davyK wrote:Censoring them and/or treating them like shit on panel shows like Question Time only plays to the rhetoric.
I remember Nick Griffin on QT once not being able to string more than a few words together before being shouted down to cheers from a baying audience. He was essentially just put in the stocks. That was wrong. What should be done is real-time fact-checking to crush them on screen.
b0r1s wrote:The problem is we have few journalists who actually do their job and try to get to the truth and not just let people use news channels as platforms for hate speech. It’s fucking worrying when the most questioning news presenter at the moment is Kay Burly. The been have given up challenging anyone in the Tory government as they need to be balanced.
cockbeard wrote:There's a subtle but important difference between censorship and platform removal. If you're having a discussion about combating racism, you don't need to invite racists on the show in the interests of balance
If that balance stuff was done properly, then climate change deniers would get maybe one second airtime every 20 years or so, because that would reflect the scientific consensus
Facewon wrote:This. Not trying to pick on you davey, but please read/watch some of the links I posted. Your well meaning fear of censorship has been gamed by these sly nazi fucks forever.There's a subtle but important difference between censorship and platform removal. If you're having a discussion about combating racism, you don't need to invite racists on the show in the interests of balance If that balance stuff was done properly, then climate change deniers would get maybe one second airtime every 20 years or so, because that would reflect the scientific consensus
cockbeard wrote:There's a subtle but important difference between censorship and platform removal. If you're having a discussion about combating racism, you don't need to invite racists on the show in the interests of balance If that balance stuff was done properly, then climate change deniers would get maybe one second airtime every 20 years or so, because that would reflect the scientific consensus
LivDiv wrote:I've talked about it before but a major issue with the BBC is that they don't have a broad spectrum of people working there so don't actually know what the alternate view is. So instead of getting a moderate counterpoint or even recognising there isnt one they leave a vacuum that people like Farage or Griffin step into. The BBC are the trend setters in the UK, the place people look for impartiality, the PH 7 on the political litmus paper. This of course isn't entirely accurate and I can talk more on that, but it remains that the BBC sets the tone.
Facewon wrote:
Facewon wrote:Davey, this is the vid I was referring too.https://youtu.be/H94mfxMTmc4 This is really really good.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!