GB news .

[theoneandonly]

Anyone tuned in to this new news chanel? I haven't thus far and probably won't but it apparently had decent viewing figures on its opening night.
Although i have read a few stories that some companies are pulling their ads and don't want to be associated with it.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

If companies are pulling their ads then I'd suggest they haven't done their homework. Then again I wouldn't be surprised if that was a story put out by the network to generate publicity, create an identity. They want to be different, create a fuss and this sort of story helps.

In answer to your original point, I haven't seen it.

 

[Deleted member 29109]

Gammon Boys news?

No thanks.

 

[KenL]

Gammon Boys news?

No thanks.

No idea what that means.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-57483907.amp

Sounds like a channel to avoid - guess it won’t be long before Morgan , Farage and Hopkins are on there regularly

 

[Beezerk]

Gammon Boys news?

No thanks.

That's such a crass statement, it's something I'd expect to read from some of my crazed Facebook friends who I don't much pay attention to anymore.

 

[Orikoru]

I've never heard of it. What's going on?

 

[Hobbit]

Why censor or even avoid news outlets people don’t agree with? Surely having them gets people off the fence? Yes a news channel’s content might be repugnant but it’s that very repugnance that wakes people up.

The alternative is to have ‘grey’ channels with everyone watching like nodding dogs. “We” need channels that make us ask questions.

Pink Floyd, “we don’t need no thought control.”

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I've never heard of it. What's going on?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....from-gb-news-tv-channel-over-content-concerns

It’s a new news channel that’s been created by some rich pro “brexit” millions to create “debate”

one of the first guests was Farage so should show where it’s aimed at

 

[Kellfire]

Why censor or even avoid news outlets people don’t agree with? Surely having them gets people off the fence? Yes a news channel’s content might be repugnant but it’s that very repugnance that wakes people up.

The alternative is to have ‘grey’ channels with everyone watching like nodding dogs. “We” need channels that make us ask questions.

It doesn’t wake people up though. Look at Fox News in the USA. People take it as gospel and all of a sudden hate becomes normalised and people become polarised all to drive the agenda of the right wing media.

 

[Orikoru]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....from-gb-news-tv-channel-over-content-concerns

It’s a new news channel that’s been created by some rich pro “brexit” millions to create “debate”

one of the first guests was Farage so should show where it’s aimed at

Oh right. Not for me then! Cheers.

 

[Deleted member 29109]

That's such a crass statement, it's something I'd expect to read from some of my crazed Facebook friends who I don't much pay attention to anymore.

Crass? Maybe!

But they know their target audience.

 

[Hobbit]

It doesn’t wake people up though. Look at Fox News in the USA. People take it as gospel and all of a sudden hate becomes normalised and people become polarised all to drive the agenda of the right wing media.

You’ve got my opinion. I believe your censorship is wrong and at the other extreme. Hate is already there. Yes they garner more support but so do the moderates. And if you were right, Trump would have won by a landslide. Waking up the American electorate saw the opposite happen. I rest my case on Biden’s massive win.

 

[The Dog.]

Haven’t tuned in but I will once I get a TV. I think Andrew Neill is brilliant. The country is desperate for a platform for anything other than the liberal tripe that the BBC shamefully trots out.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Why censor or even avoid news outlets people don’t agree with? Surely having them gets people off the fence? Yes a news channel’s content might be repugnant but it’s that very repugnance that wakes people up.

The alternative is to have ‘grey’ channels with everyone watching like nodding dogs. “We” need channels that make us ask questions.

Pink Floyd, “we don’t need no thought control.”

I find it easier to not bother watching any of the news channels ?

 

[Kellfire]

You’ve got my opinion. I believe your censorship is wrong and at the other extreme. Hate is already there. Yes they garner more support but so do the moderates. And if you were right, Trump would have won by a landslide. Waking up the American electorate saw the opposite happen. I rest my case on Biden’s massive win.

It’s hard not to get political on this topic but do you think the existence of this news channel will actually reduce the number of those who voted the way they do because of certain ugly social and political opinions based on wealth, race or social standing?

I don’t.

We have an obligation to censor hate speech or at least call it out for what it is.

 

[IanM]

As ever, anything on one side of the agenda is ok, the other is not allowed.
And that applies to whoever has posted it!
Anyway, this thread is outside the no politics rule.Could never be any thing else.

poor old mods

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Haven’t tuned in but I will once I get a TV. I think Andrew Neill is brilliant. The country is desperate for a platform for anything other than the liberal tripe that the BBC shamefully trots out.

A political statement and one that I would 100% disagree with. The BBC goes to almost absurd lengths to try a present all sides to an argument - even when some views are very minority or often baseless. But this is political and out of bounds of these boards Out of Bounds ?

 

[Deleted member 1147]

I’ll not watch it because I don’t need to. I get my news from multiple sources already.
Some staff seem ok, such as Simon McCoy, others not so like Wootton.
I just think it’s a shame people think it’s necessary. After all we already have BBC, ITV, Ch4, Sky, Al Jazeera etc. and as both sides of the political divide complain about most of them, they must all be doing a decent job.

 

[Ethan]

Why censor or even avoid news outlets people don’t agree with? Surely having them gets people off the fence? Yes a news channel’s content might be repugnant but it’s that very repugnance that wakes people up.

The alternative is to have ‘grey’ channels with everyone watching like nodding dogs. “We” need channels that make us ask questions.

Pink Floyd, “we don’t need no thought control.”

Who is trying to censor it? They are entitled, within the limit of the law, to do their thing, but equally any of us are entitled to say we think it is culture war crap and if we choose to back or abandon their advertisers, that too. This channel made a clear statement that they are not doing objective coverage but are giving a certain hypocritical (my adjective) view with which I don't agree, so I won't be watching.

It will raise questions for sure, probably mainly people asking 'Why am I watching this dog whistle drivel?'.