Lamestream Media Double Standards and Fake News

[Frood]

Our ABC needs axing next....

[cc]

And more than 1  of ours that are on the dole

[Anonymous]

A leftist, government funded British institution is doomed.

[Bricktop]

In the past, the payment of a TV licence was a LEGAL requirement defined by statutes.



This effectively meant that if you watched television without a licence, you committed a crime. Therefore, British people who did not pay the fee were charged with an offence and had to appear in a criminal court, where a conviction was recorded if found guilty and fines or gaol imposed.



It was using criminal law for what should have been a civil debt. A sledgehammer to open a peanut.



The UK government has now abolished the crime of watching television without a licence. This means that the BBC's only redress in recovering unpaid licence fees is through the civil court. The burden of proof in civil proceedings is much lower than criminal matters, but without the backing of a criminal law breach, actions against non-payers become much more problematic.



The BBC's funds will collapse in a short space of time.



This is clearly the intent of the British government. After many years of enduring complaints that the British public were paying money out of their pockets for content they did not watch, or worse vehemently opposed accompanied by an increasingly arrogant dismissal of complaints by the BBC the British Government has finally acted. This is a major issue in Britain, as the left will scream that their propaganda arm disguised as a public broadcaster is being persecuted by the right.



I suspect a number of public broadcasters like our ABC will suddenly start to shake with fear.

[Anonymous]

In the past, the payment of a TV licence was a LEGAL requirement defined by statutes.



This effectively meant that if you watched television without a licence, you committed a crime. Therefore, British people who did not pay the fee were charged with an offence and had to appear in a criminal court, where a conviction was recorded if found guilty and fines or gaol imposed.



It was using criminal law for what should have been a civil debt. A sledgehammer to open a peanut.



The UK government has now abolished the crime of watching television without a licence. This means that the BBC's only redress in recovering unpaid licence fees is through the civil court. The burden of proof in civil proceedings is much lower than criminal matters, but without the backing of a criminal law breach, actions against non-payers become much more problematic.



The BBC's funds will collapse in a short space of time.



This is clearly the intent of the British government. After many years of enduring complaints that the British public were paying money out of their pockets for content they did not watch, or worse vehemently opposed accompanied by an increasingly arrogant dismissal of complaints by the BBC the British Government has finally acted. This is a major issue in Britain, as the left will scream that their propaganda arm disguised as a public broadcaster is being persecuted by the right.



I suspect a number of public broadcasters like our ABC will suddenly start to shake with fear.

I knew it was funded in an unusual way..



Our CBC will never be privatized.....if it didn't happen when Stephen Harper had a majority, it never will.

[Bricktop]

I'm not so sure.



Public sentiment is turning away from public broadcasters that are cleary ideologically biased.



The effective dismantling of the flagship public broadcaster amongst western democracies will have a ripple effect. If the BBC, the model of government owned mass media, can be brought to its knees, any of it's siblings elsewhere can. There was a time when no British person would ever contemplate the demise of the nation's broadcaster. Now they will celebrate.



You can guarantee that this news will energise anti-ABC advocates here in Australia to increase demands to shut it down.

[Anonymous]

I'm not so sure.



Public sentiment is turning away from public broadcasters that are cleary ideologically biased.



The effective dismantling of the flagship public broadcaster amongst western democracies will have a ripple effect. If the BBC, the model of government owned mass media, can be brought to its knees, any of it's siblings elsewhere can. There was a time when no British person would ever contemplate the demise of the nation's broadcaster. Now they will celebrate.



You can guarantee that this news will energise anti-ABC advocates here in Australia to increase demands to shut it down.

It aint happening here. We don't even want funding cut let alone sell the propaganda machine.



Fewer than 1 in 5 Canadians want CBC funding decreased: poll

https://ipolitics.ca/2019/05/13/nearly-80-of-canadians-want-cbc-funding-increased-or-maintained-poll/">https://ipolitics.ca/2019/05/13/nearly- ... ined-poll/">https://ipolitics.ca/2019/05/13/nearly-80-of-canadians-want-cbc-funding-increased-or-maintained-poll/

[Bricktop]

"The Nanos Research poll, commissioned by advocacy group Friends of Canadian Broadcasting"



And that is where my acceptance of the veracity of that poll would end.



But perhaps the CBC is not as radically woke as the BBC, or ABC for that matter???

[Anonymous]

"The Nanos Research poll, commissioned by advocacy group Friends of Canadian Broadcasting"



And that is where my acceptance of the veracity of that poll would end.



But perhaps the CBC is not as radically woke as the BBC, or ABC for that matter???

I didn't see that part. But, there have been other polls showing little appetite for privatization of the progtard CBC. CBC is every bit as woke as it's Australian and British counterparts.

[Bricktop]

Damn. Although, I suspect that if a poll was run here, the morons would want to keep the channel. Especially in remote areas as it's often the only channel they get.



And of course, the woke wankers would hate to lose their main propaganda channel.

[Anonymous]

Damn. Although, I suspect that if a poll was run here, the morons would want to keep the channel. Especially in remote areas as it's often the only channel they get.



And of course, the woke wankers would hate to lose their main propaganda channel.

I guarantee your Labour Party would oppose it.

[Bricktop]

Damn. Although, I suspect that if a poll was run here, the morons would want to keep the channel. Especially in remote areas as it's often the only channel they get.



And of course, the woke wankers would hate to lose their main propaganda channel.

I guarantee your Labour Party would oppose it.

Hell yeah.

[Anonymous]

DirecTV plans to drop conservative One America News Network from its lineup.

[Anonymous]

I thought Ted Koppel was part of the problem with journalism. I guess I was wrong.



Veteran newsman Ted Koppel tries to explain to journalist why liberal media bias is bad. Journalist wants to know if bias is OK as long as Trump is the target

https://www.theblaze.com/furnace/ted-koppel-liberal-media-bias-trump-target?utm_source=theblaze-dailyPM&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily-Newsletter__PM%202022-01-17&utm_term=ACTIVE%20LIST%20-%20TheBlaze%20Daily%20PM">https://www.theblaze.com/furnace/ted-ko ... Daily%20PM">https://www.theblaze.com/furnace/ted-koppel-liberal-media-bias-trump-target?utm_source=theblaze-dailyPM&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily-Newsletter__PM%202022-01-17&utm_term=ACTIVE%20LIST%20-%20TheBlaze%20Daily%20PM

And what about when he declared in 2019 that Trump was "not mistaken" in his belief that the liberal media is "out to get him"?



Koppel noted at the time that some blatantly biased, anti-Trump remarks made by journalists were things that are "not said by people who consider themselves reporters, objective reporters of facts."



The newsman added that he was "terribly concerned" about bias that was clearly creeping onto the front pages of newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post.



"We're talking about organizations that I believe have, in fact, decided as organizations that Donald J. Trump is bad for the United States," he said, adding, "we have things appearing on the front page of the New York Times right now that never would have appeared 50 years ago. Analysis, commentary on the front page."



"I think opinion belongs on the opinion page; that's why they call it the op-ed section," he said. "And that's where the opinion pieces are, the columns; that's where the editorials are, and that's where it belongs."



"I don't like seeing opinion being expressed on the front page of a great newspaper," he continued, adding that he wished newspapers "wouldn't slip into that category."



"It bothers me when I see them losing some of the criteria that always used to keep a wall between opinion and news coverage."

[Bricktop]

Telling us what we've known for years.



What a remarkable revelation.