Channel 4

Discussing art and media trends and organisations generally

Channel 4

Postby Gavin » 21 Mar 2014, 19:52

I've tried to take a break from the relentless leftism of the BBC on my way to work recently and have often listened to my audiobook instead. This evening I turned on the Channel 4 News for a few minutes. The programme is notorious for running its own PC leftist headlines - it is a bit like a televisual version of The Guardian.

The headline might, for example, be about the plight of Palestinians, Muslims, or black people. Let's just say it wasn't Channel 4 News who broke the story of the Pakistani child rape gangs across the UK.

This evening's lead story was about a black woman who was mistakenly shot by a police officer back in the 1980s. A proper enquiry was not carried out, in the programme's opinion, because "after all, this was the 80s". They could not help but mention in passing that the police were at the woman's home because her son was wanted for armed robbery, but it was indeed only a passing mention and not a single further mention was made of it.

To try to get some balance, the programme interviewed two people regarding this issue: black (mixed race) former Labour MP Baron Lord Paul Boateng, and black (mixed race) Labour MP for Streatham, Chuka Ummuna. Both condemned the police. Among other unchallenged statements, Chuka Umunna said the police are institutionally racist and cited as evidence for this the disproportionate number of young black men in prison. The most likely explanation for this phenomenon was not put to him. In fact, none of his statements were contradicted at any point whatsoever. Neither were those by Mr Boateng.

This got me thinking, which is the more blatantly left wing out of Channel 4 and BBC news? I think Channel 4 wins by a long way. The BBC is more subtle, whereas Channel Four is openly "progressive" and will never steer remotely near alternative un-PC explanations. Both are PC, obviously, but in my observation Channel 4 wins.

I think it is very divisive and harmful with its left wing bias, and watching it really reminds me how the public are steered by what a news programme chooses to report and what it chooses to ignore, and how that programme can manipulate less critical viewers (by the million) in the way it reports stories. When we're young we just take it, we assume it's "the news" and we try to just ignore the fact that it doesn't match up with our day to day "street" experiences - we assume we must be somehow wrong.

But as we mature we realise it is simply a version of the news, by certain people, and while I dislike conspiracy theories, there certainly is an "agenda". When certain truths are ignored, it is a kind of propaganda. At least we have the Internet now as an alternative, so outfits like Channel 4 and the Guardian can keep on making their losses.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Channel 4

Postby Gavin » 15 Apr 2014, 19:13

I happened to see the hard-left Channel Four News again this evening.

They enjoyed running a long feature celebrating a Romanian gypsy who had extracted money from the British economy in order to build a house back in Romania. They actually sent a reporter there to find him. He had irresponsibly had three children for whom he could ill-afford to provide. The man said he would love to come back to England at the soonest opportunity because “life is easy there”. A heart-warming story, according to this far left programme.

They then interviewed Matthew Parris, who attacked Nigel Farage over his EU allowance. They did not interview anybody sympathetic to UKIP. Parris said he is against UKIP because they could fracture the Tory vote - I hope they do.

They glossed over the issue of the Birmingham Islamist schools scandal about mid-way through the programme.

After a while I had heard enough of reporters Faisal and Fatima and decided to go back to the Internet for the unvarnished truth.

But not before I saw their final feature. Who were they interviewing? Laurie Penny! Somebody who does not intellectually warrant having any public profile whatsoever. She looked ridiculous and spoke of “economic pressures” - of course without the slightest reference to mass third-world immigration. “I’m sure you didn’t mean to say that if people cannot earn enough money then they shouldn’t have children”, she said at one point. Actually, that is exactly my view.

Channel Four News is like a parody - it makes the BBC look middle of the road. It’s finished now. Next thing on the channel is a short programme about an African living in London who is pro gay marriage. Following that: “Embarrassing Bodies” featuring “full frontal nudity” - live from, need I say, Birmingham. The object of the programme is to allow people to air their personal problems on national television with the help of a set of doctors and presenter, “Pixie".
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Channel 4

Postby Elliott » 15 Apr 2014, 19:49

You make me wish my television worked so that I could see this stuff, Gavin, but I know that if I was seeing that kind of thing on a regular basis, it would damage my morale pretty quickly!

I agree with you that people shouldn't have children if they can't afford them. It's really a sign of the times that such a view is controversial, or can be used by the likes of Laurie Penny to guilt-trip somebody. Forty years ago it would have been simple common sense.
Elliott
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh

Re: Channel 4

Postby Andrea » 17 Apr 2014, 11:13

Of course it was (and should still be) common sense. I'll admit, I get a little misty-eyed these days seeing little kids, but I'm not stupid enough to go and get pregnant without having financial security and a more stable setup. Children need that and I'm certainly not going to bring a child into the world to suffer and live amongst horrible people. No, I want to bring a child up in a really good neighbourhood with great schools and low crime, like my sisters enjoy with their families. If that doesn't happen, that's tough and I'll just deal with it.

As for Laurie Penny, I think she is a disgrace. I was really happy when she got a proper dressing down from the great Starkey.
Andrea
 
Posts: 158
Joined: 30 Jul 2011, 21:55
Location: England

Re: Channel 4

Postby Yessica » 06 May 2014, 11:06

Andrea wrote:Of course it was (and should still be) common sense. I'll admit, I get a little misty-eyed these days seeing little kids, but I'm not stupid enough to go and get pregnant without having financial security and a more stable setup. Children need that and I'm certainly not going to bring a child into the world to suffer and live amongst horrible people. No, I want to bring a child up in a really good neighbourhood with great schools and low crime, like my sisters enjoy with their families. If that doesn't happen, that's tough and I'll just deal with it.


It's none of my business. I hope you do not mind me voicing my opinion nevertheless. If you think I am interfering please just disregard it.

First thing one should keep in mind is that being born rich and attending a good school does not equal getting a good education.
A friend of mine, who is still at school, had the good fortune of being born well-off and he attended a fancy grammar school (which by the way is not a matter of born rich where I am from, most are statefunded). He had the plan of attending a prestigious college and asked for the advice of a college consultant. Here is what he said: "You might want to wish to transfer to a lousy comprehensive school, for two reasons: a) They give better marks and b) colleges try not to admit to many students from the same good school.
They like essays or letters from people who can show that they understand something abouit real life / were not to sheltered."
Talking to friends about that I learned that several of them had friends who had transferred from a grammar school to a comprehensive for that reason.

Elliott said that fourty years ago not having children you cannot afford would just have been "common sense". 150 years from now people not being able to afford children were even banned from marrying... but what does "being able to afford them" mean.

People who were thought "well-off" 150 years ago had no central heating, sometimes no running water, often no electricity. People who were thought neither rich nor poor could not afford to eat eat meat every day, had just two sets of clothing (one for Sunday, one for week days).
Most of the youths left school at fourteen.

Fourty years ago... well I do not know so much about Great Britain but am I right to assume that the average family 40 years ago had far less rooms than they had today and a lower material standarad of living.

I know for the Eastern part of Germany... which is of course a special case... that the average living standard of a family on welfare today surpasses that of an avarage middle class family under the old regime.

If you look at history most people attended never a good school nor a bad school, but no good school at all. If you look at the world today, many children do not even attend primary school.

While having high standards is great I think that middle class people of today sometimes do have standards a little to high / out of reach.
Yessica
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 17:11

Re: Channel 4

Postby Andrea » 06 May 2014, 12:15

Hi Yessica,

"Being able to afford" children in the West means that you can provide a comfortable home with the modern fixtures of electricity, (hot) water, heating, and food - in a safe, socially cohesive community. I would not want to raise children where I live now - surrounded by the underclass - it would be a very poor decision.

I completely acknowledge that a rich school does not equal a great education. That being said, it is a million times more preferable to be in a school which has good discipline, in a good area, than it is to be in an inner-city school where there are metal detectors and where children rarely learn anything. Personally, I believe in home-schooling, but kids can't be at home always, they need to mix with other children, therefore it is imperative (in my opinion) that those other children are from good backgrounds.
Andrea
 
Posts: 158
Joined: 30 Jul 2011, 21:55
Location: England

Re: Channel 4

Postby Yessica » 06 May 2014, 14:14

Hi Andrea,

I am curious about your opinion: What would be your advice to people who are living in a really poor country or a dictatorship and know that their children will never have the chance to attend a good school (or a school at all)? Obviosly there are many people who do not have the chance to work their way up, be it that they are paid starving wages, be it that the state banned their gender, class or ethnic groups from schooling, be it that schooling is seen as an offence to God in their country. That would be a big proportion of the worlds population.

I do not know your personal situation and of course the decsion is all up to you. What I write is more or less my thoughts about having children in general.

It is probably because I am from another country but I do not see "crime" as a great danger for children. As far as I know most children who become a victim of a crime are murdered / hurt by their own parents. One can easily avoid that by not killing ones children ;)
Currently we are living in a stately home in a "rich rural neighnourhood" now (we are by the way not that rich, someone we know allowed us to live in the house for a relatively low rent as it was empty and in need of renovation, edited to add: I noticed stately home also referred to a castle in English, not a castle, just a very big house that looks like we are rich from the outside, while most unfortunately we do not have much money). Well people here are really really afraid their children could be snatched... because snatching their children would pay.
Looking at it from the view of a criminal, you may live in a poor neighbourhood but you do not snatch the children from that neighbourhood as you must assume that they are poor and you do not burgle break into their houses as you must assume they have few material possesions.

I somewhat hope I do not have to raise my children here as I do fear for their safety. I would not have that fear would I life in a poorer neighbourhood... but then we still life in a safe continent and crime is not really a problem, is it?

Look at the homicide rate for example, Germany 0,8 per 100,000, UK 1,2 per 100,000, USA 4,8 per 100,000 and still Americans have children.

Metal detectors at schools? Are they really neccessary or just installed for reasons of precaution? I know my old school, by the way located in a peaceful rural community has a "amok run drill" now and they installed loud speakers to be able to warn the children if someone runs amok.
That has scared the younger students and to my mind is plain useless.
As far as I know since 1871 only ten amok runs have happened in Germany. Ten too many but hardly a danger to public safety.

However to my mind there are graver dangers for a child safety. One is illness. Did you know that the child cances of being born with "down syndrome" or another chromosomal disorder skyrocks as the mother gets older? And so does the risk of being premature which might also lead to ill health, low IQ and poor performance in school.
In addition a mans sperm detoriates as he gets older, making children of older fathers more likely to be affected with ADHD, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and autism.

Hardly a scientific source but they are reporting a study here:

Daily Mail:Children born to older fathers have a higher risk of autism and poor performance at school
[*]Those conceived to fathers over 45 are 3.5 times more likely to have autism
[*]They are 24 times more likely to have bipolar disorder and 13 times more likely to have ADHD - could be because genetic errors creep into sperm


Why did I mention electricity and hot water? Do I want to raise my child without? No, but I noticed that for a long time trough history people did not have those things and they were just as happy as we are... but today we believe our children cannot be happy if we cannot give them riding lessons and vacations to another continent (I am not saying you hold that opinion).

I think it is very odd the the richest secment of the population in the worlds richest country stopped having children because they cannot afford it.

I do not think "being from a good background" equals "being born well-off", there might be a correlation but I have met so many wretched rich kids that I do not think attending school together with the rich will keep a kid from mingeling with bad company. Having said that I do not know your neighbourhood and how bad people are over there.

... and I think that one can never know the future. you can be rich and live in a good neighbourhood all you want, but the state can come up with the idea that your children must be bussed to poor neighbourhoods or kept from attending good schools, or it may disposses you and all you worked for is gone.
Again look at history, look at to how many people it happened (and all of them thought it would not happen to them).
Yessica
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 17:11


Return to Art & Media

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

User Menu

Login Form

This site costs £100 per year to run and makes no money.

If you would like to make a small contribution to help pay for the web hosting, you can do so here.

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 175 on 12 Jan 2015, 18:23

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
Copyright © Western Defence. All Rights Reserved.