Ad Lib Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 "BUT THE BBC IS A STATE BROADCASTER" Is fucking mouth frothing simpleton territory. The British State is not a one-party state. The British State does not direct BBC editorial policy. Comparing RT to the BBC is like saying kicking a door and kicking a human is basically the same thing because both involve kicking. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 AdLib's a lying arsehole. Just saying. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lex Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 Got to admire his brass neck. Since the good people of Gordon gave him the Tory boot out of Westminster his relentless drive for self publicity has been quite something. He would have known taking this show would have got his name and face all over the news again, and that’s why he’s done it. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 AdLib's a lying arsehole. Just saying. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londonwell Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 Just now, Ad Lib said: "BUT THE BBC IS A STATE BROADCASTER" Is fucking mouth frothing simpleton territory. The British State is not a one-party state. The British State does not direct BBC editorial policy. Comparing RT to the BBC is like saying kicking a door and kicking a human is basically the same thing because both involve kicking. Tbf the BBC world service, which is our equivalent to RT (International output wise) was until very recently funded by the Foreign Office, so you know... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 The same week in which May went to Paul Dacres 25th year in charge of the Daily Mail bash where a Gordon Brown produced happy birthday film was showed, Alex Salmond gets a chat show on RT.And what is it are peoples heads exploding about? An hypocrisy overload I suspect. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Londonwell said: Tbf the BBC world service, which is our equivalent to RT (International output wise) was until very recently funded by the Foreign Office, so you know... Yes, but Foreign Secretaries didn’t dictate its content. Edited November 11, 2017 by Ad Lib 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colkitto Posted November 11, 2017 Author Share Posted November 11, 2017 6 hours ago, Ad Lib said: "BUT THE BBC IS A STATE BROADCASTER" Is fucking mouth frothing simpleton territory. The British State is not a one-party state. The British State does not direct BBC editorial policy. Comparing RT to the BBC is like saying kicking a door and kicking a human is basically the same thing because both involve kicking. The UK is not a one party State, but all Westminster governments believe the the unity of the UK as a State, so in essence it is a one party State barring a few policy differences between parties. The UK government doesn't directly involve itself with the runnings of the BBC, because it is clever and very subtle in having placemen within the company to make sure it toes the British line. Anyone in power at the BBC from the Director-General to the producers to editors make sure they keep to the British narrative. The BBC without doubt is a propaganda tool of the British State. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 8 minutes ago, Colkitto said: The UK government doesn't directly involve itself with the runnings of the BBC, because it is clever and very subtle in having placemen within the company to make sure it toes the British line. Who? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibbermoresaint Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 13 minutes ago, Ad Lib said: Yes, but Foreign Secretaries didn’t dictate its content. Plausible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Colkitto said: The UK is not a one party State, but all Westminster governments believe the the unity of the UK as a State, so in essence it is a one party State barring a few policy differences between parties. The UK government doesn't directly involve itself with the runnings of the BBC, because it is clever and very subtle in having placemen within the company to make sure it toes the British line. Anyone in power at the BBC from the Director-General to the producers to editors make sure they keep to the British narrative. The BBC without doubt is a propaganda tool of the British State. 1. The UK is a one party state apart from the 8 plus parties that have been part of or had influence over a government in at least part of it in the last 5 years. This is like saying “but apart from the squad of over 30 players, Celtic has no football team”. 2. “Clever” is not the adjective I would use to describe the UK Government. Nor for that matter is “subtle”. I don’t think you’ve thought this through at all. 3. Even if the BBC were a “propaganda tool of the British state” the British state doesn’t jail and murder journalists and the BBC doesn’t help them cover it up. The issue is not bias here. Lots of news outlets are biased. The issue is enabling state brutality and giving credibility to propaganda outlets that specifically support and facilitate the regimes that do it. Edited November 11, 2017 by Ad Lib 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 Terrible gif Also not what people are doing People just don’t care 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 With Maybots cabinet woes,the paradise papers being released this is pure "oh look a squirrel "for the yoon press .The only thing it has done is give the show some publicity 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry94 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 I think a lot of people are completely missing the point here. The content of his show doesn't really matter. If he does a segment on gays in Chechnya for example, the Russians don't care. They know he's supported LGBT rights in the past and it's something that is popular in this country. Editorial independence really doesn't matter as in terms of their overall agenda as a Russian mouthpiece, Alex Salmond isn't intended as a primary tool to directly report whatever nonsense they want people to believe. What does matter is his name and the legitimacy that gives the broadcaster. A generally respected long-serving former First Minister of Scotland is a reputable figure and having him in their billing next to any nutjob adds legitimacy to their channel as a whole and thus increases the amount of scope they have. Hell, we just had the current First Minister of Scotland attempt to condemn his decision but also pledge to watch a show on RT - their viewing figures are high. Salmond for me has made such an extreme error of judgement and although dramatic, my opinion is that if the SNP leadership should evaluate if he has broken any of the terms of membership and seriously consider sacking him. I don't know how viable this is but his association with the independence movement and SNP is so strong and he is well on his way to becoming a toxic figure that can harm both of those things. The comparisons with the BBC are completely laughable and the Dunfermline MP, Douglas Chapman, has proven himself to be an absolute walloper with his comments. The BBC are not perfect but it is impossible for news to run the fine line. It's true that the Scottish Referendum and EU referendum was mostly spent scrutinising the position of change much more closely than the incumbency position but that's just life, if you want to change something, you need to justify how it is going to be better. They are a bit embarrassing with their Ruth lovefests at times and other issues but the idea that they are a big all-powerful state broadcaster who rejects dissent is ridiculous and they are possibly one of the best examples of a state-run broadcaster around. On top of that, the British government doesn't really go around arresting journalists. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 Terrible gif Also not what people are doing People just don’t care Baxter does. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 I think a lot of people are completely missing the point here. The content of his show doesn't really matter. If he does a segment on gays in Chechnya for example, the Russians don't care. They know he's supported LGBT rights in the past and it's something that is popular in this country. Editorial independence really doesn't matter as in terms of their overall agenda as a Russian mouthpiece, Alex Salmond isn't intended as a primary tool to directly report whatever nonsense they want people to believe. What does matter is his name and the legitimacy that gives the broadcaster. A generally respected long-serving former First Minister of Scotland is a reputable figure and having him in their billing next to any nutjob adds legitimacy to their channel as a whole and thus increases the amount of scope they have. Hell, we just had the current First Minister of Scotland attempt to condemn his decision but also pledge to watch a show on RT - their viewing figures are high. Salmond for me has made such an extreme error of judgement and although dramatic, my opinion is that if the SNP leadership should evaluate if he has broken any of the terms of membership and seriously consider sacking him. I don't know how viable this is but his association with the independence movement and SNP is so strong and he is well on his way to becoming a toxic figure that can harm both of those things. The comparisons with the BBC are completely laughable and the Dunfermline MP, Douglas Chapman, has proven himself to be an absolute walloper with his comments. The BBC are not perfect but it is impossible for news to run the fine line. It's true that the Scottish Referendum and EU referendum was mostly spent scrutinising the position of change much more closely than the incumbency position but that's just life, if you want to change something, you need to justify how it is going to be better. They are a bit embarrassing with their Ruth lovefests at times and other issues but the idea that they are a big all-powerful state broadcaster who rejects dissent is ridiculous and they are possibly one of the best examples of a state-run broadcaster around. On top of that, the British government doesn't really go around arresting journalists. Hallelujah. Someone who gets it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 49 minutes ago, harry94 said: that's just life 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee-Bey Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 Anyone claiming the BBC is state propaganda is insulting my British exceptionalism tbqhwy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 The same week in which May went to Paul Dacres 25th year in charge of the Daily Mail bash That was brought up in general politics.This isn't an either or thing. You can be critical of more than one thing at a time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zetterlund Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 RT doesn't need the likes of Salmond to give it legitimacy. It gets legitimacy for the quality of its output as evidenced by the many awards it regularly wins at international (western) film & TV festivals for news and documentaries. If it really was some kind of comical North Korean style propaganda megaphone as those who clearly don't watch it seem to think, it would be nowhere near these events alongside other established 'soft power' outlets like CNN, Deutsche Welle, Voice of America etc. One of the main criticisms aimed at it is that it only gives a platform to anti-western voices, but when was the last time anyone saw a pro-Russian expert on the BBC or CNN, or even someone neutral for that matter? RT is only a news story in itself because of the hysterical anti-Russian atmosphere our own propaganda has created so that anything Russian is automatically suspicious and not to be trusted. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.