GB news .

[IanM]

I think multiple news sources are a good thing. But, I think funding needs to be transparent... and not denied till subject to a FOI and a whistle blower appears ....

If you disapprove of bigotry, you need to disapprove of all of it, or you are also a bigot.

 

[RichA]

Just switched over to it, to conduct my own research. Dan Wootton, whoever he is, interviewing Lady Campbell, whoever she is.
Utterly bizarre. Are we certain this isn't some kind of spoof channel?
I shall not be returning but see no reason why other folks shouldn't have the choice to melt their brains watching it.

 

[Deleted member 29109]

I’m not in the least bit angry love.

??

 

[Hobbit]

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.

We do have an obligation to censor hate speech but how you censor it is very important. Stop it, yes, but educate so it doesn’t happen is even more important. To do that you must be aware it’s there.

Trump rode in on a wave of hate, all the things you speak of. Who woke the opposition up and got them voting in such numbers?

A slow, insidious creep hidden away is far more dangerous than having it out there where everyone can see it for what it is.

I’ve not seen GB News, nor am I inclined to watch it But I’m comfortable with it being there so that the fence sitters can see it for what it is.

 

[PhilTheFragger]

Guys
Political posts will be removed and their authors infracted

Cmon you know the drill by now

 

[Kellfire]

We do have an obligation to censor hate speech but how you censor it is very important. Stop it, yes, but educate so it doesn’t happen is even more important. To do that you must be aware it’s there.

Trump rode in on a wave of hate, all the things you speak of. Who woke the opposition up and got them voting in such numbers?

A slow, insidious creep hidden away is far more dangerous than having it out there where everyone can see it for what it is.

I’ve not seen GB News, nor am I inclined to watch it But I’m comfortable with it being there so that the fence sitters can see it for what it is.

I totally get what you’re saying but I just don’t have faith in the British public to see it for what it is. I still think people are being swayed towards this sort of dangerous hate propaganda and are being won over by a basic statement such as “we represent you!”.

 

[RichA]

I totally get what you’re saying but I just don’t have faith in the British public to see it for what it is. I still think people are being swayed towards this sort of dangerous hate propaganda and are being won over by a basic statement such as “we represent you!”.

Have a little faith in us mate. I'm probably well within what they expect to be their target audience and I can see it for what it is. A vanity project for a group of self-proclaimed independent thinkers.
Some will, but must people won't watch it. It's no more likely to sway mass public opinion than Kilroy or Trisha did.

 

[GreiginFife]

Not something that I will ever watch as it's target audience is clear. Anything that uses the phrase "represent the hidden minority" makes me immediately suspicious of it's intent.

Not sure that I'm comfortable with censorship either as suggested. Censure yes, absolutely. We have a duty to censure hate but censoring people's views? For me that is a slippery slope as it all depends on who is deciding what hate is and, to a very much lesser degree, what hate is defined as today. (Remember a time when Friends was considered to be comedy gold?)

We spend far too long, IMO of course, labelling people leftist or rightist and everything has to be at an extreme that we often forget that, as with everything, balance is key. Being on the far of any side only leads to imbalance and instability.

 

[Kellfire]

Have a little faith in us mate. I'm probably well within what they expect to be their target audience and I can see it for what it is. A vanity project for a group of self-proclaimed independent thinkers.
Some will, but must people won't watch it. It's no more likely to sway mass public opinion than Kilroy or Trisha did.

I don’t have faith because of the way the country constantly votes. But I won’t discuss that more because it’s inherently political.

 

[IanM]

From this thread I have learned that “if I don’t agree with the editorial stance, it’s bad.”

Twas ever thus.

 

[Kellfire]

From this thread I have learned that “if I don’t agree with the editorial stance, it’s bad.”

Twas ever thus.

That’s the nature of having views and opinions about certain things though. Some are based off morals and so it’s just natural that someone will find the opposing views “bad”.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

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.

Yes, but your hate speech is someone else's freedom of speech.
Depends who is defining what hate speech is.
Your phrase, "we have an obligation to censor..". is worrying to say the least.

 

[larmen]

This channel made a clear statement that they are not doing objective coverage but are giving a certain hypocritical (my adjective) view

I guess it isn’t entirely clear to everyone including myself because they call themselves ’news’.
It’s like over the pond where Fox News has a couple of objective guys at times no one is watching but they are filling their prime spots with popular but lying opinion hosts.

News should be a protected term, in my opinion.

 

[RichA]

I don’t have faith because of the way the country constantly votes. But I won’t discuss that more because it’s inherently political.

Growing up in the East Midlands during the Thatcher era, that's how I felt. It's the nature of democracy. Most of us are moderates. Over time the pendulum swings but it will always be across the centre ground in this country. I'm hoping my comment is balanced rather than political.

 

[rudebhoy]

Is GB News not just the Daily Mail on TV?

 

[Ethan]

Yes, but your hate speech is someone else's freedom of speech.
Depends who is defining what hate speech is.
Your phrase, "we have an obligation to censor..". is worrying to say the least.

There has never been, nor should there be, an unqualified freedom of speech. If someone called on all good patriotic people to round up [some category of person] and detain them, and some mouth breathers did that, would that be freedom of speech which should be allowed?

The public has too many gullible morons to allow unrestrained freedom of speech. Remember the larger number of people than you would think who joined in attacks and pickets against paediatricians because they confused them with paedophiles?

 

[SocketRocket]

I don’t have faith because of the way the country constantly votes. But I won’t discuss that more because it’s inherently political.

Maybe there's a lesson in your comment. 'It's not me it's the rest of them' ?

Andrew Neil is very good at questioning both sides of the subject. It's about time we had someone questioning the objectives of the Wokeratzi.

 

[SocketRocket]

There has never been, nor should there be, an unqualified freedom of speech. If someone called on all good patriotic people to round up [some category of person] and detain them, and some mouth breathers did that, would that be freedom of speech which should be allowed?

The public has too many gullible morons to allow unrestrained freedom of speech. Remember the larger number of people than you would think who joined in attacks and pickets against paediatricians because they confused them with paedophiles?

There is a big difference between citing unrest and freedom of speech. IMO people should be free to make the opinions they hold, trying to stop opposing views is the thin end of the wedge towards the thought police.

People shouldn't directly or indirectly intimidate others or encourage violence but should be free to challenge by debate anything they wish, whatever side of the fence they sit.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

There is a big difference between citing unrest and freedom of speech. IMO people should be free to make whatever opinions they hold, trying to stop others with opposing views from stating them is the thin end of the wedge to the thought police.

People shouldn't directly or indirectly intimidate others or encourage violence but should be free to challenge by debate anything they wish, whatever side of the fence they sit.

With Free Speech also comes responsibility- boundaries should always be known , people can’t just say whatever they wish without fear of reprisals if what they are saying is deemed to be derogatory, hateful , racist , homophobic etc within the environment you are speaking. There are and always will be rules we must each abide too and rightly so

 

[Deleted member 29109]

What many people don't seem to understand about free speech. Is that they are free to say whatever they want. But, they are not free from the potential consequences of what they say.

Similar with opinions. You are absolutely free to hold any opinion you like. But that doesn't mean that your opinion is a fact. Or that anyone else has to pay any attention to it.
This is something many people seem to struggle to understand these days.