Watched some earlier. Bit that I watched, the presenter when reviewing the papers immediately defended the taking the knee for BLM and had John Barnes on the issue explaining why. Nothing controversial whatsoever, folk getting the lip on for nowt TBH. It's like owt else really, if you don't like it, don't watch it. Viewing figures will eventually show whether they are capturing the views of the nation or not. I'll never really understand why in an age where we have over 100 TV channels, people decide to watch one they don't like just to then complain what they have been watching, rather than expressing their own freedom of choice and picking another channel. We are lucky we do get a cross section of coverage. Imagine living somewhere like North Korea where you have no option but to what the government prescribed TV and face anything up to execution for watching other media outlets.
Hope so Zombies don't wave flags, require blue passports and to my knowledge never use whataboutery to defend the indefensible. Can they win PPE contracts if they're mates with Matt Hancock?
Only the whisperers can get contracts. Although the zombies are fundamentally opposed to face masks due to their eating habits.
I'd very much hope that such a trajectory would be prevented from getting too deeply rooted for too long, but I fear it will get a life of its own if things like this this new channel gain market share, which obviously they are aimed at doing. The right wing then looks more normal and anything centrist or further left looks less normal. The thing that worries me most is how mendacious lies of even the most simplistic thing are accepted, not apologised for and are then parroted all the more.
Top tip: Recreate the excitement of being live in the GB News studio by taking a lump of gammon to a laser quest
Equally, freedom of choice includes the right to watch something and hold views against it. On the one hand people complain about tribalism and cancel culture. Then when people comment they are told 'if you don't like it don't watch it'. How can people be expected to understand opposing views, if they don't watch or listen to them?
Which of the two presenters argued in favour of it? Presumably Muroki? Did Brazier mention his views on it which he's been all too happy to share on Twitter?
If you are reporting the 'news' as fact this should need to be verified someway, maybe stricter regulation. GB News are put across as more of a current affairs / discussion channel rather than say a news reporting outlet like BBC News for instance. So unless the views being broadcast are illegal, it would be wrong in terms of limiting freedom of speech to silence their views. It works across the board regardless of left wing/centrist/right wing view. Absolutely nothing wrong with sensible debate and differing opinions providing it remains within the boundaries of the law. It's more dangerous in terms of society to try and suppress differing views just because somebody else doesn't like it. I just say keep it civil and sensible
In my opinion I don't think any channel should be allowed to call itself a news channel if it is actually an editorial channel filled with opinion pieces but that's more a criticism of ofcom than of GB news