Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Youngian wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:57 pm Is there anyone who hasn’t a gripe with the BBC? This a worthy complaint.

Plus, they were on rotation for years on BBC2 and are available in every recording format. Bilko is one of my favourite TV shows of all time but it's not exactly popular now.

Saw that earlier. Good that they're waking up.

Toadying to the government hasn’t done the BBC any good. Picking a fight with Nick Robinson is baffling tactical ineptitude.

On the theme of impartiality, Nicky Campbell's phone in (Morning 5 live) was a special phone in for Tory members and voters.

Suggested as a heated debate to assess Johnson's future, the host didn't prevent several contributors riffing about Captain Hindsight, telling their amusing stories about Corbyn, Diane Abbott and calling others names.


The most popular view?

Partying during lockdown to be retrospectively decriminalised - all those fined to be refunded.
Fucking deluded.

If people have been fined unjustly, they'd be entitled to compensation as well as a refund.

Would that also mean that those who cancelled/rescheduled weddings &c, promoters and venues that postponed or cancelled events, touring and working musicians and so on would also be entitled to be compensated for the unjustified expense and loss of earnings?

As with all things Johnson, there's no attempt to think beyond him

On BBC Radio 4 tonight, "The Briefing Room" on the future of BBC funding - and why a subscription model for a PSB is a particularly stupid idea.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0013hk2

I see that #DefundTheBBC is trending again tonight and Emily Maitlis has been forced to issue an apology for a "biased" retweet.

Surely the issue is her sharing the Tweet, not that the Tweet is biased?

For such 'firebrands' they really are fucking weak.

RedSparrows wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 1:33 am Surely the issue is her sharing the Tweet, not that the Tweet is biased?

Tweet criticises the government = biased Tweet

dems the rules for the defund mob

That's not what 'biased' means.

That's 'judgemental'.

Nonsense, it's a well known #FACT that the BBC is terribly biased which is why it must be sold to some agreeable chap Boris knew at Eton so it can broadcast proper unbiased news and everybody will be happy with Boris again. #MadNad4DG

What was the tweet? I refuse to go anywhere near that cunt's website.

And as ever - the BBC is not just about news. Pls explain how GBeebies isn't trashing the BBC or Sky in the ratings.

Boiler wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 10:13 am What was the tweet? I refuse to go anywhere near that cunt's website.

And as ever - the BBC is not just about news. Pls explain how GBeebies isn't trashing the BBC or Sky in the ratings.

Their market dogma is curiously absent when it comes to explaining why the BBC is so popular and GBeebies is such a fuckup.

That's something I've never understood about Fox News, GBeebies etc - what sort of person just wants to watch news discussion programmes one after the other?

I get that in a lot of places with big screens (banks, hotels etc) a news channel is a nice and neutral option to have in the background. But all these shows - Michelle Dewberry, Dan Wootton, Darren Grimes - all serving up their identical takes on the news, what's the appeal? After how many minutes of "yeah, it's all going to the dogs and you can't say anything these days because of the pee cees" do you realise that whatever is coming next is just more of the same?

I get that there are news junkies out there. I get that it's cheap. I get that it's about flooding the news space with opinions. But really?

Andy McDandy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 10:39 am That's something I've never understood about Fox News, GBeebies etc - what sort of person just wants to watch news discussion programmes one after the other?

I get that in a lot of places with big screens (banks, hotels etc) a news channel is a nice and neutral option to have in the background. But all these shows - Michelle Dewberry, Dan Wootton, Darren Grimes - all serving up their identical takes on the news, what's the appeal? After how many minutes of "yeah, it's all going to the dogs and you can't say anything these days because of the pee cees" do you realise that whatever is coming next is just more of the same?

I get that there are news junkies out there. I get that it's cheap. I get that it's about flooding the news space with opinions. But really?

To have your views validated and stretched by engaging with like minded people. But all day from talentless pundits who have nothing to bring to the party or possess any journalstic rigour. Has champion of Red Wall Brexit bonuses Gloria Di Piero still got plenty to say for herself?

I'd not take that as Maitlis' view, just forwarding something of interest to her followers. "Retweet isn't an endorsement" used to be the phrase, didn't it?

I suppose she ought to have put "criticism for Johnson for Rory Stewart" or something. Huge failing, huge.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 6:49 pm I'd not take that as Maitlis' view, just forwarding something of interest to her followers. "Retweet isn't an endorsement" used to be the phrase, didn't it?

I suppose she ought to have put "criticism for Johnson for Rory Stewart" or something. Huge failing, huge.

It's an error which may give the anti-BBC mob just the excuse they need to demand her head.

Oboogie wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 7:34 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 6:49 pm I'd not take that as Maitlis' view, just forwarding something of interest to her followers. "Retweet isn't an endorsement" used to be the phrase, didn't it?

I suppose she ought to have put "criticism for Johnson for Rory Stewart" or something. Huge failing, huge.

It's an error which may give the anti-BBC mob just the excuse they need to demand her head.

And I wonder if it contravened the rules on BBC staff and political tweets. It'll be interesting to see what (if anything) Tim Davie does about it.