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

Wyllow3

nanna8

Rudeness is not becoming.

It's probably better to give reasonable references and backing for claims made late at night UK time, when waking up and sounding off on number of threads.

The brusque nature of your comments get replied to in kind - quite straightforward.

I think your comments to nanna8 are very rude and dismissive.

Wyllow3

nanna8

Rudeness is not becoming.

It's probably better to give reasonable references and backing for claims made late at night UK time, when waking up and sounding off on number of threads.

The brusque nature of your comments get replied to in kind - quite straightforward.

When and how was nanna8 rude?

sounding off
The brusque nature of your comments
🤔
In fact, your post to nanna8 is really rather rude.

This is a chat forum, posters can pass comment without having to research and provide references and verification for their comments.

Wyllow3

nanna8

Rudeness is not becoming.

It's probably better to give reasonable references and backing for claims made late at night UK time, when waking up and sounding off on number of threads.

The brusque nature of your comments get replied to in kind - quite straightforward.

I don't think that nanna8 was being rude. She made a valid comment. The rudeness was in the response.

theworriedwell

So Trumps suing the BBC for fake news about him. Can we sue him for blatant lies about us,?

Good idea!

So Trumps suing the BBC for fake news about him. Can we sue him for blatant lies about us,?

nanna8

Rudeness is not becoming.

It's probably better to give reasonable references and backing for claims made late at night UK time, when waking up and sounding off on number of threads.

The brusque nature of your comments get replied to in kind - quite straightforward.

I have watched GB news and Jim Davidson and Katie Hopkins. If I really want to depress myself, I read some of the numerous supportive comments that appear below.

I am what Trump calls RLWS so, of course I am biased but I find the reporting and comments of the above rely too heavily on pre-conceived ideas and opinions that they bend the narrative to fit. They never let facts get in the way of a good lefty bashing story.

How Trump is still believed, respected and liked by anybody is a complete mystery to me after all the bonkers things he has said and done.

It is high time, in my opinion, that GB News should be investigated on the grounds that a lot of their output is not properly researched, unbiased news.

Rudeness is not becoming.

DaisyAnneReturns

MaizieD

Well. As they say up here in the NE, that's you told, nanna8

(Actually, what they really say is 'that's you tellt', but I wasn't sure if it was easy to translate...)

Given how dismissively you lecture others over MMT, a minority economic view, this comment is hard to take seriously.

😂

Well said MOnica. Why make it worse?

Crikey everyone is feisty today.

MaizieD

Well. As they say up here in the NE, that's you told, nanna8

(Actually, what they really say is 'that's you tellt', but I wasn't sure if it was easy to translate...)

Given how dismissively you lecture others over MMT, a minority economic view, this comment is hard to take seriously.

nanna8

If you listened to GB news to the exclusion of any other source you would think the UK is on its knees and ready for a civil war. There is a need for balance of course but really ! Sadly it looks like the beloved BBC is not to be trusted ,either, at the other end of the scale.

😁 Pay attention at the back nanna8.

Thank goodness I don't watch it!
Reading about it on here from those who says how terrible it is, although they themselves never watch it, is bad enough.

It doesn't matter whether climatte change is man-made or natural, either way the last thing we need to be doing is anything that makes it worse. You do not try to put out a fire by pouring petrol on it.

Whitewavemark2

David49

DaisyAnneReturns

The GB News example shows the difference between evidence-based criticism and suspicion-based reasoning. In this case, there are identifiable statements, a broadcast record, and a regulator assessing whether journalistic standards were met.

That’s very different from claiming that an organisation like the BBC routinely edits context without offering specific examples and then suggesting the real evidence is hidden. One is accountable to evidence; the other relies on suspicion

There is plenty of suspicion based reasoning on mainstream media, the whole man made climate debate is suspicion based, nothing is proven fact.

Blimey - we have our very own GN flat-earther😀😀😀😃

Climate change is fact, it’s happening, whether we can do anything about it is speculation, most governments accept that it’s man made but it isn’t proved it’s just consensus. Global emissions are still increasing, the UK we are not serious about climate change, we just import more instead of manufacturing more here, and call that “net gain”

The planet has been through many warm and cold periods in the past

Well. As they say up here in the NE, that's you told, nanna8

(Actually, what they really say is 'that's you tellt', but I wasn't sure if it was easy to translate...)

nanna8

If you listened to GB news to the exclusion of any other source you would think the UK is on its knees and ready for a civil war. There is a need for balance of course but really ! Sadly it looks like the beloved BBC is not to be trusted ,either, at the other end of the scale.

Saying "GB News makes it sound like civil war is coming" is an observation about tone. Saying ‘the BBC cannot be trusted’ is a claim about reliability.

If the sentence said something like, "I feel the BBC may also be untrustworthy,’ then it stays suspicion-based and consistent. You make it clear you are offering opinion not fact. Tone can raise suspicion, but reliability requires evidence. Once it says ‘is not to be trusted’, it reads as a settled, fact-based judgement, without the supporting facts.

It’s like saying, "That restaurant felt unfriendly, so it’s unsafe to eat there. The feeling might be valid, but ‘unsafe’ needs evidence, e.g., inspections, illness reports, something concrete.

simple his is a lair
everything that comes out his mouth

David49

DaisyAnneReturns

The GB News example shows the difference between evidence-based criticism and suspicion-based reasoning. In this case, there are identifiable statements, a broadcast record, and a regulator assessing whether journalistic standards were met.

That’s very different from claiming that an organisation like the BBC routinely edits context without offering specific examples and then suggesting the real evidence is hidden. One is accountable to evidence; the other relies on suspicion

There is plenty of suspicion based reasoning on mainstream media, the whole man made climate debate is suspicion based, nothing is proven fact.

Blimey - we have our very own GN flat-earther😀😀😀😃

David49

DaisyAnneReturns

The GB News example shows the difference between evidence-based criticism and suspicion-based reasoning. In this case, there are identifiable statements, a broadcast record, and a regulator assessing whether journalistic standards were met.

That’s very different from claiming that an organisation like the BBC routinely edits context without offering specific examples and then suggesting the real evidence is hidden. One is accountable to evidence; the other relies on suspicion

There is plenty of suspicion based reasoning on mainstream media, the whole man made climate debate is suspicion based, nothing is proven fact.

Suspicion thrives when it isn’t required to justify itself. If we required the same evidentiary standard from sceptical claims as we do from scientific ones, many of these arguments would quickly collapse.

Maremia

If GB claims to he a news channel, as it seems to, by having 'News' in the title then its programmes should be scrutinised for factual content.

It’s not as straightforward as that. Ofcomm had its fingers badly burned early in 2025 when two of its decisions on GBNews breaches were overturned by judicial review. The judgement hinged on whether the programmes which had been sanctioned were ‘news’ or ‘current affairs’. The standards to which ‘news’ items are held are more stringent with regard to accuracy and impartiality than are those for current affairs programmes.

The judicial review resulted in Ofcomm dropping other investigations.

Whether or not it takes action over the Trump interview seems to depend on the category into which it falls.

No. But Labour is! It looks like the second year running I will be denied my vote in May.

If you listened to GB news to the exclusion of any other source you would think the UK is on its knees and ready for a civil war. There is a need for balance of course but really ! Sadly it looks like the beloved BBC is not to be trusted ,either, at the other end of the scale.

If GB claims to he a news channel, as it seems to, by having 'News' in the title then its programmes should be scrutinised for factual content.

To answer the question set, yes, I think that it does.