"This was not challenged by the presenter despite the fact that it has never been proven that Ms Rowling has said anything transphobic in her career."
State-funded media, people.
:ukkk: :ukkk: :ukkk: :ukkk: :ukkk: :ukkk: :ukkk: :ukkk: :ukkk: :ukkk: :ukkk: :ukkk:
This is like saying someone's not right wing because they've never been caught seig heiling in full Nazi SS officer uniform.
Death to the BBC. :ukkk:
The NSW Liberal Party won't confirm whether Premier Dominic Perrottet told them about the Nazi costume during his preselection vetting process in 2010.
Scratch a you know the thing
-
Follow the link to declare you no longer need a license. https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/cs/no-licence-needed/about.app
-
Cancel your direct debit.
-
Defund the BBC. Don't fund pedophiles. The BBC knew it was covering for pedophiles for decades and did it anyway.
declaring you don't need a license doesn't stop the letters
but the letters are pointless anyway, in 10 years of just not paying my tv license, i have had a visit precisely once
i told him to piss off and he did :vivian-shrug:not sure if you're serious, but the UK rarely actually does anything (because doing something costs money), and this attitude extends throughout UK culture. There are no tracking vans, instead in accordance with the UK practice of saying they do something being equivalent to actually doing it, the BBC pretends there are tracking vans, which has the effect of making people scared and paying for the BBC licence racket.
the same approach is why 'nudge theory' is a thing, in fact a whole academic field in the UK. And why you can generally ignore solicitors. We have a lot of cctv but most of it isn't connected, monitored, or functional. The UK is basically run on empty rhetoric, which extends to almost every part of UK life. For example, they talk as if they have an army but don't actually have one.
This 100%, in practice the rules for how tv licencing is violated are incredibly dumb and impossible to "track" for. For example, if you don't pay for the TV licence, even if you don't have cable or a TV in your house, if you watch Youtube on your phone or tablet using the internet subscription you pay for, you can be violating the rules if you are watching something that is being broadcast on cable "at the same time" (this accounting for delayed feeds). So yes, you would need a TV licence if you have nothing but an internet subscription and watch SkyTV (which also broadcasts live on Youtube) on your phone.
Very theoretically, if your favourite streamer gets a live segment on a show one time, you are violating TV Licencing for watching them on Twitch that one time if you're not paying for it, etc.
the only way the UK will get those licensing fees is gonna be when they legalize bounty hunting for the BBC only
the only people willing to put that law on the books are in the process of cutting tv licencing away anyway so you know "issuing a correction on one of my previous posts" etc, etc
-
Libs be like 'CGTN is untrustworthy because its state funded' then list BBC as their top media outlet.
Our blessed homeland, their barbarous wastes is such a popular meme yet scarcely anyone seems to be able to internalize it.
Read another book. Watch another channel. Escape to another country.
Use the only good institution, the lifeboat service that even Peter Kropotkin raved about, to ferry the few good leftists out as refugees.
they can use that big bucket wheel germany has that the guy made the funny song about 20 years ago
Imagine getting your daily news only once ever two or three months after it's been exhaustively researched
Not proven? She tweets it daily ffs.
The BBC had no issues letting transphobes run their mouths unquestioned though.
it's an irritating turn of phrase, but they mean proven in a court of law. They say that because it's entirely possible for it to be proven in a court of law, since being trans is a protected characteristic. So there are potentially some contexts wherein it could be proven that something she said was transphobic.
well the BBC 'apologises' after the fact in order to avoid accusations of bias (going against its charter) and possible legal issues. They qualify with "never been proven" because they mean its never been to court.
the BBC is an institution of course, and agrees with the institutional attitude in the UK toward trans issues, which is informed by UK medical institutions. There are factions within the broader institution of the British state of course, including the anti-trans culture warriors, but they don't get to involve themselves in UK state policy towards trans issues beyond the media circus, unless they somehow infiltrate the UK medical institutions.
however, the BBC routinely acts like this - goes against its charter to promote something the state wants and then apologises after the fact. In this case, it 'cheated' in order to promote a particular view, and then did its usual covering apology, knowing that people won't pay attention to the apology but instead the initial claims made on the radio segment.
state funded media is actually good, or at least better than private interest funded media. Of course, since the UK state is bad, the BBC is also bad, at least in a general sense.
You shouldn't pay a TV licence in the UK because its an extra tax on propaganda by the ruling elites and because of the BBC's institutional paedophilia. But don't bother with their link to tell them you don't need to pay it, just don't pay it . They don't enforce it anyway beyond sending letters, and if they do turn up they can't check if you watch tv so its not like they can do anything about it.
i'm an ameroid and for quick, hard data about developing global events (the earthquake in turkey/syria), i often end up having to use the BBC to get at reporting. in this example, first 3 links from a search about the earthquake to yank media were all hard paywalled. and while i could use the archive site to get around it, i was on my phone and i just wanted to see the geography and see some current numbers quickly. but instead i get big modals obscuring the screen telling me to pay $4/month to some billionaire to prevent democracy from dying.
our public supported media (NPR/PBS) sometimes take a while to get it in gear and has problems, but fully agree that shitty state media has a lot more value than private bullshit.
it isn't quick, or at least not initially to find, but you can find many english language versions of various country's media, or sometimes use translation software to get a similar result.
like in the example of turkiye, you can look for a list of turkish media groups, papers, broadcasters and then see if they have a site in english language. Sabah does for example, so you can at least get an idea of what the interest groups behind that publication want you to know/think, as opposed to what the BBC wants you to know/think about Turkiye. Or in Iran, there's Tasnim news for example, and elsewhere Asia Times or Global Times and so on.
since most basic factual reporting comes from a given country's news agency (like reuters/AP for the anglos, TASS for Russia, Xinhua for China, IRNA for Iran and so on) and is then distributed into both public and private media groups, and then into individual publications, you can usually go to the source for a particular country for basic information like geography and numbers (as far as such things can be reliable). And then for capitalist/oligarchic countries, you can check various publications to see what a particular interest group in that country (or an international interest group like the Murdoch empire) is saying, or you can check publications aimed at different demographics in a given country.
obviously it takes some research initially to find, and ideally it's good to know who/what interests a particular media group is beholden to (their funders/owners), but you can bookmark sites once its all done. But yes state funded media is better/easier because it's much simpler to understand what interest is behind the publication without having to trace complicated corporate structures.
This is why linking to this dumpsterfire joke of a "news" org is banned on r/greenandpleasant
Did they ever apologize for platforming that rapist who published a genocidal manifesto directly calling for lynching prominent trans women, just to have her make shit up about how lesbians are pressured into liking trans women?
Or is that still going on with them insisting that everyone who complains is actually complaining about something entirely different and calling that different thing irrelevant?
Nope. Skull boy is still trying to get the bbc to own up to that one and they won't.
An always-relevant tweet because journalists will always be depraved as long as the west exists.
That is Qin Shihuang, famous legalist emperor that killed a lot of scholars (and unified China). If he ruled today, I have no doubt he would do the same to most journalists.
i thought that was he but i didnt recall him killing journalists so i wondered if an emperor was famous for that specifically lol
its a great post tho lmao
i thought that was he but i didnt recall him killing journalists
Exactly. Journalists didn't exist back then. Must have been bliss...
Considering the BBC's long history of not giving a shit about transphobia, this checks out.
:ukkk: :ukkk: :ukkk:
