BS: the demise of the boring thread

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 14 - 01:03 PM

So why are we discussing Sky News bias if it is just the same as other UK broadcasters who are all bound by "robustly enforced" impartiality rules?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 May 14 - 12:10 PM

"I have only you called a liar twice...."

Was one supposed to be he truth??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 May 14 - 10:14 AM

What is the basis for this claim of bias?

ALL media have their own bias. From reporting that Romanian immigrants are going to flood the country and that Ed Milliband's Father was a traitor to which Morris team wore the best costume and why Village United lost even though they played better! They get away with it all the time. They report what they want to and ignore the stories that they are not interested in. They are not fined because they are not telling untruths. They are just not giving the whole story.

I am not saying that I know the whole story. I know that I don't! I am certainly not going to believe anyone who tells me we are all in it together when I know damn well we are not. I am not going to listen to the press spins of either side of the same coin. And, most of all, I am not going to get heated about a thread on an insignificant folk music forum.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 14 - 09:52 AM

Rich and powerful media HAVE been fined by OFCOM.
What is the basis for this claim of bias?

Musket, I have only ever called you a liar over two posts.
The one where you described a heinous massacre of school children with dismemberment and feeding to pigs.
Not one single news agency site has any report of such an event.
And the one where you said you had downloaded a quote that google could only find in your post, from an organisation that does not exist.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 May 14 - 09:27 AM

Firth: "Not whining, Goofus. Just illustrating your pathological penchant for telling lies about people when you have no way of knowing.
Piltdown man, as you obviously don't know, was a major anthropological fraud."

I know about the 'Piltdown Man'...a fraud...just like those who insist that homosexuality is all 'genetic based'...and then you promote the gene nonsense....with absolutely NO PROOF!!!...just the mere hope that somebody will find it somewhere!

Not sound political judgement to base laws and policies on...but then, the 'so-called liberals' thrive on deceit and berating as a means to ram crap down everyone's throat...and THAT IS a FACT...and you are part and parcel of doing just that!...and that IS a fact!...if not, PROVE IT...which you, or none of your 'parrot pack' has been able to do....and THAT is NOT my fault, or fraud!...just a tenant of your political beliefs....and you know how much credibility goes into unfounded political rhetoric!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 30 May 14 - 08:22 AM

I do not call you stupid. I never use the word thick without attaching the proviso "cunt" either for that matter.

Actually, I didn't open anything up, I merely mentioned a few contributions in an recently reopened thread and yours was amongst them. That you feel the world spins around you, or are paranoid enough to think I give you special status is your problem, not the world's.

Sly News has never been fined for impartiality... Well yes, and neither has Razzle, Viz or The Daily Sport.... Sky's partisan output tends to be ridiculed on Have I got News for You instead.

All you have to do is apologise for calling me a liar, but you won't. So ridicule and lampoonery coming your way. Funnily enough, I don't have to be creative, you often provide the material yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 14 - 08:14 AM

The simple fact that Ofcom have levied fines proves that people do not obey the rules. Once a biased report has been made it is too late.

Sky News has never been fined for impartiality.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 14 - 08:10 AM

Keith - You keep saying Musket is stupid.

No I do not.
I very rarely ever make such an accusation.

What does he keep saying I am though Dave, and never once a comment from you about that?

And what "entrenched position?"
Musket chose to reopen and old discussion ridiculing me for stating something that is demonstrably true.
No comment about that either?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 May 14 - 08:09 AM

Keith, you are missing the whole point. The simple fact that Ofcom have levied fines proves that people do not obey the rules. Once a biased report has been made it is too late. The damage has been done. No amount of financial penalty will repair it.

If I may paraphrase something I have seen recently. Take a plate. Smash it on the floor. Say sorry to it. Is the plate still broken?

There are plenty of other bodies that make and try to enforce rules. They all fail to various degrees. Penalties do not prevent people from breaking rules. Only provide some amount of reparation and/or vengeance. Yes, we do have to have rules, but just because the rules are in place and even enforced does not mean that the rules will not be broken. If so our prisons would be empty.


DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 14 - 07:51 AM

"Tabloid journalism"
Guardian, New Statesman, OFCOM.

I produce hard evidence and fact while you can only make unfunny jokes, because once again you are proved wrong and I right.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 14 - 04:34 AM

Mehdi Hamad is an eminent and respected Left Wing journalist and commentator with impeccable credentials (editor of New Statesman, etc.) which make him a natural enemy of Murdock and accusations of him toadying to Murdock laughable.
Laughable Musket!

I also pointed out that Sky must follow strict rules of impartiality imposed on all UK broadcasters.
Dave questioned that the rules are enforced so I linked to this statement by Ofsted, which Dave chose not to read.
Look away now Dave.

"Ofcom takes its duty to preserve due impartiality extremely seriously. We take action against anyone who breaks our rules and Press TV was fined a record £100,000 last month for a serious breach of our privacy rules.

"Impartiality" does not mean that equal time has to be given to every view or that all broadcasters have to report events through a single lens. Neither does it prevent the broadcasting of highly critical views about a state or institution, however unpalatable these views may be.

The key word in this context is "due". It means adequate or appropriate to the subject and nature of the programme. When we judge these cases we take account of a range of factors, including audience expectations. For example, the audience's expectations of a mainstream UK broadcaster such as the BBC or Sky will differ significantly from the audience's expectations of a satellite service based in the UK but broadcasting outside the UK (or to an expatriate audience within the UK).

But regardless of this, tough minimum standards do apply to all broadcasters, which we will continue to robustly enforce.

Tony Close

Director of standards, Ofcom"

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 30 May 14 - 02:55 AM

Watch it Dave. Keith will find a Wikipedia entry for Sydney Harbour Bridge and defy you to challenge his well being.

Private Eye used to have a column for exposing toadying journalism fauning over Sky and Murdoch. I haven't bought a copy for a long time now but used to enjoy it.

Does it still have pseuds' corner? If Keith was anyone of interest his posts would sit rather comfortably there.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 May 14 - 02:41 AM

Has anyone seen Sidney? He's dead, you know.

D.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 May 14 - 08:48 PM

And, Goofball, what the hell IS the topic of this thread?

Certainly not what you're trying to make it.

Unless you admit to being boring.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 May 14 - 08:24 PM

Not whining, Goofus. Just illustrating your pathological penchant for telling lies about people when you have no way of knowing.

Piltdown man, as you obviously don't know, was a major anthropological fraud.

YOU are a minor anthropological fraud.

Jeez, you don't even understand it when you've been zinged!!

Don Firth

P. S. Sorry, guys, for prolonging this idiotic thread. Waste of time. I'm out of here!

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 May 14 - 07:58 PM

Yeah...there's a lot of that going around....and when they run out, they just think of the stupidest things....not talk about the topic, call names, and think they're going somewhere with it....ain't it a shame?
Oh, and Don, you turned(or tried) to turn that all around...it was YOUR whining about being called the 'Miltown Man' after calling me the 'Piltown Man', and now you're pissing and moaning about it?????? Jeez, You're better off making a regular fool out of your politics!
Wanna comment on that 'Amazing Breakthrough'????..or just let it 'lie'...to perpetuate 'other lies'??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 May 14 - 04:27 PM

Keith - You keep saying Musket is stupid. You continue to argue with him. How do you think that makes you look? This, and many other, threads, is typical of the entrenched position that makes everyone look stupid. Yes, OK, me included. But I don't care.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 May 14 - 04:07 PM

Keep it up Musket, but YOU chose to reopen the Sky News discussion, and YOU completely failed to make a case while I was easily able to support MY position with hard evidence and make YOU look stupid.
And very thick.
And more besides.
Cant.
And silly bluster.
Keep it up Musket.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 29 May 14 - 03:05 PM

Of course he has his standards. Judging by his posts, they don't include other men.

Me? Two tits and a heartbeat.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 May 14 - 01:49 PM

Goofball, I'm not going to try to hold myself to your standards.

Pretty damned hard to do when it's more than obvious that you don't have any.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 May 14 - 01:10 PM

You really do amaze me goofus. How anyone can get the wrong of the stick so often and so consistently is beyond me. I think I will just revert to trying to out-gobbledegook you.

Obble Gobble Pobble. I don't think so. Maybe it's the fish?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 29 May 14 - 01:01 PM

This thread will always be boring whilst ever moderators keep deleting my posts.

All I did was give a professional diagnosis of Keith.

Stop shooting the messenger.

If you want a professional diagnosis of Goofus, it is beyond my capability. You'll have to ask the good professor.

What's that boy?

Woof! Grrrr. Woof!

I agree. But who will publish such a thesis? Mudcat doesn't like such technical terms, I tried it with Keith, and no self respecting university would publish it. Tell you what, here.. Have a gravy bone instead.

Good boy..

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 May 14 - 12:15 PM

Firth: "Interesting how, even when I haven't posted on a particular thread for a few days, Goofup can't resist taking a snotty shot at me.
Goofballupagus, for your information, I don't take Miltown and never have."

It was in response to your 'Piltown Man' remark..a shot at me when I was off for a couple of days. You might consider holding yourself up to the same standard, that you hypocritically whine about!!

Fair enough??


Dave the Gnut: "I was going to respond to the headline, Dave posted...(to prove his point....."

What?...were you going to shout from the rooftops what the 'breakthrough' was? ....BTW, what was the 'breakthrough' in that totally misleading headlined article???......that they still didn't find 'the gene', and 'there are other influences greater' than the gene???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 May 14 - 06:59 AM

I was going to respond to the headline, Dave posted...(to prove his point but realised I already had and I really just could not be arsed shovelling that kind of shite any more.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 May 14 - 08:26 PM

Interesting how, even when I haven't posted on a particular thread for a few days, Goofup can't resist taking a snotty shot at me.

Goofballupagus, for your information, I don't take Miltown and never have. I don't need tranquilizers or anti-depressants, and any drugs do I take are either over-the-counter, like aspirin, or prescribed by my doctor, such as atenolol for slightly elevated blood pressure, which is not unusual for my age. I drink a couple of cups of coffee per day, an occasional beer or glass of wine (rarely more than one a week, if that much), and I used to smoke cigarettes (tobacco cigarettes), but quit thirty-six years ago. I have never indulged in "recreational drugs" such as marijuana, cocaine, LSD, "magic mushrooms," or any other mind-altering substances.

I leave that sort of stuff to guys like you. If I want anything "mind-altering," I read a good, informative book.

In fact, I read a lot. Which has something to do with my ability to both recognize and write cohesive, grammatically correct sentences.

If I, or anybody, doesn't understand something YOU are trying to say, it's because you don't say it very clearly. Downright opaque most of the time. Which gives a clue to the contents of your so-called "mind."

Back to the real world.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 May 14 - 07:54 PM

SRS: "It's easy - everything GfS posted was taken out of context."

That's what I thought, after reading the headline, Dave posted...(to prove his point)....the headline was TOTALLY misleading with the context of the article...maybe they were counting on low intelligent people going by just the headline..being as they weren't counting on their readers even reading the article...and then understanding any of it!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 May 14 - 04:19 PM

You are right of course SRS. But it is a bit like watching a train crash. Morbid curiosity as to how it will pan out but we can't help it.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 28 May 14 - 03:58 PM

GfS wrote to a doctor refuting his positions: Interesting..because EVERYTHING I posted was a cut and paste from the studies that was posted by Dave the Gnome and Don Firth...which tends to discredit everything you just tried to lay out in your post.

It's easy - everything GfS posted was taken out of context.

This whole thread seems to be out of context, very boring indeed, yet here it continues, a few of you hammer-and-tongs duking it out.

This must be the prototype for electronic flypaper. Continue to stick around here and keep the vitriol in one place.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 May 14 - 02:42 PM

Hamad with his inside knowledge, The New Statesman and the Guardian say it is impartial.
How does Musket answer all that testimony?
He says they are "toadies."

As ever, his one and only debating tactic and argument is name calling!
Not really a winner Musket.

Now let us look at all the evidence Musket has put up in defence of his views.
Errrr, nothing.
Zilch.
They are all toadies, and that is it.

I think the "discussion" is over and was a little one-sided.
Time to move on.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 May 14 - 02:25 PM

Unfortunately we only have 2 cats. I think they would probably just turn their noses up if they came across that.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 28 May 14 - 01:29 PM

If you have a pet dog Dave, I suggest you get him or her to debate with Goofus. Far more fulfilling all round.

"The Guardian and New Statesman don't print toadying journalism." Well done Keith. That's my boy!

Mind you, it's normally ignorant fools saying that about The Daily M*il or Daily Torygraph. Grauniad readers tend to be a cut above usually, on the basis they take comment with a pinch of salt. They may revise their editorial policy if they see people actually believing what they read and calling comment hard evidence. After all, even editors have to sleep at night.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 May 14 - 12:33 PM

The last link you posted to 'prove your point' backfired.

Much as I know I am going to regret this, I did not post a link to prove any point. I have no need to prove points. Especially to complete knobheads. Now, as it has become obvious, once again, that we do not seem to inhabit the same planet I would just request just once , politely, that you fuck off with your delusions and try not to analyse things you so obviously do not understand.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 May 14 - 11:42 AM

Dave the Gnome: "To be honest I find following links to help people prove their own points quite tedious and a tiresome exercise."

Yeah?..The last link you posted to 'prove your point' backfired. The 'Headline read, "Male sexual orientation influenced by genes, study shows".....but when reading the article, it said THIS:

""While genes do contribute to sexual orientation, OTHER MULTIPLE FACTORS PLAY A GREATER ROLE, perhaps including the levels of hormones a baby is exposed to in the womb."

Greater than the genes??...Did it say that??...Didn't I tell you that over two years ago???

..and it goes on to say(same study), "The gene or genes in the Xq28 region that influence sexual orientation have a LIMITED and VARIABLE impact."

..and then it says, (Now pay attention) "Not all of the gay men in Bailey's study inherited the same Xq28 region. The genes were NEITHER SUFFICIENT, Nor NECESSARY, to MAKE ANY of the men gay."

...and this, "That means even a perfect genetic test that picked up EVERY GENE LINKED to sexual orientation would still be LESS EFFECTIVE THAN FLIPPING A COIN."

...and this one, "...we DON'T KNOW where these genetic factors are located in the genome. So we need to do 'gene finding' studies, like this one by Sanders, Bailey and others, to have a better idea where POTENTIAL genes for sexual orientation MAY lie."

..and this,"We found evidence for two sets [of genes] that affect whether a man is gay or straight. But it IS NOT COMPLETELY DETERMINATIVE; there are certainly OTHER environmental FACTORS INVOLVED."


Then you posted this link:
Don't

I can see why you think it's ".....quite tedious and a tiresome exercise.".....Playin' both sides of your own argument!

Oh well, back to the drawing boards!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 May 14 - 10:45 AM

Musket, the Guardian and the New Statesman do not print toadying journalism.
Mehdi Hasan is not the kind of journalist who would toady to Murdock.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 May 14 - 10:41 AM

Rules are needed because people misbehave, but rules have to be enforced or they will be broken.
OFCOM is there to enforce the rules.

I always read the links people provide to justify and explain their views.
How can I be part of the debate if I do not consider the evidence people put up in support of their views?
If I did not put up evidence to support my own views they would just be dismissed, rightly, as personal uninformed opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 28 May 14 - 10:40 AM

Keith, you said the obscenely abusive posts had disappeared. You are wrong. Your posts are still there, as are the worm's.

Err.. Since when was a toadying piece of journalism hard evidence Keith? Do you know what hard evidence is?

I'd give my verdict on that but the moderators have no sense of humour.

I'll make a suggestion to moderators. When you refuse to remove offensive posts aimed at me, so I post to answer them. Either leave my fucking posts alone or remove the disgraceful slurs that forced a reply in the first place.

Keith's posts look even more silly than usual, it makes him look as if he is talking to himself. (I'll refrain from the obvious..)



Here Al! Want to buy some BSkyB shares? I offered them to Bridge a while back. Their recent rise in value prove two things.

1. Lies and bollocks have monetary value. (Someone on this thread should be a millionaire by that reckoning.

2. When I buy a shed load of mixed shares advertised as "ethical investment," I didn't expect a load of Murdoch shares and have been thinking about offloading them ever since.



Hey Goofus!

Ready boy?

Grrr. woof! Woof!   Grrrr.


I concur.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 May 14 - 09:02 AM

No, I didn't read them, Keith. To be honest I find following links to help people prove their own points quite tedious and a tiresome exercise. My point was simply that stating that there are strict rules does not mean people will comply with them. I don't have any links to support that view I'm afraid. It is one I developed on my own. I am sure that you have multiple links to prove me wrong.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 May 14 - 08:19 AM

Did you read the Guardian and New Statesman links?
These publications are no friends of Murdock.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 May 14 - 08:17 AM

Bias in a news report is much easier to spot than corporate tax avoidance.
Apart from its own scrutiny, anyone can report bias to OFCOM who are bound to investigate.
There has been much talk of Left-wing bias at BBC, but little criticism of Sky.

"From 2000 onwards, Sky News UK expanded its international coverage, opening bureaux in Africa, Europe, and the far East. It won awards from the Royal Television Society,[35] the latest being 'News Channel of the Year' in 2011.

Sky News has won BAFTA awards for coverage of the 11 September 2001 attacks[36] and the 2003 Soham Murders.[37]

Coverage of the 7 July 2005 London bombings won the 2006 International Emmy Breaking News award commending the "fast and accurate" reporting.[38]

In June 2007 Sky News UK was named the "Best News Channel" at the Broadcast Digital Channel Awards. It beat several other national and international broadcasters including Al Jazeera English and the BBC.[39]"

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 May 14 - 07:25 AM

All companies in the UK are subject to strict rules for taxation as well. I suppose that means they all pay everything due and never find ways round it. Come on, Keith, how old are you to believe that strict rules are actually adhered to?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 14 - 12:59 PM

All UK broadcasters, including Sky, are subject to strict rules of impartiality.
http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2011/dec/11/observer-letters-ofcom-due-impartiality

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,big al whittle
Date: 27 May 14 - 12:40 PM

oh well if he's a blair admirer, he couldn't possibly be a tory.....although there was the precedent of mrs thatcher.

don't be daft musket - why would sky be anything other than a mouthpiece for that creepy fascist git that owns it. any lapses into impartiality must surely be the purest of accidents,

good to see the thread is growing apace.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 14 - 12:40 PM

I have not gone posting crazy.
The obscenely abusive posts I was responding to have gone.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 May 14 - 12:23 PM

Keith of Hertford: "If it is true, it would have been more honest to reply to Jim, "My name is Ian Mather."

Keith, I think you misread that....."My name is Ian Mather" may have been 'I am Blather".

Don, you obviously didn't read or comprehend the earlier part of this thread. Perhaps you are the 'Miltown Man'...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 27 May 14 - 12:05 PM

""Everything in the world displeases me: but, above all, my displeasure in everything displeases me.""
 Friedrich Nietzsche

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 14 - 11:39 AM

I recall Keith A hole of Hertford saying that Sky wasn't biased, then cutting and pasting as ever something to agree with him.

So you are accusing me of posting my opinion, and then supporting it with hard evidence.
That is an example of how you should make a point in debate.

Don't fucking post it then, thic.....   Err...   person who doesn't know what debate is..

So that would be you then.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 14 - 09:16 AM

If I had given my opinion about Sky News' editorial independence, it would not have carried much weight.

Mehdi Hasan actually does know, and from personal experience.
Mehdi Hasan can not be dismissed as I would be by the likes of you.
That is why I quoted him.

So, it did not come from me but I do believe him.
I expect you think he should know better.
Like you.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 14 - 07:17 AM

The article is still there.
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2010/05/sky-news-murdoch-labour

Hasan spoke from personal knowledge as he had been a producer of Sky News.
This his profile in The Guardian,
"Mehdi Hasan is political editor of the Huffington Post UK and the presenter of al-Jazeera ­English's The Café. He was a senior editor at the New Statesman and a news and current affairs editor at Channel 4. He is co-author of Ed: the Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader."

(Chortle)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 14 - 06:36 AM

None of that was me.
It is a quote.
It was by Mehdi Hasan writing in the New Statesman.
(Chortle)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 27 May 14 - 05:31 AM

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 08 May 13 - 06:42 AM

" Sky News is, like Fox News, a 24-hour rolling news channel, available on satellite and via cable, and part of Rupert Murdoch's global media empire. But in style and in substance, of course, it is nothing like the pro-war, pro-Republican, pro-Palin Fox News Channel (FNC).

For a start, we have Ofcom (which the Tories want to abolish!) and Ofcom would never allow such blatant, on-air bias in this country (God bless Ofcom!). Indeed, I defy you to find me a single anchor or reporter on Sky News who bears even a passing ideological resemblance to Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity."

"But to accuse Sky News of pursuing "political influence" is a desperate claim. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest there is a co-ordinated anti-Labour, pro-Conservative campaign on the part of Sky News. John Ryley, the Sky News boss, Chris Birkett, his executive editor, and Jonathan Levy, the head of the broadcaster's political unit in Millbank -- all of whom I consider friends of mine -- are not Tories, and, if they are, they've done a damn fine job of hiding it from me and countless others.

Adam Boulton, meanwhile, is the semi-sympathetic biographer of Tony Blair -- and married to Blair's former "gatekeeper", Anji Hunter. Oh, and to those of you who have never worked in a TV newsroom, let me be very clear: Rupert Murdoch doesn't ring up each evening to discuss and decide the running orders with Messrs Ryley and Birkett. In fact, in my two years at Sky News HQ in Isleworth, Middlesex, Murdoch Sr physically turned up just once -- and, that too, to open a new building, not to pontificate on day-to-day editorial matters."
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2010/05/sky-news-murdoch-labour




Even got the "I defy you to find" assertion that follows your usual lack of conviction. It may have been a quote from someone else but used to push your view that Sky is objective, in reply to Bridge's for once accurate observation otherwise.

Sky is objective...... It answers so many questions. {chortle}