BBC bias

"High standards of etiquette Mair - this is an Internet forum not the vicarage tea party"

Yet with some who feign the sensitive nature of vicarage prudes - when it suits.

Sarah Sands has been named as the new editor of Radio 4' s Today programme. Yet another conservative appointed to a key political role in the BBC. She has said that she is not "idealogical" and so we hope that she will remember the BBC's guidelines on political impartiality.

www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/30/sarah-sands-named-editor-bbc-radio-4-today-programme-evening-standard

High standards of etiquette Mair - this is an Internet forum not the vicarage tea party.

I agree Varian that Laura Kuenssberg's questioning of Trump shows no right-wing bias in the BBC, though as their Political Editor she has been accused of that in the past, this proving the point made earlier.

I had to smile when the PM invited her question! Theresa May was being very mischievous as she knows just how uncompromising Ms Kuenssberg is!

mair In the absence of you supplying me with names/information re globalist.

I've looked at the "Globalists Agenda" site.

You can't be serious you can't possibly believe that rubbish.

still no names though. You never know mair we might be forced to eat our words.

Not your most thoughtful contributions ladies
Nor upholding high standards of etiquette.

Name someone who is your view a globalist and it may be easier to understand what you are trying to say.

mair what tripe

unstubstantiated rubbish

It is neoliberals, advocating unrestricted international capitalism, not liberals advocating fairness, human rights and co-operation, who might be classed as globalists

A carefully chosen selection from the liberal pantheon which also includes advocacy of supra national governance, weakening of borders and rights appertaining to citizenship to be replaced by the notion of EU and world citizenship.

It is neoliberals, advocating unrestricted international capitalism, not liberals advocating fairness, human rights and co-operation, who might be classed as globalists.

Trump buying cheap steel from China whilst US steelworkers are unemployed is a globalist. It will be interesting to see how well he and his family live up to the "America First" rhetoric.

I hope that his illiberal tendency to censor the American media is resisted. CNN, the Washington Post, New York Times, etc do a good job, but although it's far from perfect, I'm glad we've got the BBC.

"That does not make Liberals "globalists"

I did not say 'Liberalism'as a philosophy is synonymous with 'Globalism', what I said was that Globalists like to self describe as 'liberals', when the reality is that many in the globalist tendency are extremely intolerant of opposing views, anti free speech and anti democratic. Some of them are actually International Marxists.

Actually the divide between the far right free marketeers and the leftists Globalists is not as great as you may think.

globalist
noun [ C ] UK ​ /ˈɡləʊ.bəl.ɪst/ US ​ /ˈɡloʊ.bəl.ɪst/
​
someone who believes that economic and foreign policy should be planned in an international way, rather than according to what is best for one particular country :

He is a globalist, whereas we are nationalists who will put our country first.

So am I Maizie but I'm sure someone will be along to tell us soon.

Varian

I'm still utterly bemused as to what a "pro EU mass immigration globalist" actually is.

Also, what that all purpose word 'elite' means.

Perhaps another reason many people don't post on these threads is that they really don't know what is being talked about half the time.

To get back to the discussion about BBC bias, I was pleased to see that Nuttall's invitation to appear on this week's Any Questions was withdrawn as he is a candidate in the Stoke by election.

I was also pleased that Laura Kuenssberg was not afraid to ask Trump some probing questions when he appeared with Theresa May, and has been widely praised in the US, at least by the "liberal" media.

What a pity Mair that in the middle of telling us how you want to improve good manners on GN, you could not resist having a sideswipe at Liberals(never was a word mor improperly applied, according to you)

Liberal ideas are based on freedom and equality and are advocated by the Liberal Democrats who champion human rights, freedom of speech and religion, open, tolerant and fair democratic societies and international co-operation. That does not make Liberals "globalists"

Liberalism should not be confused with Neoliberalism which is an ultra-right wing economic theory promoting unfettered capitalism.

Nor should it be confused with the use of the word "Liberal" by self-described "Conservatives" in America to insultingly describe just about anyone to the left of the KKK. This entry in "conservapedia" is an object lesson in alternative facts.

www.conservapedia.com/Liberal

I am not a "pro EU mass immigration globalist"

I did not say you were, Varian. Why so defensive?

It should be possible to discuss politics on GN without name calling

I agree, and without patronising suggestions that posters are simply parroting terms "coined by the right wing press". I have been using that descriptive for a very long time Varian long before the term 'globalist' became common parlance, and when the press were all still using your preferred choice of self description, "progressives" or even "liberals" (never was a word more improperly applied!) However I would add that ''globalist' is no more "perjorative" than the term 'nationalist', and 'pro mass immigration' is a statement of fact, comparable to 'anti mass immigration', again NOT "perjorative".

If youre keen to improve the etiquette of GNs debate Varian, and I am with you on that, then you need to be as sharply self critical, and critical of some very belligerent and aggressive postings that come from a few GNetters whose views you share, as you are towards those of us who challenge them.

To Good Manners!

I am not a "pro EU mass immigration globalist" any more than I am part of the "metropolotan liberal elite" or the "hard left"

These are perjorative terms coined by the right wing press for their readers to throw at anyone who disagrees with their agenda. It should be possible to discuss politics on GN without name calling.

The point was that the influence of the EU on British life was positive, and the BBC did not get that message across

LOL Varian thats your opinion, not an objective fact.

The truth is it has some positive and some negative effects. The majority of British voters consider the negatives outweigh the positives.

The BBC managed to provide reasonably balanced coverage of the referendum which was probably not what the pro EU pro mass immigration globalists perhaps expected, knowing the BBC to be normally heavilly biased in their favour.

Like it or not Varian it was not the job of the BBC to act as a pro EU propaganda machine.
.

Varian: I think the point being made by the Lib Dems [and me] was that the influence of the EU on the UK was significant in 2005, and would become more so. Hence, Lib Dems argued EU affairs needed wider BBC coverage.

EU influence has become greater although less than the Lib Dems would have liked since they were still urging Tony Blair to join the eurozone in 2005.

My point was made because, since I have been on Gransnet, several contributors have been at pains to tell me that EU influence on laws, rules and regulations is not large; and accordingly, how little sovereignty has been lost.

It is interesting that the Panel in 2005 made reference to the need for BBC impartiality in a future Referendum on the EU Constitution. Presumably that one went into the 'too difficult' pile.

Laura K asked the Donald some fairly tough questions yesterday. Opinions in the US were split of course. Some saw her as rude and others were delighted that British reporters asked tough questions.

I have complained about bias on the BBC. It was about a One Show report on the (then) proposed drivers strike on Southern Rail. The report showed clips from theTUC conference and tried to make out that the strike was part of a policy to bring down the government. Although they gave some of the facts they failed to give the most practical side of the driver's case. i.e. that the route has some long curved platforms that can't be viewed properly by the driver. Definitely not left-wing bias.

The point was that the influence of the EU on British life was positive, and the BBC did not get that message across.