ICTChris Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Reynard, did you come up with the 'Hang Nelson Mandela' poster during your time in the Young Conservatives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Reynard, did you come up with the 'Hang Nelson Mandela' poster during your time in the Young Conservatives? I wish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Freud Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Despite The Guardian's readership being significantly below its competitors (i.e. The Times and Telegraph), 86% of BBC recruitment advertising went to it.If people want media plurality, complaining about Murdoch's Sky News/News Corp's 22% share of media consumption when the BBC command 39% is more than a bit odd. Indeed, you could combine the media consumption figures for Sky News, News Corp, ITN and ITV and it still wouldn't reach the BBC figure! Possibly because it has a dedicated media advertising section? Not sure if the the Murdoch rag and the Torygraph have that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Possibly because it has a dedicated media advertising section? Not sure if the the Murdoch rag and the Torygraph have that. Even if they did the BBC wouldn't use it. The state funded broadcaster giving funds to help prop up it's left loving, tax avoiding newspaper chum. It's quite hilarious that some people whine about Murdochs news corp, when the state funded broadcaster in this country has the majority of news consumption and peddles a left of centre line and has done for decades. At least people have a choice whether to purchase Murdochs rags or his TV packages. They have no choice over the licence fee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Possibly because it has a dedicated media advertising section? Not sure if the the Murdoch rag and the Torygraph have that. I'm pretty sure they do (my dad gets the Telegraph and I get the Times). They also have readerships which make The Guardian look like an insignificant fringe publication. 86% is absolutely ridiculous and betrays the monumental bias in the BBC. Anyone who denies it is deluding themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted January 6, 2011 Author Share Posted January 6, 2011 I'm pretty sure they do (my dad gets the Telegraph and I get the Times). They also have readerships which make The Guardian look like an insignificant fringe publication. 86% is absolutely ridiculous and betrays the monumental bias in the BBC. Anyone who denies it is deluding themselves. To be fair though, the right have consistently demanded the end of the BBC. Would you not favour those that support over those that want your end? I'm not saying that it is correct to do so, they are supposed to be impartial, but it is at least understandable. Their position on the Union annoys me far more, but I guess thats because I'm a relative centrist rather than on the left or right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 To be fair though, the right have consistently demanded the end of the BBC. Would you not favour those that support over those that want your end? I'm not saying that it is correct to do so, they are supposed to be impartial, but it is at least understandable. Their position on the Union annoys me far more, but I guess thats because I'm a relative centrist rather than on the left or right. No they haven't, ever. They have demanded an end to the state funding of the BBC. Quite a different position altogether. I'd be quite happy to cough up to subscribe to the BBC as I do think a lot of what they do is very good. I just object to having no choice whether I pay for them or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Freud Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 To be fair though, the right have consistently demanded the end of the BBC. Would you not favour those that support over those that want your end? And in the case of the Times, a global media organisation that is a direct competitor. I'm not saying that it is correct to do so, they are supposed to be impartial, but it is at least understandable. Their position on the Union annoys me far more, but I guess thats because I'm a relative centrist rather than on the left or right. The clue might just be in the name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 And in the case of the Times, a global media organisation that is a direct competitor. The clue might just be in the name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted January 6, 2011 Author Share Posted January 6, 2011 The clue might just be in the name. Like I said with regard to the right-left thing though, I can understand WHY they do it, but it doesn't make it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Freud Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 At least people have a choice whether to purchase Murdochs rags or his TV packages. They have no choice over the licence fee. The problem being, of course, is that then there would be literally no left of centre mouthpiece. I can see it from a competition perspective, but frankly the Murdoch empire gets quite enough government help to continue in its sleazy, amoral, partisan way. Frankly, as a centre lefty, I say f**k the lot of you and pay up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 I'd happily pay them the licence fee for Test Match Special alone. Makes you proud to be British when that tune starts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Freud Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 I'd happily pay them the licence fee for Test Match Special alone. Makes you proud to be British when that tune starts... I'm welling up here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 To be fair though, the right have consistently demanded the end of the BBC. Would you not favour those that support over those that want your end? I'm not saying that it is correct to do so, they are supposed to be impartial, but it is at least understandable. Their position on the Union annoys me far more, but I guess thats because I'm a relative centrist rather than on the left or right. First of all you're being more than a little disingenuous about lumping "the right" into one camp, let alone assuming that The Daily Telegraph and The Times have a uniform editorial view on it conforming to this "right" camp. Secondly, it's advertising for recruitment. It's not about ringing endorsements of the organisation in question or otherwise. It's thoroughly partial, reflective of an institutional left-wing bias, and would inevitably lead to a bias of employees given it is... recruitment advertising. Worth just reminding people of the readership figures over the relevant period in which 86% of BBC recruitment advertising was blown on Guardian Newsprint... The Times - 1.8 million The Daily Telegraph - 1.8 million The Guardian - 1.2 million Sunday Times - 3.1 million Sunday Telegraph - 1.6 million The Observer - 1.3 million Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted January 6, 2011 Author Share Posted January 6, 2011 I'd happily pay them the licence fee for Test Match Special alone. Makes you proud to be British when that tune starts... Ah yes, the England and Wales cricket team being regarded as British. A very apt example on so, so many levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 The problem being, of course, is that then there would be literally no left of centre mouthpiece. I can see it from a competition perspective, but frankly the Murdoch empire gets quite enough government help to continue in its sleazy, amoral, partisan way. Frankly, as a centre lefty, I say f**k the lot of you and pay up. Why not? Isn't it financially viable? If it isn't then why should the taxpayer fund the politics of the left? And it's your choice to not buy Murdochs wares as is your right. Your money, your choice and that's absolutely fine. I don't see why I should have to fund a left of centre biased state broadcaster though. I do pay up for it and I would continue to pay up through choice. But I'd like to have the freedom to choose all the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Freud Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Ah yes, the England and Wales cricket team being regarded as British. A very apt example on so, so many levels. They ARE British you tosser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Ah yes, the England and Wales cricket team being regarded as British. A very apt example on so, so many levels. Its been captained by a few Scots in its time. It is the only time you will probably find Scotsmen actively wanting a team labelled England to win at sport. And Welsh and Irish too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted January 6, 2011 Author Share Posted January 6, 2011 They ARE British you tosser. Really? So are they run by the British Cricket Board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 They ARE British you tosser. I can see him spitting feathers about cricket being an "English" game. It was Scotsmen that took the game round the empire all the same India, Pakistan, SA West Indies etc. That will really have him in a state of apoplexy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.