GB News collaboration with the Trump organisation- Do you think it undermines British democracy with mis information?

Agree with Foxie48 at 8.00 and David49 10.04.

"What I dislike is people taking a biased and distorted opinion from the media and presenting it as factual, accurate and unbiased when it's not".

That is the INTENT of some media outlets I would suggest. That often seems to play out on N and P posts. Some post their biased and distorted opinions but are not always open to considering alternative posts where views informed more by facts and evidence are shared. Confirmation bias and defence or pejorative comments rather than facts can then take over.

In my view GB news, which performs the lowest of UK news outlets on bias and factual reporting metrics, plays into this dynamic and often overtly seek to be politically manipulative, often using entertainment to draw viewers in.

The Trump government has decimated federal funding to US public broadcasters such that they are now on the point of collapse. This was Trump's overt goal, intentional and politically manipulative. The growing relationship between GB news and the Trump administration, in my view is also intentional and politically manipulative. Hence the original post.

I like watching Isabel Oakeshot. Deeply fascinating and strange that she actually seems to live in Dubai. Also that ex cop ( don’t know his name) with the London accent. Very, very entertaining. Wonder what their motivation is sometimes. Not positive about anything, the original whinging poms.

Not positive about anything, the original whinging poms.

Oi! 😲
Not that I like her

Someone asked upthread, what would the BBC be called. Well, it's British, it's a corporation, and it broadcasts.
BBC.
Hope this helps.

If only Starmer had come into power being sunny and positive about the UK it would have lifted the mood of the nation.
Then followed it by not doing all the things he has been doing, him and Reeves that is.
How can a government be so unpopular a year and a half later?
Even the Conservatives are now higher in the polls.

Because they are inept.

Maremia

Someone asked upthread, what would the BBC be called. Well, it's British, it's a corporation, and it broadcasts.
BBC.
Hope this helps.

Yes, I explained it as well 😁

Even the Conservatives are now higher in the polls.
😲 well, that's quite an achievement in such a short time to come below the Conservatives!

Allira

^Even the Conservatives are now higher in the polls.^
😲 well, that's quite an achievement in such a short time to come below the Conservatives!

And that numpty, Starmer, is apparently telling his MPs to ignore the polls.

This article from yesterday's Guardian is on a completely different (though related, I feel) topic. A PhD researcher in Belgium found that MPs do ignore polls, being more influenced in gauging public feelings by media reporting/opinion.

She was looking at the the difference between polling results and MPs' perception of public opinion on the issue of Green policies in the UK and in Belgium. Polling results showed far more support for such policies than the MPs believed that there was.

www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/05/mps-underestimate-support-green-policies-study

That's interesting.

I do think people are concerned and interested in sensible policies.
However, it's the policies which alarm people which seem to attract the publicity such as the ones covering thousands of acres of agricultural land. There must be alternative sites or sensible propositions.
We cannot rely too heavily on imported food.

Allira

That's interesting.

I do think people are concerned and interested in sensible policies.
However, it's the policies which alarm people which seem to attract the publicity such as the ones covering thousands of acres of agricultural land. There must be alternative sites or sensible propositions.
We cannot rely too heavily on imported food.

They do build on industrial sites and airfields but few suitable sites are available, in addition many new industrial and commercial sites are also being built on farmland. If we need more houses most are going to be built on farmland.

Roofs.

The judgements on the extent of bias in the media will depend on the bias of the person making the judgement.

David49

Allira

That's interesting.

I do think people are concerned and interested in sensible policies.
However, it's the policies which alarm people which seem to attract the publicity such as the ones covering thousands of acres of agricultural land. There must be alternative sites or sensible propositions.
We cannot rely too heavily on imported food.

They do build on industrial sites and airfields but few suitable sites are available, in addition many new industrial and commercial sites are also being built on farmland. If we need more houses most are going to be built on farmland.

Living in a largish city, we are definitely building on every brownfield site possible first as it makes sense in every way - ie access to roads and facilities.
But if there is absolutely no option except some farmland, we dont have a choice To me, its not whether but making "best choices".

And sometimes that means offending NIMBY's often "entitled" ones who bought their house for a "view" and don't want to let anyone else enjoy the location. It happen far less up north where I live - people aren't as "precious" about it, and people need houses I have a suburban back garden as do the other houses and its a happy place to live -people (not here! a general observation) need to let go of selfish attitudes.

Unless we demolish existing properties and build high rise and expect people to accept that? But we cannot expect that. Young people coming into the market may want to live where they feel safe and there is room to bring a family into the world at ground level!

Nothing to do with nimbyism, more to do with taking ver productive farmland, producing less of our own food and relying on imported food which is a dubious prospect in an uncertain world. As well as housing, industrial and commercial buildings, the infrastructure for these is also needed although that is something some planners and governments seem unable to grasp.

Roofs - existing roofs.

Allira

Nothing to do with nimbyism, more to do with taking ver productive farmland, producing less of our own food and relying on imported food which is a dubious prospect in an uncertain world. As well as housing, industrial and commercial buildings, the infrastructure for these is also needed although that is something some planners and governments seem unable to grasp.

Roofs - existing roofs.

Exactly this! The government cannot build houses fast enough to cope with the ever growing population - an extra 75,000 in 2024. It is very short sighted to just build on our farmland, all these extra people will also need to be fed,

I do think there are things that can be done to reduce objections. As an example 400 houses are being built on farmland which is to the rear of my house across a road. People objected I didn't but I did put in a reply to say if the road needs to be changed it should be their side of the road rather than ours as we are here and they aren't yet so could easily be done. What happened? Well they got the planning permission then road improvements proposed which meant a row of mature trees which were at the rear of mine and neighbours houses. So a beautiful row of mature trees was felled, I have no issues with the houses, we need houses, I love the fact that these new houses mean we now have a nearby frequent bus service. I am so sad about the trees, they could have made the changes to the opposite side of the road just as easily and saved our trees.

sundowngirl

Allira

Nothing to do with nimbyism, more to do with taking ver productive farmland, producing less of our own food and relying on imported food which is a dubious prospect in an uncertain world. As well as housing, industrial and commercial buildings, the infrastructure for these is also needed although that is something some planners and governments seem unable to grasp.

Roofs - existing roofs.

Exactly this! The government cannot build houses fast enough to cope with the ever growing population - an extra 75,000 in 2024. It is very short sighted to just build on our farmland, all these extra people will also need to be fed,

It is very short sighted to just build on our farmland, all these extra people will also need to be fed

I don't think that has occurred to the powers-that-be, sundowngirl

Food! It arrives ready packaged on supermarket shelves as if by magic.
Jobs, schools, hospitals, roads, bridges etc will be needed too - the existing infrastructure just will not cope.

Rather a rant; did not intend to post until checked.

And sometimes that means offending NIMBY's often "entitled" ones who bought their house for a "view" and don't want to let anyone else enjoy the location. It happen far less up north where I live - people aren't as "precious" about it, and people need houses I have a suburban back garden as do the other houses and its a happy place to live -people (not here! a general observation) need to let go of selfish attitudes.

NIMBYISM, is much talked about but actually occurs very little. It is an excuse used by bureaucriats and builders when it suits them.

I have just moved from a village in Oxfordshire. A county told to increase its housing stock by a third in 15 years. Classic NIMBY territory one would think. In fact hundreds of acres of land were zoned for housing, with very little complaint. When objections were made it was usually for very practical reasons, either overdevelopment of a small site, or ignoring Village Local Plans that the Local Authority insisted needed to be produced. In our village we listed six sites that could take all the extra houses we were allocated. There was one site suggested by the council that we advised against on grounds of access, so that site was the first one to get planning permission - and all the expected access problems ensued. Nobody's view was affected by this development. But a small close of council houses became a through route initially for 90 extra homes, although in the end they managed to spread the access over three different routes

Nimyism 🤔

Or people who are genuinely worried about current proposals?

Natural England, the government’s natural environment adviser, has said that the UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, with nearly one in six species threatened with extinction. Natural History Museum scientists have concluded that only around half of the UK’s natural biodiversity remains intact.
commonslibrary.parliament.uk/biodiversity-loss-uk-international-obligations/

There are international goals, but it sees that, whatever these goals are, Governments, including ours, are determined to override them.

There was one site suggested by the council that we advised against on grounds of access, so that site was the first one to get planning permission - and all the expected access problems ensued.

That sounds typical!

I live in a middle class village in the North East, I would say every single planning application for new houses is objected to by vocal figures in the village, oh and solar farms as well, it is amazing to watch to be honest.

When I objected the road changes because of the approved housing development I was repeatedly told that I was obviously upset about the loss of view. It seemed hard for planners to understand that because of the row of large trees we had no view. We briefly saw the view when the trees were felled before the house building started.

I still feel upset about those trees and the birds who have all gone, the shade they gave in hot weather and the shelter from high winds. The road changes could have been on the side where the development was planned. I will never understand why it didn't happen.

Nimbyism is alive and well here, I don’t normally get involved in local politics, other than being nice to councillors but I did go to one meeting focused on a new road plan.
The consensus was, yes, we need a road as long as it doesn’t come any where near us. The same with new housing, not in our back yard, it happens to be the wealthiest part of town they have all done their extensions, nothing else must change.