Going back to the OP, and perhaps on a slightly purgatorial note, there's a long article on one of the owners of GBNews - Paul Marshall - who is also currently in the frame to take over the Telegraph Group (Telegraph and the Spectator):
It's interesting to me how quickly this goes from people who are seen as somewhat emollient figures at the liberal end of charismatic figures to fairly out there right wing thought.
I suspect a large part of this is due to Gove being able to portray himself as a much more reasonable figure than he is in actuality.
Going back to the OP, and perhaps on a slightly purgatorial note, there's a long article on one of the owners of GBNews - Paul Marshall - who is also currently in the frame to take over the Telegraph Group (Telegraph and the Spectator):
It's interesting to me how quickly this goes from people who are seen as somewhat emollient figures at the liberal end of charismatic figures to fairly out there right wing thought.
I suspect a large part of this is due to Gove being able to portray himself as a much more reasonable figure than he is in actuality.
I had no time for HTB on stylistic and theological grounds but it now sounds positively sinister.
I was just watching a news clip from GB News, about the alleged chaos caused by Scotland's just-enacted hate-speech laws. A playwright named Andrew Doyle was interviewing a comedian named Jonathan Kogan. (Could have the names and/or jobs mixed up; not really important).
At one point, while the interviewee was bemoaning the woke state of society(or some sorta thing), the interviewer asked, pretty much out of the blue: "Do you think it's because of humanism?", to which the interviewer gave a friendly but confident "No", and then switched immediately to a description of what he thought it really WAS about.
So, two things seemed interesting to me here...
1. The interviewer seemed pretty clearly to be attempting to steer the conversation in a pro-religion direction, and...
2. The interviewee didn't seem to have any inclination toward such a discussion.
As a general observation, would you say there is a significant presence on GB News of people promoting or trying to promote a religious worldview?
And I'm thinking here of stuff that goes beyond just criticizing "Happy Holidays", and into a belief that society would benefit if people converted to whatever theological worldview the commentator holds to?
FWIW, given the host's apparent interest in discussing humanism, I thought it was a little impolite for the guest to dismiss the topic as casually as he did. He should have at least asked the host for a short elaboration, and then used a rebuttal as a segue into his own views.
I was just watching a news clip from GB News, about the alleged chaos caused by Scotland's just-enacted hate-speech laws. A playwright named Andrew Doyle was interviewing a comedian named Jonathan Kogan. (Could have the names and/or jobs mixed up; not really important).
At one point, while the interviewee was bemoaning the woke state of society(or some sorta thing), the interviewer asked, pretty much out of the blue: "Do you think it's because of humanism?", to which the interviewer gave a friendly but confident "No", and then switched immediately to a description of what he thought it really WAS about.
So, two things seemed interesting to me here...
1. The interviewer seemed pretty clearly to be attempting to steer the conversation in a pro-religion direction, and...
2. The interviewee didn't seem to have any inclination toward such a discussion.
As a general observation, would you say there is a significant presence on GB News of people promoting or trying to promote a religious worldview?
And I'm thinking here of stuff that goes beyond just criticizing "Happy Holidays", and into a belief that society would benefit if people converted to whatever theological worldview the commentator holds to?
Not that I have noticed. Sir Jacob makes no secret of his catholic beliefs but apart from a brief summary about Easter last week I have not heard him talk as you suggested
There are many presenters I don't watch.
I have heard criticism of Archbishop Welby on the basis that he is hopeless
Yeah, given what I know of British conservatism, I wouldn't expect one of their house organs to be heavy on the xtian proselytization, even of the upscale variety.
But it did seem like a real attempt by the interviewer to inject an element of religiosity into the discussion. Given that these days a lot of interviewers have their questions at least partly fed to them by backstage, I wonder if it was some sort of trial balloon. (Which obviously didn't float well at all.)
Going back to the OP, and perhaps on a slightly purgatorial note, there's a long article on one of the owners of GBNews - Paul Marshall - who is also currently in the frame to take over the Telegraph Group (Telegraph and the Spectator):
It's interesting to me how quickly this goes from people who are seen as somewhat emollient figures at the liberal end of charismatic figures to fairly out there right wing thought.
I suspect a large part of this is due to Gove being able to portray himself as a much more reasonable figure than he is in actuality.
Haven't encountered this chap before. If that report is correct, however much such sums may be just pocket money to them, anyone who gives that sort of money, £100,000 to Vote Leave and at least £½M to the Conservative Party, to any political cause as part of the outworking of their Christian faith, yet alone to those two particular horrors, has a different understand from mine of what Christian faith is about.
Hi. I have another question. There's a guy who seems to often appear on GB News panels, who speaks with a North American accent and I think identifies as gay. Would you happen to know who he is?
I'm asking here, because GB News You Tube channel does a lousy job of listing who their panelists are. No names are given in the summations, and often not on screen.
Hi. I have another question. There's a guy who seems to often appear on GB News panels, who speaks with a North American accent and I think identifies as gay. Would you happen to know who he is?
I'm asking here, because GB News You Tube channel does a lousy job of listing who their panelists are. No names are given in the summations, and often not on screen.
Hi. I have another question. There's a guy who seems to often appear on GB News panels, who speaks with a North American accent and I think identifies as gay. Would you happen to know who he is?
I'm asking here, because GB News You Tube channel does a lousy job of listing who their panelists are. No names are given in the summations, and often not on screen.
Hi. I have another question. There's a guy who seems to often appear on GB News panels, who speaks with a North American accent and I think identifies as gay. Would you happen to know who he is?
I'm asking here, because GB News You Tube channel does a lousy job of listing who their panelists are. No names are given in the summations, and often not on screen.
GB News is live between 6am and 11.pm( approx) During the night they usually show repeats from the previous day but they try to keep the 'ticker tape' current during the night.
They must be able to work out who are the most popular presenters and which programmes have most viewers/listeners.
They will lose some promising young people and I genuinely do feel sorry for them
I wouldn't see that as being controversial. In Canada, I can think of a number of politicians who hosted shows during their period in office, the infamous Rob Ford doing a radio show as the most recent example coming to mind. As with the apparent Ofcom rules, Ford's show was obviously commentary, not straight news.
I wouldn't see that as being controversial. In Canada, I can think of a number of politicians who hosted shows during their period in office, the infamous Rob Ford doing a radio show as the most recent example coming to mind. As with the apparent Ofcom rules, Ford's show was obviously commentary, not straight news.
The background in the UK is that, during an election period, political parties that put forward candidates in all the seats get slots on TV to give a party political broadcast, and TV channels are expected to be neutral on electoral issues.
GB News does have a history of NOT being impartial, as shown by this snip from the link I provided:
Last month, GB News was found to have repeatedly breached impartiality rules by paying Conservative MPs hundreds of thousands of pounds to serve as news presenters and interview the prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Rather than impose sanctions on GB News, the regulator instead put the channel “on notice” and warned it against further breaches. GB News has broken broadcasting rules on 12 occasions in the past 18 months, with a further eight investigations in progress.
Labour is more popular with viewers of GB News than the Tories, a new poll has revealed.
A survey of the TV channel’s audience shows that Rishi Sunak is battling on two fronts as the Tories lose support to Labour and Reform UK.
It also reveals a deep dissatisfaction with the Government’s record on key policy areas including immigration, the NHS and crime.
JL Partners, a polling firm, surveyed 518 current and recent viewers of the channel, which has a number of high-profile Conservative presenters.
The results show that, across both groups, Labour holds an 11-point cushion over the Tories, leading by 39 per cent to 28 per cent when “don’t knows” are excluded.
Reform UK, the Right-wing party led by Richard Tice – who is also a presenter on the channel – comes in third with 20 per cent of the viewership.
I wouldn't see that as being controversial. In Canada, I can think of a number of politicians who hosted shows during their period in office, the infamous Rob Ford doing a radio show as the most recent example coming to mind. As with the apparent Ofcom rules, Ford's show was obviously commentary, not straight news.
The background in the UK is that, during an election period, political parties that put forward candidates in all the seats get slots on TV to give a party political broadcast, and TV channels are expected to be neutral on electoral issues.
And yet we are told that GB News is the source of all Truth™.
Who told you that ? It certainly wasn't me.
GB News is an entertainment channel with the news every hour on the hour for no more than 5 minutes
I don't think we can define people being called "paedophiles" and "deviants" as entertainment either - unless you're a complete arsehole, and God knows the world has too many of them. But arseholes need challenging, not pandering to.
And yet we are told that GB News is the source of all Truth™.
Who told you that ? It certainly wasn't me.
GB News is an entertainment channel with the news every hour on the hour for no more than 5 minutes
I don't think we can define people being called "paedophiles" and "deviants" as entertainment either - unless you're a complete arsehole, and God knows the world has too many of them. But arseholes need challenging, not pandering to.
Challenge them then but don't tar everyone with the same brush
And yet we are told that GB News is the source of all Truth™.
Who told you that ? It certainly wasn't me.
GB News is an entertainment channel with the news every hour on the hour for no more than 5 minutes
I don't think we can define people being called "paedophiles" and "deviants" as entertainment either - unless you're a complete arsehole, and God knows the world has too many of them. But arseholes need challenging, not pandering to.
Challenge them then but don't tar everyone with the same brush
And yet we are told that GB News is the source of all Truth™.
Who told you that ? It certainly wasn't me.
GB News is an entertainment channel with the news every hour on the hour for no more than 5 minutes
I don't think we can define people being called "paedophiles" and "deviants" as entertainment either - unless you're a complete arsehole, and God knows the world has too many of them. But arseholes need challenging, not pandering to.
Challenge them then but don't tar everyone with the same brush
I don’t have access to them.
The arseholes are people entertained by hearing marginalised people called deviants and paedophiles.
The pandering is being done by GBeebies saying the arsehole things arseholes like to hear.
GBeebies has form for this sort of thing happening again and again.
And yet we are told that GB News is the source of all Truth™.
Who told you that ? It certainly wasn't me.
GB News is an entertainment channel with the news every hour on the hour for no more than 5 minutes
I don't think we can define people being called "paedophiles" and "deviants" as entertainment either - unless you're a complete arsehole, and God knows the world has too many of them. But arseholes need challenging, not pandering to.
Challenge them then but don't tar everyone with the same brush
I don’t have access to them.
Yes you do. You know you do. Most shows invite audience participation.
And yet we are told that GB News is the source of all Truth™.
Who told you that ? It certainly wasn't me.
GB News is an entertainment channel with the news every hour on the hour for no more than 5 minutes
I don't think we can define people being called "paedophiles" and "deviants" as entertainment either - unless you're a complete arsehole, and God knows the world has too many of them. But arseholes need challenging, not pandering to.
Challenge them then but don't tar everyone with the same brush
I don’t have access to them.
Yes you do. You know you do. Most shows invite audience participation.
The arseholes are the people sitting at home enjoying marginalised people being abused. I do not have access to these arsewipes.
If GBeebies wants to be a reputable outfit it should challenge arseholery, not pander to it.
I mean, doesn't it bother you that this channel you like spreads this sort of hatred? Or is it fair comment in your view to accuse people of paedophilia?
And yet we are told that GB News is the source of all Truth™.
Who told you that ? It certainly wasn't me.
GB News is an entertainment channel with the news every hour on the hour for no more than 5 minutes
I don't think we can define people being called "paedophiles" and "deviants" as entertainment either - unless you're a complete arsehole, and God knows the world has too many of them. But arseholes need challenging, not pandering to.
Challenge them then but don't tar everyone with the same brush
I don’t have access to them.
Yes you do. You know you do. Most shows invite audience participation.
The arseholes are the people sitting at home enjoying marginalised people being abused. I do not have access to these arsewipes.
If GBeebies wants to be a reputable outfit it should challenge arseholery, not pander to it.
And yet we are told that GB News is the source of all Truth™.
Who told you that ? It certainly wasn't me.
GB News is an entertainment channel with the news every hour on the hour for no more than 5 minutes
I don't think we can define people being called "paedophiles" and "deviants" as entertainment either - unless you're a complete arsehole, and God knows the world has too many of them. But arseholes need challenging, not pandering to.
Challenge them then but don't tar everyone with the same brush
I don’t have access to them.
Yes you do. You know you do. Most shows invite audience participation.
The arseholes are the people sitting at home enjoying marginalised people being abused. I do not have access to these arsewipes.
If GBeebies wants to be a reputable outfit it should challenge arseholery, not pander to it.
And yet we are told that GB News is the source of all Truth™.
Who told you that ? It certainly wasn't me.
GB News is an entertainment channel with the news every hour on the hour for no more than 5 minutes
I don't think we can define people being called "paedophiles" and "deviants" as entertainment either - unless you're a complete arsehole, and God knows the world has too many of them. But arseholes need challenging, not pandering to.
Challenge them then but don't tar everyone with the same brush
I don’t have access to them.
Yes you do. You know you do. Most shows invite audience participation.
The arseholes are the people sitting at home enjoying marginalised people being abused. I do not have access to these arsewipes.
If GBeebies wants to be a reputable outfit it should challenge arseholery, not pander to it.
And yet we are told that GB News is the source of all Truth™.
Who told you that ? It certainly wasn't me.
GB News is an entertainment channel with the news every hour on the hour for no more than 5 minutes
I don't think we can define people being called "paedophiles" and "deviants" as entertainment either - unless you're a complete arsehole, and God knows the world has too many of them. But arseholes need challenging, not pandering to.
Challenge them then but don't tar everyone with the same brush
I don’t have access to them.
Yes you do. You know you do. Most shows invite audience participation.
The arseholes are the people sitting at home enjoying marginalised people being abused. I do not have access to these arsewipes.
If GBeebies wants to be a reputable outfit it should challenge arseholery, not pander to it.
I mean, doesn't it bother you that this channel like spreads this sort of hatred? Or is it fair comment in your view to accuse people of paedophilia?
I assume this is addressed to me
When you watch GB news, you must be watching different programmes to me. Try and be more selective.
I don't watch it. However, a segment was commented on as in my OP. That is what I am referring to. Are you claiming it's fake?
I am assuming it's correct. I also suspect that they might well drop him as they have dropped others who have misbehaved
They won't have many people left the rate they have to drop them.
Anyway, they've had over two weeks and no hint of a response to the complaints. We shouldn't be surprised; as the Byline Times article I linked to pointed out, the channel has been emboldened in its attacks on LGBT+ since Trump was inaugurated.
I question the honesty of a channel that calls itself GB*News* and then hides behind claims it's just an entertainment channel and news is just an occasional thing.
Comments
He got his deposit back, which is more than he'd have achieved if had managed to find enough people to nominate him.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/media/65415/the-marshall-plan-paul-marshall-gb-news
It's interesting to me how quickly this goes from people who are seen as somewhat emollient figures at the liberal end of charismatic figures to fairly out there right wing thought.
I suspect a large part of this is due to Gove being able to portray himself as a much more reasonable figure than he is in actuality.
I had no time for HTB on stylistic and theological grounds but it now sounds positively sinister.
Sadly. It means we can't laugh at another piss-poor result, either.
I was just watching a news clip from GB News, about the alleged chaos caused by Scotland's just-enacted hate-speech laws. A playwright named Andrew Doyle was interviewing a comedian named Jonathan Kogan. (Could have the names and/or jobs mixed up; not really important).
At one point, while the interviewee was bemoaning the woke state of society(or some sorta thing), the interviewer asked, pretty much out of the blue: "Do you think it's because of humanism?", to which the interviewer gave a friendly but confident "No", and then switched immediately to a description of what he thought it really WAS about.
So, two things seemed interesting to me here...
1. The interviewer seemed pretty clearly to be attempting to steer the conversation in a pro-religion direction, and...
2. The interviewee didn't seem to have any inclination toward such a discussion.
As a general observation, would you say there is a significant presence on GB News of people promoting or trying to promote a religious worldview?
And I'm thinking here of stuff that goes beyond just criticizing "Happy Holidays", and into a belief that society would benefit if people converted to whatever theological worldview the commentator holds to?
Not that I have noticed. Sir Jacob makes no secret of his catholic beliefs but apart from a brief summary about Easter last week I have not heard him talk as you suggested
There are many presenters I don't watch.
I have heard criticism of Archbishop Welby on the basis that he is hopeless
Thanks.
Yeah, given what I know of British conservatism, I wouldn't expect one of their house organs to be heavy on the xtian proselytization, even of the upscale variety.
But it did seem like a real attempt by the interviewer to inject an element of religiosity into the discussion. Given that these days a lot of interviewers have their questions at least partly fed to them by backstage, I wonder if it was some sort of trial balloon. (Which obviously didn't float well at all.)
Hi. I have another question. There's a guy who seems to often appear on GB News panels, who speaks with a North American accent and I think identifies as gay. Would you happen to know who he is?
I'm asking here, because GB News You Tube channel does a lousy job of listing who their panelists are. No names are given in the summations, and often not on screen.
Could it be Dave Rubin? Very pro Israel?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Rubin
No. The guy I'm thinking of is tall and slender, with a faintly distinguished bearing about him. Probably middle-aged.
Sorry, can't help you.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/24266563.gb-news-channel-axe-40-jobs-following-heavy-losses/
They must be able to work out who are the most popular presenters and which programmes have most viewers/listeners.
They will lose some promising young people and I genuinely do feel sorry for them
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/apr/24/gb-news-can-still-use-politicians-as-presenters-ofcom
I wouldn't see that as being controversial. In Canada, I can think of a number of politicians who hosted shows during their period in office, the infamous Rob Ford doing a radio show as the most recent example coming to mind. As with the apparent Ofcom rules, Ford's show was obviously commentary, not straight news.
The background in the UK is that, during an election period, political parties that put forward candidates in all the seats get slots on TV to give a party political broadcast, and TV channels are expected to be neutral on electoral issues.
The rules in play during an election are found in section 6 of Ofcom's broadcasting code here: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code
Last month, GB News was found to have repeatedly breached impartiality rules by paying Conservative MPs hundreds of thousands of pounds to serve as news presenters and interview the prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Rather than impose sanctions on GB News, the regulator instead put the channel “on notice” and warned it against further breaches. GB News has broken broadcasting rules on 12 occasions in the past 18 months, with a further eight investigations in progress.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/25/labour-more-popular-than-tories-with-gb-news-viewers/
Labour is more popular with viewers of GB News than the Tories, a new poll has revealed.
A survey of the TV channel’s audience shows that Rishi Sunak is battling on two fronts as the Tories lose support to Labour and Reform UK.
It also reveals a deep dissatisfaction with the Government’s record on key policy areas including immigration, the NHS and crime.
JL Partners, a polling firm, surveyed 518 current and recent viewers of the channel, which has a number of high-profile Conservative presenters.
The results show that, across both groups, Labour holds an 11-point cushion over the Tories, leading by 39 per cent to 28 per cent when “don’t knows” are excluded.
Reform UK, the Right-wing party led by Richard Tice – who is also a presenter on the channel – comes in third with 20 per cent of the viewership.
Ah, okay, thanks.
Guess they made sure to poll Gillian Duffy.
GB News is an entertainment channel with the news every hour on the hour for no more than 5 minutes
I don't think we can define people being called "paedophiles" and "deviants" as entertainment either - unless you're a complete arsehole, and God knows the world has too many of them. But arseholes need challenging, not pandering to.
Challenge them then but don't tar everyone with the same brush
If you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas.
I don’t have access to them.
The arseholes are people entertained by hearing marginalised people called deviants and paedophiles.
The pandering is being done by GBeebies saying the arsehole things arseholes like to hear.
GBeebies has form for this sort of thing happening again and again.
The arseholes are the people sitting at home enjoying marginalised people being abused. I do not have access to these arsewipes.
If GBeebies wants to be a reputable outfit it should challenge arseholery, not pander to it.
I assume this is addressed to me
When you watch GB news, you must be watching different programmes to me. Try and be more selective.
I don't watch it. However, a segment was commented on as in my OP. That is what I am referring to. Are you claiming it's fake?
I am assuming it's correct. I also suspect that they might well drop him as they have dropped others who have misbehaved
They won't have many people left the rate they have to drop them.
Anyway, they've had over two weeks and no hint of a response to the complaints. We shouldn't be surprised; as the Byline Times article I linked to pointed out, the channel has been emboldened in its attacks on LGBT+ since Trump was inaugurated.
I question the honesty of a channel that calls itself GB*News* and then hides behind claims it's just an entertainment channel and news is just an occasional thing.
How about having presenters who don't misbehave in the first place?