FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Broadcast media: fair on coronavirus?
Broadcast media: fair on coronavirus?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
"The above '1guidance' was issued May 2020 and can be found on the Ofcom site at: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/information-for-industry/guidance/broadcast-standards-and-coronavirus" So basically they are not supposed to broadcast stuff that a guy on YouTube has just made up or anything similar that had no evidence behind it or is easily dosproved. | |||
| |||
"Wait, so Ofcom aren’t letting TV channels broadcast COVID conspiracy shite that is literally getting people killed? Seems like a pretty good use of their time and resources really." Agreed. But they're also not allowed to question government policy including on what basis restrictions are made..... | |||
"Wait, so Ofcom aren’t letting TV channels broadcast COVID conspiracy shite that is literally getting people killed? Seems like a pretty good use of their time and resources really." So no debate about whether it was discovered in bats or made in a lab. No discussion about treatments such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine either. Limited, if any, discussion about effects on children. In fact, no discussion/awareness of anything the authorities don't want us to know | |||
"Wait, so Ofcom aren’t letting TV channels broadcast COVID conspiracy shite that is literally getting people killed? Seems like a pretty good use of their time and resources really. So no debate about whether it was discovered in bats or made in a lab. No discussion about treatments such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine either. Limited, if any, discussion about effects on children. In fact, no discussion/awareness of anything the authorities don't want us to know" Initial quote in OP inaccurate. Directly from the link: 'We recognise that audiences will want to receive, and broadcasters will want to broadcast, content about the coronavirus pandemic, and that the communication of accurate and up-to-date information to audiences is essential. However, we expect broadcasters to be alert to the potential for significant harm to audiences related to the coronavirus, which could include: health claims related to the virus which may be harmful; medical advice which may be harmful; and, accuracy or material misleadingness in programmes in relation to the virus or public policy regarding it. Consistent with the right to freedom of expression, broadcasters have the editorial freedom to analyse, discuss and challenge issues relating to the coronavirus. If broadcasters include potentially harmful material in their programming, they must ensure they provide adequate protection for the audience from such material.' Broadcasters can discuss anything if verifiable. Discussions about source of virus and Chloroquine as a treatment has been discussed. It is not. No longer news. 'Available evidence based on the results of blinded, placebo-controlled RCTs showed no clinical benefits of HCQ as pre-and post-exposure prophylaxis and treatment of non-hospitalized and hospitalized patients with COVID-19.' https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(21)00058-2/fulltext Source of virus probably Wuhan market. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2298195-analysis-of-earliest-covid-19-cases-points-to-wuhan-market-as-source/ Transmission unknown and never likely to be. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/reports-publications-2021/item/2263-declassified-assessment-on-covid-19-origins No longer news. Existing Invermectin studies unreliable. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w Double blind study underway but no results yet, so nothing to report. https://www.principletrial.org/news/ivermectin-to-be-investigated-as-a-possible-treatment-for-covid-19-in-oxford2019s-principle-trial | |||
| |||
"Wait, so Ofcom aren’t letting TV channels broadcast COVID conspiracy shite that is literally getting people killed? Seems like a pretty good use of their time and resources really. So no debate about whether it was discovered in bats or made in a lab. No discussion about treatments such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine either. Limited, if any, discussion about effects on children. In fact, no discussion/awareness of anything the authorities don't want us to know Initial quote in OP inaccurate. Directly from the link: 'We recognise that audiences will want to receive, and broadcasters will want to broadcast, content about the coronavirus pandemic, and that the communication of accurate and up-to-date information to audiences is essential. However, we expect broadcasters to be alert to the potential for significant harm to audiences related to the coronavirus, which could include: health claims related to the virus which may be harmful; medical advice which may be harmful; and, accuracy or material misleadingness in programmes in relation to the virus or public policy regarding it. Consistent with the right to freedom of expression, broadcasters have the editorial freedom to analyse, discuss and challenge issues relating to the coronavirus. If broadcasters include potentially harmful material in their programming, they must ensure they provide adequate protection for the audience from such material.' Broadcasters can discuss anything if verifiable. Discussions about source of virus and Chloroquine as a treatment has been discussed. It is not. No longer news. 'Available evidence based on the results of blinded, placebo-controlled RCTs showed no clinical benefits of HCQ as pre-and post-exposure prophylaxis and treatment of non-hospitalized and hospitalized patients with COVID-19.' https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(21)00058-2/fulltext Source of virus probably Wuhan market. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2298195-analysis-of-earliest-covid-19-cases-points-to-wuhan-market-as-source/ Transmission unknown and never likely to be. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/reports-publications-2021/item/2263-declassified-assessment-on-covid-19-origins No longer news. Existing Invermectin studies unreliable. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w Double blind study underway but no results yet, so nothing to report. https://www.principletrial.org/news/ivermectin-to-be-investigated-as-a-possible-treatment-for-covid-19-in-oxford2019s-principle-trial" 
Well stated. Broadcasters should have a duty of care, which should include the dangerous tripe on YouTube etc.
| |||
"If you believe it came from a wet market, I've got a Bridge to sell you." I do not "believe" anything. It's not what was written. Investigation on source of virus conducted. Wuhan market concluded to be most likely source but it will never be known for sure. There is no other credible information. Do publish if you have anything except information from YouTube, and blogs from people who have seen nothing firsthand. | |||
"If you believe it came from a wet market, I've got a Bridge to sell you. I do not "believe" anything. It's not what was written. Investigation on source of virus conducted. Wuhan market concluded to be most likely source but it will never be known for sure. There is no other credible information. Do publish if you have anything except information from YouTube, and blogs from people who have seen nothing firsthand." Will do | |||
"Anyone suspect the BBC, C4, ITV isn't giving the whole story about coronavirus? You'd be right....." Unverified information is not part of "the whole story". Until something has been verified, it holds no weight. If the information is true and accurate then verification should be easy... then the news can publish it. There have been many occasions of news outlets publishing (untrue) rumours and speculation, some of which have lead to quite horrible outcomes. | |||
"Anyone suspect the BBC, C4, ITV isn't giving the whole story about coronavirus? You'd be right..... Unverified information is not part of "the whole story". Until something has been verified, it holds no weight. If the information is true and accurate then verification should be easy... then the news can publish it. There have been many occasions of news outlets publishing (untrue) rumours and speculation, some of which have lead to quite horrible outcomes." Yes, but for some reason it’s important that ‘all sides’ are included in the debate on the media! So that means everyone who is already in the debate…plus conspiracy theorists and the deluded. Although when you see the media ubiquity of people like Toby Young, Alison Pearson, Julia Hartley-Brewer et al, you’d be forced to conclude that the deluded are already more than sufficiently represented!  | |||
"If you believe it came from a wet market, I've got a Bridge to sell you." Whilst it is probably impossible to establish the true source of this virus due to the length of time that's passed, there is historical evidence of viruses crossing species barriers through the food chain... and these markets sell pretty much every animal imaginable for food. There is of course the speculation over a lab in Wuhan that was carrying out research in Covid viruses, but then the availability of bat populations with the virus make Wuhan well placed for a study of that nature... I doubt if we will ever know the truth. The official investigation into where the virus started decided that the lab was an "unlikely" source due to their containment processes, but also failed to find ANYTHING conclusive. The Chinese government were not helpful either. Cal | |||
"Wait, so Ofcom aren’t letting TV channels broadcast COVID conspiracy shite that is literally getting people killed? Seems like a pretty good use of their time and resources really. So no debate about whether it was discovered in bats or made in a lab. No discussion about treatments such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine either. Limited, if any, discussion about effects on children. In fact, no discussion/awareness of anything the authorities don't want us to know Initial quote in OP inaccurate. Directly from the link: 'We recognise that audiences will want to receive, and broadcasters will want to broadcast, content about the coronavirus pandemic, and that the communication of accurate and up-to-date information to audiences is essential. However, we expect broadcasters to be alert to the potential for significant harm to audiences related to the coronavirus, which could include: health claims related to the virus which may be harmful; medical advice which may be harmful; and, accuracy or material misleadingness in programmes in relation to the virus or public policy regarding it. Consistent with the right to freedom of expression, broadcasters have the editorial freedom to analyse, discuss and challenge issues relating to the coronavirus. If broadcasters include potentially harmful material in their programming, they must ensure they provide adequate protection for the audience from such material.' Broadcasters can discuss anything if verifiable. Discussions about source of virus and Chloroquine as a treatment has been discussed. It is not. No longer news. 'Available evidence based on the results of blinded, placebo-controlled RCTs showed no clinical benefits of HCQ as pre-and post-exposure prophylaxis and treatment of non-hospitalized and hospitalized patients with COVID-19.' https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(21)00058-2/fulltext Source of virus probably Wuhan market. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2298195-analysis-of-earliest-covid-19-cases-points-to-wuhan-market-as-source/ Transmission unknown and never likely to be. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/reports-publications-2021/item/2263-declassified-assessment-on-covid-19-origins No longer news. Existing Invermectin studies unreliable. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w Double blind study underway but no results yet, so nothing to report. https://www.principletrial.org/news/ivermectin-to-be-investigated-as-a-possible-treatment-for-covid-19-in-oxford2019s-principle-trial" You are misrepresenting the nature of the Ofcom 'guidance' and then stirring in other matters as if to imply they have been officially blessed. This Ofcom 'guidance' is why broadcasting companies have been so biased in their reporting: if they report anything that goes against the official narrative they are threatened by Ofcom with losing their licence. Interestingly, Ofcom does say that broadcasters can report other perspectives...but only so long as that other perspective is only there to be discredited. In other words, broadcasters HAVE to support the official narrative. The Ofcom words for this issue are as follows: "However, such views should always be placed into context and not be presented in such a way as to risk undermining viewers’ trust in official health advice." Anyone explain how proper, rigorous investigative, challenging journalism can take place when broadcasters are instructed, a priori, to only build their report to one conclusion? | |||
"Wait, so Ofcom aren’t letting TV channels broadcast COVID conspiracy shite that is literally getting people killed? Seems like a pretty good use of their time and resources really. So no debate about whether it was discovered in bats or made in a lab. No discussion about treatments such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine either. Limited, if any, discussion about effects on children. In fact, no discussion/awareness of anything the authorities don't want us to know Initial quote in OP inaccurate. Directly from the link: 'We recognise that audiences will want to receive, and broadcasters will want to broadcast, content about the coronavirus pandemic, and that the communication of accurate and up-to-date information to audiences is essential. However, we expect broadcasters to be alert to the potential for significant harm to audiences related to the coronavirus, which could include: health claims related to the virus which may be harmful; medical advice which may be harmful; and, accuracy or material misleadingness in programmes in relation to the virus or public policy regarding it. Consistent with the right to freedom of expression, broadcasters have the editorial freedom to analyse, discuss and challenge issues relating to the coronavirus. If broadcasters include potentially harmful material in their programming, they must ensure they provide adequate protection for the audience from such material.' Broadcasters can discuss anything if verifiable. Discussions about source of virus and Chloroquine as a treatment has been discussed. It is not. No longer news. 'Available evidence based on the results of blinded, placebo-controlled RCTs showed no clinical benefits of HCQ as pre-and post-exposure prophylaxis and treatment of non-hospitalized and hospitalized patients with COVID-19.' https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(21)00058-2/fulltext Source of virus probably Wuhan market. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2298195-analysis-of-earliest-covid-19-cases-points-to-wuhan-market-as-source/ Transmission unknown and never likely to be. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/reports-publications-2021/item/2263-declassified-assessment-on-covid-19-origins No longer news. Existing Invermectin studies unreliable. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w Double blind study underway but no results yet, so nothing to report. https://www.principletrial.org/news/ivermectin-to-be-investigated-as-a-possible-treatment-for-covid-19-in-oxford2019s-principle-trial You are misrepresenting the nature of the Ofcom 'guidance' and then stirring in other matters as if to imply they have been officially blessed. This Ofcom 'guidance' is why broadcasting companies have been so biased in their reporting: if they report anything that goes against the official narrative they are threatened by Ofcom with losing their licence. Interestingly, Ofcom does say that broadcasters can report other perspectives...but only so long as that other perspective is only there to be discredited. In other words, broadcasters HAVE to support the official narrative. The Ofcom words for this issue are as follows: "However, such views should always be placed into context and not be presented in such a way as to risk undermining viewers’ trust in official health advice." Anyone explain how proper, rigorous investigative, challenging journalism can take place when broadcasters are instructed, a priori, to only build their report to one conclusion?" Interestingly, I have not "misinterpreted" anything. I quoted the guidance exactly, unlike you. The wording is clear and does not appear to relate to your opinion in any way. Your 'help' in interpretation is unnecessary, but thank you for bringing the fact that: '...broadcasters have the editorial freedom to analyse, discuss and challenge issues relating to the coronavirus' Also that: '...the communication of accurate and up-to-date information to audiences is essential' Well done you | |||
| |||
"If you believe it came from a wet market, I've got a Bridge to sell you. I do not "believe" anything. It's not what was written. Investigation on source of virus conducted. Wuhan market concluded to be most likely source but it will never be known for sure. There is no other credible information. Do publish if you have anything except information from YouTube, and blogs from people who have seen nothing firsthand." Even Youtube are censoring videos. Facebook, Twitter etc all doing the same, Although Mark Zuckerberg has just come out to confirm FACT CHECK is just an opinion and not actual FACT. Brilliant.....another trusted outlet by many giving an opinion under the guise that it is true, just like BBC and other MSM. And people have faith in Pfizer....who have over 70+ share holders who are also members of the Communist Party. The same Pfizer that built a research and development facility in Wuhan.... The same Pfizer that had to pay $1.4 million to a whistleblower (a scientist) who was fired over safety concerns raised at the genetically modified virus at the lab in 2010. You believe what you want and keep listening to MSM... Remember people on here were called Conspiracy theorists when they mentioned... Vaccine Mandates Vaccine Passports Perpetual Lockdowns Rampant Inflation Saying it will never happen. The same people are talking about the following... Digital ID / Social Credit Scores Central Bank Digital Currencies Climate Lockdowns Energy Rationing People need to pay attention..... In eastern europe, there is already talks about power cuts due to an energy crisis. The far east also... But don't worry....this is just a conspiracy theory lol. | |||
"Wait, so Ofcom aren’t letting TV channels broadcast COVID conspiracy shite that is literally getting people killed? Seems like a pretty good use of their time and resources really. So no debate about whether it was discovered in bats or made in a lab. No discussion about treatments such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine either. Limited, if any, discussion about effects on children. In fact, no discussion/awareness of anything the authorities don't want us to know Initial quote in OP inaccurate. Directly from the link: 'We recognise that audiences will want to receive, and broadcasters will want to broadcast, content about the coronavirus pandemic, and that the communication of accurate and up-to-date information to audiences is essential. However, we expect broadcasters to be alert to the potential for significant harm to audiences related to the coronavirus, which could include: health claims related to the virus which may be harmful; medical advice which may be harmful; and, accuracy or material misleadingness in programmes in relation to the virus or public policy regarding it. Consistent with the right to freedom of expression, broadcasters have the editorial freedom to analyse, discuss and challenge issues relating to the coronavirus. If broadcasters include potentially harmful material in their programming, they must ensure they provide adequate protection for the audience from such material.' Broadcasters can discuss anything if verifiable. Discussions about source of virus and Chloroquine as a treatment has been discussed. It is not. No longer news. 'Available evidence based on the results of blinded, placebo-controlled RCTs showed no clinical benefits of HCQ as pre-and post-exposure prophylaxis and treatment of non-hospitalized and hospitalized patients with COVID-19.' https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(21)00058-2/fulltext Source of virus probably Wuhan market. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2298195-analysis-of-earliest-covid-19-cases-points-to-wuhan-market-as-source/ Transmission unknown and never likely to be. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/reports-publications-2021/item/2263-declassified-assessment-on-covid-19-origins No longer news. Existing Invermectin studies unreliable. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w Double blind study underway but no results yet, so nothing to report. https://www.principletrial.org/news/ivermectin-to-be-investigated-as-a-possible-treatment-for-covid-19-in-oxford2019s-principle-trial You are misrepresenting the nature of the Ofcom 'guidance' and then stirring in other matters as if to imply they have been officially blessed. This Ofcom 'guidance' is why broadcasting companies have been so biased in their reporting: if they report anything that goes against the official narrative they are threatened by Ofcom with losing their licence. Interestingly, Ofcom does say that broadcasters can report other perspectives...but only so long as that other perspective is only there to be discredited. In other words, broadcasters HAVE to support the official narrative. The Ofcom words for this issue are as follows: "However, such views should always be placed into context and not be presented in such a way as to risk undermining viewers’ trust in official health advice." Anyone explain how proper, rigorous investigative, challenging journalism can take place when broadcasters are instructed, a priori, to only build their report to one conclusion? Interestingly, I have not "misinterpreted" anything. I quoted the guidance exactly, unlike you. The wording is clear and does not appear to relate to your opinion in any way. Your 'help' in interpretation is unnecessary, but thank you for bringing the fact that: '...broadcasters have the editorial freedom to analyse, discuss and challenge issues relating to the coronavirus' Also that: '...the communication of accurate and up-to-date information to audiences is essential' Well done you "You seem to take the 'Soviet' view of journalism. There are two approaches to journalism: 1. The Soviet/authoritarian approach in which a journalist's job is to act as a conveyor belt, conveying official news/narratives from the authorities to e public; 2. P The open approach in which the journalist is the public representative in the corridors of power. He/she asks the questions that the public wants answered...and keeps on asking until a proper answer is received. Thus, proper journalism holds authorities to account. It's quite clear that, under Ofcom's 'guidelines' under the first typy is allowed...preconceived conclusions | |||
| |||
"Firstly, if anyone thinks this virus came from bats are more stupid than those at the BBC. If you look at the genetic sequencing of the original virus it always had the ability to mutate at the drop of a hat, which is more prevalent in a generically made virus than that transferred from an animal. Secondly, for years who has really given a toss about the media and live reporting, all of a sudden we have journalists in haz-mat suits telling us we are all going to die and the masses believed it. When the death figures dropped to daily levels of those below cancer and heart disease, the media headlined case rates instead as it’s more dramatic ! The media have been absolutely scum during this pandemic, never reported a balanced view, always a view to terrify the public, the amount of time Rigby et al have asked for lockdowns is a disgrace !" This is the opinion of people who have visited the locations and questioned those involved first-hand and the findings of the organisations analysing the intelligence data first hand. Source of virus probably Wuhan market. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2298195-analysis-of-earliest-covid-19-cases-points-to-wuhan-market-as-source/ Transmission unknown and never likely to be. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/reports-publications-2021/item/2263-declassified-assessment-on-covid-19-origins If you have better information, please indicate where from. Hospital admissions and deaths have continued to be reported along with case rates throughout. | |||
"If you believe it came from a wet market, I've got a Bridge to sell you. I do not "believe" anything. It's not what was written. Investigation on source of virus conducted. Wuhan market concluded to be most likely source but it will never be known for sure. There is no other credible information. Do publish if you have anything except information from YouTube, and blogs from people who have seen nothing firsthand. Even Youtube are censoring videos. Facebook, Twitter etc all doing the same, Although Mark Zuckerberg has just come out to confirm FACT CHECK is just an opinion and not actual FACT. Brilliant.....another trusted outlet by many giving an opinion under the guise that it is true, just like BBC and other MSM. And people have faith in Pfizer....who have over 70+ share holders who are also members of the Communist Party. The same Pfizer that built a research and development facility in Wuhan.... The same Pfizer that had to pay $1.4 million to a whistleblower (a scientist) who was fired over safety concerns raised at the genetically modified virus at the lab in 2010. You believe what you want and keep listening to MSM... Remember people on here were called Conspiracy theorists when they mentioned... Vaccine Mandates Vaccine Passports Perpetual Lockdowns Rampant Inflation Saying it will never happen. The same people are talking about the following... Digital ID / Social Credit Scores Central Bank Digital Currencies Climate Lockdowns Energy Rationing People need to pay attention..... In eastern europe, there is already talks about power cuts due to an energy crisis. The far east also... But don't worry....this is just a conspiracy theory lol. " What is your trusted, verified source of information? What organisations and individuals do you trust for unbiased data? | |||
"Firstly, if anyone thinks this virus came from bats are more stupid than those at the BBC. If you look at the genetic sequencing of the original virus it always had the ability to mutate at the drop of a hat, which is more prevalent in a generically made virus than that transferred from an animal. Secondly, for years who has really given a toss about the media and live reporting, all of a sudden we have journalists in haz-mat suits telling us we are all going to die and the masses believed it. When the death figures dropped to daily levels of those below cancer and heart disease, the media headlined case rates instead as it’s more dramatic ! The media have been absolutely scum during this pandemic, never reported a balanced view, always a view to terrify the public, the amount of time Rigby et al have asked for lockdowns is a disgrace ! This is the opinion of people who have visited the locations and questioned those involved first-hand and the findings of the organisations analysing the intelligence data first hand. Source of virus probably Wuhan market. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2298195-analysis-of-earliest-covid-19-cases-points-to-wuhan-market-as-source/ Transmission unknown and never likely to be. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/reports-publications-2021/item/2263-declassified-assessment-on-covid-19-origins If you have better information, please indicate where from. Hospital admissions and deaths have continued to be reported along with case rates throughout." What happens if the 'official sources' (described by Ofcom) lie or get it wrong? | |||
" What happens if the 'official sources' (described by Ofcom) lie or get it wrong?" Unlike "some bloke on Facebook" or "wakeup-sheeple dot com" the official sources are held to account by the world's scientific communities, media watch dogs, the general public etc... they are given guidelines to follow and fined if they get it wrong. The "alternative" news sources don't have any such scrutiny, and are generally (openly) pushing their own agendas. Cal | |||
"Firstly, if anyone thinks this virus came from bats are more stupid than those at the BBC. If you look at the genetic sequencing of the original virus it always had the ability to mutate at the drop of a hat, which is more prevalent in a generically made virus than that transferred from an animal. Secondly, for years who has really given a toss about the media and live reporting, all of a sudden we have journalists in haz-mat suits telling us we are all going to die and the masses believed it. When the death figures dropped to daily levels of those below cancer and heart disease, the media headlined case rates instead as it’s more dramatic ! The media have been absolutely scum during this pandemic, never reported a balanced view, always a view to terrify the public, the amount of time Rigby et al have asked for lockdowns is a disgrace ! This is the opinion of people who have visited the locations and questioned those involved first-hand and the findings of the organisations analysing the intelligence data first hand. Source of virus probably Wuhan market. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2298195-analysis-of-earliest-covid-19-cases-points-to-wuhan-market-as-source/ Transmission unknown and never likely to be. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/reports-publications-2021/item/2263-declassified-assessment-on-covid-19-origins If you have better information, please indicate where from. Hospital admissions and deaths have continued to be reported along with case rates throughout. What happens if the 'official sources' (described by Ofcom) lie or get it wrong?" That is heresy! The government approved media is the truth. | |||
" What happens if the 'official sources' (described by Ofcom) lie or get it wrong? Unlike "some bloke on Facebook" or "wakeup-sheeple dot com" the official sources are held to account by the world's scientific communities, media watch dogs, the general public etc... they are given guidelines to follow and fined if they get it wrong. The "alternative" news sources don't have any such scrutiny, and are generally (openly) pushing their own agendas. Cal" You think governments don't get things wrong? | |||
"Wait, so Ofcom aren’t letting TV channels broadcast COVID conspiracy shite that is literally getting people killed? Seems like a pretty good use of their time and resources really. So no debate about whether it was discovered in bats or made in a lab. No discussion about treatments such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine either. Limited, if any, discussion about effects on children. In fact, no discussion/awareness of anything the authorities don't want us to know Initial quote in OP inaccurate. Directly from the link: 'We recognise that audiences will want to receive, and broadcasters will want to broadcast, content about the coronavirus pandemic, and that the communication of accurate and up-to-date information to audiences is essential. However, we expect broadcasters to be alert to the potential for significant harm to audiences related to the coronavirus, which could include: health claims related to the virus which may be harmful; medical advice which may be harmful; and, accuracy or material misleadingness in programmes in relation to the virus or public policy regarding it. Consistent with the right to freedom of expression, broadcasters have the editorial freedom to analyse, discuss and challenge issues relating to the coronavirus. If broadcasters include potentially harmful material in their programming, they must ensure they provide adequate protection for the audience from such material.' Broadcasters can discuss anything if verifiable. Discussions about source of virus and Chloroquine as a treatment has been discussed. It is not. No longer news. 'Available evidence based on the results of blinded, placebo-controlled RCTs showed no clinical benefits of HCQ as pre-and post-exposure prophylaxis and treatment of non-hospitalized and hospitalized patients with COVID-19.' https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(21)00058-2/fulltext Source of virus probably Wuhan market. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2298195-analysis-of-earliest-covid-19-cases-points-to-wuhan-market-as-source/ Transmission unknown and never likely to be. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/reports-publications-2021/item/2263-declassified-assessment-on-covid-19-origins No longer news. Existing Invermectin studies unreliable. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w Double blind study underway but no results yet, so nothing to report. https://www.principletrial.org/news/ivermectin-to-be-investigated-as-a-possible-treatment-for-covid-19-in-oxford2019s-principle-trial You are misrepresenting the nature of the Ofcom 'guidance' and then stirring in other matters as if to imply they have been officially blessed. This Ofcom 'guidance' is why broadcasting companies have been so biased in their reporting: if they report anything that goes against the official narrative they are threatened by Ofcom with losing their licence. Interestingly, Ofcom does say that broadcasters can report other perspectives...but only so long as that other perspective is only there to be discredited. In other words, broadcasters HAVE to support the official narrative. The Ofcom words for this issue are as follows: "However, such views should always be placed into context and not be presented in such a way as to risk undermining viewers’ trust in official health advice." Anyone explain how proper, rigorous investigative, challenging journalism can take place when broadcasters are instructed, a priori, to only build their report to one conclusion? Interestingly, I have not "misinterpreted" anything. I quoted the guidance exactly, unlike you. The wording is clear and does not appear to relate to your opinion in any way. Your 'help' in interpretation is unnecessary, but thank you for bringing the fact that: '...broadcasters have the editorial freedom to analyse, discuss and challenge issues relating to the coronavirus' Also that: '...the communication of accurate and up-to-date information to audiences is essential' Well done you
You seem to take the 'Soviet' view of journalism.
There are two approaches to journalism:
1. The Soviet/authoritarian approach in which a journalist's job is to act as a conveyor belt, conveying official news/narratives from the authorities to e public;
2. P
The open approach in which the journalist is the public representative in the corridors of power. He/she asks the questions that the public wants answered...and keeps on asking until a proper answer is received. Thus, proper journalism holds authorities to account.
It's quite clear that, under Ofcom's 'guidelines' under the first typy is allowed...preconceived conclusions"No. You are incorrect. Again. Broadcasters can ask any questions that they wish. Vaccine safety, efficacy, mask wearing, the use of Chloquinine and Invermectin and the validity of lockdowns have been debated and questioned regularly on TV and radio. The point is, unless there is verifiable evidence to suggest otherwise, it is not acceptable to claim that the advice being given is incorrect. A 'proper answer' is one with data and evidence. It is clearly a matter of distress for you that data and evidence do not appear to align with your beliefs. That is unfortunate for you. | |||
"Wait, so Ofcom aren’t letting TV channels broadcast COVID conspiracy shite that is literally getting people killed? Seems like a pretty good use of their time and resources really. So no debate about whether it was discovered in bats or made in a lab. No discussion about treatments such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine either. Limited, if any, discussion about effects on children. In fact, no discussion/awareness of anything the authorities don't want us to know Initial quote in OP inaccurate. Directly from the link: 'We recognise that audiences will want to receive, and broadcasters will want to broadcast, content about the coronavirus pandemic, and that the communication of accurate and up-to-date information to audiences is essential. However, we expect broadcasters to be alert to the potential for significant harm to audiences related to the coronavirus, which could include: health claims related to the virus which may be harmful; medical advice which may be harmful; and, accuracy or material misleadingness in programmes in relation to the virus or public policy regarding it. Consistent with the right to freedom of expression, broadcasters have the editorial freedom to analyse, discuss and challenge issues relating to the coronavirus. If broadcasters include potentially harmful material in their programming, they must ensure they provide adequate protection for the audience from such material.' Broadcasters can discuss anything if verifiable. Discussions about source of virus and Chloroquine as a treatment has been discussed. It is not. No longer news. 'Available evidence based on the results of blinded, placebo-controlled RCTs showed no clinical benefits of HCQ as pre-and post-exposure prophylaxis and treatment of non-hospitalized and hospitalized patients with COVID-19.' https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(21)00058-2/fulltext Source of virus probably Wuhan market. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2298195-analysis-of-earliest-covid-19-cases-points-to-wuhan-market-as-source/ Transmission unknown and never likely to be. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/reports-publications-2021/item/2263-declassified-assessment-on-covid-19-origins No longer news. Existing Invermectin studies unreliable. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w Double blind study underway but no results yet, so nothing to report. https://www.principletrial.org/news/ivermectin-to-be-investigated-as-a-possible-treatment-for-covid-19-in-oxford2019s-principle-trial You are misrepresenting the nature of the Ofcom 'guidance' and then stirring in other matters as if to imply they have been officially blessed. This Ofcom 'guidance' is why broadcasting companies have been so biased in their reporting: if they report anything that goes against the official narrative they are threatened by Ofcom with losing their licence. Interestingly, Ofcom does say that broadcasters can report other perspectives...but only so long as that other perspective is only there to be discredited. In other words, broadcasters HAVE to support the official narrative. The Ofcom words for this issue are as follows: "However, such views should always be placed into context and not be presented in such a way as to risk undermining viewers’ trust in official health advice." Anyone explain how proper, rigorous investigative, challenging journalism can take place when broadcasters are instructed, a priori, to only build their report to one conclusion? Interestingly, I have not "misinterpreted" anything. I quoted the guidance exactly, unlike you. The wording is clear and does not appear to relate to your opinion in any way. Your 'help' in interpretation is unnecessary, but thank you for bringing the fact that: '...broadcasters have the editorial freedom to analyse, discuss and challenge issues relating to the coronavirus' Also that: '...the communication of accurate and up-to-date information to audiences is essential' Well done you
You seem to take the 'Soviet' view of journalism.
There are two approaches to journalism:
1. The Soviet/authoritarian approach in which a journalist's job is to act as a conveyor belt, conveying official news/narratives from the authorities to e public;
2. P
The open approach in which the journalist is the public representative in the corridors of power. He/she asks the questions that the public wants answered...and keeps on asking until a proper answer is received. Thus, proper journalism holds authorities to account.
It's quite clear that, under Ofcom's 'guidelines' under the first typy is allowed...preconceived conclusions
No. You are incorrect. Again.
Broadcasters can ask any questions that they wish.
Vaccine safety, efficacy, mask wearing, the use of Chloquinine and Invermectin and the validity of lockdowns have been debated and questioned regularly on TV and radio.
The point is, unless there is verifiable evidence to suggest otherwise, it is not acceptable to claim that the advice being given is incorrect.
A 'proper answer' is one with data and evidence. It is clearly a matter of distress for you that data and evidence do not appear to align with your beliefs.
That is unfortunate for you."You need to read Ofcomt guidelines. Broadcast journalists can ask any questions... but they are told to come down on the side of 'official' sources...ie the official narrative | |||
"Wait, so Ofcom aren’t letting TV channels broadcast COVID conspiracy shite that is literally getting people killed? Seems like a pretty good use of their time and resources really." I think you will find that TV channels have to be FACTUAL about what they broadcast and can’t just broadcast what “Kevin” says on YouTube without some sort of rebuttal….. and probably because if they broadcast what “kev” says, they would sued for defamation…. | |||
" What happens if the 'official sources' (described by Ofcom) lie or get it wrong? Unlike "some bloke on Facebook" or "wakeup-sheeple dot com" the official sources are held to account by the world's scientific communities, media watch dogs, the general public etc... they are given guidelines to follow and fined if they get it wrong. The "alternative" news sources don't have any such scrutiny, and are generally (openly) pushing their own agendas. Cal" FFS listen to yourself! | |||
"Wait, so Ofcom aren’t letting TV channels broadcast COVID conspiracy shite that is literally getting people killed? Seems like a pretty good use of their time and resources really. I think you will find that TV channels have to be FACTUAL about what they broadcast and can’t just broadcast what “Kevin” says on YouTube without some sort of rebuttal….. and probably because if they broadcast what “kev” says, they would sued for defamation…." Read the Ofcom guidelines which make it clear that broadcast companies must support the official narrative...or go out of business. I'm sure you don't believe that official bodies/governments never make mistakes or lie | |||
| |||
| |||
"Firstly, if anyone thinks this virus came from bats are more stupid than those at the BBC. If you look at the genetic sequencing of the original virus it always had the ability to mutate at the drop of a hat, which is more prevalent in a generically made virus than that transferred from an animal. Secondly, for years who has really given a toss about the media and live reporting, all of a sudden we have journalists in haz-mat suits telling us we are all going to die and the masses believed it. When the death figures dropped to daily levels of those below cancer and heart disease, the media headlined case rates instead as it’s more dramatic ! The media have been absolutely scum during this pandemic, never reported a balanced view, always a view to terrify the public, the amount of time Rigby et al have asked for lockdowns is a disgrace ! This is the opinion of people who have visited the locations and questioned those involved first-hand and the findings of the organisations analysing the intelligence data first hand. Source of virus probably Wuhan market. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2298195-analysis-of-earliest-covid-19-cases-points-to-wuhan-market-as-source/ Transmission unknown and never likely to be. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/reports-publications-2021/item/2263-declassified-assessment-on-covid-19-origins If you have better information, please indicate where from. Hospital admissions and deaths have continued to be reported along with case rates throughout. What happens if the 'official sources' (described by Ofcom) lie or get it wrong? That is heresy! The government approved media is the truth." What is your trusted, verified source of information? What organisations and individuals do you trust for unbiased data? | |||
"Wait, so Ofcom aren’t letting TV channels broadcast COVID conspiracy shite that is literally getting people killed? Seems like a pretty good use of their time and resources really. I think you will find that TV channels have to be FACTUAL about what they broadcast and can’t just broadcast what “Kevin” says on YouTube without some sort of rebuttal….. and probably because if they broadcast what “kev” says, they would sued for defamation…. Read the Ofcom guidelines which make it clear that broadcast companies must support the official narrative...or go out of business. I'm sure you don't believe that official bodies/governments never make mistakes or lie" Again, no they don't. Again, your interpretation is just that. Your own, personal, interpretation. Mistakes are made and lies are told. They have been questioned and reported. It has happened frequently. | |||
"If you believe it came from a wet market, I've got a Bridge to sell you. I do not "believe" anything. It's not what was written. Investigation on source of virus conducted. Wuhan market concluded to be most likely source but it will never be known for sure. There is no other credible information. Do publish if you have anything except information from YouTube, and blogs from people who have seen nothing firsthand. Even Youtube are censoring videos. Facebook, Twitter etc all doing the same, Although Mark Zuckerberg has just come out to confirm FACT CHECK is just an opinion and not actual FACT. Brilliant.....another trusted outlet by many giving an opinion under the guise that it is true, just like BBC and other MSM. And people have faith in Pfizer....who have over 70+ share holders who are also members of the Communist Party. The same Pfizer that built a research and development facility in Wuhan.... The same Pfizer that had to pay $1.4 million to a whistleblower (a scientist) who was fired over safety concerns raised at the genetically modified virus at the lab in 2010. You believe what you want and keep listening to MSM... Remember people on here were called Conspiracy theorists when they mentioned... Vaccine Mandates Vaccine Passports Perpetual Lockdowns Rampant Inflation Saying it will never happen. The same people are talking about the following... Digital ID / Social Credit Scores Central Bank Digital Currencies Climate Lockdowns Energy Rationing People need to pay attention..... In eastern europe, there is already talks about power cuts due to an energy crisis. The far east also... But don't worry....this is just a conspiracy theory lol. " Agenda 21 isn't looking so far fetched now either. | |||
"Wait, so Ofcom aren’t letting TV channels broadcast COVID conspiracy shite that is literally getting people killed? Seems like a pretty good use of their time and resources really. So no debate about whether it was discovered in bats or made in a lab. No discussion about treatments such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine either. Limited, if any, discussion about effects on children. In fact, no discussion/awareness of anything the authorities don't want us to know Initial quote in OP inaccurate. Directly from the link: 'We recognise that audiences will want to receive, and broadcasters will want to broadcast, content about the coronavirus pandemic, and that the communication of accurate and up-to-date information to audiences is essential. However, we expect broadcasters to be alert to the potential for significant harm to audiences related to the coronavirus, which could include: health claims related to the virus which may be harmful; medical advice which may be harmful; and, accuracy or material misleadingness in programmes in relation to the virus or public policy regarding it. Consistent with the right to freedom of expression, broadcasters have the editorial freedom to analyse, discuss and challenge issues relating to the coronavirus. If broadcasters include potentially harmful material in their programming, they must ensure they provide adequate protection for the audience from such material.' Broadcasters can discuss anything if verifiable. Discussions about source of virus and Chloroquine as a treatment has been discussed. It is not. No longer news. 'Available evidence based on the results of blinded, placebo-controlled RCTs showed no clinical benefits of HCQ as pre-and post-exposure prophylaxis and treatment of non-hospitalized and hospitalized patients with COVID-19.' https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(21)00058-2/fulltext Source of virus probably Wuhan market. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2298195-analysis-of-earliest-covid-19-cases-points-to-wuhan-market-as-source/ Transmission unknown and never likely to be. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/reports-publications-2021/item/2263-declassified-assessment-on-covid-19-origins No longer news. Existing Invermectin studies unreliable. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w Double blind study underway but no results yet, so nothing to report. https://www.principletrial.org/news/ivermectin-to-be-investigated-as-a-possible-treatment-for-covid-19-in-oxford2019s-principle-trial You are misrepresenting the nature of the Ofcom 'guidance' and then stirring in other matters as if to imply they have been officially blessed. This Ofcom 'guidance' is why broadcasting companies have been so biased in their reporting: if they report anything that goes against the official narrative they are threatened by Ofcom with losing their licence. Interestingly, Ofcom does say that broadcasters can report other perspectives...but only so long as that other perspective is only there to be discredited. In other words, broadcasters HAVE to support the official narrative. The Ofcom words for this issue are as follows: "However, such views should always be placed into context and not be presented in such a way as to risk undermining viewers’ trust in official health advice." Anyone explain how proper, rigorous investigative, challenging journalism can take place when broadcasters are instructed, a priori, to only build their report to one conclusion? Interestingly, I have not "misinterpreted" anything. I quoted the guidance exactly, unlike you. The wording is clear and does not appear to relate to your opinion in any way. Your 'help' in interpretation is unnecessary, but thank you for bringing the fact that: '...broadcasters have the editorial freedom to analyse, discuss and challenge issues relating to the coronavirus' Also that: '...the communication of accurate and up-to-date information to audiences is essential' Well done you
You seem to take the 'Soviet' view of journalism.
There are two approaches to journalism:
1. The Soviet/authoritarian approach in which a journalist's job is to act as a conveyor belt, conveying official news/narratives from the authorities to e public;
2. P
The open approach in which the journalist is the public representative in the corridors of power. He/she asks the questions that the public wants answered...and keeps on asking until a proper answer is received. Thus, proper journalism holds authorities to account.
It's quite clear that, under Ofcom's 'guidelines' under the first typy is allowed...preconceived conclusions
No. You are incorrect. Again.
Broadcasters can ask any questions that they wish.
Vaccine safety, efficacy, mask wearing, the use of Chloquinine and Invermectin and the validity of lockdowns have been debated and questioned regularly on TV and radio.
The point is, unless there is verifiable evidence to suggest otherwise, it is not acceptable to claim that the advice being given is incorrect.
A 'proper answer' is one with data and evidence. It is clearly a matter of distress for you that data and evidence do not appear to align with your beliefs.
That is unfortunate for you.
You need to read Ofcomt guidelines. Broadcast journalists can ask any questions... but they are told to come down on the side of 'official' sources...ie the official narrative"No. They are not. They are told not to "undermine" official guidelines. Once again your interpretation is your own. | |||
 | |||
| |||
"Firstly, if anyone thinks this virus came from bats are more stupid than those at the BBC. If you look at the genetic sequencing of the original virus it always had the ability to mutate at the drop of a hat, which is more prevalent in a generically made virus than that transferred from an animal. Secondly, for years who has really given a toss about the media and live reporting, all of a sudden we have journalists in haz-mat suits telling us we are all going to die and the masses believed it. When the death figures dropped to daily levels of those below cancer and heart disease, the media headlined case rates instead as it’s more dramatic ! The media have been absolutely scum during this pandemic, never reported a balanced view, always a view to terrify the public, the amount of time Rigby et al have asked for lockdowns is a disgrace ! This is the opinion of people who have visited the locations and questioned those involved first-hand and the findings of the organisations analysing the intelligence data first hand. Source of virus probably Wuhan market. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2298195-analysis-of-earliest-covid-19-cases-points-to-wuhan-market-as-source/ Transmission unknown and never likely to be. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/reports-publications-2021/item/2263-declassified-assessment-on-covid-19-origins If you have better information, please indicate where from. Hospital admissions and deaths have continued to be reported along with case rates throughout. What happens if the 'official sources' (described by Ofcom) lie or get it wrong? That is heresy! The government approved media is the truth. What is your trusted, verified source of information? What organisations and individuals do you trust for unbiased data?" If you want to find a news organisation you may be able to trust you look for organisations that look for a wide variety of views and then analyses those views as well as they can and with openness and integrity. You DON'T look for an organisation that is bound, in advance, to report only the view of the government | |||
"Firstly, if anyone thinks this virus came from bats are more stupid than those at the BBC. If you look at the genetic sequencing of the original virus it always had the ability to mutate at the drop of a hat, which is more prevalent in a generically made virus than that transferred from an animal. Secondly, for years who has really given a toss about the media and live reporting, all of a sudden we have journalists in haz-mat suits telling us we are all going to die and the masses believed it. When the death figures dropped to daily levels of those below cancer and heart disease, the media headlined case rates instead as it’s more dramatic ! The media have been absolutely scum during this pandemic, never reported a balanced view, always a view to terrify the public, the amount of time Rigby et al have asked for lockdowns is a disgrace ! This is the opinion of people who have visited the locations and questioned those involved first-hand and the findings of the organisations analysing the intelligence data first hand. Source of virus probably Wuhan market. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2298195-analysis-of-earliest-covid-19-cases-points-to-wuhan-market-as-source/ Transmission unknown and never likely to be. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/reports-publications-2021/item/2263-declassified-assessment-on-covid-19-origins If you have better information, please indicate where from. Hospital admissions and deaths have continued to be reported along with case rates throughout. What happens if the 'official sources' (described by Ofcom) lie or get it wrong? That is heresy! The government approved media is the truth. What is your trusted, verified source of information? What organisations and individuals do you trust for unbiased data? If you want to find a news organisation you may be able to trust you look for organisations that look for a wide variety of views and then analyses those views as well as they can and with openness and integrity. You DON'T look for an organisation that is bound, in advance, to report only the view of the government" Can you suggest some, as I would like some honest, unbiased media to view. | |||
"Of course the media aren't telling us everything, its sooo repetitive just hearing about the facts and proven therapies. We wont hear about the crazies or the quack internet doctor potions because get what people Ofcom owns the Media, Government own Ofcom and Big Pharma own the Government and nooooooooo way are Big Pharma going to let the truth out, they’d loose too much money. Its as clear as Rudolph's Red Nose. I know some will say what about the Authoritarian states who don’t have Big Pharma as its all state controlled but lets not go there it doesn't work with the narrative, If it isnt for the money its for control that's what the Government want, they want to control the sheeple. At risk of repeating myself lets not talk about the Authoritarian states who already have all the control they need. But then I overheard my mate Big Dave down the pub talking about the New World Order and how it is coming. Though maybe he said New Order as he was near the Juke box, dunno, its is a Blue Monday today so maybe I misheard. Ive been getting easily confused lately with my new 5G Mobile, something not right there with that phone. Big Tech up to no good no doubt, by coincidence ive been trying to buy one of those internal body UV lights to use just in case I get infected but cant find one anywhere. They are controlling what we can buy now. Big Government, Big Pharma, Big Tech, Big Commerce all in it together, maybe Big Dave too? Anyhow Ill be fine, ive a fully functioning immune system to tackle Covid (Coldvid), sure ive not had any medical tests to back up that claim but ive not had a cold in ages so I’ll be just fine and if I do feel a bit iffy ive got some lemsip and horse anti worming tablets. I could write all day but best cut this short as GCHQ are probably monitoring these kind of conversations. I know 2 of my mates from the pub who share my beliefs have been ‘vanished’, Big Daves wife, Big Brenda said it was a raid in the middle of the night and they were taken away in vans, white ones with green lettering and blue lights. Some are saying they are in hospital but that cant be true, fit n healthy blokes. More likely internment camps Wake up sheeple" May I suggest a very simple solution? Just read the Ofcom guidelines... you will see that the broadcast media has to support the government narrative or run the risk of being closed down. It's written very clearly. In black and white. The link is above | |||
"Firstly, if anyone thinks this virus came from bats are more stupid than those at the BBC. If you look at the genetic sequencing of the original virus it always had the ability to mutate at the drop of a hat, which is more prevalent in a generically made virus than that transferred from an animal. Secondly, for years who has really given a toss about the media and live reporting, all of a sudden we have journalists in haz-mat suits telling us we are all going to die and the masses believed it. When the death figures dropped to daily levels of those below cancer and heart disease, the media headlined case rates instead as it’s more dramatic ! The media have been absolutely scum during this pandemic, never reported a balanced view, always a view to terrify the public, the amount of time Rigby et al have asked for lockdowns is a disgrace ! This is the opinion of people who have visited the locations and questioned those involved first-hand and the findings of the organisations analysing the intelligence data first hand. Source of virus probably Wuhan market. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2298195-analysis-of-earliest-covid-19-cases-points-to-wuhan-market-as-source/ Transmission unknown and never likely to be. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/reports-publications-2021/item/2263-declassified-assessment-on-covid-19-origins If you have better information, please indicate where from. Hospital admissions and deaths have continued to be reported along with case rates throughout. What happens if the 'official sources' (described by Ofcom) lie or get it wrong? That is heresy! The government approved media is the truth. What is your trusted, verified source of information? What organisations and individuals do you trust for unbiased data? If you want to find a news organisation you may be able to trust you look for organisations that look for a wide variety of views and then analyses those views as well as they can and with openness and integrity. You DON'T look for an organisation that is bound, in advance, to report only the view of the government Can you suggest some, as I would like some honest, unbiased media to view." You could start with Dr. John Campbell on YouTube | |||
"Of course the media aren't telling us everything, its sooo repetitive just hearing about the facts and proven therapies. We wont hear about the crazies or the quack internet doctor potions because get what people Ofcom owns the Media, Government own Ofcom and Big Pharma own the Government and nooooooooo way are Big Pharma going to let the truth out, they’d loose too much money. Its as clear as Rudolph's Red Nose. I know some will say what about the Authoritarian states who don’t have Big Pharma as its all state controlled but lets not go there it doesn't work with the narrative, If it isnt for the money its for control that's what the Government want, they want to control the sheeple. At risk of repeating myself lets not talk about the Authoritarian states who already have all the control they need. But then I overheard my mate Big Dave down the pub talking about the New World Order and how it is coming. Though maybe he said New Order as he was near the Juke box, dunno, its is a Blue Monday today so maybe I misheard. Ive been getting easily confused lately with my new 5G Mobile, something not right there with that phone. Big Tech up to no good no doubt, by coincidence ive been trying to buy one of those internal body UV lights to use just in case I get infected but cant find one anywhere. They are controlling what we can buy now. Big Government, Big Pharma, Big Tech, Big Commerce all in it together, maybe Big Dave too? Anyhow Ill be fine, ive a fully functioning immune system to tackle Covid (Coldvid), sure ive not had any medical tests to back up that claim but ive not had a cold in ages so I’ll be just fine and if I do feel a bit iffy ive got some lemsip and horse anti worming tablets. I could write all day but best cut this short as GCHQ are probably monitoring these kind of conversations. I know 2 of my mates from the pub who share my beliefs have been ‘vanished’, Big Daves wife, Big Brenda said it was a raid in the middle of the night and they were taken away in vans, white ones with green lettering and blue lights. Some are saying they are in hospital but that cant be true, fit n healthy blokes. More likely internment camps Wake up sheeple" Thankyou so much for brightening my day, I really do hope Big Brenda can spring hubby from the internment camp  | |||
"Firstly, if anyone thinks this virus came from bats are more stupid than those at the BBC. If you look at the genetic sequencing of the original virus it always had the ability to mutate at the drop of a hat, which is more prevalent in a generically made virus than that transferred from an animal. Secondly, for years who has really given a toss about the media and live reporting, all of a sudden we have journalists in haz-mat suits telling us we are all going to die and the masses believed it. When the death figures dropped to daily levels of those below cancer and heart disease, the media headlined case rates instead as it’s more dramatic ! The media have been absolutely scum during this pandemic, never reported a balanced view, always a view to terrify the public, the amount of time Rigby et al have asked for lockdowns is a disgrace ! This is the opinion of people who have visited the locations and questioned those involved first-hand and the findings of the organisations analysing the intelligence data first hand. Source of virus probably Wuhan market. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2298195-analysis-of-earliest-covid-19-cases-points-to-wuhan-market-as-source/ Transmission unknown and never likely to be. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/reports-publications-2021/item/2263-declassified-assessment-on-covid-19-origins If you have better information, please indicate where from. Hospital admissions and deaths have continued to be reported along with case rates throughout. What happens if the 'official sources' (described by Ofcom) lie or get it wrong? That is heresy! The government approved media is the truth. What is your trusted, verified source of information? What organisations and individuals do you trust for unbiased data? If you want to find a news organisation you may be able to trust you look for organisations that look for a wide variety of views and then analyses those views as well as they can and with openness and integrity. You DON'T look for an organisation that is bound, in advance, to report only the view of the government Can you suggest some, as I would like some honest, unbiased media to view. You could start with Dr. John Campbell on YouTube" Thank you. I will check him out. I always feel with forum threads it's best to keep all messages in the thread so everybody can benefit from the shared. information | |||
| |||
"Which views are being ignored by the BBC because of ofcom ?" Hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, the dangers of vaccines, the died of/from scandal, very little/nothing about the Great Barrington Declaration, very little/nothing about post mortems, figures about demographics of those most likely to do, the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of masks | |||
"Which views are being ignored by the BBC because of ofcom ?" Also, have they reported on the attacks on mRna technology by... Robert Malone who invented me RNA technology? | |||
| |||
"Are these because of offcom tho? " Yes. Ofcom gives a veto to 'official sources'. So if an 'official source' hasn't issued a press release etc then broadcast media won't cover it. A broadcaster can, according to Ofcom, report on wider subjects but they have to bring the discussion back to the official view because, as Ofcom says, they must do nothing to undermine the official view. You need to read the actual guidelines. They are on the Ofcom website and we're published May 2020. | |||
" What happens if the 'official sources' (described by Ofcom) lie or get it wrong? Unlike "some bloke on Facebook" or "wakeup-sheeple dot com" the official sources are held to account by the world's scientific communities, media watch dogs, the general public etc... they are given guidelines to follow and fined if they get it wrong. The "alternative" news sources don't have any such scrutiny, and are generally (openly) pushing their own agendas. Cal You think governments don't get things wrong?" No... I think that when they do, the whole country notices then points & laughs at them. | |||
" What happens if the 'official sources' (described by Ofcom) lie or get it wrong? Unlike "some bloke on Facebook" or "wakeup-sheeple dot com" the official sources are held to account by the world's scientific communities, media watch dogs, the general public etc... they are given guidelines to follow and fined if they get it wrong. The "alternative" news sources don't have any such scrutiny, and are generally (openly) pushing their own agendas. Cal ---- FFS listen to yourself!" Oh don't tell me... I need to "wake up"  | |||
" What happens if the 'official sources' (described by Ofcom) lie or get it wrong? Unlike "some bloke on Facebook" or "wakeup-sheeple dot com" the official sources are held to account by the world's scientific communities, media watch dogs, the general public etc... they are given guidelines to follow and fined if they get it wrong. The "alternative" news sources don't have any such scrutiny, and are generally (openly) pushing their own agendas. Cal You think governments don't get things wrong? No... I think that when they do, the whole country notices then points & laughs at them." But if the media don't tell you, how would you know? | |||
"Which views are being ignored by the BBC because of ofcom ? Hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, the dangers of vaccines, the died of/from scandal, very little/nothing about the Great Barrington Declaration, very little/nothing about post mortems, figures about demographics of those most likely to do, the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of masks" Not even the makers of either hydroxy or ivermectin claim there drug is a help for covid…. So why is anyone else…. See… if this is an an example of “things not being reported” then I suggest that OFCOM are not the organisation you should point fingers at… it’s the social media companies that allow claims to be made without substantiation… | |||
"Which views are being ignored by the BBC because of ofcom ? Hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, the dangers of vaccines, the died of/from scandal, very little/nothing about the Great Barrington Declaration, very little/nothing about post mortems, figures about demographics of those most likely to do, the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of masks Not even the makers of either hydroxy or ivermectin claim there drug is a help for covid…. So why is anyone else…. See… if this is an an example of “things not being reported” then I suggest that OFCOM are not the organisation you should point fingers at… it’s the social media companies that allow claims to be made without substantiation…" No, if you read the Ofcom guidelines it would be perfectly clear to you why the broadcast companies report as narrowly as they do The guidelines state in black and white that such state-approved 'journalism' should not undermine official narratives. It's as plain as that | |||
| |||
| |||
" No, if you read the Ofcom guidelines it would be perfectly clear to you why the broadcast companies report as narrowly as they do The guidelines state in black and white that such state-approved 'journalism' should not undermine official narratives. It's as plain as that" 'Consistent with the right to freedom of expression, broadcasters have the editorial freedom to analyse, discuss and challenge issues relating to the coronavirus. If broadcasters include potentially harmful material in their programming, they must ensure they provide adequate protection for the audience from such material.' You have to read it eventually lol, and really this just about covers it. | |||
" No, if you read the Ofcom guidelines it would be perfectly clear to you why the broadcast companies report as narrowly as they do The guidelines state in black and white that such state-approved 'journalism' should not undermine official narratives. It's as plain as that 'Consistent with the right to freedom of expression, broadcasters have the editorial freedom to analyse, discuss and challenge issues relating to the coronavirus. If broadcasters include potentially harmful material in their programming, they must ensure they provide adequate protection for the audience from such material.' You have to read it eventually lol, and really this just about covers it. "Maybe there a Chinese version of ofcom we're all missing lol | |||
"Which views are being ignored by the BBC because of ofcom ? Hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, the dangers of vaccines, the died of/from scandal, very little/nothing about the Great Barrington Declaration, very little/nothing about post mortems, figures about demographics of those most likely to do, the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of masks Not even the makers of either hydroxy or ivermectin claim there drug is a help for covid…. So why is anyone else…. See… if this is an an example of “things not being reported” then I suggest that OFCOM are not the organisation you should point fingers at… it’s the social media companies that allow claims to be made without substantiation… No, if you read the Ofcom guidelines it would be perfectly clear to you why the broadcast companies report as narrowly as they do The guidelines state in black and white that such state-approved 'journalism' should not undermine official narratives. It's as plain as that" See…. Straight through what I actually said……. The makers of hydroxy and ivermectin do not claim that it helps in the management or treatment of covid…. So if they don’t say that, and there are enough medical research journals that say it doesn’t help… I am not sure why you want OFCOM to allow the views of “Kevin” on YouTube and Dr joe rogan to be given as much credence and weight! Being impartial doesn’t mean something should be given as much validity!!! … that would be like being mad at OFCOM for not giving flat earthers the time of day because you think they deserve it!! You seem to have gotten impartiality confused giving an opinion equal weight, time and gravitas | |||
"Which views are being ignored by the BBC because of ofcom ? Hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, the dangers of vaccines, the died of/from scandal, very little/nothing about the Great Barrington Declaration, very little/nothing about post mortems, figures about demographics of those most likely to do, the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of masks Not even the makers of either hydroxy or ivermectin claim there drug is a help for covid…. So why is anyone else…. See… if this is an an example of “things not being reported” then I suggest that OFCOM are not the organisation you should point fingers at… it’s the social media companies that allow claims to be made without substantiation… No, if you read the Ofcom guidelines it would be perfectly clear to you why the broadcast companies report as narrowly as they do The guidelines state in black and white that such state-approved 'journalism' should not undermine official narratives. It's as plain as that" State Approved Journalism that allows reporting on how the state screwed up, state incompetence, state lies and state corruption. Its hardly suprising given the incompetence of out govmnt that it plays into conspiricy theorists but saying the media is in the pockets of the state is simply not true. Heres a few that the 'state' media have reported on that have damaged the narrative and the state ... which you allude to being against the rules? Barnard Castle. Care home scandals. PPE for mates and dodgy dealing. Matt Hanckock caught with his pants down Governing party MP dodgy deals with PPE supplier. Parties at number 10 when the rest of us werent allowed. Channel 4 Lockdown Chaos: Dispatches As most of the UK goes back into lockdown, Antony Barnett reveals what went wrong, how the government lost control, and the companies making millions from the pandemic BBC 1 Britain’s Coronavirus Gamble Panorama Politicians from the prime minister down have assured us their response to the coronavirus pandemic has been 'guided by the science’. But the science has been hotly contested. The World Health Organisation urged countries to stamp out infections as soon as they developed, but the UK government's initial scientific advice said the route out of the crisis was for most of us to catch the virus so we could develop herd immunity. ITV News Pandemic plans 'not adequate' and 'not fully implemented' when Covid hit, report finds. The government lacked detailed plans on shielding, job support schemes and school disruption as it was not “fully prepared” for the “wide-ranging impacts” that Covid-19 had on society, according to a new report. Whilst we may have a government that has lost the trust (of those who trusted it in the first place) and has shown to be incompetent and to line their own pockets. Fortunately isnt the same for the main media, they may not report on everything you would like them to or want to see. That doesnt make them government lackeys, they do have a responsibility to report as factually as possible to avoid spereading unecessary fear or give false hope of cures that are not proven to work | |||
"What is Ofcom's role in broadcast standards during the pandemic? Ofcom has a duty to set and enforce broadcast standards in the content of TV and radio programmes. These standards are set out in the Broadcasting Code. We recognise that audiences will want to receive, and broadcasters will want to broadcast, content about the coronavirus pandemic, and that the communication of accurate and up-to-date information to audiences is essential. However, we expect broadcasters to be alert to the potential for significant harm to audiences related to the coronavirus, which could include: health claims related to the virus which may be harmful; medical advice which may be harmful; and, accuracy or material misleadingness in programmes in relation to the virus or public policy regarding it. Consistent with the right to freedom of expression, broadcasters have the editorial freedom to analyse, discuss and challenge issues relating to the coronavirus. If broadcasters include potentially harmful material in their programming, they must ensure they provide adequate protection for the audience from such material." Ofcom also forbid broadcast 'journalists' from asking where coronavirus originated. They must report nothing that could be deemed to ' undermine' public confidence in the official narrative. In other words proper journalism is forbidden | |||
"And just for clarity Consistent with the right to freedom of expression, broadcasters have the editorial freedom to analyse, discuss and challenge issues relating to the coronavirus." Fine words...but 'balanced' later in the guidelines by a duty not to undermine public confidence in the official narrative. In other words they can bring wider subjects in, but only to discredit them in the eyes of the public | |||
"Which views are being ignored by the BBC because of ofcom ? Hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, the dangers of vaccines, the died of/from scandal, very little/nothing about the Great Barrington Declaration, very little/nothing about post mortems, figures about demographics of those most likely to do, the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of masks Not even the makers of either hydroxy or ivermectin claim there drug is a help for covid…. So why is anyone else…. See… if this is an an example of “things not being reported” then I suggest that OFCOM are not the organisation you should point fingers at… it’s the social media companies that allow claims to be made without substantiation… No, if you read the Ofcom guidelines it would be perfectly clear to you why the broadcast companies report as narrowly as they do The guidelines state in black and white that such state-approved 'journalism' should not undermine official narratives. It's as plain as that See…. Straight through what I actually said……. The makers of hydroxy and ivermectin do not claim that it helps in the management or treatment of covid…. So if they don’t say that, and there are enough medical research journals that say it doesn’t help… I am not sure why you want OFCOM to allow the views of “Kevin” on YouTube and Dr joe rogan to be given as much credence and weight! Being impartial doesn’t mean something should be given as much validity!!! … that would be like being mad at OFCOM for not giving flat earthers the time of day because you think they deserve it!! You seem to have gotten impartiality confused giving an opinion equal weight, time and gravitas" Read more widely. There are plenty of studies claiming that HCQ and ivermectin work. But reporting that they work would undermine the official narrative...and that is forbidden by Ofcom. If they go against the official narrative they could lose their license and business. That won't just chill full reporting. It prevents it entirely | |||
"Which views are being ignored by the BBC because of ofcom ? Hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, the dangers of vaccines, the died of/from scandal, very little/nothing about the Great Barrington Declaration, very little/nothing about post mortems, figures about demographics of those most likely to do, the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of masks Not even the makers of either hydroxy or ivermectin claim there drug is a help for covid…. So why is anyone else…. See… if this is an an example of “things not being reported” then I suggest that OFCOM are not the organisation you should point fingers at… it’s the social media companies that allow claims to be made without substantiation… No, if you read the Ofcom guidelines it would be perfectly clear to you why the broadcast companies report as narrowly as they do The guidelines state in black and white that such state-approved 'journalism' should not undermine official narratives. It's as plain as that State Approved Journalism that allows reporting on how the state screwed up, state incompetence, state lies and state corruption. Its hardly suprising given the incompetence of out govmnt that it plays into conspiricy theorists but saying the media is in the pockets of the state is simply not true. Heres a few that the 'state' media have reported on that have damaged the narrative and the state ... which you allude to being against the rules? Barnard Castle. Care home scandals. PPE for mates and dodgy dealing. Matt Hanckock caught with his pants down Governing party MP dodgy deals with PPE supplier. Parties at number 10 when the rest of us werent allowed. Channel 4 Lockdown Chaos: Dispatches As most of the UK goes back into lockdown, Antony Barnett reveals what went wrong, how the government lost control, and the companies making millions from the pandemic BBC 1 Britain’s Coronavirus Gamble Panorama Politicians from the prime minister down have assured us their response to the coronavirus pandemic has been 'guided by the science’. But the science has been hotly contested. The World Health Organisation urged countries to stamp out infections as soon as they developed, but the UK government's initial scientific advice said the route out of the crisis was for most of us to catch the virus so we could develop herd immunity. ITV News Pandemic plans 'not adequate' and 'not fully implemented' when Covid hit, report finds. The government lacked detailed plans on shielding, job support schemes and school disruption as it was not “fully prepared” for the “wide-ranging impacts” that Covid-19 had on society, according to a new report. Whilst we may have a government that has lost the trust (of those who trusted it in the first place) and has shown to be incompetent and to line their own pockets. Fortunately isnt the same for the main media, they may not report on everything you would like them to or want to see. That doesnt make them government lackeys, they do have a responsibility to report as factually as possible to avoid spereading unecessary fear or give false hope of cures that are not proven to work" Just visit the Ofcom site. You clearly don't understand what the guidelines are about | |||
| |||
"ah well i tried but its true what they say 'you cant educate pork' " Try again. The Ofcom 'guidance' isn't very long and is written very clearly | |||
| |||
 | |||
"A state media that questions the state, embarasses the state, holds the state to account. How odd "You misunderstand. Ofcom requires that broadcasters defend the official coronavirus narrative...and they will be forced out of business if they don't | |||
"Which views are being ignored by the BBC because of ofcom ? Hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, the dangers of vaccines, the died of/from scandal, very little/nothing about the Great Barrington Declaration, very little/nothing about post mortems, figures about demographics of those most likely to do, the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of masks Not even the makers of either hydroxy or ivermectin claim there drug is a help for covid…. So why is anyone else…. See… if this is an an example of “things not being reported” then I suggest that OFCOM are not the organisation you should point fingers at… it’s the social media companies that allow claims to be made without substantiation… No, if you read the Ofcom guidelines it would be perfectly clear to you why the broadcast companies report as narrowly as they do The guidelines state in black and white that such state-approved 'journalism' should not undermine official narratives. It's as plain as that See…. Straight through what I actually said……. The makers of hydroxy and ivermectin do not claim that it helps in the management or treatment of covid…. So if they don’t say that, and there are enough medical research journals that say it doesn’t help… I am not sure why you want OFCOM to allow the views of “Kevin” on YouTube and Dr joe rogan to be given as much credence and weight! Being impartial doesn’t mean something should be given as much validity!!! … that would be like being mad at OFCOM for not giving flat earthers the time of day because you think they deserve it!! You seem to have gotten impartiality confused giving an opinion equal weight, time and gravitas Read more widely. There are plenty of studies claiming that HCQ and ivermectin work. But reporting that they work would undermine the official narrative...and that is forbidden by Ofcom. If they go against the official narrative they could lose their license and business. That won't just chill full reporting. It prevents it entirely" Here we go again… so let’s try this again….. the makers and original manufacturer of the drugs hydroxy and ivermectin (of which the drug manufacturer is Merck) do NOT claim in any way or research that their drug helps in the treatment of covid…. Which part of that are you not understanding, which part of that think the drug makers themselves are part of some sort of cabal! Do you think that if there was some proof that they did help then why would you have to have waited at least a year for any treatment….. they would have made an absolute fortune if it did!!!!! You seem to try to push that anything on YouTube should be given as much weight!! And because tv and broadcast media is covered under certain media liable laws and guidelines (OFCOM) that social media isn’t, that means it’s being ignored… The difference is that broadcast media has to be verified, whereas the stuff you are talking about on YouTube is heresy and anecdotal… difference! | |||
"A state media that questions the state, embarasses the state, holds the state to account. How odd
You misunderstand. Ofcom requires that broadcasters defend the official coronavirus narrative...and they will be forced out of business if they don't"'Consistent with the right to freedom of expression, broadcasters have the editorial freedom to analyse, discuss and challenge issues relating to the coronavirus. If broadcasters include potentially harmful material in their programming, they must ensure they provide adequate protection for the audience from such material.' | |||
"ah well i tried but its true what they say 'you cant educate pork' Try again. The Ofcom 'guidance' isn't very long and is written very clearly" True 'Consistent with the right to freedom of expression, broadcasters have the editorial freedom to analyse, discuss and challenge issues relating to the coronavirus. If broadcasters include potentially harmful material in their programming, they must ensure they provide adequate protection for the audience from such material.' | |||
"ah well i tried but its true what they say 'you cant educate pork' Try again. The Ofcom 'guidance' isn't very long and is written very clearly True 'Consistent with the right to freedom of expression, broadcasters have the editorial freedom to analyse, discuss and challenge issues relating to the coronavirus. If broadcasters include potentially harmful material in their programming, they must ensure they provide adequate protection for the audience from such material.'" What do you think 'adequate protection for the audience from such material' refers to? And further on in the guidance: 'must not undermine public support' for the official narrative? That is saying a 'journalist' can mention other viewpoints...but only as a means of discrediting them. How else can you interpret it? | |||
"ah well i tried but its true what they say 'you cant educate pork' Try again. The Ofcom 'guidance' isn't very long and is written very clearly True 'Consistent with the right to freedom of expression, broadcasters have the editorial freedom to analyse, discuss and challenge issues relating to the coronavirus. If broadcasters include potentially harmful material in their programming, they must ensure they provide adequate protection for the audience from such material.' What do you think 'adequate protection for the audience from such material' refers to? And further on in the guidance: 'must not undermine public support' for the official narrative? That is saying a 'journalist' can mention other viewpoints...but only as a means of discrediting them. How else can you interpret it?" You need to properly understand how 'adequate protection' works and what it means. At it's simplest it means that the Broadcaster has to point out the balance to a controversial item by issuing a warning to the public 'during the broadcast' that the item is widely held to be untrue or unfound or unsupported by data or research etc etc etc. Note all the Trump news items that were provisioned with 'viewer caution' announcements before the news item was read. For example. This has always been done with every news item that contains widely discredited data/research etc. Broadcast media have a much harsher set of rules - or to put it another way - higher standards than print media (and they have had since the last update of the legislation). Broadcasters ongoing will simply drop items that have been widely reported as being widely untrue. That just makes sense. But it doesn't mean that they are hiding it or being forced to hide it. | |||
"Anyone suspect the BBC, C4, ITV isn't giving the whole story about coronavirus? You'd be right. Below is official Ofcom 'guidance': any broadcasting company ignoring it will be closed down by Ofcom: "• unverified information about the Coronavirus. This may include, for instance, discussion of unverified theories for the causes of the Coronavirus and discussion of potential treatments or cures for the Coronavirus that do not align with advice of the NHS or other public health authorities; • statements that seek to question or undermine the advice of public health bodies on the Coronavirus, or otherwise undermine people’s trust in the advice of mainstream sources of information about the disease"" And your point is? | |||
| |||
"ah well i tried but its true what they say 'you cant educate pork' Try again. The Ofcom 'guidance' isn't very long and is written very clearly True 'Consistent with the right to freedom of expression, broadcasters have the editorial freedom to analyse, discuss and challenge issues relating to the coronavirus. If broadcasters include potentially harmful material in their programming, they must ensure they provide adequate protection for the audience from such material.' What do you think 'adequate protection for the audience from such material' refers to? And further on in the guidance: 'must not undermine public support' for the official narrative? That is saying a 'journalist' can mention other viewpoints...but only as a means of discrediting them. How else can you interpret it? You need to properly understand how 'adequate protection' works and what it means. At it's simplest it means that the Broadcaster has to point out the balance to a controversial item by issuing a warning to the public 'during the broadcast' that the item is widely held to be untrue or unfound or unsupported by data or research etc etc etc. Note all the Trump news items that were provisioned with 'viewer caution' announcements before the news item was read. For example. This has always been done with every news item that contains widely discredited data/research etc. Broadcast media have a much harsher set of rules - or to put it another way - higher standards than print media (and they have had since the last update of the legislation). Broadcasters ongoing will simply drop items that have been widely reported as being widely untrue. That just makes sense. But it doesn't mean that they are hiding it or being forced to hide it. " But how do you know that they're not just saying something is 'discredited' when they simply don't want people to be aware of something. You'd have to be very naive to believe that governments and other vested interests don't tell lies! Far best to have free flow of information. Free debate. Let some daylight in. The BBC/Ofcom clearly are afraid to face open debate. Why? | |||
Someone will come along soon to say that hitler and the natzies are still alive and hiding in the moon
| |||
"Just imagine the mess if they let every flat earth earther Covid conspiracist on tv
Someone will come along soon to say that hitler and the natzies are still alive and hiding in the moon
"You over-simplify. Broadcast journalists are not even allowed to question the official line on the origin of coronavirus | |||
"Just imagine the mess if they let every flat earth earther Covid conspiracist on tv
Someone will come along soon to say that hitler and the natzies are still alive and hiding in the moon
"Be careful, I suggested this and my thread was removed by admin. | |||
"Just imagine the mess if they let every flat earth earther Covid conspiracist on tv
Someone will come along soon to say that hitler and the natzies are still alive and hiding in the moon
You over-simplify.
Broadcast journalists are not even allowed to question the official line on the origin of coronavirus"Still peddling this misinformation | |||
"Just imagine the mess if they let every flat earth earther Covid conspiracist on tv
Someone will come along soon to say that hitler and the natzies are still alive and hiding in the moon
You over-simplify.
Broadcast journalists are not even allowed to question the official line on the origin of coronavirus"what is the official line ? | |||
"Just imagine the mess if they let every flat earth earther Covid conspiracist on tv
Someone will come along soon to say that hitler and the natzies are still alive and hiding in the moon
You over-simplify.
Broadcast journalists are not even allowed to question the official line on the origin of coronavirus"I commend you for bringing our attention to the fact that the broadcast media can question anything as long as they identify the evidence around each discussion. I am also pleased that you have made it clear that they can question any policy as long as it is done so in a responsible manner. It is also great that you have identified that they can choose not to report subjects that have already been covered and are no longer relevant. Every item that you have complained about has been covered, in depth. Can you explain what has not been covered? You can search any of the UK broadcast websites for programming on them. There is nothing to discuss that had not already been identified as conjecture, fraud or lies. | |||
| |||
| |||
" But how do you know that they're not just saying something is 'discredited' when they simply don't want people to be aware of something. You'd have to be very naive to believe that governments and other vested interests don't tell lies! Far best to have free flow of information. Free debate. Let some daylight in. The BBC/Ofcom clearly are afraid to face open debate. Why?" Because I don't subscribe to this mass hysteria of everything is a conspiracy for one. It doesn't seem to matter what 'proofs' people provide for you, it seems that you are never going to listen to anything but your own self-perpetuating conspiracy theory. You just write it off with 'but how do you know'. | |||
| |||
