*** GB News *** (stay on topic!)

[FortuitousFluke]

So after a couple of days, I'm still not sure why people are going absolutely nuts over this. The pulling of advertising without the complainants presenting evidence of their grievances is frankly embarrassing.

The thing is none of these companies need to tell you why they choose to make the advertising association they do. Take politics out of it, ignore the right/left he said she said nazi vs commie nonsense for a minute and just look at what their marketing consultants have hitched them to. A new broadcast news channel, which has already been mired in debate, and which was always likely to stir up controversy in the Twitter-verse. If I were in charge of marketing for a firm I don't think I'd want to be in at launch either, further down the line? Who knows.

The fact of the matter is the majority of these companies aren't Ben and Jerries, they're not ****** because this advertising strategy breaches their core values, they're ****** because they've been embroiled in a Twitter storm that any half competent market exec could have seen coming from space. It's damage limitation.

 

[VincentHanna]

So after a couple of days, I'm still not sure why people are going absolutely nuts over this. The pulling of advertising without the complainants presenting evidence of their grievances is frankly embarrassing.

Colin Brazier and Mercy Muroki are quite watchable (actually I think Mercy was an excellent pick) and I don't feel like they are emanating an aura of hate.

I suspect Kirsty Gallagher might be a bit anti-vax but she's said her piece and the counter arguments were made quite firmly.

The only thing I've seen that I'm not keen on is Dan Wooton who does feel a bit like the Daily Mail on TV. "Dewbs" is obviously marmite and a little cranky.

I'll carry on dipping in on the odd occasion out of interest tbh, I don't get what all the fuss is. I don't really like watching TV at all but it's been amusing watching this develop.

I'm not "going nuts over it, but for me, personally, their stated goal was completely at odds with the content I saw

Andrew Neil said in his opening monologue:

if you want fake news, lies, disinformation, distortion of the facts, conspiracy theories, then GB news is not for you.

The first programme proved Neil's assertion entirely incorrect. Dan Wooton said that lockdowns don't work, when it's been shown through case data that lockdowns achieve their stated aim of reducing infection rates and deaths. He then then put forward a conspiracy theory that people in government wanted to create a 'biosecurity state' and his panellists then dismissed polling evidence showing public support for lockdowns as made up polling, and also stated that masks aren't effective - both unsubstantiated arguments, neither of them challenged by anybody.

When I turned my Sky Q box on yesterday it was still tuned in and I watched another 5-10 minutes. Surprise surprise it was Dan Wooton again, and one of the panellists was a podcaster via webcam who had a Margaret thatcher picture on a shelf behind him, despite being born after she was ever in power (He said he was 27 which means he was born in 1994).

It was clearly placed to get viewers on-side.

Top quality content:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1404828598373060612

 

[Troezar]

Yeah, that is my problem with Wooton - "the way I feel", "my opinion", "I think".

I suppose it's a personality driven segment but he's pretty divisive IMO so possibly not the best choice.

Since the advent of the Internet the news organisations have found that anger is the emotion most likely to generate clicks. Sadly I think this has found its way into lots of the news media. Being divisive and controversial generates views and revenue. Not sure what the way forward is. Subscription only, like buying a news paper? But even they were reliant on advertisers. I've seen the news media decline significantly in my lifetime, the last 40+ years. I'm sure it will right itself eventually but it's in a state of flux right now and I don't think all models will prevail.

 

[200sols]

Don't use twitter but just a brief look. Its all spreading around the #stopfundinghate and companies are issuing grovelling apologies to the twitterati. All quite pathetic really.

 

[Narj]

Top quality content:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1404828598373060612

Didn't Andrew Neil say that they hoped to cover things with a side helping of humour as well? Don't see the harm in a bit of light-hearted fun.

News tends to be pretty depressing and miserable these days if I'm honest.

The first programme proved Neil's assertion entirely incorrect. Dan Wooton said that lockdowns don't work, when it's been shown through case data that lockdowns achieve their stated aim of reducing infection rates and deaths.

Well yeah, I already said I think he's a bit of a twonk and a bad choice.

PS: I'm referring to the twitter mob, "going nuts". It's hardly Third Reich TV like the bed-wetters would have you believe. I do think that pretty much any news source should be treated with a healthy dose of suspicion however, as they'll all have their own slant or agenda.

 

[One More Solo]

Tell me I'm not wrong. Considering what I experienced.

That's very disingenuous because by couching it in those terms, you've made it impossible to put a counter argument. I'm going to tell you that your experience ≠ reality. There are times when your experience and reality may be the same. That's a coincidence.

 

[Reality|Bites]

That's the problem, not everything we post needs or warrants a counter argument, Just accept it and move on.
To most on here, they really don't care as much as they seem to let on, This forum is like a text based video game to them.

 

[Chris Wilson]

I suspect the success of this station will be in going against the normal, almost septic inclusivity of every oddball and their views, in fear of being called whatever the current buzzword may be, which frankly has become ridiculous and offensive to many traditionalists.

This will cause, as seen here, much discord amongst those that live in a world where they believe everyone loves, or should love everyone else and their often dubious peccadilloes, and are brought back to reality by their viewing figures, and support for many of their, until now main stream news taboo, subjects for discussion.

It has certainly brought our Speaker's Corner globalists, Europhiles and awoken out from their cloistered enclave in something of a tiswas. I haven't seen garnett leave his Corner for ages.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

I'm not "going nuts over it, but for me, personally, their stated goal was completely at odds with the content I saw

Andrew Neil said in his opening monologue:



The first programme proved Neil's assertion entirely incorrect. Dan Wooton said that lockdowns don't work, when it's been shown through case data that lockdowns achieve their stated aim of reducing infection rates and deaths. He then then put forward a conspiracy theory that people in government wanted to create a 'biosecurity state' and his panellists then dismissed polling evidence showing public support for lockdowns as made up polling, and also stated that masks aren't effective - both unsubstantiated arguments, neither of them challenged by anybody.

Its Fox News aimed at a British audience. That they've gone this hard this early is a concern, I thought they'd take a bit longer to start pumping out conspiracy nonsense. It isn't "news" its opinion and its dangerous because enough people already believe this crap and this just validates their beliefs. Hopefully OFCOM steps in at some point and reminds them that to be classed as "news" you need to report on facts and be impartial. In 5 years we are either going to have the regulator doing its job and containing the nonsense or GB News and the politicians that support its message will kick up a stink in the name of free speech, OFCOM will be neutered and we'll end up with a full on Fox News and all the societal destruction it brings with it.

 

[sityeuropa]

wow, hearing positive arguments of Brexit on TV. Who would have thought.

 

[Reality|Bites]

Well it's not for you then is it, Just don't watch it and problem solved?

 

[Narj]

wow, hearing positive arguments of Brexit on TV. Who would have thought.

Sugar did say how much of a headache it's been on the opening night, so I suppose now there's balance

 

[Jono8]

There aren't many things more pathetic than these supposedly non-fake news /anti "cancel culture" outlets and their supporters getting all upset because an advertiser doesn't want to advertise with them.

 

[Troezar]

Sugar did say how much of a headache it's been on the opening night, so I suppose now there's balance

I hadn't realised he was so against Brexit, but it's good to get all views, I think that's all most people want, to let everyone get a fair hearing.

 

[Reality|Bites]

I wouldn't say "getting upset" tbh. I'm not including myself in it as I don't care either way, watch it don't watch it, whatever.
It's the usual mob that are upset the most it seems though.
It was predicted that ads would be pulled from the station before it had aired though, they are only pointing out that they were right,
but as per usual that got turned and twisted into another argument with one side trying to show virtue again. yawn boring.

 

[thenewoc]

Wasnt that the Telegraph? And also the journalist is freelance and not an employee. Or have the DM sacked somebody as well?

T

Yes my mistake I misheard the report, still ridiculous though over a baby name suggestion 'Georgina Floydina'.

 

[200sols]

Yes my mistake I misheard the report, still ridiculous though over a baby name suggestion 'Georgina Floydina'.

Well, suggesting people name their baby after a violent criminal is not very nice is it?

 

[Lysander]

Wasnt that the Telegraph? And also the journalist is freelance and not an employee. Or have the DM sacked somebody as well?

T

It was the 'graph. They're all as bad as each other, anyway. Telegraph, Mail, Guardian. All junk.

 

[Narj]

I hadn't realised he was so against Brexit, but it's good to get all views, I think that's all most people want, to let everyone get a fair hearing.

They had a guy on from Amnesty International as well who definitely didn't fit "the narrative" when it came to boat migrants which was a pleasant surprise. I bet that raised some hackles but yeah, sometimes you are going to hear things you don't like, people should be able to suck it up rather than wanting to be insulated from things they don't agree with.

 

[thenewoc]

Well, suggesting people name their baby after a violent criminal is not very nice is it?

The perfect dig at ex royal wokers though.