Brexit

[TheReal_ND]

Ofcom amirite?

[katarn]

Hannity and Carlson are no longer allowed to be broadcast in the UK because of breaches of "impartiality"

In bongspeak "impartiality" is anything that doesnt conform to the liberal democratic poz world view.

http://archive.is/32coF

Fox News is too edgy for cuck island

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/ ... fcom-finds

Ofcom’s ruling concluded there was “no reflection of the views of the UK government or any of the authorities or people criticised” and the presenter “did not challenge the views of his contributors; instead, he reinforced their views.”
Ofcom found the programme breached rules 5.9, 5.11 and 5.12 of the British broadcasting code. These relate to adequate representation of alternative views on discussions programmes, due impartiality on matters of major political or industrial controversy, and including a wide range of significant views when dealing with major political or industrial controversy.
The programme included criticism of Theresa May, Beverley Hughes, the deputy mayor of Manchester, and Ian Hopkins, the chief constable of Greater Manchester police, as well as the government and authorities in general.
The watchdog said of the programme: “Ofcom considered that viewers were likely to have expected the programme to comment critically on various political targets, which in this case included the UK government and UK authorities more generally. However, we considered that these contextual factors were not sufficient to remove the need for the programme to also reflect significant alternative viewpoints, and treat these with due weight.”

Not because of their views, because of their lack of balance.
Fox has no balance...who knew?

Okay, but that is still well worthy of ridicule in my book. Why is balance in your legal codes?

[Montegriffo]

Hannity and Carlson are no longer allowed to be broadcast in the UK because of breaches of "impartiality"

In bongspeak "impartiality" is anything that doesnt conform to the liberal democratic poz world view.

http://archive.is/32coF

Fox News is too edgy for cuck island

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/ ... fcom-finds

Ofcom’s ruling concluded there was “no reflection of the views of the UK government or any of the authorities or people criticised” and the presenter “did not challenge the views of his contributors; instead, he reinforced their views.”
Ofcom found the programme breached rules 5.9, 5.11 and 5.12 of the British broadcasting code. These relate to adequate representation of alternative views on discussions programmes, due impartiality on matters of major political or industrial controversy, and including a wide range of significant views when dealing with major political or industrial controversy.
The programme included criticism of Theresa May, Beverley Hughes, the deputy mayor of Manchester, and Ian Hopkins, the chief constable of Greater Manchester police, as well as the government and authorities in general.
The watchdog said of the programme: “Ofcom considered that viewers were likely to have expected the programme to comment critically on various political targets, which in this case included the UK government and UK authorities more generally. However, we considered that these contextual factors were not sufficient to remove the need for the programme to also reflect significant alternative viewpoints, and treat these with due weight.”

Not because of their views, because of their lack of balance.
Fox has no balance...who knew?

Okay, but that is still well worthy of ridicule in my book. Why is balance in your legal codes?

Because without balance on broadcast media you end up with CNN and Fox news. The idea is that both sides of an issue are put forward so that the veiwer can come to an informed opinion based on all the relevant information. The regulations apply to everyone from the BBC to Russia today. Fox had already run foul of the regulations previously and had decided to quit the UK rather than provide balanced reporting.

[Otern]

To be fair, I wouldn't exactly call BBC balanced either.

Sure, they're balanced in some ways, but in others, they're just like FOX and Russia Today.

The amount of crap is smaller than on FOX or CNN or whatever, but they're really clever in the aspects where they're not balanced, so most people won't see through it.

Have the same problem in Norway with our equivalent to the BBC; NRK. Generally a decent news source, but in the areas they're biased, they're certainly not balanced.

The war in Donbass is a great example. Every western media was pretty much just as flawed and unbalanced as Russia Today, just in the opposite direction.

[Montegriffo]

To be fair, I wouldn't exactly call BBC balanced either.

Sure, they're balanced in some ways, but in others, they're just like FOX and Russia Today.

The amount of crap is smaller than on FOX or CNN or whatever, but they're really clever in the aspects where they're not balanced, so most people won't see through it.

Have the same problem in Norway with our equivalent to the BBC; NRK. Generally a decent news source, but in the areas they're biased, they're certainly not balanced.

The war in Donbass is a great example. Every western media was pretty much just as flawed and unbalanced as Russia Today, just in the opposite direction.

The BBC give airtime to contributors from both sides of a story. The reason Fox fell foul of Ofcom was in criticising the government and several named individuals without offering them a right of reply or reporting their side of the story.

[TheReal_ND]

Come to find out that it's an unofficial tradition in Norwegian media to give someone a rebuttal if they are attacked. Kind of cool imo. It applies to any foreigner as well.

[Montegriffo]

Come to find out that it's an unofficial tradition in Norwegian media to give someone a rebuttal if they are attacked. Kind of cool imo. It applies to any foreigner as well.

Perhaps you can explain how the UK is cucked for penalising Fox for not giving individuals or institutions a right of reply but Norway is cool for having the same ideals?
It's because they're whiter in Norway isn't it.

[TheReal_ND]

No that's a legit criticism but you and I both know that's not why Ofcom banned them.

[Otern]

The BBC give airtime to contributors from both sides of a story. The reason Fox fell foul of Ofcom was in criticising the government and several named individuals without offering them a right of reply or reporting their side of the story.

That doesn't make them balanced.

A story has a lot more than two sides. And it's easy to frame a story in the way you want if you know what you're doing. BBC are really good at this.

I'm not defending FOX here or anything, they're also bad, and probably worse overall than BBC. But no media outlet is truly balanced, because it's impossible to be so. Journalists have their inner bias, and even though a few with professional integrity TRY to be balanced, they're still limited by their world view and experiences.

Giving the opposing side a chance to reply is not what makes the media balanced. Because they can frame anything to make the reply seem untrustworthy or false, without actually telling a lie or anything.

BBC have their own biases, and that's what makes them unbalanced in certain areas.

[Montegriffo]

The BBC give airtime to contributors from both sides of a story. The reason Fox fell foul of Ofcom was in criticising the government and several named individuals without offering them a right of reply or reporting their side of the story.

That doesn't make them balanced.

A story has a lot more than two sides. And it's easy to frame a story in the way you want if you know what you're doing. BBC are really good at this.

I'm not defending FOX here or anything, they're also bad, and probably worse overall than BBC. But no media outlet is truly balanced, because it's impossible to be so. Journalists have their inner bias, and even though a few with professional integrity TRY to be balanced, they're still limited by their world view and experiences.

Giving the opposing side a chance to reply is not what makes the media balanced. Because they can frame anything to make the reply seem untrustworthy or false, without actually telling a lie or anything.

BBC have their own biases, and that's what makes them unbalanced in certain areas.

Of course they have their own biases. They fall foul of Ofcom fairly regularly. The difference is they are obliged by their charter to make every effort to give both sides of a story. I've just listened to a pro-Brexit essay from John Gray (highly recommended by Daralon) He was given 15 minutes to make his argument with no imput what so ever from the BBC despite them having a pro-remain bias. Can you imagine Fox giving Micheal Moore 15 mins to talk about gun control?
Fox refused to follow the guidelines followed by everyone else and flounced off in a big sulk for refusing a right of reply.
Others appear to be arguing this into a closing down of right wing media but the rules apply to both sides of the political spectrum. CNN would have to offer both sides an opportunity to speak too.