Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Donald Trump, the road that might not lead to the White House!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Casually Red said:
Whose sources was I complaining about ?

And what's the problem with the piece, other than your Russophobia . You don't automatically dismiss BBC and Guardian sources ,so your Lols are just the routine , sniffy Anglo Saxon hypocrisy. Waste of breath.
Click to expand...
Temper, Temper.

Oh, and you know nothing about me, and most of the assumptions you make in your little monitor-spattering rant are way off base. HTH.
 
Casually Red said:
If I criticise a source I do so by pointing to another that contradicts it. Unlike others I don't immediately dismiss it on the basis of nationality and fuck all else.
Click to expand...
This quite frankly is bullshit. You have repeatedly rubbished sources that I've posted on the Syria thread without posting sources of your own to refute whatever it is you have an issue with. If I post up stuff that you feel uncomfortable with i.e. there is no easy explanation to hand in your head you ignore the posts in question.
 
I get this:

trump.png
 
laptop said:
The quantitative difference is enough to count as qualitative, silly.

For one thing, there's a rather lower death-toll among UK journalists who defy the Party line.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I agree. The BBC barely ever employs the kind of journalist who'd get into trouble if the UK were like Russia. ITV has a better record of doing that - giving airtime to people like John Pilger.

I do agree on the need to be cautious with RT, but I don't see that you need to be much less cautious with the beeb.
 
8den said:
If you think you can compare the level of state control of the BBC to Kremlin control of RT you are frankly delusional.
Click to expand...
Works in a different way, perhaps, but it is most certainly there. And Hutton and its ramifications are one case in point.

One of the main ways in which this operates is the terms and limits set for debates. Both will have points of view not discussed. For instance, the points of view of various economists with non-mainstream takes on the credit crunch - the likes of Steve Keen - don't get any airtime on the BBc. It is as if their pov didn't exist. Keen and others get to argue their cases on RT. On the bbc, people like Keen, who predicted the credit crunch, are sidelined, while jokers who didn't see it coming at all are taken seriously. More subtle form of propaganda, perhaps, but there.
 
Last edited:
littlebabyjesus said:
Works in a different way, perhaps, but it is most certainly there. And Hutton and its ramifications are one case in point.
Click to expand...

Bollocks. Pure and simple.

You've said that BBC is equivalent to RT. You've waved in the direction of the Hutton report as proof. RT was and is directly funded by the Kremlin. The 1st station director was a 25you Kremlin appointee with next to no real world journalism. It regularly promotes the exact same party as the state. It avoids criticism of the state like the plague. There is no comparison.

One of the main ways in which this operates is the terms and limits set for debates. Both will have points of view not discussed.
Click to expand...

Just because the BBC don't report or carry a point of view doesn't mean that point of view is valid. Plenty of worldviews would insist that they are represented on the BBC and they aren't carried.

For instance, the points of view of various economists with non-mainstream takes on the credit crunch - the likes of Steve Keen - don't get any airtime on the BBc. It is as if their pov didn't exist. Keen and others get to argue their cases on RT. On the bbc, people like Keen, who predicted the credit crunch, are sidelined, while jokers who didn't see it coming at all are taken seriously. More subtle form of propaganda, perhaps, but there.
Click to expand...

Speaking of jokers Keen will regularly appear on RT on the Keiser report, a man who regularly propagates conspiracy theories, unsubstantiated rumours, and speculation as facts.


A number of those American and British twentysomething recruits have discovered that unpleasant reality in the course of their reporting. Abby Martin, the host of RT America, protested on air at the support that RT gave to Russia’s invasion of Crimea. Reporter Liz Wahl resigned shortly afterwards for the same reason. Staci Bivens, another RT reporter, said that she had been ordered by editors to write a story arguing the absurd case that Germany was a ‘failed state’. (She refused, which led to her leaving the network.) Overall, past and present employees of RT described a workplace in which reporters and commentators might write original stories only to find them rewritten by senior Russian editors — not to clarify or correct them, but to suit obvious Kremlin interests.
Click to expand...

Russia Today is Putin's weapon of mass deception. Will it work in Britain?
 
teqniq said:
This quite frankly is bullshit. You have repeatedly rubbished sources that I've posted on the Syria thread without posting sources of your own to refute whatever it is you have an issue with. If I post up stuff that you feel uncomfortable with i.e. there is no easy explanation to hand in your head you ignore the posts in question.
Click to expand...


Ive ripped the shit out of the shit you post by pointing to alternative sources . You don't like it so you take your gripe onto another thread

Joker
 
littlebabyjesus said:
Works in a different way, perhaps, but it is most certainly there. And Hutton and its ramifications are one case in point.

One of the main ways in which this operates is the terms and limits set for debates. Both will have points of view not discussed. For instance, the points of view of various economists with non-mainstream takes on the credit crunch - the likes of Steve Keen - don't get any airtime on the BBc. It is as if their pov didn't exist. Keen and others get to argue their cases on RT. On the bbc, people like Keen, who predicted the credit crunch, are sidelined, while jokers who didn't see it coming at all are taken seriously. More subtle form of propaganda, perhaps, but there.
Click to expand...

They haven't even remotely alluded to why the original piece in question is even wrong material wise.just some rule Britannia bollocks . And wails from a sordid little arsehole calling for a ban.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
DONALD TRUMP
2
Replies
41
Views
3K
krtek a houby
krtek a houby
Cloo
  • Poll
What was behind Trump shooting? make your bets now
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
164
Views
6K
Nylock
Nylock
mojo pixy
Give me a reason not to embrace the far-right
2 3 4
Replies
93
Views
3K
Lotte
L
krtek a houby
Donald Trump's 2nd term
39 40 41 42 43
Replies
1K
Views
53K
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
singsongfun
What chance does Trump have of winning the 2024 Presidential Election?
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
216
Views
12K
Lucky 888
L
Back
Top Bottom