Great radio show on LBC currently

[HomersBelly]

I'd sooner saw my own nads off than listen to that self righteous dipstick.

[Derek Hardballs]

This is like the question, Do you rate Brunt in his prime? If the answer is negative I know who to avoid bothering with.

[Dreamkiller]

This is like the question, Do you rate Brunt in his prime? If the answer is negative I know who to avoid bothering with.

If you follow the cult of O'Brien, then you already treat anyone with a different opinion to yourself with absolute disdain anyway. 

I listened to him almost daily during the Brexit debates of last year, simply for a bit of balance. But the thick racist jibes do become a bit wearing after a while, so since the election I just listen in small doses. It's a rarity if I make it to 10:15am with him these days.

I switch back at 1pm to listen to Sheila Fogherty who generally holds similar views to O'Brien, but allows people with an opposite viewpoint to have their say and engage in genuine conversation. 

O'Brien is just a shock jock who riles people enough to call and text in so that he can use every deflection and distraction tactic going to ultimately belittle any caller who disagrees with him. FFS, you can sometimes guess which side the caller will be on simply by the way O'Brien first speaks to them. The hostility is palpable.

For more intelligent and reasonable debate, I'd go for Maajid Nawaz at the weekend. A really good listen.

[Derek Hardballs]

This is like the question, Do you rate Brunt in his prime? If the answer is negative I know who to avoid bothering with.

If you follow the cult of O'Brien, then you already treat anyone with a different opinion to yourself with absolute disdain anyway. 

I listened to him almost daily during the Brexit debates of last year, simply for a bit of balance. But the thick racist jibes do become a bit wearing after a while, so since the election I just listen in small doses. It's a rarity if I make it to 10:15am with him these days.

I switch back at 1pm to listen to Sheila Fogherty who generally holds similar views to O'Brien, but allows people with an opposite viewpoint to have their say and engage in genuine conversation. 

O'Brien is just a shock jock who riles people enough to call and text in so that he can use every deflection and distraction tactic going to ultimately belittle any caller who disagrees with him. FFS, you can sometimes guess which side the caller will be on simply by the way O'Brien first speaks to them. The hostility is palpable.

For more intelligent and reasonable debate, I'd go for Maajid Nawaz at the weekend. A really good listen.

He asks people to back up their arguments with facts and research and that’s when it goes wrong for those who ring up with ludicrous claims about the EU etc. He’s not a shock  jock he’s actually asking the questions that most of the main stream media won’t go near because they’ve become client journalists like Kuenseberg (spelling) for the BBC or most of the tabloid press. 

I listen to Sheila Fogarty and Maajid as well and the other side like Nick Fararri and Nigel Farage who are allowed to be as political as they like without any hostility by the same people who get their knickers in a twist with James O’Brien.

[Dreamkiller]

This is like the question, Do you rate Brunt in his prime? If the answer is negative I know who to avoid bothering with.

If you follow the cult of O'Brien, then you already treat anyone with a different opinion to yourself with absolute disdain anyway. 

I listened to him almost daily during the Brexit debates of last year, simply for a bit of balance. But the thick racist jibes do become a bit wearing after a while, so since the election I just listen in small doses. It's a rarity if I make it to 10:15am with him these days.

I switch back at 1pm to listen to Sheila Fogherty who generally holds similar views to O'Brien, but allows people with an opposite viewpoint to have their say and engage in genuine conversation. 

O'Brien is just a shock jock who riles people enough to call and text in so that he can use every deflection and distraction tactic going to ultimately belittle any caller who disagrees with him. FFS, you can sometimes guess which side the caller will be on simply by the way O'Brien first speaks to them. The hostility is palpable.

For more intelligent and reasonable debate, I'd go for Maajid Nawaz at the weekend. A really good listen.

He asks people to back up their arguments with facts and research and that’s when it goes wrong for those who ring up with ludicrous claims about the EU etc. He’s not a shock  jock he’s actually asking the questions that most of the main stream media won’t go near because they’ve become client journalists like Kuenseberg (spelling) for the BBC or most of the tabloid press. 

I listen to Sheila Fogarty and Maajid as well and the other side like Nick Fararri and Nigel Farage who are allowed to be as political as they like without any hostility by the same people who get their knickers in a twist with James O’Brien.

They're all allowed to be as political as they like. People get their knickers in a twist with Farage as much as anyone does with O'Brien. There's no exclusivity to either side when it comes to hypocrisy.

[Derek Hardballs]

Laura Kuenssberg is with the BBC so has to be impartial - the BBC gets criticised by the Tories and Labour as unfair if they do not say what they like, which shows in general the Beeb journalists do a good job. Fair play to Kuenssberg for carrying on despite the vitriol and sexist abuse, asking difficult questions of all of them, right and left. That's why she got the job.
And fair play to the likes of Abbot and Cooper from Labour for sticking up for her in doing her job.  A journalist who is not impartial but says what a particular viewed person wants to hear does not mean that he/she is a good journalist. Probably implies the opposite and there will be his/her opposite somewhere who that same person equally hates.

Edit - from The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/s...lity-abuse

I don’t hate her ffs she was just awful at her job during the election. She regularly quoted sources close Conservatives as fact when it was proved time and time again by Independant fact checkers it was a lie / incorrect information. She reported as fact via two unnamed sources that a Labour activist punched a Tory aide without checking it was a fact. She wasn’t alone but she is supposed to be impartial but she failed miserably to hold ‘sources’ pumping out fake news to account. 

Impartial

[Derek Hardballs]

Laura Kuenssberg is with the BBC so has to be impartial - the BBC gets criticised by the Tories and Labour as unfair if they do not say what they like, which shows in general the Beeb journalists do a good job. Fair play to Kuenssberg for carrying on despite the vitriol and sexist abuse, asking difficult questions of all of them, right and left. That's why she got the job.
And fair play to the likes of Abbot and Cooper from Labour for sticking up for her in doing her job.  A journalist who is not impartial but says what a particular viewed person wants to hear does not mean that he/she is a good journalist. Probably implies the opposite and there will be his/her opposite somewhere who that same person equally hates.

Edit - from The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/s...lity-abuse

I don’t hate her ffs she was just awful at her job during the election. She regularly quoted sources close Conservatives as fact when it was proved time and time again by Independant fact checkers it was a lie / incorrect information. She reported as fact via two unnamed sources that a Labour activist punched a Tory aide without checking it was a fact. She wasn’t alone but she is supposed to be impartial but she failed miserably to hold ‘sources’ pumping out fake news to account. 

Impartial

The Trusts findings were rejected by the BBC and they themselves said there was no evidence of bias or a lack of partiality in the link you have put up called 'impartial' - maybe fact check the article
the twitter news on the punch was removed once it was found not to be news with an apology - by both Peston and Kuenssberg (ITV and BBC) - are you suggesting journalists should now stop quoting government sources and be responsible if the government mgets anything wrong? 
What is a fact is that Momentum went after her viciously as did many misogynistic trolls for daring to equally question Corbyn as well as the government and hold him to account - she tries to be impartial and does a good job compared to most imo - certainly head and shoulders above O'Brien

The BBC’s regulatory body...

The broadcaster’s regulator concluded that a Laura Kuenssberg report for the News at Six in November 2015 breached the broadcaster’s impartiality and accuracy guidelines, in a ruling that triggered an angry response from the corporation’s director of news.

I’m happy to use the word impartial given the above statement. It mentions a lack of bias was found not that she hadn’t breached impartiality and accuracy guidelines.

The BBC rejected the claims, crikey who would thought they would defend their own output? The trust is still upheld the complaint. 

Are you saying that anyone criticising her is a misogynist or Momentum? Sounds a bit of a cop out and trying to close down debate.

You don’t just quote sources close to a party without questioning them, checking they are accurate before you parrot them out on the biggest news platform in the country. 

From the lefty (not really) Peter Osborne

He also called out the BBC for being “manipulated” by the government, saying political editor Laura Kuenssberg is part of a trend among senior reporters who are “so pleased to be given ‘insider’ or ‘exclusive’ information that they report it without challenge or question”.

As for your assertion who you think is a better journalist well we shall have to beg to differ.bits certainly isn’t fact.

[Derek Hardballs]

Laura Kuenssberg is with the BBC so has to be impartial - the BBC gets criticised by the Tories and Labour as unfair if they do not say what they like, which shows in general the Beeb journalists do a good job. Fair play to Kuenssberg for carrying on despite the vitriol and sexist abuse, asking difficult questions of all of them, right and left. That's why she got the job.
And fair play to the likes of Abbot and Cooper from Labour for sticking up for her in doing her job.  A journalist who is not impartial but says what a particular viewed person wants to hear does not mean that he/she is a good journalist. Probably implies the opposite and there will be his/her opposite somewhere who that same person equally hates.

Edit - from The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/s...lity-abuse

I don’t hate her ffs she was just awful at her job during the election. She regularly quoted sources close Conservatives as fact when it was proved time and time again by Independant fact checkers it was a lie / incorrect information. She reported as fact via two unnamed sources that a Labour activist punched a Tory aide without checking it was a fact. She wasn’t alone but she is supposed to be impartial but she failed miserably to hold ‘sources’ pumping out fake news to account. 

Impartial

The Trusts findings were rejected by the BBC and they themselves said there was no evidence of bias or a lack of partiality in the link you have put up called 'impartial' - maybe fact check the article
the twitter news on the punch was removed once it was found not to be news with an apology - by both Peston and Kuenssberg (ITV and BBC) - are you suggesting journalists should now stop quoting government sources and be responsible if the government mgets anything wrong? 
What is a fact is that Momentum went after her viciously as did many misogynistic trolls for daring to equally question Corbyn as well as the government and hold him to account - she tries to be impartial and does a good job compared to most imo - certainly head and shoulders above O'Brien

The BBC rejected the claims, crikey who would thought they would defend their own output? The trust is still upheld the complaint. 

No you don’t just quote sources close to a party without questioning them, checking they are accurate before you parrot them out in the biggest news platform in the country. He has a massive pointing you’ll dismiss

The Trust said  there was no bias and there was not.  On that they agreed with the BBC who rejected the complaint. Journalists quote the government- that does not make them responsible for what the government says - it is their job to report the news. For example they will report the daily Covid 19 brief and what is said, which can then be examined for accuracy. They wont not report  it. It is news. LK gets stick from both sides because she doesn't take sides - which is what bias politicians and parties want her to.
 
OBrien on the other hand comes across as a cross between Danny Baker and Jeremy Kyle, flouncing unprofessionally even at the start of that JRM interview - his lack of balance and clear hostility palpable despite undoubtedly being clever. I would rather listen to an impartial journalist. I think you would have to have opinions very much alligned with his to stomach that show or it would be painful to listen to his ego driven agenda for all of it.
This idea that Marr and Neil etc gave the Tories an easy ride is one I would not agree with either but I expect some in the media think so on the left of the divide. It has been Corbyn's excuse but it doesn't wash with me.  The BBC are not there to help the opposition get in power but to challenge all parties.

The Trust upheld the complaint and the rest is semantics. 

No you don’t just report what some source (we all know who!) says on a parties behalf you investigate whether it is true before you scurry off to Twitter to parrot the governments / parties line. Otherwise you open yourself up to deserved criticism. This has eff all to do with misogyny, it’s simply journalistic standards.  

O’Brien does not work for the BBC so there is no pretence that he has to be. The same with all the other journalists on LBC and the impartial Farage  and previously Mogg of course. Eddie Mair is the best journalist on LBC and his shows are great but heck he’s criticising the lack of answers to direct questions at the Covid 19 briefings currently so he will be criticised I imagine for that in due course.

---

The Trusts findings were rejected by the BBC and they themselves said there was no evidence of bias or a lack of partiality in the link you have put up called 'impartial' - maybe fact check the article
the twitter news on the punch was removed once it was found not to be news with an apology - by both Peston and Kuenssberg (ITV and BBC) - are you suggesting journalists should now stop quoting government sources and be responsible if the government mgets anything wrong? 
What is a fact is that Momentum went after her viciously as did many misogynistic trolls for daring to equally question Corbyn as well as the government and hold him to account - she tries to be impartial and does a good job compared to most imo - certainly head and shoulders above O'Brien

The BBC rejected the claims, crikey who would thought they would defend their own output? The trust is still upheld the complaint. 

No you don’t just quote sources close to a party without questioning them, checking they are accurate before you parrot them out in the biggest news platform in the country. He has a massive pointing you’ll dismiss

The Trust said  there was no bias and there was not.  On that they agreed with the BBC who rejected the complaint. Journalists quote the government- that does not make them responsible for what the government says - it is their job to report the news. For example they will report the daily Covid 19 brief and what is said, which can then be examined for accuracy. They wont not report  it. It is news. LK gets stick from both sides because she doesn't take sides - which is what bias politicians and parties want her to.
 
OBrien on the other hand comes across as a cross between Danny Baker and Jeremy Kyle, flouncing unprofessionally even at the start of that JRM interview - his lack of balance and clear hostility palpable despite undoubtedly being clever. I would rather listen to an impartial journalist. I think you would have to have opinions very much alligned with his to stomach that show or it would be painful to listen to his ego driven agenda for all of it.
This idea that Marr and Neil etc gave the Tories an easy ride is one I would not agree with either but I expect some in the media think so on the left of the divide. It has been Corbyn's excuse but it doesn't wash with me.  The BBC are not there to help the opposition get in power but to challenge all parties.

The Trust upheld the complaint and the rest is semantics. 

No you don’t just report what some source (we all know who!) says on a parties behalf you investigate whether it is true before you scurry off to Twitter to parrot the governments / parties line. Otherwise you open yourself up to deserved criticism. This has eff all to do with misogyny, it’s simply journalistic standards.  

O’Brien does not work for the BBC so there is no pretence that he has to be. The same with all the other journalists on LBC and the impartial Farage  and previously Mogg of course. Eddie Mair is the best journalist on LBC and his shows are great but heck he’s criticising the lack of answers to direct questions at the Covid 19 briefings currently so he will be criticised I imagine for that in due course.

No it isn't semantics- there was clear  disagreement, but not on the subject of bias - there was none, all agreed on that.

Of course you report the news. The Covid 19 news is reported live.
To blame journalists if the source makes a mistake is ridiculous unless they are writing a piece that claims to be in depth investigation and not just of what was just said. The news cycle is immediate these days.

There are complaints that the BBC is too left wing going back a while including now from within - link from Humphrys below - but I don't accept that either. The Beeb do their best not to take sides which annoys those that are not impartial on any debate. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media...14711.html

Like I say - pinch of salt with this too. It is an opinion, no doubt backed up with facts, but other facts would contradict it. Mistakes are made but the agenda is one of impartiality. And quite right.

LK is a good journalist not a shock jock. The practice of belittling people who call in as reported if it is true is also a low tactic that kind of tells you all you need to know. I'm not suggesting btw you or most criticising LK had any misogyny in mind, only that there was a nasty campaign from some elements that shows how extreme some politics has become to far right or far left in what is deemed acceptable.

The agenda should be impartiality but when you have the senior editor not questioning the sources lies in many cases then you create a situation when it can be questioned. I used to be a staunch BBC supporter on here and the Zone but I’ve lost a lot of faith in them since the last election. It should also be noted that the ‘shock jock’ was good enough to be part of Newsnight’s journalists but decided to leave as did the excellent Eddie Mair.