the word has derogatory roots and was used by racist colonisers. Call it 'woke' if you want. I consider it to be common decency, and sensible standardisation. 

And don't believe everything you read in The Sun. That headline is laughable and misleading. You and The Sun have both chosen to highlight the word "offensive", and as far as I can see no-one at Nasa used that word.

That is my point. The name doesn't reflect the services it pays for

^The licence fee pays for the B.B.C. telly. It does not pay for radio or web site, unless it's B.B.C radio or B.B.C's website, neither of which, IMHO, are worth going anywhere near. Neither is their telly.

Am I missing your point? The BBC TV License pays for BBC TV, BBC Radio and BBC web services. Why would it go toward non-BBC TV, Radio and web services?

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/what-does-your-licence-fee-pay-for-top13

Despite you thinking the BBC website isn't "worth going anywhere near", it's the world's most popular news site.

At the moment you can listen to as much BBC radio as you like free of charge, which may work out OK for some of us without TV licences.

It's only 'free' because much of the cost is paid for by TV viewers. Therein lies the rub!

*If* it is indeed a TV tax, lets at least have the honesty to call it what it is, and levy it on every new telly sold, and that's the only realistic way to make that one work, and *if* it is a licence to permit viewing and pay for the Beebs material, then make the Beeb a subscription channel, as that's the only realistic way to make that work.

I think a 'rebranding' of the License Fee would at least help people understand that it pays for TV, radio and web services. I think Shetlanders get good value from the 'BBC Fee' with our own radio station dedicated to a relatively small population (Orkney is similar). More recently, money has also come back into the local economy through the filming of the BBC Shetland series. Per head of population, I think we do rather well from it.

Its not possible to avoid bias in reporting and it depends on what you mean by 'swayed' (the BBC is formally accountable to government but has editorial independence), but the BBC are the most balanced and centrist of all the news sources i read regularly.

If you read the Daily Mail, the BBC probably looks left leaning, if you read the Guardian, the BBC probably looks right leaning.

I would agree that we need a public service broadcaster.  Channel Four is a PSB and manages to run a service without taxpayer handouts.  It relies on advertising for its funding, another alternative option that the BBC should be forced into.

Part of the contract the BBC have with the government is that they don't compete with commercial broadcasters for TV, radio, and other advertising revenue in order to bolster the viability of the commercial broadcasters, and ultimately to support a plurality of commercial and non-commercial broadcasters.

As the TV License system is by no means perfect and scrapping it seems logical in many ways, but as the Peacock Committee reported back in the 80s, it's the "least worst" option.

As with other countries who have a centralist state broadcaster with editorial independence from the government, the BBC acts as a centre ground. If we want to see what happens when we go down a commercially driven deregulated media route then look to the USA after Reagan's office. Highly polarised, partisan, and where fact is often indistinguishable from opinion.

I've gone for long periods without having a TV, and I simply returned their letter to say I don't have one, and didn't hear back from them. The one time they did visit, they were courteous. I don't see the problem.

Goons spend most of their working hours preying on single mums on council estates and vulnerable members of our society.  They lie and trick their way into people’s home, where they have no right to be without an invitation or a warrant.  They won’t advise people that when they caution them they are entitled to legal representation.  TV Licensing Officers, are actually commission based salesmen, would you want this guy in your house:

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2033075/Rapist-TV-Licence-inspector-fantasy-frustrated-housewife-throw-him.html

There are bad people in the world, and I'm sure there will bad TV License inspectors too. And I'm also sure the Daily Mail has carried stories about people from all walks of life doing horrendous things. But blaming TV Inspectors is a sideshow - it's like blaming the bailiffs if you get into debt.

If folk have a complaint about the conduct of an inspector then they can complain to the TV Licensing Company, and if they're not satisfied, they can go to the Ombudsman. If it's a serious complaint, then they can go to the police.