I didn't make any argument that "the BBC are fair and impartial". I didn't say "the BBC can do no wrong". I implied that your assertions that "They are given a narrative to follow and are effectively told which side to take. They are also told which news stories can and can't be mentioned on air." were somewhat far fetched and questioned where this "narrative" came from and asked where you got this from. As ever arguing with the self appointed enlightened, there's no answer as such but a lot of hyperbole from you, in effect arguing against points which have not been made. but this in turn consolidates the self appointed position of 'truth seeker' or some similar guff. You cite two examples; QT and Panorama. To project these onto the entire output is creative not credible and certainly doesn't establish your imposed narrative theoryThis quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
"Blatant facts" is arguable. Heck, "facts" is arguable in this context.
There are more news sources than ever before and people look for something which they feel chimes with their views regardless of esoteric said views are. Some are indeed crazy conspiracy nuts, most are not. You however may well be. I note on another thread that you are suggesting that a meteor may be heading for the earth and it's being hushed up or at least is capable of being kept quiet. Wow. That has to be a parody surely?? Or....
Pure Dunning Kruger
Results 31 to 32 of 32
-
29-07-2019 10:00 AM #31
-
29-07-2019 12:12 PM #32This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Log in to remove the advert |
Bookmarks