GB News

[Mottie]

What about the ownership structure of GB News?

What about it?

 

[Captain Nemesis]

Agreed. But cancel culture isn't about discussion, its about shutting down the opposing argument.

Its about the way that some people portray other people who say they dont want to hear something.

The other great thing about forums is the ignore button.

I asked nicely, but i'm not going to get into an argument with you. Nor am i going to accept your point of view.

Ignore button pressed.

Bye.

Its not an attack on "free speech" any more than newspapers only printing some of the letters they receive is an attack on the "free speech" of the writers of the ones they choose not to print.

If some activists decide that they don't like GB news because the GB news agenda is contrary to theirs, they don't get into discussion about it, they take aggressive action in an attempt to shut down GB news and that is what advertisers are scared of.
They're scared that activists will take to social media and other forms of modern coms in an attempt to damage their business or reputation with the direct aim of forcing them to disassociate themselves from GB news. In these cases, the advertisers have removed their advertising revenue quickly to avoid any potential cancel culture damage.

Has anybody called for GB News to be forcibly shut down by the authorities?

Its called "freedom of speech".

People are free to campaign.

They are free to criticise advertisers.

They are free to call for boycotts of advertisers.


Which freedoms would you take away from people you disagree with, and why? And how?

 

[Lower]

There is a wider discussion to be had - but to call it cancel culture is weaponising the term. I didn't see much of this outrage when anything was labelled as "socialism" - it cancelled all debate -but now when it's the supposed left doing the same - its upsetting.

All of this is upsetting. GB News is not here to bring people together and report the news - its here to stoke divisions like the Daily Mail.

Like Piers GMTV he became a part of the news as much as reporting on it - this gets viewers.

Why do you need to seek out views that match your own? News should be fact based and sure I disagree with the political output of the BBC and Sky at times but at least they report on the news.

What about the ownership structure of GB News?

I'm not intending to use the term as a weapon specifically, but its the term that has become the norm to be used for the modern version of attempting to shut down debate and stop the discussion.

Having watched GB news, i don't think it is particularly intended to stoke divisions, its just intending to report news from a more slightly right of centre perspective and have a more balanced debate. However, they are going to have to sort out the content and the production if they want to pick up any market share.

 

[Captain Nemesis]

The DUP severed its links with this organisation long before it emerged that some of its members had links to paramilitary organisations.
Quote..

When the DUP were asked to condemn the Ulster Resistance in 2016 they said "the party's stance is consistent, that anyone involved in illegal activity should be investigated and face the full weight of the law."[7]

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...on-paramilitaries-peace-process-a7782631.html

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Yeah I agree with what you write to a point, it's a dangerous game, but cancel culture is a very real thing, and there has been plenty of examples of it happening.

Like taking the knee?

 

[EFLImpudence]

I suggest that those who pretend not to know what 'cancel culture' and 'woke' are are the very ones who are intent on promoting the practices.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

They can't, because Unionists don't vote for terrorists.
If they did they would probably get a lot more respect for their democratic rights.

The IRA 'terrorists' were frequently named (in an attempt to shame) way before the GFA.
Unionists 'terrorists' were never named.
In the case of atrocities, if it was a UK army, or Unionist atrocity it was under-reported and merely reported as an occurrence, and the audience were allowed to form their own opinion of the perpetrators, and invariably people automatically associated NI incidents with IRA 'terrorism'.

 

[Lower]

Its about the way that some people portray other people who say they dont want to hear something.



Its not an attack on "free speech" any more than newspapers only printing some of the letters they receive is an attack on the "free speech" of the writers of the ones they choose not to print.



Has anybody called for GB News to be forcibly shut down by the authorities?

Its called "freedom of speech".

People are free to campaign.

They are free to criticise advertisers.

They are free to call for boycotts of advertisers.


Which freedoms would you take away from people you disagree with, and why? And how?

I think you've miss quoted or jumbled your post. I have never threatened to put you on ignore.

I agree with all of your freedoms. I don't agree that it is acceptable to block streets for weeks on end, pull down statues, or vandalise company's property to make your point.

GB news is already having use of the pooled footage that all the other main news broadcasters blocked by the BBC, which ironic when you consider that the BBC isn't a commercial news channel.

The stop funding hate campaign had started campaigning against GB news advertisers even before the channel had launched and they'd heard any content. The perfect example of cancel culture trying to shut down a viewpoint that they think they might not like before they've heard a word of it.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

But people didn't stop buying it that's the point, the majority of consumer still bought it.

Starbucks, Beverly Hills Hotel, Sea World, GM, Volkswagen, McDonalds and others.
All affected by negative publicity.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

the cancel culture debate is quite complex,

I'm not sure it is, it's a phrase that has been weaponised by the right wing, like 'play the race card', etc, when the right wing want to stop the left having a voice.
All opinions are valid, unless they promote hatred and division in society, then they need to be quietened because the law does not cover the majority of instances of promoting hatred and division.
For instance, it doesn't prevent transam from making hateful, bigoted comments about other nationalities, thereby driving division in society.
It supposedly does not stop those like transam promoting violence such as genocide, but it doesn't do that very effectively because he was allowed to continue.
There are gullible people in society who can be radicalised by the likes of transam.
Bigoted and the gullible tend to congregate in the same places.

Having said all that, there is a civil and moral duty for each one of us to promote decency, honesty, discretion and valour in society.
Some work intentionally to thwart such societal advance, and prefer society to be reduced to chaos and disorder. They mention it and promote it frequently.

 

[Captain Nemesis]

I suggest that those who pretend not to know what 'cancel culture' and 'woke' are are the very ones who are intent on promoting the practices.

"Cancel culture" is what the RWLs call anything which seeks to criticise the promotion of the nonsense they hold so dear.

"Woke" is what the RWLs call anyone who is no longer asleep, and has opened their eyes and seen what has really been going on. Sort of the opposite of sheeple.

 

[Captain Nemesis]

I think you've miss quoted or jumbled your post. I have never threatened to put you on ignore.

Sorry if I gave the impression that I thought you had.

It was just that you were banging on about cancel culture, and I thought how deliciously ironic it would be if it turned out that you had put people on ignore because you wanted to cancel seeing their posts. So I searched for posts by you where you had used the word "ignore".

And struck gold.

 

[Lower]

Sorry if I gave the impression that I thought you had.

It was just that you were banging on about cancel culture, and I thought how deliciously ironic it would be if it turned out that you had put people on ignore because you wanted to cancel seeing their posts. So I searched for posts by you where you had used the word "ignore".

And struck gold.

I think Ban All Sheds is the only person i've ever put on ignore, and it was in 2009.

What i didn't do is start a social media or any other type of campaign to get other people to put Ban All Sheds on ignore and block out what he had to say.

It's a bit like GB news. If you don't like GB news, change the channel and don't listen to what they have to say. Don't start an online campaign to prevent them having their say, and don't start that campaign before the channel has even launched.

 

[Tigercubrider]

I see that Mike Hunt and Mike Oxlong have managed to get a namecheck on air.
Don't they have trained staff on the phone lines/emails? It's Rule One of phone in programmes

No doubt Hugh Janus will ring in to complain?

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

It's a bit like GB news. If you don't like GB news, change the channel and don't listen to what they have to say. Don't start an online campaign to prevent them having their say, and don't start that campaign before the channel has even launched.

I don't think anyone has argued that GB news should not be allowed to air, not has anyone campaigned to prevent it airing.
What they have done is ridiculed and criticised it. Is that not allowed in your 'cancel culture' narrative?
If advertisers want to restrict their advertising to ethical media outlets to avoid any negative feedback, they're perfectly entitled to do that, it's their money they're spending, their products and services they're promoting, unless that also is not allowed in your 'cancel culture' narrative.