Vocal Voices

After all that sickeningly pro EU, grating and incredibly biased bilge water we had to deal with during the referendum from the BBC, today they tell us that the EU is a club of bickering children who would rather kick the can down the road than deal with critical issues which threaten the very Union itself.

The article accuses Tusk of "waking up and smelling the coffee". Did the BBC do the same? Not in my estimation. They were just lying to us in order to try and influence us to make a decision which met their political ideology.

Of the two I'd trust Tusk more!

British news media has become untrustworthy, with the BBC and Sky taking the lead.

During the referendum the BBC went with the Cameron government line rather than informing the public of the views from both sides, as its charter demands. The two worse commentators were Gavin Hastings and Katya Adler, author of the linked article. The BBC Trust also needs to be brought to task for not keeping the BBC neutral.

I now go to other places for news in order to try to form an objective view of the world.

Workingman wrote:British news media has become untrustworthy, with the BBC and Sky taking the lead.

During the referendum the BBC went with the Cameron government line rather than informing the public of the views from both sides, as its charter demands. The two worse commentators were Gavin Hastings and Katya Adler, author of the linked article.

There is a strange mood abroad at the moment. People aren't idiots and they eventually come to a conclusion that they are being fed propaganda, not news. These days, with many more sources of information and news available, it is harder for even such a monolith as the BBC to successfully push a narrative; their 'steering' of a story becomes more obvious.

I don't know if anyone saw a piece the BBC did on Trump/Clinton? Talking about how "open" Clinton is and how much more than Trump she has disclosed, "No matter how much this is pointed out to people" said the journalist plaintively "they aren't listening".

No, they aren't. Because the BBC's political coverage for years has only been interested in pushing the "liberal, progressive" view. In other words it's as biased as hell, blatantly so.

And in news as momentous as the sky falling upstairs, the DM actually reported that climate change is decimating our Arctic Ice, instead of the usual BS from David Rose about how Arctic Ice is growing and how it will be back to normal in a "jiffy"...

For the discerning news reader who actually remembers longer than the last news article, this must all be a bit confusing. Unless they actually wake up and realise that very few Western news outlets are churning out anything other than the output of their own vested interests.

For instance I can't stand the Guardian's political stance, I ignore almost all their political articles or just read them to have a good laugh sometimes, but their climate change reporting is spot on. That's not my personal opinion (well the climate change part), but verifiable for multiple different means. Just as the usual DM pap is deniable from multiple different means.

News consumers need to become smarter. Then perhaps we'll see more tears at the BBC as people "just don't listen" a lot more...

I sometimes read comments on the BBC News website and it is perfectly clear that a large percentage of those commenting have sussed the BBC agendas drive output and are not pleased with it. Certain 'topics' are driven relentlessly and given headline status when they are little more than minor local happen-stances.

Nowadays I find myself avoiding BBC links. It's better for my blood pressure. When they start reporting news again, rather than spin, I might make them a core part of my news sources again.