Moff
Well-Known Member
Well instead of being a keyboard warrior on a forum, what have you done about addressing this with the BBC and Mirror?
Have you written to the Director General or perhaps the Chief Exec....or not?
You can blindly accept it but not me. Local radio and papers should not be the puppets of a hedge fund from London, particularly not going along with their propaganda.
They should get the facts for their customers.
Cwr Currently saying that the site at Hawkesbury looks like the new CCFC site and all but saying it has been confirmed by Nuneaton Council. Talk about getting some scratchings and turning it into a story. Follows on from the CET front page this morning.
Surely they should be doing some investigative journalism instead of feeding themselves off the carcass of CCFC fans feelings where we are scratting for information. Get into SISU ACL and CCC to find out what's going on you vultures.
Cwr Currently saying that the site at Hawkesbury looks like the new CCFC site and all but saying it has been confirmed by Nuneaton Council. Talk about getting some scratchings and turning it into a story. Follows on from the CET front page this morning.
Surely they should be doing some investigative journalism instead of feeding themselves off the carcass of CCFC fans feelings where we are scratting for information. Get into SISU ACL and CCC to find out what's going on you vultures.
14:00 Friday. Yet again a CWR story matching together 2 separate pieces of information.
"Nuneaton Council confirm they have had an enquiry about a plot of land in Hawkesbury" .......... or there abouts.
Do your job and investigate it properly instead of giving out misinformation. :facepalm:
Are you saying that neither of them have an opinion on the subject?
You mean like when the left wing BBC are reporting on politics,The most biased organisation on the planet.
You can blindly accept it but not me. Local radio and papers should not be the puppets of a hedge fund from London, particularly not going along with their propaganda.
They should get the facts for their customers.
I imagine CWR and the CT don't have the budgets to do that kind of investigative journalism. But in any case, what kind of facts are you after?
The facts he's made up in his head probably.
Mark Thompson ex Director General of the BBC is on public record as admitting a bias, or you could try Jane Garvey of BBC 5 live comments ,or Peter Sissons ex BBC News 24 views of BBC bias, Andrew Marr's BBC political journalist admission of a cultural liberal bias.All funded by a compulsory license fee.Memo to Fox News: must try harder.
Could you go to the BBC website, pick through any of their political reporters' stories or blogs, and point out an example of bias, please?
You mean like when the left wing BBC are reporting on politics,The most biased organisation on the planet.
Are they any different from the ones In Fishers and Labovitch's heads.
Mark Thompson ex Director General of the BBC is on public record as admitting a bias, or you could try Jane Garvey of BBC 5 live comments ,or Peter Sissons ex BBC News 24 views of BBC bias, Andrew Marr's BBC political journalist admission of a cultural liberal bias.All funded by a compulsory license fee.
Mark Thompson ex Director General of the BBC is on public record as admitting a bias, or you could try Jane Garvey of BBC 5 live comments ,or Peter Sissons ex BBC News 24 views of BBC bias, Andrew Marr's BBC political journalist admission of a cultural liberal bias.All funded by a compulsory license fee.
With Nick Robinson that foaming leftie as the Politics Editor it's no surprise.
I imagine CWR and the CT don't have the budgets to do that kind of investigative journalism. But in any case, what kind of facts are you after?
The difference between buying Conservative newspapers like the Daily Telegraph/Mail and left of centre newspapers like the Guardian/Mirror or even subscribing to Sky is they are voluntary choices , but if you own a TV you have to pay for the BBC whether you wish too or not.Long may it continue, because the alternative, Murdoch funded Sky News is much better.
it took 5 minutes on google for someone to find 2 links then post them on here to the site that the CET keep refering too as the posssible site for the new stadium and how its been overturned twice by central goverment for housing as its green belt despite being approved locally. 2 articles now in the CET and unless i've missed it neither have any mention on this.
now when you talk about budgets for investigative journalism are you seriously suggesting that the CET neither have the budget for internet access or to pay someone for 5 minutes to use it. hell, if thats the case Simon Gilbert is welcolm to pop round mine and use our internet for free in the interest of a balanced article stating ALL the facts connected to the site he's been speculating on. if there that hard up he can even stay for dinner.
The difference between buying Conservative newspapers like the Daily Telegraph/Mail and left of centre newspapers like the Guardian/Mirror or even subscribing to Sky is they are voluntary choices , but if you own a TV you have to pay for the BBC whether you wish too or not.
and Old Etonian and Cameron contemporary James Landale as his deputy. Or former Murdoch editor/climate change denier/Spectator chairman Andrew Neil, heading up much of the BBC's political coverage. All having The Internationale as their ringtones, I'm sure.
The internet is merely one part of investigative journalism. If it were all that was needed, then the conspiracy theorists on this forum would have dug up all that was needed to know by now. As things stand, there still isn't a photo of Joy Seppala's face.
Kind of the point i was making(though spectatcularly missed!), former Chairman of The Young Conservatives at Oxford I believe.
so you're saying Simon Gilbert is guilty of lazy journalism as he cant even be bothered to turn his computer on and get all the facts that concern the site he has continued to speculate on over the last 2 days?
or is it a case of dont let the truth get in the way of a good story?
I didn't say that, indeed a lot of what the BBC does is good and entertaining. However how can you just dismiss the frank admission of its ex Director General of bias, he was at the very top of the organisation. Jane Garvey has worked for the BBC for years, and her words not mine ,that her abiding memory of May2nd 1997 was that the corridors of BBC tv studios were awash with empty bottles of champagne. Or the near six figure sum the BBC spent of license payer's money fighting a FOI request on who attended a BBC conference on Global warming.I assume you don't consume any of the BBC's output then?
Um, I believe you are the one saying that.
If you are insinuating that the Coventry Telegraph is a weak newspaper, then you will get no disagreement from me. All I am saying is that it is silly to expect the CT to do serious investigative journalism when many broadsheets and TV news networks have pared that to the bone. It's also questionable whether SISU are worth investigating. What are the hot leads that justify using up the paper's limited budget?
I didn't say that, indeed a lot of what the BBC does is good and entertaining. However how can you just dismiss the frank admission of its ex Director General of bias, he was at the very top of the organisation.
I didn't say that, indeed a lot of what the BBC does is good and entertaining. However how can you just dismiss the frank admission of its ex Director General of bias, he was at the very top of the organisation. Jane Garvey has worked for the BBC for years, and her words not mine ,that her abiding memory of May2nd 1997 was that the corridors of BBC tv studios were awash with empty bottles of champagne. Or the near six figure sum the BBC spent of license payer's money fighting a FOI request on who attended a BBC conference on Global warming.
I don't think anyone is expecting expensive investigative journalism from a local paper, it however is not to much to expect that they spend a couple of hours on the phone/internet researching/investigating per article, not to much to expect that when someone feeds them spin for them to challenge it rather than happily print it without comment and not to much to expect for them to make their articles reflect the truth.
If you arn't very knowledgeable in what is happening reading the last couple of articles would leave you believing the new stadium is much more than likely to happen than before, that sisu are being honest and that the location they mentioned is reasonably likely, however the truth is the last few days has actually shown more than ever that there is no stadium, that sisu continue to lie to us (lies happily printed by the cet without challenge) and even if sisu were really building one that the location the cet mentioned is certainly not the right one.
I don't think they are puppets, im sure they are just trying to sell papers, but in terms of informing their readers of what is actually happening and getting to the truth they are very very poor and we've been greatly let down by them.
Still better than the Daily Mail though of course.
Well instead of being a keyboard warrior on a forum, what have you done about addressing this with the BBC and Mirror?
Have you written to the Director General or perhaps the Chief Exec....or not?
Have you ever thought that perhaps it's a new story? Maybe it isn't the story you were reading about yesterday (where the site wasn't even mentioned)?
I have complained to CWR.
Isn't a keyboard warrior someone who critisises someone on the forum for saying something because no one knows them.
A bit like yourself ?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?