The BBC has always fundementally been state controlled media. BBC world, which isn’t readily available within the UK, has in the past done a good job of keeping up the pretence of being neutral for obvious reasons.
The current set of cunts in power have been really hamfisted and crass in their steering of the narrative. One recent example being Lineker showing the most basic level of humanity nearly getting him fired because it went against these cunts narrative. Lineker is not someone I’d count as a radical…
Many massive protests on workers rights, police brutality, climate change have got no coverage on the BBC. I think they’ve been pretty free in their editorial decisions, at this point it’s just a dry version of gbeebies.
Thinking this is some twitter conspiracy crap is either disingenuous or you need to touch grass.
One recent example being Lineker showing the most basic level of humanity nearly getting him fired because it went against these cunts narrative. Lineker is not someone I’d count as a radical…
Lineker expressed an opinion that was political in nature. This goes against BBC rules for presenters specifically created so that all presenters can be seen to be impartial. You can argue the rule is stupid (probably correct for a sports presenter that is not involved in news) and you can argue that his opinion was correct (the HomeOffice policy is utterly shit) but if you’re arguing that by applying their own impartiality rules as they were written they are somehow in hock with the government is laughably reaching into conspiracy theory land.
Thinking this is some twitter conspiracy crap is either disingenuous or you need to touch grass.
Feel free to provide some evidence that isn’t “the BBC don’t cover things I am interested in therefore they must be biased”.
Nah, I’m not going to bother providing a lit review. You’re whole response is bad faith or I’ll ill-informed given you don’t seem to know that they were specifically called out for being very selective in there enforcement of said impartially rule, or you are also being selective… c:
Obviously your burden of proof seems very low. Everything is wrong and bad faith if it disagrees with your point of view: there’s absolutely no room for explanation I must be ill informed. Fair enough. I don’t think we’ll agree here. Have a great day 🌷.
The BBC has always fundementally been state controlled media. BBC world, which isn’t readily available within the UK, has in the past done a good job of keeping up the pretence of being neutral for obvious reasons.
The current set of cunts in power have been really hamfisted and crass in their steering of the narrative. One recent example being Lineker showing the most basic level of humanity nearly getting him fired because it went against these cunts narrative. Lineker is not someone I’d count as a radical…
Many massive protests on workers rights, police brutality, climate change have got no coverage on the BBC. I think they’ve been pretty free in their editorial decisions, at this point it’s just a dry version of gbeebies.
Thinking this is some twitter conspiracy crap is either disingenuous or you need to touch grass.
Lineker expressed an opinion that was political in nature. This goes against BBC rules for presenters specifically created so that all presenters can be seen to be impartial. You can argue the rule is stupid (probably correct for a sports presenter that is not involved in news) and you can argue that his opinion was correct (the HomeOffice policy is utterly shit) but if you’re arguing that by applying their own impartiality rules as they were written they are somehow in hock with the government is laughably reaching into conspiracy theory land.
Feel free to provide some evidence that isn’t “the BBC don’t cover things I am interested in therefore they must be biased”.
Nah, I’m not going to bother providing a lit review. You’re whole response is bad faith or I’ll ill-informed given you don’t seem to know that they were specifically called out for being very selective in there enforcement of said impartially rule, or you are also being selective… c:
Obviously your burden of proof seems very low. Everything is wrong and bad faith if it disagrees with your point of view: there’s absolutely no room for explanation I must be ill informed. Fair enough. I don’t think we’ll agree here. Have a great day 🌷.