Sky News???

[cee-dee]

Sky News, do you ever watch? There's a possibility it might close down:- 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41909321

In recent times I find Sky News extremely boring, lacking in real news and dominated by Politics.

The two most boring, arrogant and pompous individuals are Adam Boulton and Faisal Islam. Virtually all politics is not newsworthy and I find Sky News content extremely biased.

They seem to have forgotten that "The News is......" The news is what's hapened but as far as Sky is concerned the news according to Sky is what they think, what they think is going to happen, what they think should happen and what they think whoever they're talking about should do all coupled with their opinion on the matter.

Heck, I sound like them?

[al**bear]

The mouthpiece of hardline Brexiteers and very very anti-Corbyn 

No idea why British news services, think they had to copy, the asinine dumbed down US news network model, think this has destroyed our once very good TV news reporting

Even BBC News & Politics depts, now controlled and managed by Tory leaning Managers and reporters, have done the same, all flash with little substance

Speaking of 'arrogant and pompous'  Have you watched Niall Paterson on a Sunday Morning - don't think He's ever heard of the word impartial never mind reporting that way

[fallen-archie]

I have watched it on occasion and no I don’t feel comfortable with the dumbed down style, it did provide us with one of the funniest moments ie Young Owen Jones flouncing off set mid interview because he couldn’t control
The discussion. Adam Bolton is so far up his own bottom that he is cringeworthy to watch. Mind you what is journalism these days and who actually tells it as it is? I guess that depends on which side of the fence you sit on, lefties love Jon Snow and Faisal Islam whilst right wingers love Kuenssberg, I prefer to listen to Andrew Neil who incidentally I once worked for (disclosure info) I like his forensic approach to interviews yet again he has his detractors. But let us be honest, most people are influenced by those who talk their language politically and sky is overtly freemarket, and to some that is good but to many it is not, If you want to watch sport you must pay for it, so why not news too? Nowadays more people get there news and are influenced by social media, which is where joe public gets to have a say, however if you think the views expressed are either unbiased or balanced then think again as such views are quickly extinguished by both left and right wing organised groups, and in the process influence elections, so yet again a media format is seized upon to promote a particular type of group think! So coming back to the op I do not believe that sky news will be a loss to journalism any more than would be the demise of Breitbart or The Canary!

[cottage-garden.1278]

I have watched sky news for years.  I remember the main man Scott Chism throwing a plastic teacup over his shoulder saying that is what he thought of the report (fake) on the Gulf war (part 1) (excuse spelling if his name is not right) and Anna Botting with Bob (who sadly passed away) - he always had her in fits of giggles.

I always used to rely heavily on their weather forecast as I thought it was the most accurate until they changed the format.  The UK is now so distant on the TV that I find it difficult to see what is happening in my area.

[cee-dee]

Sky News used to say "First for breaking news" on their website. They were mostly way, way behind other news sites so when they'd got it on yet another news item, I commented that they were NOT first for breaking news because the BBC beat them to it. Not long after, they stopped putting that message on the site!!

[j_uk643]

21st Fox want to increase their controling interest in sky  so are willing if it proved a barrier, to drop Sky News 

No doubt it would reappear if they were sucessful in their bid

[lambsy_uk]

I'm sick of news being an excuse for opinion; trying to influence us and telling us how/what we should feel and do. They tell me I should be shocked, appalled, distressed, disturbed etc., and people end up insinuating that if you're not disturbed by a certain story that there's something wrong with you!

[fallen-archie]

I agree with the above, it is up to us as individuals to reach our own conclusions not to be swayed by some rag or MSM, however it would be even better if we could listen from time to time to the opinions of others!

[lambsy_uk]

It would be nice if we were allowed to listen to people's opinions; we don't have free speech any more, whatever happened to "I don't agree with what you're saying but I support your right to say it"?

Universities are now Disinviting guest peakers, free speech zones zones are being created in places, perhaps with good intention but I'd suggest speech should be free everywhere.

[fallen-archie]

What about organisations like “stop funding hate” who are trying with some success to shame advertisers away from certain newspapers, is that not a blatant attack on free speech by the so called thought Police?

[lambsy_uk]

Absolutely! In other walks of life it would be called blackmail, bribery, corruption; and would not be tolerated!

[lambsy_uk]

Our denial of free speech demonstrated right here; I posted a thread asking why a party with left wing attributes was considered to be right wing; it has been removed with the claim that it contravened ts & cs by being hostile. Heaven help us!

[tuckerbigdaddy5ngv]

---

@lambsy_uk wrote:
Our denial of free speech demonstrated right here; I posted a thread asking why a party with left wing attributes was considered to be right wing; it has been removed with the claim that it contravened ts & cs by being hostile. Heaven help us!

---

I would leave you kudos for that but i cant find the button 😉

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@fallen-archie wrote:
What about organisations like “stop funding hate” who are trying with some success to shame advertisers away from certain newspapers, is that not a blatant attack on free speech by the so called thought Police?

---

Or is it an expression of free speech?

It’s not groups like Stop Funding Hate that are ‘shaming advertisers’ - it’s the large numbers of people that agree with them and have expressed that agreement in social media outlets.

[fallen-archie]

So nothing new there then! Social media says so and accordingly it must be right. There are so many organised groups on twitter that feed on each other and give the impression of being holier than thou, with multiple accounts following them they give an impression of being a majority and yet they are not, far from it, groups like lacs and momentum as well as stop funding hate are frequented by the same radicals who scream for change, usually along hard socialist lines and yet when asked to give examples of where their philosophy has actually worked, dry up instantly.

[upthecreekyetagain]

The point is though that the group is made up of individuals who are exercising their right to freedom of speech - a right that they have whether or not you or I agree with what they say.

They may well have a social media network, duplicate accounts or whatever - in the end though all it amounts to is a different way of saying what they want others to hear - everyone has an equal right to not ‘listen’.

If advertisers do listen to what they are saying and remove their adverts from certain publications then that equally is their right - certainly nothing to do with “blackmail or bribery” as suggested by one poster.

Why should universities, colleges or schools give everyone a stage to espouse their views - especially when those views are known to be contra to their ethos - refusing to invite certain speakers is not restricting their right of freedom of speech.  Imagine a holocaust denier trying to get an invite to speak at a synagogue - would a refusal be denying them their right of freedom of speech?

[lambsy_uk]

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

The point is though that the group is made up of individuals who are exercising their right to freedom of speech - a right that they have whether or not you or I agree with what they say.

They may well have a social media network, duplicate accounts or whatever - in the end though all it amounts to is a different way of saying what they want others to hear - everyone has an equal right to not ‘listen’.

If advertisers do listen to what they are saying and remove their adverts from certain publications then that equally is their right - certainly nothing to do with “blackmail or bribery” as suggested by one poster.

Why should universities, colleges or schools give everyone a stage to espouse their views - especially when those views are known to be contra to their ethos - refusing to invite certain speakers is not restricting their right of freedom of speech.  Imagine a holocaust denier trying to get an invite to speak at a synagogue - would a refusal be denying them their right of freedom of speech?

---

If you threaten an organisation: "stop including advertising from this group or else", then that is most certainly blackmail.

Only Hate Speech is non lawful and therefore as long as the views being expressed are not hate speech I'd suggest such views should be allowed to be heard anywhere. I appreciate that a Holocaust Denier at a synagogue may be unwelcome but a university is supposed to be a seat of learning rather than a place you go where your sensibilities won't be challenged! The etos of these places should be to provide a place for people to grow and develop not a safe space.

We all need to be exposed to threats in order to develop and a place of learning should be a safe place to face those threats rather than avoid them.

[lambsy_uk]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

Sky News, do you ever watch? There's a possibility it might close down:- 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41909321

In recent times I find Sky News extremely boring, lacking in real news and dominated by Politics.

The two most boring, arrogant and pompous individuals are Adam Boulton and Faisal Islam. Virtually all politics is not newsworthy and I find Sky News content extremely biased.

They seem to have forgotten that "The News is......" The news is what's hapened but as far as Sky is concerned the news according to Sky is what they think, what they think is going to happen, what they think should happen and what they think whoever they're talking about should do all coupled with their opinion on the matter.

Heck, I sound like them?

---

They're pretty much all the same, Sky, BBC, ITV, CNN, ABC, NBC.......

To get a slightly different view I try RT which is about the only choice since Fox News was taken from UK TV. Piers Morgan can be a prat at times but he does challenge some of the established views you tend to find and is happy to put guests under pressure, challenging them contrary to much of the mainstream.

There's too much news as it is, I reckon 24 hour news coverage has led to the prevalence of **bleep** being reported and opinion taking over. Sky wouldn't be missed, just once less liberal leaning organisation to have to stomach. Would be good if it could be replaced with a real alternative news source though like the reinstatement of Fox.

[cee-dee]

Well now, a two year old thread resurrected? What for? Why now?

Anyway, now you've done so....... we see these extinction rebellion "protesters/activists" causing trouble all over the place where they think they can get away with it unscathed.

The news-johnnies would do themselves (and everyone else?) a favour if they sought out and named some of them and found out how far they'd travelled, how they'd travelled, how they funded their time "protesting" so everyone could see just how much they themselves had contributed to the very thing they were supposedly protesting about.

My belief is that apart from a few "dedicated" participants, the rest of them are just a bunch of trouble-makers hell-bent on promoting civil unrest and are really anti-government (of any ilk), anti-authority, anti-establishment, anti-rule of Law and are anti-everything they don't agree with. Given less than half a chance, they'd soon be on a destructive path and soon be looting wherever they'd broken in to!

There! Let them have a go at THAT?

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@lambsy_uk wrote:

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

The point is though that the group is made up of individuals who are exercising their right to freedom of speech - a right that they have whether or not you or I agree with what they say.

They may well have a social media network, duplicate accounts or whatever - in the end though all it amounts to is a different way of saying what they want others to hear - everyone has an equal right to not ‘listen’.

If advertisers do listen to what they are saying and remove their adverts from certain publications then that equally is their right - certainly nothing to do with “blackmail or bribery” as suggested by one poster.

Why should universities, colleges or schools give everyone a stage to espouse their views - especially when those views are known to be contra to their ethos - refusing to invite certain speakers is not restricting their right of freedom of speech.  Imagine a holocaust denier trying to get an invite to speak at a synagogue - would a refusal be denying them their right of freedom of speech?

---

If you threaten an organisation: "stop including advertising from this group or else", then that is most certainly blackmail.

Only Hate Speech is non lawful and therefore as long as the views being expressed are not hate speech I'd suggest such views should be allowed to be heard anywhere. I appreciate that a Holocaust Denier at a synagogue may be unwelcome but a university is supposed to be a seat of learning rather than a place you go where your sensibilities won't be challenged! The etos of these places should be to provide a place for people to grow and develop not a safe space.

We all need to be exposed to threats in order to develop and a place of learning should be a safe place to face those threats rather than avoid them.

---

Are you really suggesting that a group who says to a manufacturer, "if you continue to advertise in a certain publication then we will advise our members not to buy your products", is committing the offence of blackmail?

What of a politician who says that unless the press stop behaving in a perticular way then they will be regulated?

Are Facebook, Twitter and other tech companies being blackmailed when proposals to regulate them are made unless they take better steps to stop abuse of their platforms?

Technically 'blackmail' may be the correct word but of course blackmail is not always wrong nor is it always an offence.