GB News; UK Right Leaning 24 Hour 'News' Channel

[macheda14]

I don't know if this Twitter account has already been shared, but it's absolute gold, the place is an absolute shambles

https://twitter.com/GBNewsBloopers?...gC8Qm0AF0wVBTyPkeHIGJeb2RmGiJ6pqKkzkGWniYLj5E

 

[horsechoker]

I don't know if this Twitter account has already been shared, but it's absolute gold, the place is an absolute shambles

https://twitter.com/GBNewsBloopers?...gC8Qm0AF0wVBTyPkeHIGJeb2RmGiJ6pqKkzkGWniYLj5E

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Zoo]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[horsechoker]

Is Guto Harri a hero?

 

[Tarrou]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Solius]

Not THAT kind of free speech damnit.

 

[Damien]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Rumours that @horsechoker was involved in the incident have been vigorously denied.

 

[Ramshock]

I don't know if this Twitter account has already been shared, but it's absolute gold, the place is an absolute shambles

https://twitter.com/GBNewsBloopers?...gC8Qm0AF0wVBTyPkeHIGJeb2RmGiJ6pqKkzkGWniYLj5E

There was one, then a second one GBNewsFails then the dude disappeared up his own hole

 

[Ramshock]

Dan Wooton is an absolute cnut

 

[Ramshock]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Those damn elitists should feel lucky that I am unable to drive my Bentley from my mansion in my Hampshire estates or Id give them what for.

 

[horsechoker]

Rumours that @horsechoker was involved in the incident have been vigorously denied.

I wasn't anywhere near Hampshire, too affluent and like-minded for my taste

 

[Pexbo]

Dan Wooton is an absolute cnut

True

 

[Solius]

Dan Wooton is an absolute cnut

He's utterly reprehensible.

 

[Solius]

True

Thanks Christian Falk

 

[Acole9]

I've never watched it but apparently Dave had a programme on at 3:00 am which had higher ratings than GB News. I can see it getting canned before the year is out.

 

[Damien]

I've never watched it but apparently Dave had a programme on at 3:00 am which had higher ratings than GB News. I can see it getting canned before the year is out.

They've spent a few years on this, pumping in millions. I can't see them giving up so easily. They'll probably go for a relaunch that sees them lurch further right.

 

[vodrake]

I thought GB News would flop, though I did have that worry about what it would represent if it did take off, but I never imagined it would be such a spectacular failure.

Low ratings; awful production; the guy who launched it after spending years hyping it up abandoning ship after 2 weeks; all the other "respectable" journalists following suit soon after; a protest over someone taking the knee on the show causing the viewership to drop to zero highlighting exactly who the only people watching it are. The list goes on.

 

[LARulz]

They've spent a few years on this, pumping in millions. I can't see them giving up so easily. They'll probably go for a relaunch that sees them lurch further right.

They are doing one in September. They never wanted to launch now, September was there actual plan but were rushed into it from my understanding.

Problem is, a lot of damage has been done. Andrew Neil taking a holiday 2 weeks in was a massive kill to their momentum

 

[Damien]

They are doing one in September. They never wanted to launch now, September was there actual plan but were rushed into it from my understanding.

Is daft though given they've been planning it for two or more years and the face of the channel spent most of his time on This Morning's news review bit plugging GB News' momentous arrival.

Guess the rush is from the knee stuff and restrictions coming to an end so wanted to gee up the viewership before the restrictions ended and there'd be less to talk about other than the rise in cases and deaths.

 

[LARulz]

Is daft though given they've been planning it for two or more years and the face of the channel spent most of his time on This Morning's news review bit plugging GB News' momentous arrival.

Guess the rush is from the knee stuff and restrictions coming to an end so wanted to gee up the viewership before the restrictions ended and there'd be less to talk about other than the rise in cases and deaths.

I always felt starting a news channel when they planned to initially was a mistake (September or so) because as you say, less to talk about. I think they were rushed into it because the owners must have been feeling their wallets a bit lighter and getting annoyed.

I am sure ideally they wanted to start even in 2020 but there were delays after delays. I know there are some people who took a jump going there from established places with good roles because it was a faster way to move up/bought into the idea of what it could be (for them personally) - I wonder how they feel now. Senior presenters are not stupid, the big players on the channel would mitigate the risk by getting a big amount of cash I assume if it all went wrong but it's more the producers, gallery staff etc. I feel a bit bad for

They have to do a Hail Mary and throw whatever cash they have left at someone like Piers Morgan, and I think for a huge amount he would. Worst case he gets a huge amount of money for a few months work, best case he comes out a hero if he turns the figures around

 

[Damien]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[horsechoker]

Who would win?

The combined forces of the anti-woke agenda or one man's knee?

 

[LARulz]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

John McAndrew going is a big blow. He was definitely a big factor in a lot of people going there - those people must be so angry

Think GB News will now go very hard to the right as they almost have nothing to lose. We're always rejected by the left/centre and have to play into the hands of the only audience willing to listen

 

[FlawlessThaw]

Surely the Free Speech Union are going to help Harri out here

 

[vodrake]

Surely the dying viewership has shown that there's just not as much of an appetite for constant culture wars as they thought outside of a small, vocal minority. Unless their conclusion was that people aren't watching because their programming just wasn't racist enough.

 

[horsechoker]

Surely the dying viewership has shown that there's just not as much of an appetite for constant culture wars as they thought outside of a small, vocal minority. Unless their conclusion was that people aren't watching because their programming just wasn't racist enough.

The culture war also feels very 2016. Perhaps if GB news started then it might have worked.

 

[Oo0AahCantona]

My main concern is that other people who are somewhat like me, who are fundamentally left wing, especially economically, but dislike some of the loonier elements of the woke left, may get lured in by this upper class, conservative platform, as they attempt to portray themselves as the anti-woke option.

Genuine question about this, because I personally don't understand it but I recognise that there are a lot of people who think this; If you are fundamentally left wing, to any degree of the spectrum in your core beliefs, what is it about a (vocal i grant you) minority of overweight people with blue hair on social media that is SO egregious to you, that you are willing to completely compromise all of your core values in all other areas to "own" or distance yourself from.

I find some of the extinction rebellion stuff annoying when i'm trying to walk through town and they've shut a road down playing music and smoking weed, but it doesn't make me agree with the climate change isn't a problem brigade.

There are many things I find insufferably annoying, but to completely 180 everything I believe about the world? i'm not sure chief.

 

[Guy Incognito]

The culture war also feels very 2016. Perhaps if GB news started then it might have worked.

I honestly think the worst thing that has happened in UK politics has been this gradual move to copy what the US does. The idea that personality matters more than actual policies. Voters (gleefully) admitting they voted for Johnson because they like the cut of their jib. TV networks pushing for leader debates, but we don't bloody elect PMs or presidents. We elect MPs.

GB News doesn't realise what works for US TV doesn't necessarily translate well in the UK. If you want personality led, opinion-orientated people who can deliver brash monologues, fine. But don't hire a poundshop Piers to do the job.

I know it's not a news channel, but it's the same old carp every day:
BBC bashing
Covid denying
Royal news (featuring Meghan)
Hand wringing over gender or race issues

Nothing of substance. Some of the pundits are keen to stress America's problems aren't the same as the UK ("we're not a racist county, honest!"), but then use terms like woke. Can't have it both ways.

 

[Adisa]

GB News about to go full News Max.

 

[nimic]

TV networks pushing for leader debates, but we don't bloody elect PMs or presidents. We elect MPs.

Doesn't every parliamentary democracy do leader debates? They are the foremost representatives of their parties, after all.

 

[Damien]

Neil speaks:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Trequarista10]

Genuine question about this, because I personally don't understand it but I recognise that there are a lot of people who think this; If you are fundamentally left wing, to any degree of the spectrum in your core beliefs, what is it about a (vocal i grant you) minority of overweight people with blue hair on social media that is SO egregious to you, that you are willing to completely compromise all of your core values in all other areas to "own" or distance yourself from.

I find some of the extinction rebellion stuff annoying when i'm trying to walk through town and they've shut a road down playing music and smoking weed, but it doesn't make me agree with the climate change isn't a problem brigade.

There are many things I find insufferably annoying, but to completely 180 everything I believe about the world? i'm not sure chief.

Well I could use my personal experience to explain what I mean. I consider myself left wing, and I base that off my economic preferences. I'd probably be best described as centre left but I suppose it depends who you ask and what their definitions are, to some I'd be a dirty socialist, to others I'd be a capitalist apologist. However, I did reconsider my world view several years ago, and this process was prompted by some egregious things that I noticed from the left. I started to feel that I didn't share the same opinion or values as others on the left, and this led to me questioning whether I even was or should be left wing. This led me to exploring right wing ideology and listen to right wing media/broadcasters. Years later I largely ended up back at the starting point, at least economically. But it could have gone either way if I wasn't careful. I think there's a human desire to be on one side or the other. I definitely get and understand the temptation to join a team or tribe, and align yourself to that team. There were times a few years ago where I felt the desire to "leave" the left, whatever the feck that means, and "join" the right. Being in the middle, or feeling like you belong to no team, can be quite confusing and disconcerting. There's no "team middle", or "team left on some issues and right on other issues and no opinion on others", and you end up being in disagreement with all sides. And in politics, when people disagree with you, they tend to fecking hate you. Nobody chooses to be hated, so if there's a group that offer you acceptance, that is tempting for people. Likewise, if people fear rejection, then its tempting to tow the line and keep quiet on certain issues, for fear of being omitted from the group.

I don't think their should be any logical correlation between being left or right wing economically, and taking certain stances on the majority of social/cultural issues that are political footballs these days. I find the discussion about these topics to be tribalistic, and extremely complex and nuanced issues get reduced to "Nazi vs Blue hair faggot". I think the majority of these topics, the answer, if there is one correct answer, lies somewhere in the giant grey area between these two polar extremes. However in reality, there is an enormous correlation between people's economic preferences and their opinion on the latest social or cultural talking point. To some extent this is down to personality type, but that doesn't fully explain such a stark correlation for me, nor such a binary division, as there are multitudes of personality types. I think it's absolutely certain that people's world view and opinions are shaped in no small part by their experiences and interactions with others, and interactions with groups in particular. I also think the strongest emotional driver for people is fear and disgust (I'm fairly certain this is scientifically proven too) and so people are more likely to be influenced to oppose people they dislike, than they are to support people that they like. Obviously if your world view is already firmly established, you're less likely to be influenced. However, for younger people, or people whose world view isn't as firmly established, then they can more easily be redirected.

Edit: a little example that just came to me that is someone similar to your extinction rebellion reference. When I was maybe 13 or 14, I was with my Mum in the town centre of the small city I grew up in, and some activists were taking signatures for a petition against the expansion of the local airport. They stopped us and had nice chat with my Mum, and asked her to sign. My Mum politely said she wasn't sure and would have to think about it, because it could help the local economy and would mean less travel to an airport further away (thus reducing people's carbon footprint). The girl and guy ended up screaming insults at my Mum as we walked away. That experience really influenced me at the time, it was so weird and confusing and unsettling. To be honest I've never really looked into climate change or formed any opinion on it since (which is rare because I have an opinion on pretty much everything else). I'm sure that experience played a part in that, and has subconsciously put me off even looking into the topic.

 

[Drainy]

Neil speaks:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Not like its some 'mom-and-pop' start up. I doubt the investors will be too happy with what they've gotten for the money.

 

[Redlambs]

Clearly they greatly over estimated the attention span of the gammon gang.

 

[Cascarino]

It's getting shat on by Patrol Pawennau

 

[Balljy]

Well I could use my personal experience to explain what I mean. I consider myself left wing, and I base that off my economic preferences. I'd probably be best described as centre left but I suppose it depends who you ask and what their definitions are, to some I'd be a dirty socialist, to others I'd be a capitalist apologist. However, I did reconsider my world view several years ago, and this process was prompted by some egregious things that I noticed from the left. I started to feel that I didn't share the same opinion or values as others on the left, and this led to me questioning whether I even was or should be left wing. This led me to exploring right wing ideology and listen to right wing media/broadcasters. Years later I largely ended up back at the starting point, at least economically. But it could have gone either way if I wasn't careful. I think there's a human desire to be on one side or the other. I definitely get and understand the temptation to join a team or tribe, and align yourself to that team. There were times a few years ago where I felt the desire to "leave" the left, whatever the feck that means, and "join" the right. Being in the middle, or feeling like you belong to no team, can be quite confusing and disconcerting. There's no "team middle", or "team left on some issues and right on other issues and no opinion on others", and you end up being in disagreement with all sides. And in politics, when people disagree with you, they tend to fecking hate you. Nobody chooses to be hated, so if there's a group that offer you acceptance, that is tempting for people. Likewise, if people fear rejection, then its tempting to tow the line and keep quiet on certain issues, for fear of being omitted from the group.

I don't think their should be any logical correlation between being left or right wing economically, and taking certain stances on the majority of social/cultural issues that are political footballs these days. I find the discussion about these topics to be tribalistic, and extremely complex and nuanced issues get reduced to "Nazi vs Blue hair faggot". I think the majority of these topics, the answer, if there is one correct answer, lies somewhere in the giant grey area between these two polar extremes. However in reality, there is an enormous correlation between people's economic preferences and their opinion on the latest social or cultural talking point. To some extent this is down to personality type, but that doesn't fully explain such a stark correlation for me, nor such a binary division, as there are multitudes of personality types. I think it's absolutely certain that people's world view and opinions are shaped in no small part by their experiences and interactions with others, and interactions with groups in particular. I also think the strongest emotional driver for people is fear and disgust (I'm fairly certain this is scientifically proven too) and so people are more likely to be influenced to oppose people they dislike, than they are to support people that they like. Obviously if your world view is already firmly established, you're less likely to be influenced. However, for younger people, or people whose world view isn't as firmly established, then they can more easily be redirected.

Edit: a little example that just came to me that is someone similar to your extinction rebellion reference. When I was maybe 13 or 14, I was with my Mum in the town centre of the small city I grew up in, and some activists were taking signatures for a petition against the expansion of the local airport. They stopped us and had nice chat with my Mum, and asked her to sign. My Mum politely said she wasn't sure and would have to think about it, because it could help the local economy and would mean less travel to an airport further away (thus reducing people's carbon footprint). The girl and guy ended up screaming insults at my Mum as we walked away. That experience really influenced me at the time, it was so weird and confusing and unsettling. To be honest I've never really looked into climate change or formed any opinion on it since (which is rare because I have an opinion on pretty much everything else). I'm sure that experience played a part in that, and has subconsciously put me off even looking into the topic.

I find it interesting that in that entire post you haven't said one reason for being left wing. You've said you are, but none of your reasoning or statements suggest you are.

I don't think you need to be forced to be anything, I've never fitted into a convention politically but know I value worldwide human rights above everything else, and state owned enterprises can be no-brainers like the NHS but still appreciate that capitalism has increased innovation and without them things can stagnate (see NASA). That probably doesn't fit a left or right viewpoint but so what?

 

[nimic]

I find it interesting that in that entire post you haven't said one reason for being left wing. You've said you are, but none of your reasoning or statements suggest you are.

I don't think you need to be forced to be anything, I've never fitted into a convention politically but know I value worldwide human rights above everything else, and state owned enterprises can be no-brainers like the NHS but still appreciate that capitalism has increased innovation and without them things can stagnate (see NASA). That probably doesn't fit a left or right viewpoint but so what?

I suspect he used to be left-wing when he was younger, and just doesn't want to admit to himself that he's taken the journey to the right (or doesn't want to admit it to us; this is quite common online). The talk about "wanting to leave the left" gives it away. It's not like "the left" is even a monolithic thing, so how can you leave it like you're finding a new team to support? He just started realizing his views had changed.

 

[dumbo]

Well I could use my personal experience to explain what I mean. I consider myself left wing, and I base that off my economic preferences. I'd probably be best described as centre left but I suppose it depends who you ask and what their definitions are, to some I'd be a dirty socialist, to others I'd be a capitalist apologist. However, I did reconsider my world view several years ago, and this process was prompted by some egregious things that I noticed from the left. I started to feel that I didn't share the same opinion or values as others on the left, and this led to me questioning whether I even was or should be left wing. This led me to exploring right wing ideology and listen to right wing media/broadcasters. Years later I largely ended up back at the starting point, at least economically. But it could have gone either way if I wasn't careful. I think there's a human desire to be on one side or the other. I definitely get and understand the temptation to join a team or tribe, and align yourself to that team. There were times a few years ago where I felt the desire to "leave" the left, whatever the feck that means, and "join" the right. Being in the middle, or feeling like you belong to no team, can be quite confusing and disconcerting. There's no "team middle", or "team left on some issues and right on other issues and no opinion on others", and you end up being in disagreement with all sides. And in politics, when people disagree with you, they tend to fecking hate you. Nobody chooses to be hated, so if there's a group that offer you acceptance, that is tempting for people. Likewise, if people fear rejection, then its tempting to tow the line and keep quiet on certain issues, for fear of being omitted from the group.

I don't think their should be any logical correlation between being left or right wing economically, and taking certain stances on the majority of social/cultural issues that are political footballs these days. I find the discussion about these topics to be tribalistic, and extremely complex and nuanced issues get reduced to "Nazi vs Blue hair faggot". I think the majority of these topics, the answer, if there is one correct answer, lies somewhere in the giant grey area between these two polar extremes. However in reality, there is an enormous correlation between people's economic preferences and their opinion on the latest social or cultural talking point. To some extent this is down to personality type, but that doesn't fully explain such a stark correlation for me, nor such a binary division, as there are multitudes of personality types. I think it's absolutely certain that people's world view and opinions are shaped in no small part by their experiences and interactions with others, and interactions with groups in particular. I also think the strongest emotional driver for people is fear and disgust (I'm fairly certain this is scientifically proven too) and so people are more likely to be influenced to oppose people they dislike, than they are to support people that they like. Obviously if your world view is already firmly established, you're less likely to be influenced. However, for younger people, or people whose world view isn't as firmly established, then they can more easily be redirected.

Edit: a little example that just came to me that is someone similar to your extinction rebellion reference. When I was maybe 13 or 14, I was with my Mum in the town centre of the small city I grew up in, and some activists were taking signatures for a petition against the expansion of the local airport. They stopped us and had nice chat with my Mum, and asked her to sign. My Mum politely said she wasn't sure and would have to think about it, because it could help the local economy and would mean less travel to an airport further away (thus reducing people's carbon footprint). The girl and guy ended up screaming insults at my Mum as we walked away. That experience really influenced me at the time, it was so weird and confusing and unsettling. To be honest I've never really looked into climate change or formed any opinion on it since (which is rare because I have an opinion on pretty much everything else). I'm sure that experience played a part in that, and has subconsciously put me off even looking into the topic.

You sound like a Pepe boy that doesn't want the stigma of being branded an incel.

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date