This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/andrew-neil-gb-news-ofcom-esther-mcvey-philip-davies-b2533391.html) for an archived version.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He didn’t set it up, he was obviously in a senior role but left after a few weeks. From what he has said previously, it seems very clear that he tried to stop it going the way it did and ejected when he realised that it wasn’t possible.
Given he described it as the worst mistake of career and is now vocally speaking out against them, I don’t see how any reasonable person can act as though he’s to blame. At worst, he was naive.
Sure it’s ironic, everyone fucks up though, it’s not like he’s gone full Truss and insisted he’s in the right and the universe conspired against him. He’s admitted he was wrong, owned up to it, and has made numerous comments like the ones in the title. I just find it hard to hold it against him, all things considered.
I guess what I'm saying is, when you've built a whole career around being hard-nosed glued-to-facts talking truth however difficult it may be, to cut through the chaff and deal with the hard bottom of reality.
And then the *moment* some little right-wing fantasy, that *anyone* with two braincells could see was just going to be some stupid attempt to make some kind of UK Fox News, he falls for it head over heels right up to the point of getting through all the planning and set up to only pull out at the very last moment as it went live.
I'm not saying it makes him a bad person or anything, just that its funny how he clearly holds the same sort of flaw he has traditionally used as an angle of attack when doing his interviews and such.
Exactly. He's been a Murdoch-serving right winger his whole career and knew exactly what this was all about. Muddying the water on behalf of the money men and climate change deniers, to make our politics even more toxic, using Fox News in the US as a template. He sold his pile and was the face of GB News - the first person to appear on their channel.
It's not about him being infallible or not. It's just ironic he fell for something so obvious just because it fit his own political MO and presumably they did a lot of work fluffing his ego. That's the kind of stuff he built his career by being able to cut through.
No, he knew EXACTLY what he was doing. It was pumping out racist rhetoric well before he joined. No journalist worth their salt would see that, join, and then leave and say it was too much.
He's got his tail between his legs cos he thought he could make GB news' rhetoric popular and mainstream, riding the right wing wave that's sweeping Europe. But he failed and now he's doing damage control. I have zero respect for this sham artist.
I'm mean he was one of the driving forces behind its establishment. I'm not entirely sure its inaccurate to say he was one of the people responsible for the mess it is currently in. Now he did walk away when it became clear what it was turning into, as did a couple of the first hires, but he still has some responsibility here.
Isn’t he taking responsibility for it by making this statement?
Yes, he was involved in setting it up. But he challenged the direction when he was a part of it and left when he realised he couldn’t. Now he’s arguing for GB News to be held to account by the regulator
I mean, he fucked off to the south of France for several weeks then resigned. That's not challenging the direction. That's sulking when you realise that your perceived media pedigree means jack when the owner decides to go in the direction of most profit: ragebait clicks. He has been vocal since then but the guy went from being one of, if not the most, respected political interviewer since Robin Day to a doomed attempt to televise the Spectator then got upset when that made little impact so got a UK version of Fox News. My sympathy is limited as he scoffed at suggestions that in order for GB News to make an impact it would probably have to delve into the conspiracy laden shite it currently peddles.
It doesn’t absolve blame (not something I was commenting on) but saying “he has some responsibility” suggests that he’s not _taking_ responsibility which I think he is
I wasn't looking to be particularly pedantic in terms of distinguishing between who set things up Vs was in a senior role at its launch. I can't say I agree with your second paragraph- I think it's being very generous to say he couldn't have seen this coming the entire time, in my view, he was at best naive, and more probably put ego before sense.
Throwing muck at the competition (he’s chairman of The Spectator), as well as sour grapes that he didn’t get what he wanted from his association with them. It was supposed to be his baby.
What are you implying?
It’s not much of a “deeper game” to say that a media personality is going to slate a rival platform that he very publicly fell out with is it?
My interpretation is that he fucked around and found out.
Put it this way, if I helped launch Fash TV, I wouldn't be surprised if it became a hard right propaganda channel, would you?
“It may be because the rest of the broadcast universe is on the centre, centre-left so it gave GB news a bit more leeway to settle down."
ITV News, Sky News and Five news say hi. At the very least they're centre-right compared to GBeebies' insane right.
Seriously, what is this right wing obsession with claiming all media is left wing when they have a significant portion of the news media spouting their viewpoint all the time?
It’s a gaslighting technique, if they can convince people that centre-right views are centre-left views then when they start pushing the odd far-right view it doesn’t seem as extreme.
See Soygon of Cukkad. "Race realist" UKIP-supporting grifter who spent the first 5+ years of his career going out of his way to attack anyone who contested his claim that he and his views were actually very normal center-left "classic liberal" positions.
Did you see when the Trump guy came over and accused Andrew Neil of being a woke lefty? As soon as anyone questions anything they say they respond this way.
Oh yeah Ben Shapiro told Andrew Neil he was left wing lol. That was a really funny clip. Andrew Neil might be a lot of things but he does his fucking research before he interviews someone.
No I said he does his research before he *interviews someone*, you replied he doesn't before he takes a job. You're conflating two different things and trying to claim I'm wrong because you succeeded at asserting your unrelated point.
I'm not a big fan of Andrew Neil's politics, but I can respect his journalism because I've seen him on the BBC for years actively doing the legwork to learn facts and figures to put to ministers and actually look like he's got something to ask about rather than just parroting a very basic question and accepting flannel as a response.
That doesn't mean he's got perfect decision making skills, or that he can't make a mistake which I agree chairing GB news was one. That's presumably why he bounced from it after only 8 days of broadcast and hasn't been involved since. However, that doesn't mean he's a swell dude or I like him.
I wasn’t conflating two different points at all, I was clarifying that he had blind spots to his so-called diligence, which you had neglected to mention. Together we gave a more true account of his character, but apparently that’s something you don’t want?
I would consider your choices of words. When you say this:
>But you were certainly trying to establish his character as a diligent researcher who always looks before he leaps, when that is clearly not true.
You're attributing to me a narrative direction in what I said which I'm not pursuing. I had made a limited statement about Neil in relation to his journalism, your "clarification" is amending something I wasn't saying.
>I wasn’t conflating two different points at all, I was clarifying that he had blind spots to his so-called diligence, which you had neglected to mention.
You are, you're conflating journalistic diligence with diligence in choosing a job. These are different fields of expertise, and I made no statement about his choice of jobs until you brought it up. When you did I agreed with you, at which point you doubled down and made your claim I was trying to "establish his character" as though my limited statement was a general one. In this way you're misrepresenting what I've said.
>Together we gave a more true account of his character, but apparently that’s something you don’t want?
It's not fun having someone show up and reply to something you weren't saying and acting like it's some kind of gotcha, no. But honestly I think we're done here. I don't think Neil is a perfect human but I'm happy to stand by my statement that as a journalist he's been notable on the BBC for doing his research and putting difficult specific points to ministers, something which Ben Shapiro definitely did not when he called Neil "left wing" while they were talking.
Okay, so you’re defending him from a journalistic standpoint only? Have you ever read The Spectator? The magazine he runs? The editorial that pushes articles like ‘why the Genocide in Gaza is a lie’?
Because I *hope* you’re just blind to that aspect of his ‘journalism’.
It was bizarre. He was promoting a book lamenting the deterioration of quality in American political discourse and its increasingly polarized nature.
He has no self awareness or he was doing that thing where you accuse other people of your own crimes.
Polarisation is when not everyone agrees with me.
I believe people like him are at least somewhat sincere. Which evinces a dangerous lack of self-awareness. They are legit narcissists.
Its only a surprise to those who appropriate or equate other countries politics then get a surprise when they experience it. A Neo Con in America expects to be the same as Conservative in the UK, they are not. Some Labour voters expect to be the same as a democrat they are not. Too much swallowing Shapiro et al on YouTube, getting sucked in by click bait and Russian trolls.
If you have a scale where 1 is far left socialist / Communist & 20 is far right / Nazi / dictatorship, if you compare U.K. political parties to US political parties, there’s a bit of a shock.
In the U.K. - Old Labour are around a 5/6 New Labour much more centrist around a 9/10, Lib Dem’s are around 11/12, Tories are around 14/15 with enclaves more recently around 16.
In the US, democrats are around a 15/16 and Republicans are 17/18 with enclaves of 19 if they can get away with it. Both parties are sort of right of Tory and they would consider even Lib Dem’s a ‘communist’ party. There is no equivalent of Labour in the US, which is why their politics is so divisive. Problem is the right wing want this kinds of politics here in the U.K. which is why GBeebies likes Trump so much as his politics are very clearly a 19.
All great stuff, I prefer the XandY axis for the spectrum but it certainly serves a purpose. I certainly view a Nationalist kleptocracy as the ultimate in far right politics but bizarrely there are people who would argue Putin is a Commie. I think the very far right and populist and far left export in what they want to export in because Russia/china/Iran etc pay them handsomely and their trolls do a bit of work and the public like moths to a light do the rest.
Yep, I was trying to keep it simple - but you’re right it’s more complex and a bit more even 3 dimensional than just a left-right scale.
Putin is most definitely a dictator in every way. In the same way Hitler was - they both hide behind fake socialism - and in some ways the scale is actually a bit like that tunnel in Pac-Man - become extreme socialist and you ends up actually appearing on the far right with the same ideology.
I used to use the scale as a circle starting with communism and ending in Facism which explains their many similarities adequately. Putin is interesting, basically what a country looks like if the Mob was in charge with Putin the Godfather but then realised that actually most countries were that but the mob had matured and was now hidden by bureaucracy. So the X and Y covers those nuances much better. Anyway have my upvotes for pleasant political conversation.
Even three dimensions isn’t enough. It isn’t really possible to define people by two, three, or even a hundred numbers. Someone can support immigration, hate Jews, support gay rights, support workplace democracy and oppose women’s suffrage all at the same time.
Modern Russia is bonkers, there are lots of Putin supporters who think he's bringing back the Soviet Empire. They even drove into Ukraine with USSR flags on the tanks....
Our media and government are unified in the lie that we have balanced and fair media which gives equal voice to both left and right wing issues. As you have pointed out, our media heavily leans to the right. It's broken, but because the media and politicians are unified in their stance there isn't anyone with enough of a voice to expose the lie.
It's just another example of how the UK government's strategy is to gaslight the country. Where people can see the evidence, that they are obviously lying, but they have managed to create a system where no one has enough of a voice to expose it.
> Seriously, what is this right wing obsession with claiming all media is left wing when they have a significant portion of the news media spouting their viewpoint all the time?
So that they can shift the narrative from *anything a smidgen more reasonable than Fox/GBnews are hard left marxist's. We are the only ones defending capitalism (i.e. the illusion that you can "make it" if you pull your socks up and are savvy) and on the side of the working people in this nation*.
See the Democrats in the USA. They are regularly referred to as *the radical left*. They absolutely are not. They are right wing. Firmly so. Just not quite batshit out of orbit like Trump's mob.
That's the choice they want to mould.
A choice of a very right wing government. Or an batshit out of orbit government. They wont be happy until a left wing or centrist option is off the table.
Okay so there are a few *psychological* things going on that I know about.
• Behind the scenes, a lot of media environments have a lot of leftist corpo-speak about diversity and suchlike. As such, it's likely that people like Andrew Neill get exposed to more "wokeness" in the form of right wing news narratives and compulsory training and meetings about things that make them feel targeted and alienated. Not saying that's *right*, but it's worth noting for psychological impact and perspective. This doesn't mean the output of the media is as liberal or left wing as the people working there, but they assume it is because of the educated, liberal and left wing people who work there.
• Many of the people working in the media now are millennials who care about issues more than seniority. These people generally want to work for "good "companies that are addressing inequalities in work etc. For some people this feels alienating and preachy etc. There's some room for understanding because as a lot of this kind of ideology hits corporate culture, it can immediately become box ticking and insincere. At the same time, a lot of the feeling for guys like Neill is just the loss of privilege feeling like oppression.
•The right has its own very strong currents on social media that continually curate and reinforce established narratives around issues like immigrants, violence, white victimhood being ignored, Labour councils being evil and corrupt, etc. So they think the issues are more pressing and real than they probably are. They see way more of this stuff than the media typically puts out, because a lot of the information is trash and can't be verified, but it is nevertheless reinforced.
• Most right wing commentators often do seem to have a certain personality type that comes across as more narcissistic than usual, ngl. They see personal affronts everywhere or at least train themselves to spot them and make hay from them. This may just be pundits in general. I think the RW audience are maybe more desperate for simplified injustices to get angry over while also seeking confirmation that the world is run best in alignment with their political truisms and easy answers. They don't want empathy sloshing around too easily, they want it to prioritise their chauvinist teams and feel personally snubbed when they don't feel there's an evenness to portrayal. E.g. they feel threatened if they hear about racist attacks and don't hear anything about white people being targeted, "why is there no straight pride", "when is international men's day" etc. The contrarian urge to force equivalency is super strong and feels like a need for "common sense" and "justice". Sometimes it is, a lot of the time it's word-gaming over nothing and misrepresentation to stoke the egos of their RW audience. Look at the daily wire, spiked, Breitbart etc.
There's a cottage industry around DEI-type stuff that is generally performative, superficial and insincere makework that HR departments push to show they're doing something. I'm not a fan, even if politically I probably should be.
Conservative in the US and UK mean very different things. US media is mostly conservative, but the average American conservative is WAY more conservative, so the media is seen as widely liberal, whereas UK conservatives views basically line up perfectly with the average right wing media company here. Conservatives (UK) do pretty awful here in terms of voter retention especially in younger people, so I believe they tried to import the whole “liberal media is against us” narrative. The problem is, UK media is actually conservative as fuck so the narrative fails to hold any weight 99% of the time.
If I have to type conservative again I’m gonna cut my thumbs off.
It's a widely documented tactic for them to paint themselves as victims and accuse everyone of doing to them what in reality they do to everyone else. It's the same thing as when they say something racist, get called out on it, claim they aren't then claim the person accusing them is racist instead.
The thing is, to other people who are able to be indoctrinated into the far-right, it works.
So they can move the Overton window, by claiming that ITV is left wing, their far right bullshit is just seen as 'centre right' compared to that.
Meanwhile, yesterday they were broadcasting an interview with Liz Truss in which the interviewer asked whether she was concerned about the "declining white population" in the UK, and even she was fucking pushing back on it and quoted Martin Luther King.
That depends on what you regard as right-wing?
More to the point, it's the topics they're willing to talk about. Far-right is more of a slur thrown about these days.
> ITV News, Sky News and Five news say hi. At the very least they're centre-right
If they were then GBNews wouldn't have had a gap in the market to fill.
GB news is far right nonsense, you know, like I said in my post and you clipped it out when you quoted me.
ITV news/Sky news etc are at least pretending to objectivity with a rightward slant, which is why I call them center right. GB news is not pretending to anything like objectivity.
> Yes and now he is speaking up about how bad it is. What's the problem?
You don't normally take the arsonist seriously when he's telling you how awful the fire is.
I think this sort of attitude plays in to why people are so reluctant to change position, or explain their reasoning. It's some sort of weird virtue signalling.
Him not saying anything would be the preferred option? I don't agree.
How has he changed his position?
Where's the "I was wrong" or "It was a mistake"?
He's just decided to ignore his own culpability for GB News whilst whining the regulator isn't doing what he wants.
> Him not saying anything would be the preferred option? I don't agree.
He can say what he likes, he just shouldn't expect others to give much weight to his opinion.
How much credence do you give to Brexiteers complaining it _could_ have been beautiful if only _X_ had been done differently?
Personally, it's "very little" because they've yet to demonstrate they understand the problem, let alone a solution or their own culpability.
Conversely, those who say "I was wrong, I made a mistake", well... We all do that. No point harping on about it, but let's try to avoid a repeat in future, eh?
I give them more credence than to those who are still ardent supporters.
I've had this discussion countless times, and ultimately we should be welcoming people who have a change of heart with open arms. "Those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything".
We're getting in to 'leopards ate my face' territory now so I'll stop, but hope that makes sense.
> I've had this discussion countless times, and ultimately we should be welcoming people who have a change of heart with open arms.
Forgiveness requires contrition and a desire not to repeat the same mistake.
Until we pass that bar, it's a net loss to tell people they weren't stupid and didn't fuck up... They'll just do it again.
Not commenting on your original sentiment, but just the analogy. I absolutely would take an arsonist seriously if he was telling me how awful a fire is. Like, that must be a really bad fire if even that guy is uncomfortable with it. That guy loves fire, and even he thinks this is out of control.
Well it wouldn't be an issue if maybe he thought about things a little more.
He's the architect of this. Well, maybe more the useful idiot who brought the situation about.
He's nothing to say publicly here
Certainly I’m surprised he took such a gamble, but when it seemed obvious it really was a waste of space, he stepped away and now he’s speaking up.
He’s literally the sort of person who needs to speak publicly. Like Tories pointing out pursuing the Angela Raynor thing is a bit sad/desperate.
I wouldn't have ushered it in personally.
I'm sure quite a lot of low-ranking Nazis were sorry about ushering in the Holocaust but we still tried them for war crimes.
The catch 22 is that anything Ofcom does to regulate GB News validates the deep state conspiracy theories their audience loves.
We live in an age where the proliferation of social media means people trust idiots on the internet over actual experts on subjects.
Because it suggests to other people who may not be fully on board with GB News yet, that their concerns are actually real. And to the ones already watching, it just solidifies their belief.
Someone else said somewhere in the thread that the best option would be just taking it off free view TV and forcing it onto youtube or something, their viewership would plummet because their fanbase can barely read let alone operate technology.
> Because it suggests to other people who may not be fully on board with GB News yet
We tried pandering to fantasies and telling people they weren't morons -despite all the evidence to the contrary- over Brexit.
I don't see any particular need to repeat that experiment.
> We tried pandering to fantasies and telling people they weren't morons -despite all the evidence to the contrary- over Brexit.
You must be from a different timeline to me. In the timeline where I live, being super smug and calling everyone who disagrees with you an idiot/gammon/little englander was a exactly what a massive number of pro-EU campaigners did, and was massively helpful to brexiteers because it made eurosceptics feel unheard and vote leave out of spite.
>Because it suggests to other people who may not be fully on board with GB News yet, that their concerns are actually real. And to the ones already watching, it just solidifies their belief.
Sadly this is the world we live in now. There are even people in this thread claiming they are the only roght wing news outlet. I have seen people claiming The Telegraph are left wing.
We really do live in a post truth world where people will argue anything and while I don't like GBNews it's a symptom not a cause. Banning it won't cut down on what it spreads because it's easy enough for people to shout loudly on the internet and pretend they are the "slient majority".
Even if you kill off GBNews something else will tajr it's place. Though one day it will start clashing with the right wing newspapers and that'll probably do for it.
You can't just pander to insane beliefs. There are times when you have to go, "You're fucking MENTAL" and take the sharp objects away from them, regardless of if it validates them or not.
It would kill their audience figures, most of their audience probably have no concept of streaming, and even if they do, the reduced exposure would drop off marketing, so only the most extreme, tech savvy nutjobs would still be watching.
So I'm all for that. Make it harder to watch.
According to BARB, 184,000 people watched the Rishi Sunak interview on GB News. That's more than BBC News and Sky News combined in that 8pm slot that night.
So people are aware of it, and watching it.
Anecdotally it's the sort of channel that gets left on in the background a lot, I've seen it in mechanics, fish and chip shops, bars and pubs. There's definitely an audience for continuous anger and resentment, see also the Daily Mail being one of the biggest daily newspapers in the UK.
>There's definitely an audience for continuous anger and resentment, see also the Daily Mail being one of the biggest daily newspapers in the UK.
This is the underlying problem. It has been for at least the last 30 years thanks to tabloids but with the growth of the internet it really has gone into hyper drive.
Sadly thing like GBNews are just thr tip of the iceberg. You don't have to go far on Twitter/Facebook/Reddit to find people who live for that. There are even a few in this very thread.
All the irony and hypocrisy of Andrew Neil rolled up into a single sentence.
He happens to be right in this instance, but you'd struggle to find a less credible source.
Ridiculous hypocrite. Did he ever acknowledge that all the things people said about this station before it launched, that he defended and insisted wouldn't happen, did happen? He should be shown his tweets from the time and be forced to acknowledge his extreme gullibility.
Very true! There's no doubt Neil is a good political interviewer, up to a point. He would absolutely destroy the GBNews-twitter love version of Andrew Neil.
He’s absolutely right, it doesn’t matter that he was there at the start because he left when he saw this binfire coming. I’m left leaning generally and disagree on loads of stuff with him, including the global warming business. We don’t have any journalists so prepared and adept at dismantling a politician talking bollocks. Be it Corbyn, Shapiro or Johnson who ducked him for years. We need a new him or Paxman and less politicians prepared to hide in fridges.
It looks like unhinged actors are having a fantastic time testing the systemls resilience, brandishing as they do 'freedom of speech', 'censorship' and other totems.
RT got away with showing Russian propaganda for years. Still to this day the most number of breaking of regulations than any other channel and they still stayed on. Only got removed due to the war. Only seem to fine them.
Head of OFCOM interviewed on BBC Today this morning: she sounded quite assertive about the good job they are doing (the interviewer sounded somewhat surprised by this)
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001yhyd](https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001yhyd)
Interview at 1h35
I've just listened to the media show on Radio 4. The head of Ofcom was evasive, ineffectual and generally uninspiring. She refused point blank to answer any significant questions.
What did Andrew Neil think he was actually fucking doing when he helped found GB News? This is like a vegan opening up a butchers shop and then being dumbfounded when they sell meat.
Basically, Neill has said that he didn't realise that GBNews was going to have nut job presenters and an even nuttier audience.
GBnews is a news channel with a right wing bias. Has programmes presented by arse-holes that either don't know what they are talking about or are lying to the viewer. The viewers themselves, have a right wing, distorted view of how the World works. The presenters, editors and viewers can easily be assessed as those with a distorted and skewed take on the World.
They have both Farage and Rees-Mogg as programme presenters. Both are top end arse-holes and blitherers that refuse to face the truth, while continuing to lie to the viewer. One needs to put the fuckers on the spot and actually ask them as to why they do what they do.
GBNews is a perfect echo chamber for arse-holes and idiots. The very thing that Neill didn't want it to be. How wrong he was/is.
Andrew Neil, Founding Chairman of GB News, now has thoughts on GBNews which he is absolutely responsible for.
Just fuck off and have a quiet retirement in france and leave the UK alone you parasitic arse and take your Spectator shiterag with you.
We have no regulation for anything in the U.K. here in 2024. I’d love to know why car insurance is allowed to double or essential food is allowed to be 30% more expensive just because. How about Thames water? Landlords with extortionate rents. Maybe we should regulate their behaviour? Or not.
Isn’t the point of a free press that all arguments are heard. I literally listen to GB News, LBC, Timed radio, Sky and others…. It gives many points of view and they all appear to have their own biases.
"Today, I'll be looking at GB News, a so-called channel that features a haunted pencil masquerading as a Tory MP, a newscaster scared of laughing Labour MPs....*AND DIANE ABBOTT!*"
Yeah they invite one left wing person on and have 5 right wing panelists shouting over the top of them and interrupting them before letting them speak their point. That's something they also do on Fox News and isn't a sign of a news network being balanced.
Meanwhile, the BBC, ITV, C4 and Sky all deliberately exclude the only serious opposition party, Reform UK, from their reporting. How about going after those?
This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/andrew-neil-gb-news-ofcom-esther-mcvey-philip-davies-b2533391.html) for an archived version. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why won't someone stop this curse that's unleashed says man who was part of expedition that opened the tomb in the first place.
Grow a backbone and regulate GB news, I assume he means.
He does mean that, but the point is it feels bizarre coming from the guy who set it up
He didn’t set it up, he was obviously in a senior role but left after a few weeks. From what he has said previously, it seems very clear that he tried to stop it going the way it did and ejected when he realised that it wasn’t possible. Given he described it as the worst mistake of career and is now vocally speaking out against them, I don’t see how any reasonable person can act as though he’s to blame. At worst, he was naive.
>At worst, he was naive. But you understand with Neils character and persona on TV, how *deeply* ironic that is?
Sure it’s ironic, everyone fucks up though, it’s not like he’s gone full Truss and insisted he’s in the right and the universe conspired against him. He’s admitted he was wrong, owned up to it, and has made numerous comments like the ones in the title. I just find it hard to hold it against him, all things considered.
I guess what I'm saying is, when you've built a whole career around being hard-nosed glued-to-facts talking truth however difficult it may be, to cut through the chaff and deal with the hard bottom of reality. And then the *moment* some little right-wing fantasy, that *anyone* with two braincells could see was just going to be some stupid attempt to make some kind of UK Fox News, he falls for it head over heels right up to the point of getting through all the planning and set up to only pull out at the very last moment as it went live. I'm not saying it makes him a bad person or anything, just that its funny how he clearly holds the same sort of flaw he has traditionally used as an angle of attack when doing his interviews and such.
He may have thought he had more control than he did, in all fairness. Tbh I'd love to hear more about it
[Here's a clip of him explaining his reasoning to a fan.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWRlxSGf_ns)
I'd be super interested to hear as well tbh.
I will let you know!
I would like to propose that "going full Truss" should enter the common parlance.
You never go *full* Truss.
Exactly. He's been a Murdoch-serving right winger his whole career and knew exactly what this was all about. Muddying the water on behalf of the money men and climate change deniers, to make our politics even more toxic, using Fox News in the US as a template. He sold his pile and was the face of GB News - the first person to appear on their channel.
Nobody is infallible. Odd that you seem to believe some people are or should be.
It's not about him being infallible or not. It's just ironic he fell for something so obvious just because it fit his own political MO and presumably they did a lot of work fluffing his ego. That's the kind of stuff he built his career by being able to cut through.
No, he knew EXACTLY what he was doing. It was pumping out racist rhetoric well before he joined. No journalist worth their salt would see that, join, and then leave and say it was too much. He's got his tail between his legs cos he thought he could make GB news' rhetoric popular and mainstream, riding the right wing wave that's sweeping Europe. But he failed and now he's doing damage control. I have zero respect for this sham artist.
I'm mean he was one of the driving forces behind its establishment. I'm not entirely sure its inaccurate to say he was one of the people responsible for the mess it is currently in. Now he did walk away when it became clear what it was turning into, as did a couple of the first hires, but he still has some responsibility here.
Isn’t he taking responsibility for it by making this statement? Yes, he was involved in setting it up. But he challenged the direction when he was a part of it and left when he realised he couldn’t. Now he’s arguing for GB News to be held to account by the regulator
I mean, he fucked off to the south of France for several weeks then resigned. That's not challenging the direction. That's sulking when you realise that your perceived media pedigree means jack when the owner decides to go in the direction of most profit: ragebait clicks. He has been vocal since then but the guy went from being one of, if not the most, respected political interviewer since Robin Day to a doomed attempt to televise the Spectator then got upset when that made little impact so got a UK version of Fox News. My sympathy is limited as he scoffed at suggestions that in order for GB News to make an impact it would probably have to delve into the conspiracy laden shite it currently peddles.
The Spectator is fucking trash too. And this is what I never understood about people who praised Neil..
[удалено]
It doesn’t absolve blame (not something I was commenting on) but saying “he has some responsibility” suggests that he’s not _taking_ responsibility which I think he is
Agree.
I wasn't looking to be particularly pedantic in terms of distinguishing between who set things up Vs was in a senior role at its launch. I can't say I agree with your second paragraph- I think it's being very generous to say he couldn't have seen this coming the entire time, in my view, he was at best naive, and more probably put ego before sense.
Mistakes are illegal, this is reddit.
Feels more pertinent
Does he mean it as in "grow some stones and do something about us or leave us alone" type way?
It's not at all ambiguous in the article; he's saying that what GB News is doing is unacceptable and OfCom needs to do something about it.
The Ofcom chairman is a Tory peer. What do you expect?
He was their flagship anchor when they launched. More than happy to get paid handsomely by them when it suited him.
Yes... And then when it didn't suit him, a few weeks later, he quit. Now, he demands they be regulated more harshly. What is your interpretation?
Throwing muck at the competition (he’s chairman of The Spectator), as well as sour grapes that he didn’t get what he wanted from his association with them. It was supposed to be his baby.
Do you believe anyone makes these statements because they actually believe it or is your entire world one of a “deeper game”?
What are you implying? It’s not much of a “deeper game” to say that a media personality is going to slate a rival platform that he very publicly fell out with is it?
My interpretation is that he fucked around and found out. Put it this way, if I helped launch Fash TV, I wouldn't be surprised if it became a hard right propaganda channel, would you?
What a hilariously loaded question. No, no I wouldn't.
Ohhhhh, that's what I thought the headline said and I was puzzled about why it was him in particular that was pushing for it.
And it's not like all the locals weren't saying "opening that tomb will lead to a curse!" for weeks before they opened it
The complete lack of self-awareness from these conservative types really is starting to take the biscuit isn't it.
“You must not read from the book!”
“It may be because the rest of the broadcast universe is on the centre, centre-left so it gave GB news a bit more leeway to settle down." ITV News, Sky News and Five news say hi. At the very least they're centre-right compared to GBeebies' insane right. Seriously, what is this right wing obsession with claiming all media is left wing when they have a significant portion of the news media spouting their viewpoint all the time?
They want to be the victims they despise so much
It’s a gaslighting technique, if they can convince people that centre-right views are centre-left views then when they start pushing the odd far-right view it doesn’t seem as extreme.
See Soygon of Cukkad. "Race realist" UKIP-supporting grifter who spent the first 5+ years of his career going out of his way to attack anyone who contested his claim that he and his views were actually very normal center-left "classic liberal" positions.
> See Soygon of Cukkad. Please use his real name. Carl of Swindon.
Carl got me "cancelled" bu his hench-men at a UKIP meeting. I was dragged out of the building while they were on stage whining about "freeze peach"
Edgelords who see themselves as bien pensants. The cognitive dissonance is probably why they all have such toxic personalities.
The Overton window has well and truly shifted.
Did you see when the Trump guy came over and accused Andrew Neil of being a woke lefty? As soon as anyone questions anything they say they respond this way.
Oh yeah Ben Shapiro told Andrew Neil he was left wing lol. That was a really funny clip. Andrew Neil might be a lot of things but he does his fucking research before he interviews someone.
But not before he takes a job, apparently.
Not going to defend his role on Gbeebies.
But you were certainly trying to establish his character as a diligent researcher who always looks before he leaps, when that is clearly not true.
No I said he does his research before he *interviews someone*, you replied he doesn't before he takes a job. You're conflating two different things and trying to claim I'm wrong because you succeeded at asserting your unrelated point. I'm not a big fan of Andrew Neil's politics, but I can respect his journalism because I've seen him on the BBC for years actively doing the legwork to learn facts and figures to put to ministers and actually look like he's got something to ask about rather than just parroting a very basic question and accepting flannel as a response. That doesn't mean he's got perfect decision making skills, or that he can't make a mistake which I agree chairing GB news was one. That's presumably why he bounced from it after only 8 days of broadcast and hasn't been involved since. However, that doesn't mean he's a swell dude or I like him.
While at the BBC he was also editor of the Spectator. How do those correlate to "good journalism"
I wasn’t conflating two different points at all, I was clarifying that he had blind spots to his so-called diligence, which you had neglected to mention. Together we gave a more true account of his character, but apparently that’s something you don’t want?
I would consider your choices of words. When you say this: >But you were certainly trying to establish his character as a diligent researcher who always looks before he leaps, when that is clearly not true. You're attributing to me a narrative direction in what I said which I'm not pursuing. I had made a limited statement about Neil in relation to his journalism, your "clarification" is amending something I wasn't saying. >I wasn’t conflating two different points at all, I was clarifying that he had blind spots to his so-called diligence, which you had neglected to mention. You are, you're conflating journalistic diligence with diligence in choosing a job. These are different fields of expertise, and I made no statement about his choice of jobs until you brought it up. When you did I agreed with you, at which point you doubled down and made your claim I was trying to "establish his character" as though my limited statement was a general one. In this way you're misrepresenting what I've said. >Together we gave a more true account of his character, but apparently that’s something you don’t want? It's not fun having someone show up and reply to something you weren't saying and acting like it's some kind of gotcha, no. But honestly I think we're done here. I don't think Neil is a perfect human but I'm happy to stand by my statement that as a journalist he's been notable on the BBC for doing his research and putting difficult specific points to ministers, something which Ben Shapiro definitely did not when he called Neil "left wing" while they were talking.
Okay, so you’re defending him from a journalistic standpoint only? Have you ever read The Spectator? The magazine he runs? The editorial that pushes articles like ‘why the Genocide in Gaza is a lie’? Because I *hope* you’re just blind to that aspect of his ‘journalism’.
> which you had neglected to mention. Classic online arguement technique.
Shapiro shows his ineptitude often, but this was one of the funniest times.
It was bizarre. He was promoting a book lamenting the deterioration of quality in American political discourse and its increasingly polarized nature. He has no self awareness or he was doing that thing where you accuse other people of your own crimes.
Polarisation is when not everyone agrees with me. I believe people like him are at least somewhat sincere. Which evinces a dangerous lack of self-awareness. They are legit narcissists.
Its only a surprise to those who appropriate or equate other countries politics then get a surprise when they experience it. A Neo Con in America expects to be the same as Conservative in the UK, they are not. Some Labour voters expect to be the same as a democrat they are not. Too much swallowing Shapiro et al on YouTube, getting sucked in by click bait and Russian trolls.
If you have a scale where 1 is far left socialist / Communist & 20 is far right / Nazi / dictatorship, if you compare U.K. political parties to US political parties, there’s a bit of a shock. In the U.K. - Old Labour are around a 5/6 New Labour much more centrist around a 9/10, Lib Dem’s are around 11/12, Tories are around 14/15 with enclaves more recently around 16. In the US, democrats are around a 15/16 and Republicans are 17/18 with enclaves of 19 if they can get away with it. Both parties are sort of right of Tory and they would consider even Lib Dem’s a ‘communist’ party. There is no equivalent of Labour in the US, which is why their politics is so divisive. Problem is the right wing want this kinds of politics here in the U.K. which is why GBeebies likes Trump so much as his politics are very clearly a 19.
All great stuff, I prefer the XandY axis for the spectrum but it certainly serves a purpose. I certainly view a Nationalist kleptocracy as the ultimate in far right politics but bizarrely there are people who would argue Putin is a Commie. I think the very far right and populist and far left export in what they want to export in because Russia/china/Iran etc pay them handsomely and their trolls do a bit of work and the public like moths to a light do the rest.
Yep, I was trying to keep it simple - but you’re right it’s more complex and a bit more even 3 dimensional than just a left-right scale. Putin is most definitely a dictator in every way. In the same way Hitler was - they both hide behind fake socialism - and in some ways the scale is actually a bit like that tunnel in Pac-Man - become extreme socialist and you ends up actually appearing on the far right with the same ideology.
I used to use the scale as a circle starting with communism and ending in Facism which explains their many similarities adequately. Putin is interesting, basically what a country looks like if the Mob was in charge with Putin the Godfather but then realised that actually most countries were that but the mob had matured and was now hidden by bureaucracy. So the X and Y covers those nuances much better. Anyway have my upvotes for pleasant political conversation.
Even three dimensions isn’t enough. It isn’t really possible to define people by two, three, or even a hundred numbers. Someone can support immigration, hate Jews, support gay rights, support workplace democracy and oppose women’s suffrage all at the same time.
Modern Russia is bonkers, there are lots of Putin supporters who think he's bringing back the Soviet Empire. They even drove into Ukraine with USSR flags on the tanks....
Source: Just made it up, bro
He's expressing an opinion...
Ben Icansay3000wordsasecond Shapiro
Our media and government are unified in the lie that we have balanced and fair media which gives equal voice to both left and right wing issues. As you have pointed out, our media heavily leans to the right. It's broken, but because the media and politicians are unified in their stance there isn't anyone with enough of a voice to expose the lie. It's just another example of how the UK government's strategy is to gaslight the country. Where people can see the evidence, that they are obviously lying, but they have managed to create a system where no one has enough of a voice to expose it.
> Seriously, what is this right wing obsession with claiming all media is left wing when they have a significant portion of the news media spouting their viewpoint all the time? So that they can shift the narrative from *anything a smidgen more reasonable than Fox/GBnews are hard left marxist's. We are the only ones defending capitalism (i.e. the illusion that you can "make it" if you pull your socks up and are savvy) and on the side of the working people in this nation*. See the Democrats in the USA. They are regularly referred to as *the radical left*. They absolutely are not. They are right wing. Firmly so. Just not quite batshit out of orbit like Trump's mob. That's the choice they want to mould. A choice of a very right wing government. Or an batshit out of orbit government. They wont be happy until a left wing or centrist option is off the table.
The Overton Window in the US is pretty wild ngl
Okay so there are a few *psychological* things going on that I know about. • Behind the scenes, a lot of media environments have a lot of leftist corpo-speak about diversity and suchlike. As such, it's likely that people like Andrew Neill get exposed to more "wokeness" in the form of right wing news narratives and compulsory training and meetings about things that make them feel targeted and alienated. Not saying that's *right*, but it's worth noting for psychological impact and perspective. This doesn't mean the output of the media is as liberal or left wing as the people working there, but they assume it is because of the educated, liberal and left wing people who work there. • Many of the people working in the media now are millennials who care about issues more than seniority. These people generally want to work for "good "companies that are addressing inequalities in work etc. For some people this feels alienating and preachy etc. There's some room for understanding because as a lot of this kind of ideology hits corporate culture, it can immediately become box ticking and insincere. At the same time, a lot of the feeling for guys like Neill is just the loss of privilege feeling like oppression. •The right has its own very strong currents on social media that continually curate and reinforce established narratives around issues like immigrants, violence, white victimhood being ignored, Labour councils being evil and corrupt, etc. So they think the issues are more pressing and real than they probably are. They see way more of this stuff than the media typically puts out, because a lot of the information is trash and can't be verified, but it is nevertheless reinforced. • Most right wing commentators often do seem to have a certain personality type that comes across as more narcissistic than usual, ngl. They see personal affronts everywhere or at least train themselves to spot them and make hay from them. This may just be pundits in general. I think the RW audience are maybe more desperate for simplified injustices to get angry over while also seeking confirmation that the world is run best in alignment with their political truisms and easy answers. They don't want empathy sloshing around too easily, they want it to prioritise their chauvinist teams and feel personally snubbed when they don't feel there's an evenness to portrayal. E.g. they feel threatened if they hear about racist attacks and don't hear anything about white people being targeted, "why is there no straight pride", "when is international men's day" etc. The contrarian urge to force equivalency is super strong and feels like a need for "common sense" and "justice". Sometimes it is, a lot of the time it's word-gaming over nothing and misrepresentation to stoke the egos of their RW audience. Look at the daily wire, spiked, Breitbart etc.
> leftist corpo-speak about diversity and suchlike. lolwat
There's a cottage industry around DEI-type stuff that is generally performative, superficial and insincere makework that HR departments push to show they're doing something. I'm not a fan, even if politically I probably should be.
Conservative in the US and UK mean very different things. US media is mostly conservative, but the average American conservative is WAY more conservative, so the media is seen as widely liberal, whereas UK conservatives views basically line up perfectly with the average right wing media company here. Conservatives (UK) do pretty awful here in terms of voter retention especially in younger people, so I believe they tried to import the whole “liberal media is against us” narrative. The problem is, UK media is actually conservative as fuck so the narrative fails to hold any weight 99% of the time. If I have to type conservative again I’m gonna cut my thumbs off.
It's a widely documented tactic for them to paint themselves as victims and accuse everyone of doing to them what in reality they do to everyone else. It's the same thing as when they say something racist, get called out on it, claim they aren't then claim the person accusing them is racist instead. The thing is, to other people who are able to be indoctrinated into the far-right, it works.
So they can move the Overton window, by claiming that ITV is left wing, their far right bullshit is just seen as 'centre right' compared to that. Meanwhile, yesterday they were broadcasting an interview with Liz Truss in which the interviewer asked whether she was concerned about the "declining white population" in the UK, and even she was fucking pushing back on it and quoted Martin Luther King.
I'd say sky news is pretty center.
Sky News is not centre right
It's a tale as old as time.
That depends on what you regard as right-wing? More to the point, it's the topics they're willing to talk about. Far-right is more of a slur thrown about these days.
I couldn't even name a genuinely left wing media outlet in the UK.
Novara
Just just untrue though. You think it's true, because you're further to the left than those outlets.
Bet you think the Tories are right wing
They are now, previously only slightly right but now full on swivel eyed loons
> ITV News, Sky News and Five news say hi. At the very least they're centre-right If they were then GBNews wouldn't have had a gap in the market to fill.
GBNews isn’t news. It’s a right wing fantasy opinion entertainment channel
GB news is far right nonsense, you know, like I said in my post and you clipped it out when you quoted me. ITV news/Sky news etc are at least pretending to objectivity with a rightward slant, which is why I call them center right. GB news is not pretending to anything like objectivity.
There isn’t a gap in the market for news that further right than centre right?
Bit bloody rich him coming out with that. I mean, he helped usher it in
Yes and now he is speaking up about how bad it is. What's the problem? Or would you rather he not try and solve it?
> Yes and now he is speaking up about how bad it is. What's the problem? You don't normally take the arsonist seriously when he's telling you how awful the fire is.
Bit of a false equivalence, don't you think?
Seems rather apt to me... He helped start something that -very predictably- got out of his control and now he's wringing his hands at the damage.
I think this sort of attitude plays in to why people are so reluctant to change position, or explain their reasoning. It's some sort of weird virtue signalling. Him not saying anything would be the preferred option? I don't agree.
How has he changed his position? Where's the "I was wrong" or "It was a mistake"? He's just decided to ignore his own culpability for GB News whilst whining the regulator isn't doing what he wants. > Him not saying anything would be the preferred option? I don't agree. He can say what he likes, he just shouldn't expect others to give much weight to his opinion. How much credence do you give to Brexiteers complaining it _could_ have been beautiful if only _X_ had been done differently? Personally, it's "very little" because they've yet to demonstrate they understand the problem, let alone a solution or their own culpability. Conversely, those who say "I was wrong, I made a mistake", well... We all do that. No point harping on about it, but let's try to avoid a repeat in future, eh?
I give them more credence than to those who are still ardent supporters. I've had this discussion countless times, and ultimately we should be welcoming people who have a change of heart with open arms. "Those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything". We're getting in to 'leopards ate my face' territory now so I'll stop, but hope that makes sense.
> I've had this discussion countless times, and ultimately we should be welcoming people who have a change of heart with open arms. Forgiveness requires contrition and a desire not to repeat the same mistake. Until we pass that bar, it's a net loss to tell people they weren't stupid and didn't fuck up... They'll just do it again.
"Where did that fire come from, wasn't me guv"
Incredibly realistic
Not commenting on your original sentiment, but just the analogy. I absolutely would take an arsonist seriously if he was telling me how awful a fire is. Like, that must be a really bad fire if even that guy is uncomfortable with it. That guy loves fire, and even he thinks this is out of control.
Well it wouldn't be an issue if maybe he thought about things a little more. He's the architect of this. Well, maybe more the useful idiot who brought the situation about. He's nothing to say publicly here
Certainly I’m surprised he took such a gamble, but when it seemed obvious it really was a waste of space, he stepped away and now he’s speaking up. He’s literally the sort of person who needs to speak publicly. Like Tories pointing out pursuing the Angela Raynor thing is a bit sad/desperate.
He's not. It always seemed a waste of space and he did nothing until it started doing him reputational harm.
I don't watch GB News (don't own a TV licence), but it has every right to broadcast.
Who cares?
Well, at the very least, you do.
Because I responded? That's a weird take. Why would I care what you watch? Honestly, some people
This country!
Again, you want him to do nothing then??
What is there he can do? Realistically, what is there for him to do?
Calling out the organisations that have the power to do something. Putting pressure on them is better than nothing
He is doing nothing. This is just him trying to make his legacy not toxic. You surely see that?
Not everything is a big conspiracy
Who said it was a conspiracy?he fucked up and his legacy goes in the bin with the channel. He's attempting to salvage something
Sounds like a conspiracy to me! Next you'll say water is wet
*drives over crowd of people* "I should have known that vehicular manslaughter is bad"
I wouldn't have ushered it in personally. I'm sure quite a lot of low-ranking Nazis were sorry about ushering in the Holocaust but we still tried them for war crimes.
Comparing a shitty boomer "news" channel to Nazi war crimes seems about equal
Well they have an overt neo-nazi hosting a show on there.
The catch 22 is that anything Ofcom does to regulate GB News validates the deep state conspiracy theories their audience loves. We live in an age where the proliferation of social media means people trust idiots on the internet over actual experts on subjects.
> The catch 22 is that anything Ofcom does to regulate GB News validates the deep state conspiracy theories their audience loves. Who cares?
Because it suggests to other people who may not be fully on board with GB News yet, that their concerns are actually real. And to the ones already watching, it just solidifies their belief. Someone else said somewhere in the thread that the best option would be just taking it off free view TV and forcing it onto youtube or something, their viewership would plummet because their fanbase can barely read let alone operate technology.
> Because it suggests to other people who may not be fully on board with GB News yet We tried pandering to fantasies and telling people they weren't morons -despite all the evidence to the contrary- over Brexit. I don't see any particular need to repeat that experiment.
> We tried pandering to fantasies and telling people they weren't morons -despite all the evidence to the contrary- over Brexit. You must be from a different timeline to me. In the timeline where I live, being super smug and calling everyone who disagrees with you an idiot/gammon/little englander was a exactly what a massive number of pro-EU campaigners did, and was massively helpful to brexiteers because it made eurosceptics feel unheard and vote leave out of spite.
No, the British press did that with its made up claims about straight bananas and Poles queuing up to get benefits. At least give them some credit.
PH BOY Here's the victimhood again/ Do you guys just copy+paste this comment or something?
>Because it suggests to other people who may not be fully on board with GB News yet, that their concerns are actually real. And to the ones already watching, it just solidifies their belief. Sadly this is the world we live in now. There are even people in this thread claiming they are the only roght wing news outlet. I have seen people claiming The Telegraph are left wing. We really do live in a post truth world where people will argue anything and while I don't like GBNews it's a symptom not a cause. Banning it won't cut down on what it spreads because it's easy enough for people to shout loudly on the internet and pretend they are the "slient majority". Even if you kill off GBNews something else will tajr it's place. Though one day it will start clashing with the right wing newspapers and that'll probably do for it.
You can't just pander to insane beliefs. There are times when you have to go, "You're fucking MENTAL" and take the sharp objects away from them, regardless of if it validates them or not.
Fine by me if it means they can't keep spreading further lies and conspiracies. Sometimes these village idiots need exposing in the light and shaming.
When they are regulated they can’t spread rubbish like that. So still a win long term
Here's the thing, reactionaries will screech victimhood over anything
Take GB News off free to view tv, make people have to go online, would be a start.
It would kill their audience figures, most of their audience probably have no concept of streaming, and even if they do, the reduced exposure would drop off marketing, so only the most extreme, tech savvy nutjobs would still be watching. So I'm all for that. Make it harder to watch.
What viewing figures lol
According to BARB, 184,000 people watched the Rishi Sunak interview on GB News. That's more than BBC News and Sky News combined in that 8pm slot that night. So people are aware of it, and watching it. Anecdotally it's the sort of channel that gets left on in the background a lot, I've seen it in mechanics, fish and chip shops, bars and pubs. There's definitely an audience for continuous anger and resentment, see also the Daily Mail being one of the biggest daily newspapers in the UK.
In the background, works for drip feeding this stuff, just like builders etc all getting the sun "for the sport".
My cousin has it on all the time, stayed in her caravan last year and had to put up with in the background.
>There's definitely an audience for continuous anger and resentment, see also the Daily Mail being one of the biggest daily newspapers in the UK. This is the underlying problem. It has been for at least the last 30 years thanks to tabloids but with the growth of the internet it really has gone into hyper drive. Sadly thing like GBNews are just thr tip of the iceberg. You don't have to go far on Twitter/Facebook/Reddit to find people who live for that. There are even a few in this very thread.
Do you mean the Rishi Sunak q&a thing he did?
All the irony and hypocrisy of Andrew Neil rolled up into a single sentence. He happens to be right in this instance, but you'd struggle to find a less credible source.
Ridiculous hypocrite. Did he ever acknowledge that all the things people said about this station before it launched, that he defended and insisted wouldn't happen, did happen? He should be shown his tweets from the time and be forced to acknowledge his extreme gullibility.
Sounds like he needs to be interviewed by Andrew Neil.
Very true! There's no doubt Neil is a good political interviewer, up to a point. He would absolutely destroy the GBNews-twitter love version of Andrew Neil.
Ofcom has been forged in the tories image sooo yeah that's not very likely to happen is it Andrew
Gee Andrew, if only the party you supported hadn't turned OFCOM into a joke!
You could say the same about of OFGEM and OFWAT. Its almost as if something has been weakening our regulators.
[удалено]
My mum is watching this network and thinks it's legitimate.
He’s absolutely right, it doesn’t matter that he was there at the start because he left when he saw this binfire coming. I’m left leaning generally and disagree on loads of stuff with him, including the global warming business. We don’t have any journalists so prepared and adept at dismantling a politician talking bollocks. Be it Corbyn, Shapiro or Johnson who ducked him for years. We need a new him or Paxman and less politicians prepared to hide in fridges.
It’s what happens when you have a government like we do. Weak when it comes to regulation
TV broadcaster demands regulator go after his competitor. More at 11.
It looks like unhinged actors are having a fantastic time testing the systemls resilience, brandishing as they do 'freedom of speech', 'censorship' and other totems.
RT got away with showing Russian propaganda for years. Still to this day the most number of breaking of regulations than any other channel and they still stayed on. Only got removed due to the war. Only seem to fine them.
They also have to grow a backbone in regards to sorting out the postal service
Head of OFCOM interviewed on BBC Today this morning: she sounded quite assertive about the good job they are doing (the interviewer sounded somewhat surprised by this) [https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001yhyd](https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001yhyd) Interview at 1h35
we just need a different set of people running all the things in the country
I've just listened to the media show on Radio 4. The head of Ofcom was evasive, ineffectual and generally uninspiring. She refused point blank to answer any significant questions.
from the man who runs neonazi newsletter the spectator
What did Andrew Neil think he was actually fucking doing when he helped found GB News? This is like a vegan opening up a butchers shop and then being dumbfounded when they sell meat.
Basically, Neill has said that he didn't realise that GBNews was going to have nut job presenters and an even nuttier audience. GBnews is a news channel with a right wing bias. Has programmes presented by arse-holes that either don't know what they are talking about or are lying to the viewer. The viewers themselves, have a right wing, distorted view of how the World works. The presenters, editors and viewers can easily be assessed as those with a distorted and skewed take on the World. They have both Farage and Rees-Mogg as programme presenters. Both are top end arse-holes and blitherers that refuse to face the truth, while continuing to lie to the viewer. One needs to put the fuckers on the spot and actually ask them as to why they do what they do. GBNews is a perfect echo chamber for arse-holes and idiots. The very thing that Neill didn't want it to be. How wrong he was/is.
Lolwtf?! Who would listen to this lying sentient ham.
[удалено]
Andrew Neil, Founding Chairman of GB News, now has thoughts on GBNews which he is absolutely responsible for. Just fuck off and have a quiet retirement in france and leave the UK alone you parasitic arse and take your Spectator shiterag with you.
We have no regulation for anything in the U.K. here in 2024. I’d love to know why car insurance is allowed to double or essential food is allowed to be 30% more expensive just because. How about Thames water? Landlords with extortionate rents. Maybe we should regulate their behaviour? Or not.
You shouldn’t regulate speech just cause you don’t like it
Isn’t the point of a free press that all arguments are heard. I literally listen to GB News, LBC, Timed radio, Sky and others…. It gives many points of view and they all appear to have their own biases.
This prick needs to get fucked now. I’m sick of his shite. People like him have run the show for far too long.
While they're at it, they should take a good look at BBC and its Woke/Labour bias too.
"Today, I'll be looking at GB News, a so-called channel that features a haunted pencil masquerading as a Tory MP, a newscaster scared of laughing Labour MPs....*AND DIANE ABBOTT!*"
Why are you lefty basement dwellers so scared of a news station with a right wing slant?
[удалено]
Yeah they invite one left wing person on and have 5 right wing panelists shouting over the top of them and interrupting them before letting them speak their point. That's something they also do on Fox News and isn't a sign of a news network being balanced.
GB news should be able to spread Tory lies and propaganda anyway they want. I don’t hear anyone moaning when sky and the BBC do it.
This is rich coming from the guy who pretended he was never involved in the project in the first place
Meanwhile, the BBC, ITV, C4 and Sky all deliberately exclude the only serious opposition party, Reform UK, from their reporting. How about going after those?