Heartland

Posted: **09 May 2010, 00:47**

This is DISGRACEFUL.

Sky news reporter Kay Burley actively condemns protesters exercising their political freedom LIVE ON AIR at today's demonstration at which over 1000 people gathered outside Westminster to show support for a electoral reform. Right wing, Murdoch funded news reports...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELJh2bTK1ew

I urge you all make a complaint to Ofcom, here's what I wrote in mine:

I wrote:I recently saw footage of Sky News journalist Kay Burley completely dismiss a spokesman for a protest in support of PR in a totally disgraceful manner. Not only was what she said unimpartial and totally below the standards that one should expect from a mainstream news broadcaster but it was downright wrong. She told the spokesmen (speaking for over 1000 protesters) that their presence was pointless. She, on behalf of a major broadcasting company, effectively condemned people exercising the political freedom that we are so lucky in the country to have.

What's more, I'd argue that right wing, privately funded media like sky news is fundamentally biased against the issue at hand and is, quite possibly, incapable of reporting fairly on the subject.

In addition to this, she showed remarkable ignorance of the political system - claiming the electorate had "voted for a hung parliament". No they haven't, they voted for certain parties to win, but none did. A hung parliament may reflect the general mood of the country, but it certainly wasn't what people were voting for. So in addition to attempting to suppress people, she was actively misinforming them!

As a young person (20) I feel the grip of apathy on my generation deeply. The people of this country don't need to be told to go home and eat what they are fed - they need to be made to realise that they can, and should, think and speak for themselves.

Posted: **09 May 2010, 00:55**

ah, I love 'hip humourless twentysomething-angst'

get bent

she took him apart and it was soooo easy

Posted: **09 May 2010, 01:04**

It must be nice to have your opinions and senses dulled by age and disillusionment.

In the light of the recent election and the the particular issue at hand it only makes sense to say what you think - and considering we have that option via Ofcom (which countless daily mail reading morons use every day) I see no problem with reacting to the shit that reporter was spouting. Hopefully enough people will complain and she'll be made an example of.

I get that it doesn't bother you but there is absolutely no need to be rude.

Posted: **09 May 2010, 02:22**

Maisey wrote: there is absolutely no need to be rude.

There's always a need to be rude but never a correct time to be rude.

Reporting somethone to ofcom in order to make an example of them is a sad inditement of the 20 year olds today. Perhaps you should have actualy been at the protest rather than protesting about it's biased TV coverage. Revolution doesn't happen through High Definition, it happens through Hard Defiance.

Posted: **09 May 2010, 03:21**

Perhaps I should have tracked her down and thrown a brick through her window instead comrade? Or maybe just ignore it and except and expect the media to drip feed bullshit to the masses? It certainly isn't possible for it be ok, or even a good thing, to use an established channel to say "what the fcuk was that about?".

I like the implication that my absence was an indicator of laziness or apathy on my part - it was a (relatively) spontaneous gathering 200 miles away from my front door.

I'm disheartened that drawing attention to a particularly unpleasant piece of election coverage and posting my response to it has garnered such a negative reaction.

And your point about revolution not happening through High Definition, but through Hard Defiance? Sounds like the depressingly empty words of someone feeling rather powerless themselves.

Posted: **09 May 2010, 07:37**

In my -adopted- country, we get to express our own opinions. If you want to form your own -politically biased- news channel, you go right ahead.

Apparently, doing so in Maisey Land gets you reported to the authorities.

I don't think I would like Maisey Land.

Posted: **09 May 2010, 07:40**

And I just have to comment on the hipocracy of the title of the title of this thread.

hint: you are saying that sky news should not have the political freedoms that you do.

Posted: **09 May 2010, 07:43**

oh, and by the way, every major political party (the top 3) are "right wing" these days...

http://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010

Posted: **09 May 2010, 07:50**

And when I was 20 years old, living in Leeds, I got my student ass down to London to protest the Apartheid Government of South Africa.

Just saying.

Posted: **09 May 2010, 08:14**

isn't that happened long time ago ? i mean media showing their own point of view on some topics ?
don't expect objective media but only these who representing your option, and read/watch/listen it to close down in this shell.
and don;t get mad on reality - you can't change it.

Posted: **09 May 2010, 08:43**

A bit shoot someone down for a fairly harmless topic?

I agree my first thought on reading it is that a few people writing to Ofcom is not going to effect Sky or Rupert Murdoch in the slightess but there's nothing wrong with being twenty years old and trying is there? Not only are students effectively hostage to their debt from the day they start university but the culture of mass student protest isn't exactly at it's peak is it?

Anyway Mark Thomas made a career out of being an annoying letter writer and it didn't do him any harm. Everythings got to start somewhere. Good luck

Posted: **09 May 2010, 10:25**

More power to you Maisey, Murdoch Inc. is biased beyond belief.

Some car crash respones BTW, f**king top notch over the top wankery.

Posted: **09 May 2010, 11:12**

Maisey wrote: And your point about revolution not happening through High Definition, but through Hard Defiance? Sounds like the depressingly empty words of someone feeling rather powerless themselves.

An extremely poor assumption young Maisey and way off the mark

Posted: **09 May 2010, 11:39**

The principal of an unbiased media (of any sort) is worth pressing for. We have newspapers at my end of things that are aimed essentially at different religions. Not good. I'm with Maisey on the principals of an unbiased media. Not perhaps her choice of font though he said mixing his threads!

Posted: **09 May 2010, 12:14**

abridged wrote: Not perhaps her choice of font though he said mixing his threads!

And mixing sexes

Posted: **09 May 2010, 12:45**

nodubmanshouts wrote:And I just have to comment on the hipocracy of the title of the title of this thread.

hint: you are saying that sky news should not have the political freedoms that you do.

It's not hippocracy, broadcasters are held to a code of impartiality that they are required to stick to.

Hint: That is exactly what I'm saying. Perhaps teachers should have the political freedom to express their bias to students? Not a perfect example I know, most viewers are less impressionable than children, but the point is that the institution is supposed to be neutral.

Posted: **09 May 2010, 13:04**

nodubmanshouts wrote:In my -adopted- country, we get to express our own opinions. If you want to form your own -politically biased- news channel, you go right ahead.

Apparently, doing so in Maisey Land gets you reported to the authorities.

I don't think I would like Maisey Land.

And your -adopted- country is famous for it's biased media which liberal and progressive thinkers often have to work against. I've never sat down and watched an American news network for any period of time but I've certainly heard enough about major broadcasters like FOX news to make me glad we've got the BBC.

Apparently in dubmanland it's quite ok to go around doing your job with total disregard for the excepted (nay required) standards for that job. Maybe you have to nurse yourself in hospital?

I don't think I would like nodubmanland any more than you'd like Maisey Land.

I'm not saying that the world should be run by the book - in fact, as I said in my email, more people should think and act for themselves. What I am saying is that an informed, relatively unbiased media is preferable to a slanted, crooked opinion paper that seriously entertains only one side of an argument.

Posted: **09 May 2010, 13:44**

An unbiased opinion is a very rare beast - unfortunately

Posted: **09 May 2010, 13:55**

Sadly this is true, but taking your bias to a level where you would actively seek to undermine and argue down an interviewees standpoint is not on if you are reporting, especially if there is nothing particularly radical or offensive about the standpoint of said person (I could understand a reporter breaking impartiality in the face of say... The BNP... they are human after all).

Posted: **09 May 2010, 14:53**

Maisey wrote:
And your -adopted- country is famous for it's biased media which liberal and progressive thinkers often have to work against. I've never sat down and watched an American news network for any period of time but I've certainly heard enough about major broadcasters like FOX news to make me glad we've got the BBC.

You're off on this. Liberal and progressive thinkers don't have to work against the American media. With the noted exception of Fox (whose opinion commentators are pretty up-front about the fact that they're opining), they generally are the media here. But hey, "data" is the plural of "anecdote," right?

Posted: **09 May 2010, 15:16**

Never claimed it was data, but it certainly is the impression that I have personally got from my own (as I said, relatively limited) experiences with the American media.

Isn't FOX one of the biggest broadcasting news networks in the country? A quick search on Wikipedia seems to indicate that this is the case - so surely by virtue of the fact that one of the biggest news networks has an inherent bias means that my point has some value?

Posted: **09 May 2010, 15:22**

I'd say it equal in size to CNN (liberal-leaning) or MSNBC (increasingly far-left liberal leaning), and the various network broadcasts which all lean in a conventional liberal direction.

They're not the evil media overlords you seem to think they are. They're one media outlet competing with other media outlets, and FNC was designed to be a conservative alternative to the liberalism of most American journalism (print and television) because someone recognized that it was an untapped market. The operative point, however, is that progressive and liberal thinkers don't have to fight to get on TV in the US. In fact, even Fox will routinely have them on--they will, however, get tougher questions than they would elsewhere.

Posted: **09 May 2010, 15:27**

That's fair enough then.

I think that a lot of the press that reaches this end of the pond implies a right wing leaning in the bulk of American coverage. This could be because Murdoch has outlets on both sides Atlantic so it's the views of his media that transfers quickest.

Posted: **09 May 2010, 15:43**

I don't think writing a letter does any harm, really. It's one hell of a lot better than just not doing anything about it. Good luck, and let's hope it falls into the right hands!

Posted: **09 May 2010, 19:28**

I don't like her in the slightest. Another of these people who after Paxman developed a reputation modelled themselves on his style of interviewing without his intelligence. If Sky planned to broadcast "Kay Burley tells you your views are rubbish", I'd have liked the programme re-named.
I also dislike women who use the kind of body language and attitude which, if used by a man, would result in said man getting smacked in the teeth.
Mind you, starting a Facebook group to get her sacked is a bit childish. Stand by your guns and cancel your Sky subscription informing them as to why.

Heartland

Sky News Vs Political Freedom

Sky News Vs Political Freedom