Colleague made sarky comment about me re. GB News

[OneStepBeyondd]

Discussion at work earlier - does anyone watch the news. Another colleague and I said we don’t mind GB news on occasion to which someone said (directed at me) - ‘I didn’t have you down as one of them’ in a judgemental tone.

Is it me or is that a bit rude and unnecessary?

It’s a mystery. 🤣

See my previous post but no, I don't view quangos to be a good thing, and I don't think its arbitrary judgements are well-founded or based on objective fact. That is not possible, by the very nature of what is being assessed. Media companies should be accountable to those who watch them. In the ITV case it didn't even matter that it was found to not be biased - ITV changed their practice anyway and said they won't let it happen again. That is true accountability to their viewing public, and it didn't depend on a state institution to make it happen.

If only all those people taken in by state propaganda had read other things too, to broaden their information sources and develop a more nuanced way of looking at things! I wonder how much you really understand about the situation in Weimar Germany in the run-up to WW2. You don't think the Treaty of Versailles had anything to do with it, for example?

So, what media is deemed pure enough for you to follow, @Biscuitsneeded ? Not the BBC, I imagine. The Guardian? The Morning Star? Owen Jones?

Pity us in Wales. We have four hustling parties now and an election next year 🙈

You @Etaerio take the biscuit. Further upthread you are, quite rightly, calling attention to the questionable phrasing of a poster who has ascribed a vernacular spelling to an imagined token member of a particular demographic (the use of the spelling 'wiv'). I thought that was a fair point well made; I don't like those kinds of generalisations either.

Yet here you are, getting p e t t y about me misspelling a common phrase, one which I have clearly heard more than seen in text, using a phonetically plausible alternative (as is 'wiv', by the way) to prove some kind of point. Unless that is literally your answer to my question; did you object to me saying you were responding to the wrong poster? In which case, as I've already explained to another poster, my intention was not to be condescending.

But you were so EXCITED to use the fact that I replied to the wrong person as some bizarre evidence for someone else's lack of attention to detail. I merely responded in kind, as you put it 😆.

Social media is damaging to young people. I think the same for GB news with older people. Older family members who watch it are more openly racist than in the past: and now only drinking bottled water as they heard on the news that Thames Water isn't safe. I have watched it while at thier home. Its opinion dressed as news; and quite manipulative in encouraging the audience on how to feel on a particular issue

A.G.E.I.S.M

So when BBC headlines a story with 'x praised for doing y' you think that's simply an objective and factual approach with no attempt at manipulating how the audience feels about an issue?

What you have are stupid or irrational older relatives, that's all. Their age has nothing to do with it. Credulousness doesn't come with age. Look at the millions of young people who think there are more than two sexes and sex isn't biological.

I'm old. I listen to GB News and read the Telegraph with the same degree of cynicism and critical thinking that I apply to the Guardian (which has time and time again revealed itself to be incredibly biased in what it covers and doesn't cover) and the BBC. I approach The Spectator, the New Statesman, the Economist, Triggernometry and Citations Needed all with the same 'So, what narrative are you trying to sell me?' attitude. Whether it's someone from the left or the right, if I have very clear 'Wow, this makes sense to me' response I go off and do my own research into their argument — because I don't want to get sucked in by emotive arguments.

"Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences"

This is it, in a nutshell (and a big reason why I keep politics at work on the down low). It has so much potential for discord because people are often so deeply attached to their political beliefs.

Unfortunately, while not every single thing on GB News spews hate and prejudice, and there may well be nuggets on there that are more entertaining, informative or broad minded, it is known for that for a reason. The only people I know who seriously watch it are lot are some family members who sadly are racist and do spout hateful things about anyone they perceive as too different or threatening. That's unfortunately the association it has, and why it provokes such strong reactions.

Of course, it's something of a "chicken and egg" debate. Do people watch it because they already hold these sort of views, or does GB News influence people in that direction? My relatives whose views I find rather abhorrent certainly held them before GB News existed, but I do think their habit of having it on all day in the background has entrenched those views further.

The patronising and condescending continues.

No, it runs deeper than this. Having a balance of views is healthy. I read the Times, Guardian and occasionally the Telegraph. My children watch you tube videos. The parts of GB news that I have seen are far more like watching a you tuber opine on issues of the day rather than watching BBC, Channel 4 or ITV news. I have 2 sets of relatives (different sides of family) who watch it regulary; and i have noted more racist language being used about NHS workers and young people than in the past

Great that you read a range of media
The people in my (very small) sample now rely exclusively on GB news and it is a constant rolling presence in their homes. I would prefer it if they did access wider media sources

When you say you've noted more racist language being used about NHS workers and young people, do you mean by your relatives, by GB News, or in society as a whole?

They are one homogenous group aren't they, except for the left leaning, of course😉

What you prefer, unless they are your children, is irrelevant.

I have just googled her, definitely not her!! And i wouldn't call a 46 year old elderly, the woman i saw is most likely in her 60s/70s, I'll have a search.

I'm not sure what you mean by calling out and that GB news is the only media to call out on a list of events

Computer weekly called this out as did private eye, very early on, the former being the first journalists to take an interest I believe.

Andrew Norfolk exposed and called out the grooming gangs in 2011, he was a journalist for The Times

I think you'll find all this was before GB news was founded

Not any more.

But @hattie43 didn't claim GB News was "the only media to call out on a list of events." She referred to " the only channel" and "the only show". Did you deliberately misrepresent what she said because you were aware that your "counterexamples" actually aren't?

Interesting that the fight against misogyny ceases once it comes to women holding political views. We are encouraged to pursue our own thoughts and unleash our autonomy- why is that a problem when it comes to our political stance? 🤔

The two sets of relatives that watch GB news excessively (think a TV constantly on in the background)

I accept that there are lots of problems in society. I am strongly of the view that having a range of media to hear different viewpoints is important. But I have seen GB news have a negative impact which has been noted by other relatives. We have bought Netflix and ITV X subscriptions and shown them the range of older programmes which they have previously enjoyed; but they still gravitate back to GB news and this is where it feels similar to social media use in young people

Nope. If you’re going to watch that ridiculous garbage then you’re going to have to take the comments.

Of course it’s a free country and people can watch what they want and others can judge whom they want!