-
-
Latest Discussions
-
I would prefer “intolerant of nonsense, outspoken and direct” and I definitely try to avoid “bullying” Am I above personal insults and name-calling? Hmmm. On balance I think I receive more than I give -
But I have never, once mentioned the storming of the capital, or said Trump is in any way not morally reprehensible. You put all those words into my mouth. For me, this isn't about Trump - they could have made that edit about Gaddafi, or Hussein, or Johnson... it doesn't matter. What matters is that the producers' unconscious bias affected their editorial decision-making.. That is the only point I have ever made on this thread. It was you who decided that I'm a raving Trump supporter. -
Don't be ridiculous, he's not a troll! But he is proving himself to be a bully, who's incapable of debating without resorting to angry outbursts, personal insults and name-calling.
-
I still say “morally reprehensible” is too extreme unless you are talking about Trump. And what he did that day. And what the outcome was. And him pardoning the criminals that is clearly morally reprehensible and in no way comparable to the bbc edit Ow if you want to say all edits like that should be better flagged to a viewer, if you want to compare the edit to the outcome, if you want to talk about better workflows to prevent in future. Sure. Why not. but it’s pretty repugnant to call that edit morally reprehensible in light of events and not call that monster out? Nah the bbc, us, the uk, all of us will lose if we play by rules that monsters like trump pay no heed to. “Go low go high” is aspirationally sound. But the BBC Is not the net loser on balance here even if you don’t like what they did when the BBC is disbanded it don’t be beside of decisions like this. It will be because people side with Trump, Dacre and the rest
-
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.