GRcade

wow there are a lot of people here who made a big point about how terrible this station would be and are watching it regardless

KK wrote:You can’t have an informed opinion about the channel and its output without watching it.

Do you really need to? Just look at where the money is coming from and you can inform your opinion that way. You also have their statement of intent which amounts to finally being able to speak out and not being a fake news channel despite everyone involved coming from big media backgrounds and promoting fake news within the first few hours of going live.

Cuttooth wrote:

twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/1404921547144433664

Feeling pretty informed about this channel now tbh.

"Bill Clinton was a bigger friend" is quite the excuse

KK wrote:You can’t have an informed opinion about the channel and its output without watching it.

You can, but simultaneously, I don't think there's anything wrong with actually checking it out for yourself. I was curious about the format and how it actually works (it doesn't).

Moggy wrote:

KK wrote:You can’t have an informed opinion about the channel and its output without watching it.

I'm pretty sure we can. We can see who owns it, who presents on it, who guests on it. We can see the programme titles. We can see the clips and hear the reports of what it has been saying/discussing.

I don't need to eat a gooseberry fool sandwich to know it will taste like gooseberry fool.

So what you’re saying is…you are watching it and relying on others to watch it to ultimately inform you of what it’s like.

KK wrote:

Moggy wrote:

KK wrote:You can’t have an informed opinion about the channel and its output without watching it.

I'm pretty sure we can. We can see who owns it, who presents on it, who guests on it. We can see the programme titles. We can see the clips and hear the reports of what it has been saying/discussing.

I don't need to eat a gooseberry fool sandwich to know it will taste like gooseberry fool.

So what you’re saying is…you are watching it and relying on others to watch it to ultimately inform you of what it’s like.

Isn't that literally the point of journalism?

Have they had any black people on the show yet?

Tomous wrote:

Cuttooth wrote:

twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/1404921547144433664

Feeling pretty informed about this channel now tbh.

"Bill Clinton was a bigger friend" is quite the excuse

Can't get over the way she pronounces 'Ephebophile'.

effebufaaaal

I don't think it really matters materially to the channel whether a small group of centre-to-left forum posters laugh at it or not. But I hope the novelty wears off soon. Much like tabloid articles or Fox News, any clips I see just wind me up to be honest.

KK wrote:

Moggy wrote:

KK wrote:You can’t have an informed opinion about the channel and its output without watching it.

I'm pretty sure we can. We can see who owns it, who presents on it, who guests on it. We can see the programme titles. We can see the clips and hear the reports of what it has been saying/discussing.

I don't need to eat a gooseberry fool sandwich to know it will taste like gooseberry fool.

So what you’re saying is…you are watching it and relying on others to watch it to ultimately inform you of what it’s like.

No. I'm saying I'm not watching it but it's pretty hard to escape it at the moment as so many are talking about it, quoting it and sharing clips.

I don't need to watch the thing to know that a station that employs Dan Wootton and has Rod Liddle as a guest, really isn't a station for me.

Victor Mildew wrote:Have they had any black people on the show yet?

They have some black presenters:

Inaya Folarin Iman, a critic of “woke” thinking who called the Black Lives Matter protests an “opportunistic pretext for an outpouring of self-righteous rage”

I had a wee look for five minutes yesterday and within that time Andrew Neil had bigged up the U.K.-AUS trade deal as something “they” said could never be done, argued with a farmer, and claimed nobody wants anything to do with stonewall because they support transgender rights. Turned it back off again and will never watch another minute. Get strawberry floated man.

Cuttooth wrote:

twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/1404921547144433664

Feeling pretty informed about this channel now tbh.

That's a hot take from the posh lady.

Corazon de Leon wrote:I had a wee look for five minutes yesterday and within that time Andrew Neil had bigged up the U.K.-AUS trade deal as something “they” said could never be done, argued with a farmer, and claimed nobody wants anything to do with stonewall because they support transgender rights. Turned it back off again and will never watch another minute. Get strawberry floated man.

Yes but you can't have an opinion on the station as a whole until you have watched 400 hours of it.

Maybe the sets are so cheap is they intend to get taken off the air by ofcom for not being impartial, and then can continue online under the banner of being 'cancelled' - which going by the way things with advertisers is going might be their only hope at funding this.

Tafdolphin wrote:I really hope people aren't, you know, actually watching this? Because if I was a new channel that relies on eyes-on advertising and word of mouth this is very much the play I'd be using, Mike Hunts and all.

tl:Dr - don't watch, don't engage, don't disseminate. Just ignore.

This.

I've not watched a second of it, because I'm not giving them the +1 to their viewing figures.

Let it quietly die.

I've not seen any of it and never will. Thread ban me please!

Karl_ wrote:I don't think it really matters materially to the channel whether a small group of centre-to-left forum posters laugh at it or not. But I hope the novelty wears off soon. Much like tabloid articles or Fox News, any clips I see just wind me up to be honest.

I've already annoyed myself by just posting that one clip.

KK if the aim is to understand what GB News is outputting then yeah watching the channel provides the most value, but also provides the most value to GB News. There's more combined value to be gained in knowing the people behind the channel, the history of the people in front of the cameras, the intent of what's being broadcast, and examples of what is being broadcast taken from people who should either know better or at least get paid to watch gooseberry fool.

I don't need to turn on the GB News channel to know it's broadcasting garbage or why it's broadcasting garbage.

Moggy wrote:

Corazon de Leon wrote:I had a wee look for five minutes yesterday and within that time Andrew Neil had bigged up the U.K.-AUS trade deal as something “they” said could never be done, argued with a farmer, and claimed nobody wants anything to do with stonewall because they support transgender rights. Turned it back off again and will never watch another minute. Get strawberry floated man.

Yes but you can't have an opinion on the station as a whole until you have watched 400 hours of it.

But...but...oh, fine.

I suppose now would be a good time to remind people that by watching it on TV (rather than social media) it does not add to the reported viewing figures. You are an insignificant, inconsequential viewer. The only way you would be directly making them any money is by watching one of their clips on an official account with an advert running on it (such as YouTube).

KK wrote:I suppose now would be a good time to remind people that by watching it on TV (rather than social media) it does not add to the reported viewing figures. You are an insignificant, inconsequential viewer. The only way you would be directly making them any money is by watching one of their clips on an official account with an advert running on it (such as YouTube).

Wow someone ought to let advertisers know that they're wasting their money!