AllWillBeWell post_id=32827 time= user_id=773 Wrote:thecorrector post_id=32781 time= user_id=1692 Wrote:AllWillBeWell post_id=32775 time= user_id=773 Wrote:The ultimate test is what happens after. If it is allowed then that is a good thing. The one view point only which seems to be adopted in the mainstream channels regarding subjects is very sterile at times.
Alternative view: it very publicly reinforces the impression there’s a tug-of-war going on between the regional reporters who signed up for GBN believing they were going to be given full-throated support to tell stories from their communities, and the London presenters who have a clear agenda to push.
It also just looks highly unprofessional - and while you might think the tweets of BBC or Sky journalists are anodyne, at least they don’t undermine the reputation of their respective employers by going at it like rats in a sack.
No it just accepts that people have opinions and to pretend a whole company all think alike isn't healthy. If the major players were serious about this (a broadcasting having one view and all obeying it), they would stop a certain well known presenter who presents sports and others like them. They haven't.
Said individual doesn’t work in news, so isn’t bound by the same impartiality requirements as the BBC’s journalists. The BBC has gone on the record about this more than once, and undoubtedly you already know this - but you’re entitled to your view, and I mine.
thecorrector post_id=32836 time= user_id=1692 Wrote:AllWillBeWell post_id=32827 time= user_id=773 Wrote:thecorrector post_id=32781 time= user_id=1692 Wrote:Alternative view: it very publicly reinforces the impression there’s a tug-of-war going on between the regional reporters who signed up for GBN believing they were going to be given full-throated support to tell stories from their communities, and the London presenters who have a clear agenda to push.
It also just looks highly unprofessional - and while you might think the tweets of BBC or Sky journalists are anodyne, at least they don’t undermine the reputation of their respective employers by going at it like rats in a sack.
No it just accepts that people have opinions and to pretend a whole company all think alike isn't healthy. If the major players were serious about this (a broadcasting having one view and all obeying it), they would stop a certain well known presenter who presents sports and others like them. They haven't.
Said individual doesn’t work in news, so isn’t bound by the same impartiality requirements as the BBC’s journalists. The BBC has gone on the record about this more than once, and undoubtedly you already know this - but you’re entitled to your view, and I mine.
Don't tell me what I know and don't know. The BBC has gone on record and made clear any employee of the corporation is bound by a code, even non-news staff.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguideline...cial-media
Quote:The over-riding principle of this Guidance is that anyone working for the BBC is a representative of the organisation, both offline and also when online, including on social media; the same standards apply to the behaviour and conduct of staff in both circumstances.
There are also others who are not journalists or involved in factual programming who nevertheless have an additional responsibility to the BBC because of their profile on the BBC. We expect these individuals to avoid taking sides on party political issues or political controversies and to take care when addressing public policy matters.
AllWillBeWell post_id=32840 time= user_id=773 Wrote:Don't tell me what I know and don't know. The BBC has gone on record and made clear any employee of the corporation is bound by a code, even non-news staff.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguideline...cial-media
Quote:The over-riding principle of this Guidance is that anyone working for the BBC is a representative of the organisation, both offline and also when online, including on social media; the same standards apply to the behaviour and conduct of staff in both circumstances.
Putting your irrational anger to one side:
Quote:A BBC spokesman said: “Gary is not involved in any news or political output for the BBC and as such, any expression of his personal political views does not affect the BBC's impartiality.”
thecorrector post_id=32842 time=1628280612 user_id=1692 Wrote:AllWillBeWell post_id=32840 time= user_id=773 Wrote:Don't tell me what I know and don't know. The BBC has gone on record and made clear any employee of the corporation is bound by a code, even non-news staff.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguideline...cial-media
Quote:The over-riding principle of this Guidance is that anyone working for the BBC is a representative of the organisation, both offline and also when online, including on social media; the same standards apply to the behaviour and conduct of staff in both circumstances.
Putting your irrational anger to one side:
Quote:A BBC spokesman said: “Gary is not involved in any news or political output for the BBC and as such, any expression of his personal political views does not affect the BBC's impartiality.”
I am not angry, I am just telling you not to tell people what they know and don't know because it isn't nice.
Where is this quote from? I just posted the official BBC guidelines, not the view of some spokesperson.
bilky asko post_id=32845 time= user_id=973 Wrote:AllWillBeWell post_id=32843 time= user_id=773 Wrote:thecorrector post_id=32842 time=1628280612 user_id=1692 Wrote:Putting your irrational anger to one side:
I am not angry, I am just telling you not to tell people what they know and don't know because it isn't nice.
Where is this quote from? I just posted the official BBC guidelines, not the view of some spokesperson.
What the guidelines are, and how they're enforced or interpreted are different things.
Indeed, and that was the original point I was trying to make, that the big players are not really serious about it. I do wonder if GB news has social media guidelines.
Inspector Sands post_id=32834 time= user_id=1003 Wrote:johnnyboy post_id=32824 time= user_id=925 Wrote:Stop Funding Hate and Led By Donkeys are organisations sincere in their beliefs that immigration to the UK should essentially be unrestricted.
Are you sure about that? As far as I know neither of those organisations have expressed that belief.
Led by Donkeys is primarily an anti-Brexit group who campaign by showing up political hypocracy. It's name comes from World War 1 where the soldiers were said to have been lions led by donkeys. Its a comment on the inadequacies of leadership.
Stop Funding Hate is an organisation that is anti hate and divisive speech in newspapers. It does that by pressurising companies to withdraw their advertising.
Neither have any policies or beliefs about immigration policy, let alone one about unrestricted immigration. I'm sure the likes of GB News would like you to believe otherwise though...
You make a fair point Inspector Sands but I'll explain why I made that statement.
If you believe in unrestricted immigration (not you personally), good for you. I doubt you'll find many voices in agreement either on GB News or within the population at large.
My belief that this is something they want comes purely from their actions as well as their words against what they consider to be racist, xenophobic, fascist, etc.
Led By Donkeys are pro EU membership and membership entails freedom of movement. Stop Funding Hate believe that any negative or unflattering coverage of asylum seekers, immigrants, and more are a visceral and emotion gut reaction driven by hate and not by reason.
They're entitled to believe that and, if that's what they do believe, their campaigning against GB News is entirely logical.
Like all new Phil, I find it disappointing that Sainsbury's backed down to them. Mind you, there seem to be enough horse and gold investment advertisers on the channel at the moment to take their place
AllWillBeWell post_id=32846 time= user_id=773 Wrote:bilky asko post_id=32845 time= user_id=973 Wrote:AllWillBeWell post_id=32843 time= user_id=773 Wrote:I am not angry, I am just telling you not to tell people what they know and don't know because it isn't nice.
Where is this quote from? I just posted the official BBC guidelines, not the view of some spokesperson.
What the guidelines are, and how they're enforced or interpreted are different things.
Indeed, and that was the original point I was trying to make, that the big players are not really serious about it. I do wonder if GB news has social media guidelines.
It all comes over as GB News are learning on the job. Mainstream news providers have clear guidelines on how to use social media, while GBN at the moment appear to allow their journalists to have an opinion regardless of whether it meets their editorial agenda or not.
It makes the whole Guto Harri situation even more ridiculous when you consider what he did on-air isn't that much different from a regional reporter expressing their opinion which didn't match that of the Westminster bubble reporter. Yet I doubt Rachel Sweeney and the other regional hacks won't be reprimanded for expressing an alternative to the narrative.
London Lite post_id=32849 time=1628281572 user_id=953 Wrote:AllWillBeWell post_id=32846 time= user_id=773 Wrote:bilky asko post_id=32845 time= user_id=973 Wrote:What the guidelines are, and how they're enforced or interpreted are different things.
Indeed, and that was the original point I was trying to make, that the big players are not really serious about it. I do wonder if GB news has social media guidelines.
It all comes over as GB News are learning on the job. Mainstream news providers have clear guidelines on how to use social media, while GBN at the moment appear to allow their journalists to have an opinion regardless of whether it meets their editorial agenda or not.
It makes the whole Guto Harri situation even more ridiculous when you consider what he did on-air isn't that much different from a regional reporter expressing their opinion which didn't match that of the Westminster bubble reporter. Yet I doubt Rachel Sweeney and the other regional hacks won't be reprimanded for expressing an alternative to the narrative.
Saying something, and then actually doing it live on TV, are two very different things. Although I agree it does appear GB news doesn't really have any solid guidelines.
London Lite post_id=32849 time=1628281572 user_id=953 Wrote:It all comes over as GB News are learning on the job. Mainstream news providers have clear guidelines on how to use social media, while GBN at the moment appear to allow their journalists to have an opinion regardless of whether it meets their editorial agenda or not.
Considering their approach impartiality you'd expect GB News to have very different social media rules to the BBC and Sky.
johnnyboy post_id=32848 time= user_id=925 Wrote:If you believe in unrestricted immigration (not you personally), good for you. I doubt you'll find many voices in agreement either on GB News or within the population at large.
It's certainly not an opinion you hear anywhere, because as you say hardly anyone has that opinion.
Quote:Led By Donkeys are pro EU membership and membership entails freedom of movement. Stop Funding Hate believe that any negative or unflattering coverage of asylum seekers, immigrants, and more are a visceral and emotion gut reaction driven by hate and not by reason.
However neither of those things are 'uncontrolled immigration.'
There were/are still limitations to freedom of movement. The process of asylum seeking is still subject to controls.
Quote:Like all new Phil, I find it disappointing that Sainsbury's backed down to them. Mind you, there seem to be enough horse and gold investment advertisers on the channel at the moment to take their place
Do you think they did 'back down? Or did they actually just finish their campaign?
Inspector Sands post_id=32856 time= user_id=1003 Wrote:Do you think they did 'back down? Or did they actually just finish their campaign?
I have a feeling what happened lies somewhere in the middle.
I read that Sainsbury's tweet as 'Our current advertising campaign (with Stephen Fry) has ended, we won't be advertising on GBNews until the next one starts'
Came across this new animation on the YouTube stream during breaks:
![[Image: GB%20News%20-%20Screenshot_20210806-231943.jpg]](https://up.metropol247.co.uk/TVenthusiasm2/GB%20News%20-%20Screenshot_20210806-231943.jpg)
The above post takes us nicely back onto the topic of presentation.
Let's use this as a bit of a reset and get things back on track here.
Muchas gracias.
Should have looked at what Sky News have done and used it to show weather or something useful instead of just a looping graphic for 3 minutes.