CantGetIn post_id=70639 time= user_id=2338 Wrote:If that’s the case I am sure he looks very foolish now and will perhaps go. As long as we are talking about questionable support for Putin.
I see a lot of people say someone is pro Putin because they are saying he is taking actions that are outdoing the west and therefore he is more in control etc, and this highlights why the west needs to up its game. So this would be praise of Putin of sorts, but only to highlight failings by the west and need to improve. This is not pro Putin.
Pro Putin to me for example, is supporting him fully, ie “I agree with the invasion of Ukraine”, “I agree with every action he takes” etc. I have never seen that on Fox News. I have seen a lot of examples stated in the second paragraph above. Praise to highlight self failure.
FNC and its "anchors" "hosts" "reporters" have no shame, so they dont feel foolish about anything that they have to walk back or retract, if they ever rarely do that. Whatever continues to make their personalities millionaires they havent and dont care about, who they hurt or the literal damage and division they cause. THey make excuses and blame everyone else and deflect and none of the hosts hardly ever take any heat. They dont care. Its not journalism and should never be take seriously by anyone anywhere.
They lied about Seth Rich's parents and got sue and settled out of court and didnt feel bed about it and no one was take off air.
https://www.npr.org/2020/11/24/938545344...nton-leaks
Tucker Carlson had a white nationalist working as his head writer.
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/12/890030168...oted-posts
<r>"When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time" - Maya Angelou <E>8-)</E></r>
Mouseboy33 post_id=70645 time= user_id=1168 Wrote:CantGetIn post_id=70639 time= user_id=2338 Wrote:If that’s the case I am sure he looks very foolish now and will perhaps go. As long as we are talking about questionable support for Putin.
I see a lot of people say someone is pro Putin because they are saying he is taking actions that are outdoing the west and therefore he is more in control etc, and this highlights why the west needs to up its game. So this would be praise of Putin of sorts, but only to highlight failings by the west and need to improve. This is not pro Putin.
Pro Putin to me for example, is supporting him fully, ie “I agree with the invasion of Ukraine”, “I agree with every action he takes” etc. I have never seen that on Fox News. I have seen a lot of examples stated in the second paragraph above. Praise to highlight self failure.
FNC and its "anchors" "hosts" "reporters" have no shame, so they dont feel foolish about anything that they have to walk back or retract, if they ever rarely do that. Whatever continues to make their personalities millionaires they havent and dont care about, who they hurt or the literal damage and division they cause. THey make excuses and blame everyone else and deflect and none of the hosts hardly ever take any heat. They dont care. Its not journalism and should never be take seriously by anyone anywhere.
They lied about Seth Rich's parents and got sue and settled out of court and didnt feel bed about it and no one was take off air.
https://www.npr.org/2020/11/24/938545344...nton-leaks
Tucker Carlson had a white nationalist working as his head writer.
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/12/890030168...oted-posts
I am aware that Fox News has had issues, but even Sky and the BBC have had cases against them. My point is that they were never banned by Ofcom and thus cannot be compared to RT.
CantGetIn post_id=70650 time= user_id=2338 Wrote:Mouseboy33 post_id=70645 time= user_id=1168 Wrote:CantGetIn post_id=70639 time= user_id=2338 Wrote:If that’s the case I am sure he looks very foolish now and will perhaps go. As long as we are talking about questionable support for Putin.
I see a lot of people say someone is pro Putin because they are saying he is taking actions that are outdoing the west and therefore he is more in control etc, and this highlights why the west needs to up its game. So this would be praise of Putin of sorts, but only to highlight failings by the west and need to improve. This is not pro Putin.
Pro Putin to me for example, is supporting him fully, ie “I agree with the invasion of Ukraine”, “I agree with every action he takes” etc. I have never seen that on Fox News. I have seen a lot of examples stated in the second paragraph above. Praise to highlight self failure.
FNC and its "anchors" "hosts" "reporters" have no shame, so they dont feel foolish about anything that they have to walk back or retract, if they ever rarely do that. Whatever continues to make their personalities millionaires they havent and dont care about, who they hurt or the literal damage and division they cause. THey make excuses and blame everyone else and deflect and none of the hosts hardly ever take any heat. They dont care. Its not journalism and should never be take seriously by anyone anywhere.
They lied about Seth Rich's parents and got sue and settled out of court and didnt feel bed about it and no one was take off air.
https://www.npr.org/2020/11/24/938545344...nton-leaks
Tucker Carlson had a white nationalist working as his head writer.
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/12/890030168...oted-posts
I am aware that Fox News has had issues, but even Sky and the BBC have had cases against them. My point is that they were never banned by Ofcom and thus cannot be compared to RT.
And that's weak sauce consideribng RT haven't been banned yet.
cityprod post_id=70652 time= user_id=1257 Wrote:CantGetIn post_id=70650 time= user_id=2338 Wrote:Mouseboy33 post_id=70645 time= user_id=1168 Wrote:FNC and its "anchors" "hosts" "reporters" have no shame, so they dont feel foolish about anything that they have to walk back or retract, if they ever rarely do that. Whatever continues to make their personalities millionaires they havent and dont care about, who they hurt or the literal damage and division they cause. THey make excuses and blame everyone else and deflect and none of the hosts hardly ever take any heat. They dont care. Its not journalism and should never be take seriously by anyone anywhere.
They lied about Seth Rich's parents and got sue and settled out of court and didnt feel bed about it and no one was take off air.
https://www.npr.org/2020/11/24/938545344...nton-leaks
Tucker Carlson had a white nationalist working as his head writer.
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/12/890030168...oted-posts
I am aware that Fox News has had issues, but even Sky and the BBC have had cases against them. My point is that they were never banned by Ofcom and thus cannot be compared to RT.
And that's weak sauce consideribng RT haven't been banned yet.
I believe the context of the original comparison was on the assumption it had been banned
Not even sure what “sauce” means. Text speak is not permitted on the forums.
ITV Region: ---None Selected---
BBC Region: ---None Selected---
There is the view Fox News jumped before they were pushed when it came to their exit from the UK market. FWIW I'd say RT is far less dangerous to a UK audience in the current climate than Fox News would be, but we digress.
Could RT be broadcast but be flagged as potential mis-information. Would that even be technically possible unless such a flag was added at source?
@Brekkietweets
RT has been removed from the Foxtel payTV platforms in Australia.
CGTN, TRT World & Fox news are still on the Foxtel platform...
RT & NTV news bulletins have also been suspended from broadcast by the public broadcaster SBS
https://tvtonight.com.au/2022/02/foxtel-...f-air.html
RT is a licenced channel that is free to air on satellite (and terrestrial).
The Sky (and other including Freeview) EPGs are heavily regulated by OFCOM, part of which is that where a channel meets the approved (by OFCOM) requirements it has to be carried. It can't be dropped by the owner of the EPG unless it breaches those requirements, and there is no possibility of amending the carriage to carry a caption or similar.
It is a very slippery slope to think that the providers of an EPG should consider the politics of a channel, or even worse adulterate a third party broadcast. It is because of the importance of the EPG to viewing that they are regulated. We have a regulator whose job as well as regulating that EPGs meet the fair and reasonable test is to licence channels. Where properly licenced, broadcast, and meeting the rules, an EPG owner can't drop a channel.
RR post_id=70667 time= user_id=827 Wrote:Where properly licenced, broadcast, and meeting the rules, an EPG owner can't drop a channel. Freeview can’t because it’s ultimately just a brand rather than running the EPG, but I’m pretty sure Sky can choose what’s on their EPG.
ITV Region: ITV News Meridian
BBC Region: BBC South Today
I'll interject at this point to politely remind members to please keep the discussion civil.
CantGetIn post_id=70654 time= user_id=2338 Wrote:Text speak is not permitted on the forums.
Text speak is discouraged, it's not banned outright.
ITV Region: ---None Selected---
BBC Region: ---None Selected---
New sanctions about trading with Russian Entities are set to come in which may move this from a broadcast compliance issue to whether Arquiva and Sky can accept any on-going payments from RT.
@Brekkietweets
CantGetIn post_id=70654 time= user_id=2338 Wrote:cityprod post_id=70652 time= user_id=1257 Wrote:CantGetIn post_id=70650 time= user_id=2338 Wrote:I am aware that Fox News has had issues, but even Sky and the BBC have had cases against them. My point is that they were never banned by Ofcom and thus cannot be compared to RT.
And that's weak sauce consideribng RT haven't been banned yet.
I believe the context of the original comparison was on the assumption it had been banned
Not even sure what “sauce” means. Text speak is not permitted on the forums.
It's not text speak.
Quote:weak sauce
/ˈwiːksɔːs/
Learn to pronounce
informal•US
noun
noun: weak sauce; noun: weaksauce
something that is of a poor or disappointing standard or quality.
"the rest of your argument is weak sauce"
adjective
adjective: weaksauce; adjective: weak-sauce
of a poor or disappointing standard or quality.
"don't buy this weak-sauce car even with the price cut"
ITV Region: ITV News Tyne Tees
BBC Region: BBC Look North (NE)
"U.S. informal" ... I can't claim to speak for everyone in the UK but 'weak sauce' is certainly not a phrase I've ever come across over here. I thought you'd misspelled the word 'source' in your initial comment, in honesty.
We've all learnt something new today if nothing else.
Anyway, let's move away from debating the legitimacy of U.S. slang terms and get back to RT - there's certainly no shortage of relevant discussion to be had with everything going on at the moment.
Thanks, y'all.
"Good evening. Dull, grey, cold, miserable - and that's just me. The weather hasn't been great, either."
RR post_id=70667 time= user_id=827 Wrote:RT is a licenced channel that is free to air on satellite (and terrestrial).
The Sky (and other including Freeview) EPGs are heavily regulated by OFCOM, part of which is that where a channel meets the approved (by OFCOM) requirements it has to be carried. It can't be dropped by the owner of the EPG unless it breaches those requirements, and there is no possibility of amending the carriage to carry a caption or similar.
It is a very slippery slope to think that the providers of an EPG should consider the politics of a channel, or even worse adulterate a third party broadcast. It is because of the importance of the EPG to viewing that they are regulated. We have a regulator whose job as well as regulating that EPGs meet the fair and reasonable test is to licence channels. Where properly licenced, broadcast, and meeting the rules, an EPG owner can't drop a channel.
With all due respect, that is nonsense. There is no right to be on Sky’s EPG and there is no right be on satellite or terrestrial transmitters just because you have a licence.
Being listed on the EPG and having your signal transmitted are both governed by commercial contracts. If Sky, Arqiva, SES or any other provider wishes to unilaterally terminate their contract with RT then there is nothing RT can do about it. The other parties may possibly be liable to compensation but that is it.
Considering RT will unlikely be able to pay any bills shortly, contracts can of course be terminated for non-payment which makes things a whole lot simpler.
Existence on the EPG is not only governed by commercial contracts though, and that is the point. The EPG, e.g. Sky's and Digital UK Limited's in respect of terrestrial, are also licenced and governed by Ofcom's regulations, one of which is based on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory treatment. The intention is that the owners of the EPG can't treat any channel that is on the EPG in an unfair manner. Whilst a channel on the EPG complies with any requirements in the regulated code, they can't be treated in a discriminatory way.
The likes of RT have no other relationship with Sky, just the payment to be listed on the EPG.
Sky's approved rules are https://static.skyassets.com/contentstac...r_2020.pdf
RR post_id=70694 time= user_id=827 Wrote:Existence on the EPG is not only governed by commercial contracts though, and that is the point. The EPG, e.g. Sky's and Digital UK Limited's in respect of terrestrial, are also licenced and governed by Ofcom's regulations, one of which is based on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory treatment. The intention is that the owners of the EPG can't treat any channel that is on the EPG in an unfair manner. Whilst a channel on the EPG complies with any requirements in the regulated code, they can't be treated in a discriminatory way.
The likes of RT have no other relationship with Sky, just the payment to be listed on the EPG.
Sky's approved rules are https://static.skyassets.com/contentstac...r_2020.pdf
I am fully aware of Sky's EPG rules and contrary to your assertions, they make no reference to any of what you claim.
Save as to PSBs, the relationship is that of a services agreement between Sky and the broadcaster. All of them include reasons for termination (forthwith or with notice). It's a B2B relationship and whether a channel has a valid Ofcom licence is irrelevant.
Standard Agreement for Services: https://static.skyassets.com/contentstac...y_2021.pdf
The Ofcom code on EPG services also does contain nothing even close to what you claim.
|
