Jump to content
Fireman049

CORONAVIRUS

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, TRFAN said:

Then having had a rebuttal, they should find an alternative source to substantiate their claim. 

I'm happy with BBC''s LK, even if she lacks a Deep Throat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, john.r.davies said:

John,

In journalism, sources are protected.  it's not just their ethics (yes, they do have ethics!) it's the LAW.   Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act provides that, "No court may require a person to disclose, nor is any person guilty of contempt of court for refusing to disclose, the source of information contained in a publication for which he is responsible, unless it be established to the satisfaction of the court that disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime."

The last is the difficult bit, and journalists have gone to jail, in this country for refusing to name a source.    You denigrated a journalist for upholding a basic tenet of their profession, as if you criticised a doctor for not telling all the juicy details of some unfortunate celebrity's illness.   I think you should at least apologise.

JOhn

Thank You John.

 

There have been times when I have watched important TV events, and thought, 'I'm not buying that.'

Tony Blairs desperation to get us to war in Irag, with his 45 mins tripe and weapons of mass destruction spring to mind.

Last night was another, I'm stating that my personal opinion is that I chose not to believe what I heard - end of.

Not everything journalists report is Watergate,  a lot of this to me looks more like a witch hunt. As for you comment about betrayal of a doctors confidence,

I have no knowledge, but I think you belittle that profession linking it to some of the current jounalistic goings on we are witnessing in our country today.

Freedom of the press, a cornerstone of our democray - yes, are you stating that, this has never been abused by the press?

John.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...What's in it for the BBC?..."

In my teens my father was a bakery supervisor and he would get me up to do my homework at 5:30am. I always had the radio on and started listening probably 1960's, with Jack de Manio.

Much on my working life was on the road and I listened to the radio news programs (Today) every morning. So I have had about sixty years of following the BBC News programs.

I always felt that the news was an unbiased report of particular events, often not in either the UK's or the governments favour, but it always seemed "fair" and balanced. Since the nineties I have noticed a steady swing away from reporting events to only reporting events that suit a particular agenda and failing to have any mention of major international stories  that do not suit that agenda, and there are many examples.

I observe that the BBC is pushing an open-border, globalism, pro EU stance that denigrates anything worthwhile in the UK and the BBC appear to be exchanging good independent reporters and newscasters for those that only fit the BBC's decision to move away from reporting to opinion-forming.

Why do they do this, what is in it for the BBC? It is very simple for any head to recruit and select those who share their opinions and slew society in a direction it would not necessarily be moving.

Tonight for example the BBC invited Sarah Wollaston, a prominent remainer  to comment on the latest Coronavirus briefing, on at least four occasions she did not answer the questions put to her but repeated her anti-Cummings stance, but as a GP she should have been well placed to provide an objective assessment of the briefing but chose not to do so. Balance in reporting  on the BBC is no longer about allowing a mixed range of informed commentary and alternative suggestions but about sniping and undermining whilst offering nothing constructive to the melting pot.

Someone high up in the BBC is fashioning a political tool to steer public opinion, and it stinks.

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, barkerwilliams said:

"...What's in it for the BBC?..."

In my teens my father was a bakery supervisor and he would get me up to do my homework at 5:30am. I always had the radio on and started listening probably 1960's, with Jack de Manio.

Much on my working life was on the road and I listened to the radio news programs (Today) every morning. So I have had about sixty years of following the BBC News programs.

I always felt that the news was an unbiased report of particular events, often not in either the UK's or the governments favour, but it always seemed "fair" and balanced. Since the nineties I have noticed a steady swing away from reporting events to only reporting events that suit a particular agenda and failing to have any mention of major international stories  that do not suit that agenda, and there are many examples.

I observe that the BBC is pushing an open-border, globalism, pro EU stance that denigrates anything worthwhile in the UK and the BBC appear to be exchanging good independent reporters and newscasters for those that only fit the BBC's decision to move away from reporting to opinion-forming.

Why do they do this, what is in it for the BBC? It is very simple for any head to recruit and select those who share their opinions and slew society in a direction it would not necessarily be moving.

Tonight for example the BBC invited Sarah Wollaston, a prominent remainer  to comment on the latest Coronavirus briefing, on at least four occasions she did not answer the questions put to her but repeated her anti-Cummings stance, but as a GP she should have been well placed to provide an objective assessment of the briefing but chose not to do so. Balance in reporting  on the BBC is no longer about allowing a mixed range of informed commentary and alternative suggestions but about sniping and undermining whilst offering nothing constructive to the melting pot.

Someone high up in the BBC is fashioning a political tool to steer public opinion, and it stinks.

Alan

+1 The  BBC no longer content in reporting new,  they make reference to those In Government and in power making the rules and breaking them, while they are attemptIng  to manipulate the public to their way of thinking. A balanced view no longer a priority  It seems. 
 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Beeb and a Balanced View"

The good old days. But several people here, me included, have cited significant examples proving exactly the opposite, and stretching back to when sidescreen cars were just cheap second-hand cars. That's within living memory, You could go further back, with a bit of digging.

It seems to me that whenever there's a crisis and serious issues at stake, the balanced view is missing. The reason for that is not only down to individuals, but vested interests, and external pressures. Balanced presupposes svper partes, but they aint and never were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, acaie said:

Back to the topic rather than Beeb bashing

https://www.ft.com/content/6b4c784e-c259-4ca4-9a82-648ffde71bf0

 

The article highlights the timing of the lockdown and the number of infections existing at that point (which are two sides of the same coin) as the hinge factors. As I banged on somewhere further back in this thread, I think that's been highly predictable as the key driver of the number of deaths. Of course there will be many other minor factors, like geography, demographics, travel patterns, social structures etc etc, but the lockdown timing factor is the 'unrecognised simplicity'. Although, pretty obviously, it's not one the government would want to acknowledge because it was one factor that was entirely within the government's control.

Nigel

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, news agencies are quoting WHO as breaking that news, not the FT and WHO fails to refer to FT in their statement. Or is it a WHO news tipped to FT first to cover their back?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Acaie,

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29701767

Media does character assassination  of everyone in power, even those long dead.  The spirit of Joe McCarthy lives on.

It is all just so irrelevant to Coronavirus, its treatment and prevention.

Alan

Edited by barkerwilliams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, barkerwilliams said:

Acaie,

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29701767

Media does character assassination  of everyone in power, even those long dead.  The spirit of Joe McCarthy lives on.

It is all just so irrelevant to Coronavirus, its treatment and prevention.

Alan

As you state your post above has nothing to do with the topic. I suggest you start a new thread.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not the Pangolins, or the Skiers its the Planet of the Apes we need to thank for Coronavirus spreading.:o

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-monkeys-escape-with-covid-19-samples-after-attacking-lab-assistant-11996752

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imbecile. If he was grieving because one of his family had died of cancer, how would he feel about pulling up behind a car with the number plate that read, say, TUMOUR? Or some other crass insensitivity?

Nigel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please familiarise yourself with our Terms and Conditions. By using this site, you agree to the following: Terms of Use.