|
Post by andrewmattcoles on Aug 23, 2015 15:33:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by theyknowwhatimean on Aug 23, 2015 15:48:00 GMT -5
BBC can get bent
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Aug 23, 2015 15:53:06 GMT -5
The BBC in shit article slanted towards left wing luvvie (Damon/Alex) shock lol In all seriousness I like the fact they ignore Blur's 8 year split and only reforming for one off shows up until this new LP...still par for course for those tossers NOTE- In case I was ambiguous I should make it clear fro a multitude of reasons I can't stand the BBC
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Aug 23, 2015 15:53:47 GMT -5
Judging by revelations over the last few years I'd say that boat sailed repeatedly from the 1970's onwards......
|
|
|
Post by Greedy's Mighty Sigh on Aug 23, 2015 15:58:49 GMT -5
Its the truth ffs, get over it.
|
|
|
Post by ManofMisery on Aug 23, 2015 16:01:59 GMT -5
Bunch of peados.
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Aug 23, 2015 16:04:01 GMT -5
Its the truth ffs, get over it. I think the point is if Oasis reformed the BBC would report it (rightly) as a reunion. To say Blur are performing twenty years on unlike OAsis is somewhat distorting the truth (The BBC doing that- whodda thunk it?) as it isn't like say U2 or REM who were together continually for twenty years and alot longer now
|
|
|
Post by Mean Mrs. Mustard on Aug 23, 2015 16:11:36 GMT -5
Well that was just a bit of fodder, but kind of lame how they ignore the fact that Blur had split up for years up until a few years ago. Otherwise there's no lie in the article, right?
I have also always found this discussion a bit meaningless. It's obvious that Oasis' fanbase is, and has always been bigger than Blur's. Blur have sold 14 million albums or something, and Morning Glory alone sold 22 million. Enough said.
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Aug 23, 2015 16:18:44 GMT -5
Well that was just a bit of fodder, but kind of lame how they ignore the fact that Blur had split up for years up until a few years ago. Otherwise there's no lie in the article, right? I have also always found this discussion a bit meaningless. It's obvious that Oasis' fanbase is, and has always been bigger than Blur's. Blur have sold 14 million albums or something, and Morning Glory alone sold 22 million. Enough said. Personal opinion only but I get the feeling that although the Britpop chart battle raised Blur's profile alot of the left wing middle class commentators at the BBC, Guardian etc. never forgave Oasis for being the bigger band against their much preferred Blur, in particular Damon and Alex. Hence the need to rehash it every couple of years in order to demonstrate how Blur actually "won" despite the sales figures, tours, overseas success comparisons, etc. Should say I actually like Blur and Damon's subsequent releases, but he is a bit of a darling for certain elements of the UK media (not necessarily his fault, he just fits the profile)
|
|
|
Post by Mean Mrs. Mustard on Aug 23, 2015 16:22:46 GMT -5
Well that was just a bit of fodder, but kind of lame how they ignore the fact that Blur had split up for years up until a few years ago. Otherwise there's no lie in the article, right? I have also always found this discussion a bit meaningless. It's obvious that Oasis' fanbase is, and has always been bigger than Blur's. Blur have sold 14 million albums or something, and Morning Glory alone sold 22 million. Enough said. Personal opinion only but I get the feeling that although the Britpop chart battle raised Blur's profile alot of the left wing middle class commentators at the BBC, Guardian etc. never forgave Oasis for being the bigger band against their much preferred Blur, in particular Damon and Alex. Hence the need to rehash it every couple of years in order to demonstrate how Blur actually "won" despite the sales figures, tours, overseas success comparisons, etc. Oh there are a lot of people who see it that way, I'm sure it's not just left wing middle class commentators at the BBC It's still a bit pointless. I mean, who reads these articles anyway? I doubt many people will read it in the first place, and if they do, I doubt they'll go all "oh yeah man, he's totally right. I'm going to change my opinion on Oasis and from now on I'll see Blur as the champion of the war. Oh my god what an epiphany!"
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Aug 23, 2015 16:25:54 GMT -5
Personal opinion only but I get the feeling that although the Britpop chart battle raised Blur's profile alot of the left wing middle class commentators at the BBC, Guardian etc. never forgave Oasis for being the bigger band against their much preferred Blur, in particular Damon and Alex. Hence the need to rehash it every couple of years in order to demonstrate how Blur actually "won" despite the sales figures, tours, overseas success comparisons, etc. Oh there are a lot of people who see it that way, I'm sure it's not just left wing middle class commentators at the BBC It's still a bit pointless. I mean, who reads these articles anyway? I doubt many people will read it in the first place, and if they do, I doubt they'll go all "oh yeah man, he's totally right. I'm going to change my opinion on Oasis and from now on I'll see Blur as the champion of the war. Oh my god what an epiphany!" Lol take your point about my BBC bashing though in fairness I name checked The Guardian as well It only ever seems to be those two and the NME I see those sort of articles, although I know it has happened in other media outlets. As to your second point, absolutely correct, but especially in this day and age it, like so many varied articles on everything, is simply click bait isn't it
|
|
|
Post by andrewmattcoles on Aug 23, 2015 16:34:58 GMT -5
Its the truth ffs, get over it. What am I supposed to be getting over? I just think it's shite how they neglect the fact blur took almost a decade off!! For the record i loved oasis and really liked blur
|
|
|
Post by theyknowwhatimean on Aug 23, 2015 16:40:16 GMT -5
Aren't the BBC in the Tories back pockets? Along with pretty much the rest of our media...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2015 16:56:03 GMT -5
Aren't the BBC in the Tories back pockets? Along with pretty much the rest of our media... They're all in TNC's pockets. Tories included.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 23, 2015 17:00:15 GMT -5
Aren't the BBC in the Tories back pockets? Along with pretty much the rest of our media... Not quite - the Tories are hellbent on wanting to destroy the BBC and always have been. But they suck Murdoch dick, so if there's an evil in all of this its Sky. People buy into Sky and by doing so, feed into the Tories too. Sky epitomises everything of the crass neoliberalism of today. If you watch Sky News, its basically the Fox News of the UK - a propaganda machine for the Tories. At least BBC News - of which remains the main source of news in the UK, is unbiased (in the context of Labour/Tory support) and the left-wing bullshit is all a conspiracy perpetuated by the right wing media (who want to destroy public services). The BBC may be 'shit' at the moment, but it is the lesser of two evils. The child abuse cases of the 1970s shouldn't be used as a tool to batter it with. A serious case like that shouldn't be used as a political tool to undermine public service broadcasting. But I think overall the BBC has been an excellent service to the country. As far as I'm concerned, if people are with Sky over the BBC then you are with the Tories.
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Aug 23, 2015 17:05:00 GMT -5
Aren't the BBC in the Tories back pockets? Along with pretty much the rest of our media... They are allegedly impartial, though they are funded by citizens by law which is a rather left wing, socialist principle. The problem with them is they have a Tory Govt who like New Labour before them don't like to be put down or have "the wrong kind of stories" reported, but the editorial and journalists come across as being left leaning, so subtle confrontations have emerged. I can't see how a left wing funded system or staffed media outlet could be in the tories pocket tbh, but I will stop before eva tells me off for going off on a political rant again If you fancy the debate message me, but I am a rather dull bas*ard so probably not worth it lol
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Aug 23, 2015 17:07:50 GMT -5
Aren't the BBC in the Tories back pockets? Along with pretty much the rest of our media... Not quite - the Tories are hellbent on wanting to destroy the BBC and always have been. But they suck Murdoch dick, so if there's an evil in all of this its Sky. People buy into Sky and by doing so, feed into the Tories too. Sky epitomises everything of the crass neoliberalism of today. If you watch Sky News, its basically the Fox News of the UK - a propaganda machine for the Tories. At least BBC News - of which remains the main source of news in the UK, is unbiased (in the context of Labour/Tory support) and the left-wing bullshit is all a conspiracy perpetuated by the right wing media (who want to destroy public services). The BBC may be 'shit' at the moment, but it is the lesser of two evils. The child abuse cases of the 1970s shouldn't be used as a tool to batter it with. A serious case like that shouldn't be used as a political tool to undermine public service broadcasting. But I think overall the BBC has been an excellent service to the country. Can see where you are coming from but it's about as impartial as The Guardian in terms of it's reporting angle and the subjects it chooses to cover. TBH I ignore most UK media and go to overseas outlets, it's very interesting to me to get FRance 24 or RT's take on the same stories- almost owuldn't believe it was the same story (Not saying they are impartial in any way, just sick of the "Murdoch" defence for the BBC- no offence as the calls were (rightly) made for blood in the phone hacking scandals and took down the NotW, yet the same people appear to defend the BBC regardless )
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 23, 2015 17:11:49 GMT -5
Aren't the BBC in the Tories back pockets? Along with pretty much the rest of our media... They are allegedly impartial, though they are funded by citizens by law which is a rather left wing, socialist principle. The problem with them is they have a Tory Govt who like New Labour before them don't like to be put down or have "the wrong kind of stories" reported, but the editorial and journalists come across as being left leaning, so subtle confrontations have emerged. I can't see how a left wing funded system or staffed media outlet could be in the tories pocket tbh, but I will stop before eva tells me off for going off on a political rant again If you fancy the debate message me, but I am a rather dull bas*ard so probably not worth it lol Well, if you believe the press (majority of which is right-wing) then its easy to say that. Just like it was easy of Scot Nationalists in the referendum campaign to call Nick Robinson a 'fuckin Tory' after Alex Salmond led a propaganda campaign against him and the BBC.... oh I forgot, Alex Salmond and the SNP lick Murdoch arse as much as David Cameron. So we have my fellow Scots calling the BBC right-wing propaganda, and we have the Fleet Street media calling it left-wing propaganda. Me thinks those who shout 'propaganda' are perpetuating their own propaganda. The root of all the answers of apparent 'impartiality' of the BBC can go back to transnational corporations who own the Daily Mail, The Scum, Express, Sky, etc (notice the monopoly the right wing have on the British media).
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Aug 23, 2015 17:17:22 GMT -5
They are allegedly impartial, though they are funded by citizens by law which is a rather left wing, socialist principle. The problem with them is they have a Tory Govt who like New Labour before them don't like to be put down or have "the wrong kind of stories" reported, but the editorial and journalists come across as being left leaning, so subtle confrontations have emerged. I can't see how a left wing funded system or staffed media outlet could be in the tories pocket tbh, but I will stop before eva tells me off for going off on a political rant again If you fancy the debate message me, but I am a rather dull bas*ard so probably not worth it lol Well, if you believe the press (majority of which is right-wing) then its easy to say that. Just like it was easy of Scot Nationalists in the referendum campaign to call Nick Robinson a 'fuckin Tory' after Alex Salmond led a propaganda campaign against him and the BBC.... oh I forgot, Alex Salmond and the SNP lick Murdoch arse as much as David Cameron. So we have my fellow Scots calling the BBC right-wing propaganda, and we have the Fleet Street media calling it left-wing propaganda. Me thinks those who shout 'propaganda' are perpetuating their own propaganda. The root of all the answers of apparent 'impartiality' of the BBC can go back to transnational corporations who own the Daily Mail, The Scum, Express, Sky, etc (notice the monopoly the right wing have on the British media). As I said further down I don't bother with any UK based media outlets- I am able to not fund any by not participating except the BBC by law. The nature of licking arses as you put it happens on both sides, as demonstrated in Russia where I descend from, if you didnt tow the line the repercussions were alot worse than media smearing. As far as shouting propaganda it demonstates political beliefs in a manner, which both you and I have done in this thread. I won't add any more to the thread but will invite you to msg me if you want to debate it further- Cheers Incidentally to kick off any msg debate did you know The Daily Mail owner Lord Northcliffe provided sponsorship (i.e. funding) for the original Chelmsford broadcasts? tThe two sides are alot more intertwined than at first galnce
|
|
|
Post by leak4ever on Aug 23, 2015 17:18:35 GMT -5
Any corporation that forces you to pay for salary of Chris Evans can fuck themselves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2015 17:35:13 GMT -5
Any media that is controlled and operated by an elite class is inherently propaganda. The BBC is owned by the state, but the state is owned by capitalists. What we call our "free press/media" is in my opinion an evolved propaganda system that serves many functions, among them creating the illusion of a vocal left and right wing, when in reality all prominent media is just different shades of capitalism - and as such is all right wing.
This limits critical thought, prevents any structural analysis of society, and is an admirably elegant way of manufacturing content - as Chomsky and Herman put it. Forget the Labour Party or the Tories, forget the BBC or ITV and look at the structural picture. Media in capitalism can only ever represent the interests of the elite classes. Whether this is funded by the public, or whether this particular paper supports this particular party are surface issues distracting from the root problem.
|
|
|
Post by Greedy's Mighty Sigh on Aug 23, 2015 17:35:23 GMT -5
Christ, a bbc article simply states the fact Blur are active and Oasis arent and it becomes political propaganda haha
The UK media love Oasis, they created so many stories for them, they were on the front pages all the papers in the 90's and they still print the monthy reunion headlines. This didnt happen with blur between 03-08. Oasis = Headlines = media love them.
Grow up the lot of you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2015 17:42:20 GMT -5
Christ, a bbc article simply states the fact Blur are active and Oasis arent and it becomes political propaganda haha The UK media love Oasis, they created so many stories for them, they were on the front pages all the papers in the 90's and they still print the monthy reunion headlines. This didnt happen with blur between 03-08. Oasis = Headlines = media love them. Grow up the lot of you. I think what happened is the discussion moved on, rather than everyone thinking the BBC article was a political broadcast on behalf of the Blur party...
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Aug 23, 2015 17:54:29 GMT -5
Any media that is controlled and operated by an elite class is inherently propaganda. The BBC is owned by the state, but the state is owned by capitalists. What we call our "free press/media" is in my opinion an evolved propaganda system that serves many functions, among them creating the illusion of a vocal left and right wing, when in reality all prominent media is just different shades of capitalism - and as such is all right wing. This limits critical thought, prevents any structural analysis of society, and is an admirably elegant way of manufacturing content - as Chomsky and Herman put it. Forget the Labour Party or the Tories, forget the BBC or ITV and look at the structural picture. Media in capitalism can only ever represent the interests of the elite classes. Whether this is funded by the public, or whether this particular paper supports this particular party are surface issues distracting from the root problem. Very well put, and anyone who can quote Noam Chomsky is fine with me
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 23, 2015 17:56:25 GMT -5
Any media that is controlled and operated by an elite class is inherently propaganda. The BBC is owned by the state, but the state is owned by capitalists. What we call our "free press/media" is in my opinion an evolved propaganda system that serves many functions, among them creating the illusion of a vocal left and right wing, when in reality all prominent media is just different shades of capitalism - and as such is all right wing. This limits critical thought, prevents any structural analysis of society, and is an admirably elegant way of manufacturing content - as Chomsky and Herman put it. Forget the Labour Party or the Tories, forget the BBC or ITV and look at the structural picture. Media in capitalism can only ever represent the interests of the elite classes. Whether this is funded by the public, or whether this particular paper supports this particular party are surface issues distracting from the root problem. All news is propaganda, what Chomsky writes is correct, but its difficult for ANYONE in the system to wean themselves off the capitalist machine. Even Chomsky himself is hypocritical - he benefits from the capitalist markets as much as anyone he criticises. So I can't his self-righteousness seriously.
|
|