Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
No Vaccination Novak Djokovic
Comments
-
Ta for proving my point.PrincessFiona said:
There is no way the BBC news is right wing. Sky is far worse than it used to be,: one too fat left and too wokeJamesSeed said:
Well the news sort of is although, as ever, the right thinks it’s left wing and the left thinks it’s right wing. Personally I’d say they give the government an easy ride, but it was ever thus. Comes with being a state owned broadcaster I guess.PrincessFiona said:
The issue is the BBC aren't impartialJamesSeed said:
The impartiality rules only apply to news programmes, and they apply equally to ITV news programmes.RickAddick said:
Not bothered what the commercial TV sector pay for the interview, assuming Djokovic was paid a fee.JamesSeed said:
The same problem might have arisen; Djokovic would still have wanted a veto, and ITV would probably have caved in and given the interview to a high profile sports guy, rather than lose the interview. They’d know the interview would get decent ratings, and money talks.RickAddick said:
I can see that the BBC are glad to have a scoop, but if the interviewee is allowed to choose the interviewer and veto the questions he doesn't want to answer, I would have preferred the BBC to have left this one to the commercial sector. Where is value for money for the licence payer here?JamesSeed said:
The Beeb are often a bit of a soft touch with these sort of interviews. Didn’t see it myself, but Djokovic’s team would have had a say (or a veto) in who conducted the interview.SELR_addicks said:Nice bit of PR for Novak set up by a huge PR firm with the BBC.
Allowed to air his views without much debate to millions of people in the UK. So much for being cancelled.
Amol Rajan is Media editor at the Beeb, and was probably never going to be someone who’d ask the toughest questions. They would have steered clear of anyone with a medical brief (health editor for example) or anyone with a Paxman like reputation. An Emily Maitless for example, as mentioned by Prague.So when it runs you can guarantee a small percentage of the audience will be persuaded by his arguments, but it’s unlikely anyone will be persuaded to switch the other way.
My objection is the BBC using TV license money (if this was the case) to give Djokovic publicly, if the BBC is prevented from asking questions that Djokovic doesn't want to answer.
Better ways for a supposedly hard up BBC to spent the license cash.
If no money changed hands, there is still an issue, as the BBC can't be impartial if they can't ask the pertinent questions.
The Beeb are having their news coverage budgets slashed year on year. The government doesn’t like being criticised, even when the criticism is justified and impartial. They can’t affect ITV, so they concentrate on the BBC (and are attempting to damage C4). In a true democracy you need a free news media, but that’s currently under real threat.Still, I’d much rather have the Beeb than farm out the news to vested interests with deep pockets, like Rupert Murdoch. Remember, they don’t get involved in TV news to make a profit, so what’s in it for them?1 -
And what is the meaning, according to the OED, of this new adjective?PrincessFiona said:
Language is evolving - its in the Oxford English Dictionary as an adjective btwPragueAddick said:
The word highlighted is the past participle of a verb. It is not an adjective.PrincessFiona said:
There is no way the BBC news is right wing. Sky is far worse than it used to be,: one too fat left and too wokeJamesSeed said:
Well the news sort of is although, as ever, the right thinks it’s left wing and the left thinks it’s right wing. Personally I’d say they give the government an easy ride, but it was ever thus. Comes with being a state owned broadcaster I guess.PrincessFiona said:
The issue is the BBC aren't impartialJamesSeed said:
The impartiality rules only apply to news programmes, and they apply equally to ITV news programmes.RickAddick said:
Not bothered what the commercial TV sector pay for the interview, assuming Djokovic was paid a fee.JamesSeed said:
The same problem might have arisen; Djokovic would still have wanted a veto, and ITV would probably have caved in and given the interview to a high profile sports guy, rather than lose the interview. They’d know the interview would get decent ratings, and money talks.RickAddick said:
I can see that the BBC are glad to have a scoop, but if the interviewee is allowed to choose the interviewer and veto the questions he doesn't want to answer, I would have preferred the BBC to have left this one to the commercial sector. Where is value for money for the licence payer here?JamesSeed said:
The Beeb are often a bit of a soft touch with these sort of interviews. Didn’t see it myself, but Djokovic’s team would have had a say (or a veto) in who conducted the interview.SELR_addicks said:Nice bit of PR for Novak set up by a huge PR firm with the BBC.
Allowed to air his views without much debate to millions of people in the UK. So much for being cancelled.
Amol Rajan is Media editor at the Beeb, and was probably never going to be someone who’d ask the toughest questions. They would have steered clear of anyone with a medical brief (health editor for example) or anyone with a Paxman like reputation. An Emily Maitless for example, as mentioned by Prague.So when it runs you can guarantee a small percentage of the audience will be persuaded by his arguments, but it’s unlikely anyone will be persuaded to switch the other way.
My objection is the BBC using TV license money (if this was the case) to give Djokovic publicly, if the BBC is prevented from asking questions that Djokovic doesn't want to answer.
Better ways for a supposedly hard up BBC to spent the license cash.
If no money changed hands, there is still an issue, as the BBC can't be impartial if they can't ask the pertinent questions.
The Beeb are having their news coverage budgets slashed year on year. The government doesn’t like being criticised, even when the criticism is justified and impartial. They can’t affect ITV, so they concentrate on the BBC (and are attempting to damage C4). In a true democracy you need a free news media, but that’s currently under real threat.Still, I’d much rather have the Beeb than farm out the news to vested interests with deep pockets, like Rupert Murdoch. Remember, they don’t get involved in TV news to make a profit, so what’s in it for them?“A way to describe a person whose opinions annoy me” ?1 -
Not necessarily,, of course it depends. One minute you say you can't use the word, now you disagree with how others use it (even though you say can't use it that way, despite it being accepted in the dictionary).why misquote?PragueAddick said:
And what is the meaning, according to the OED, of this new adjective?PrincessFiona said:
Language is evolving - its in the Oxford English Dictionary as an adjective btwPragueAddick said:
The word highlighted is the past participle of a verb. It is not an adjective.PrincessFiona said:
There is no way the BBC news is right wing. Sky is far worse than it used to be,: one too fat left and too wokeJamesSeed said:
Well the news sort of is although, as ever, the right thinks it’s left wing and the left thinks it’s right wing. Personally I’d say they give the government an easy ride, but it was ever thus. Comes with being a state owned broadcaster I guess.PrincessFiona said:
The issue is the BBC aren't impartialJamesSeed said:
The impartiality rules only apply to news programmes, and they apply equally to ITV news programmes.RickAddick said:
Not bothered what the commercial TV sector pay for the interview, assuming Djokovic was paid a fee.JamesSeed said:
The same problem might have arisen; Djokovic would still have wanted a veto, and ITV would probably have caved in and given the interview to a high profile sports guy, rather than lose the interview. They’d know the interview would get decent ratings, and money talks.RickAddick said:
I can see that the BBC are glad to have a scoop, but if the interviewee is allowed to choose the interviewer and veto the questions he doesn't want to answer, I would have preferred the BBC to have left this one to the commercial sector. Where is value for money for the licence payer here?JamesSeed said:
The Beeb are often a bit of a soft touch with these sort of interviews. Didn’t see it myself, but Djokovic’s team would have had a say (or a veto) in who conducted the interview.SELR_addicks said:Nice bit of PR for Novak set up by a huge PR firm with the BBC.
Allowed to air his views without much debate to millions of people in the UK. So much for being cancelled.
Amol Rajan is Media editor at the Beeb, and was probably never going to be someone who’d ask the toughest questions. They would have steered clear of anyone with a medical brief (health editor for example) or anyone with a Paxman like reputation. An Emily Maitless for example, as mentioned by Prague.So when it runs you can guarantee a small percentage of the audience will be persuaded by his arguments, but it’s unlikely anyone will be persuaded to switch the other way.
My objection is the BBC using TV license money (if this was the case) to give Djokovic publicly, if the BBC is prevented from asking questions that Djokovic doesn't want to answer.
Better ways for a supposedly hard up BBC to spent the license cash.
If no money changed hands, there is still an issue, as the BBC can't be impartial if they can't ask the pertinent questions.
The Beeb are having their news coverage budgets slashed year on year. The government doesn’t like being criticised, even when the criticism is justified and impartial. They can’t affect ITV, so they concentrate on the BBC (and are attempting to damage C4). In a true democracy you need a free news media, but that’s currently under real threat.Still, I’d much rather have the Beeb than farm out the news to vested interests with deep pockets, like Rupert Murdoch. Remember, they don’t get involved in TV news to make a profit, so what’s in it for them?“A way to describe a person whose opinions annoy me” ?0 -
PragueAddick said:
And what is the meaning, according to the OED, of this new adjective?PrincessFiona said:
Language is evolving - its in the Oxford English Dictionary as an adjective btwPragueAddick said:
The word highlighted is the past participle of a verb. It is not an adjective.PrincessFiona said:
There is no way the BBC news is right wing. Sky is far worse than it used to be,: one too fat left and too wokeJamesSeed said:
Well the news sort of is although, as ever, the right thinks it’s left wing and the left thinks it’s right wing. Personally I’d say they give the government an easy ride, but it was ever thus. Comes with being a state owned broadcaster I guess.PrincessFiona said:
The issue is the BBC aren't impartialJamesSeed said:
The impartiality rules only apply to news programmes, and they apply equally to ITV news programmes.RickAddick said:
Not bothered what the commercial TV sector pay for the interview, assuming Djokovic was paid a fee.JamesSeed said:
The same problem might have arisen; Djokovic would still have wanted a veto, and ITV would probably have caved in and given the interview to a high profile sports guy, rather than lose the interview. They’d know the interview would get decent ratings, and money talks.RickAddick said:
I can see that the BBC are glad to have a scoop, but if the interviewee is allowed to choose the interviewer and veto the questions he doesn't want to answer, I would have preferred the BBC to have left this one to the commercial sector. Where is value for money for the licence payer here?JamesSeed said:
The Beeb are often a bit of a soft touch with these sort of interviews. Didn’t see it myself, but Djokovic’s team would have had a say (or a veto) in who conducted the interview.SELR_addicks said:Nice bit of PR for Novak set up by a huge PR firm with the BBC.
Allowed to air his views without much debate to millions of people in the UK. So much for being cancelled.
Amol Rajan is Media editor at the Beeb, and was probably never going to be someone who’d ask the toughest questions. They would have steered clear of anyone with a medical brief (health editor for example) or anyone with a Paxman like reputation. An Emily Maitless for example, as mentioned by Prague.So when it runs you can guarantee a small percentage of the audience will be persuaded by his arguments, but it’s unlikely anyone will be persuaded to switch the other way.
My objection is the BBC using TV license money (if this was the case) to give Djokovic publicly, if the BBC is prevented from asking questions that Djokovic doesn't want to answer.
Better ways for a supposedly hard up BBC to spent the license cash.
If no money changed hands, there is still an issue, as the BBC can't be impartial if they can't ask the pertinent questions.
The Beeb are having their news coverage budgets slashed year on year. The government doesn’t like being criticised, even when the criticism is justified and impartial. They can’t affect ITV, so they concentrate on the BBC (and are attempting to damage C4). In a true democracy you need a free news media, but that’s currently under real threat.Still, I’d much rather have the Beeb than farm out the news to vested interests with deep pockets, like Rupert Murdoch. Remember, they don’t get involved in TV news to make a profit, so what’s in it for them?“A way to describe a person whose opinions annoy me” ?
“alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice; frequently in stay woke.”PragueAddick said:
And what is the meaning, according to the OED, of this new adjective?PrincessFiona said:
Language is evolving - its in the Oxford English Dictionary as an adjective btwPragueAddick said:
The word highlighted is the past participle of a verb. It is not an adjective.PrincessFiona said:
There is no way the BBC news is right wing. Sky is far worse than it used to be,: one too fat left and too wokeJamesSeed said:
Well the news sort of is although, as ever, the right thinks it’s left wing and the left thinks it’s right wing. Personally I’d say they give the government an easy ride, but it was ever thus. Comes with being a state owned broadcaster I guess.PrincessFiona said:
The issue is the BBC aren't impartialJamesSeed said:
The impartiality rules only apply to news programmes, and they apply equally to ITV news programmes.RickAddick said:
Not bothered what the commercial TV sector pay for the interview, assuming Djokovic was paid a fee.JamesSeed said:
The same problem might have arisen; Djokovic would still have wanted a veto, and ITV would probably have caved in and given the interview to a high profile sports guy, rather than lose the interview. They’d know the interview would get decent ratings, and money talks.RickAddick said:
I can see that the BBC are glad to have a scoop, but if the interviewee is allowed to choose the interviewer and veto the questions he doesn't want to answer, I would have preferred the BBC to have left this one to the commercial sector. Where is value for money for the licence payer here?JamesSeed said:
The Beeb are often a bit of a soft touch with these sort of interviews. Didn’t see it myself, but Djokovic’s team would have had a say (or a veto) in who conducted the interview.SELR_addicks said:Nice bit of PR for Novak set up by a huge PR firm with the BBC.
Allowed to air his views without much debate to millions of people in the UK. So much for being cancelled.
Amol Rajan is Media editor at the Beeb, and was probably never going to be someone who’d ask the toughest questions. They would have steered clear of anyone with a medical brief (health editor for example) or anyone with a Paxman like reputation. An Emily Maitless for example, as mentioned by Prague.So when it runs you can guarantee a small percentage of the audience will be persuaded by his arguments, but it’s unlikely anyone will be persuaded to switch the other way.
My objection is the BBC using TV license money (if this was the case) to give Djokovic publicly, if the BBC is prevented from asking questions that Djokovic doesn't want to answer.
Better ways for a supposedly hard up BBC to spent the license cash.
If no money changed hands, there is still an issue, as the BBC can't be impartial if they can't ask the pertinent questions.
The Beeb are having their news coverage budgets slashed year on year. The government doesn’t like being criticised, even when the criticism is justified and impartial. They can’t affect ITV, so they concentrate on the BBC (and are attempting to damage C4). In a true democracy you need a free news media, but that’s currently under real threat.Still, I’d much rather have the Beeb than farm out the news to vested interests with deep pockets, like Rupert Murdoch. Remember, they don’t get involved in TV news to make a profit, so what’s in it for them?“A way to describe a person whose opinions annoy me” ?It was only added in June 2017, so it’s understandable you’re behind the times, probably better to check these things before trying to put others down though.0 -
Woke is used as a put down though. Why has it been co-opted as the right as some kind of insult? Culture wars are just a diversion to avoid facing real issues that actually matter.3
-
Typical right wing tactics unfortunately, part of how the alt right likes to recruit by creating a quote-unquote "community" (more accurately an echo chamber) of such individuals by creating this nadsat-like pseudo language - not only woke, but cuck, simp, even incel was actually a more neutral term before they co-opted it.JamesSeed said:Woke is used as a put down though. Why has it been co-opted as the right as some kind of insult? Culture wars are just a diversion to avoid facing real issues that actually matter.5 -
Couldn’t this ‘woke’ argument stuff be discussed in the House of Commoners group? It seems to be used in any threads with a whiff of controversy (Novax, Covid etc).0
-
To some extent I'm being tongue in cheek about that, doing a grumpy old git thing, but I still think it is an ugly abuse of the language and specifically the grammar aspect, and I couldn't give a **** if the OED decides to give it a veneer of credibility. Have they also done that for "innit" yet? If not they soon will. But that's another abuse of grammar.PrincessFiona said:
Not necessarily,, of course it depends. One minute you say you can't use the word, now you disagree with how others use it (even though you say can't use it that way, despite it being accepted in the dictionary).why misquote?PragueAddick said:
And what is the meaning, according to the OED, of this new adjective?PrincessFiona said:
Language is evolving - its in the Oxford English Dictionary as an adjective btwPragueAddick said:
The word highlighted is the past participle of a verb. It is not an adjective.PrincessFiona said:
There is no way the BBC news is right wing. Sky is far worse than it used to be,: one too fat left and too wokeJamesSeed said:
Well the news sort of is although, as ever, the right thinks it’s left wing and the left thinks it’s right wing. Personally I’d say they give the government an easy ride, but it was ever thus. Comes with being a state owned broadcaster I guess.PrincessFiona said:
The issue is the BBC aren't impartialJamesSeed said:
The impartiality rules only apply to news programmes, and they apply equally to ITV news programmes.RickAddick said:
Not bothered what the commercial TV sector pay for the interview, assuming Djokovic was paid a fee.JamesSeed said:
The same problem might have arisen; Djokovic would still have wanted a veto, and ITV would probably have caved in and given the interview to a high profile sports guy, rather than lose the interview. They’d know the interview would get decent ratings, and money talks.RickAddick said:
I can see that the BBC are glad to have a scoop, but if the interviewee is allowed to choose the interviewer and veto the questions he doesn't want to answer, I would have preferred the BBC to have left this one to the commercial sector. Where is value for money for the licence payer here?JamesSeed said:
The Beeb are often a bit of a soft touch with these sort of interviews. Didn’t see it myself, but Djokovic’s team would have had a say (or a veto) in who conducted the interview.SELR_addicks said:Nice bit of PR for Novak set up by a huge PR firm with the BBC.
Allowed to air his views without much debate to millions of people in the UK. So much for being cancelled.
Amol Rajan is Media editor at the Beeb, and was probably never going to be someone who’d ask the toughest questions. They would have steered clear of anyone with a medical brief (health editor for example) or anyone with a Paxman like reputation. An Emily Maitless for example, as mentioned by Prague.So when it runs you can guarantee a small percentage of the audience will be persuaded by his arguments, but it’s unlikely anyone will be persuaded to switch the other way.
My objection is the BBC using TV license money (if this was the case) to give Djokovic publicly, if the BBC is prevented from asking questions that Djokovic doesn't want to answer.
Better ways for a supposedly hard up BBC to spent the license cash.
If no money changed hands, there is still an issue, as the BBC can't be impartial if they can't ask the pertinent questions.
The Beeb are having their news coverage budgets slashed year on year. The government doesn’t like being criticised, even when the criticism is justified and impartial. They can’t affect ITV, so they concentrate on the BBC (and are attempting to damage C4). In a true democracy you need a free news media, but that’s currently under real threat.Still, I’d much rather have the Beeb than farm out the news to vested interests with deep pockets, like Rupert Murdoch. Remember, they don’t get involved in TV news to make a profit, so what’s in it for them?“A way to describe a person whose opinions annoy me” ?
There's also evidence that the OED definition isn't the only way, or even the usual way people use it. There is evidence right here on this thread, from you, in fact. In the run-up to the court ruling on Novax, everyone was speculating that he might get off, when the majority - and here you and I were in agreement - hoped that he would not. I was though surprised to see that you worried about a "woke" judge. With no explanation why you called him/her that. I couldn't be arsed to comment on it at the the time. And when the verdict went the way you hoped, of course the judge was beyond further comment. But why did you use the word then? I am not sure exactly what you had in mind but I don't think it fits with the OED definition?0 -
Which is insane, as it's quite obviously a positive thing.JamesSeed said:Woke is used as a put down though. Why has it been co-opted as the right as some kind of insult? Culture wars are just a diversion to avoid facing real issues that actually matter.2 -
Over a decade ago.PragueAddick said:
Have they also done that for "innit" yet? If not they soon will.PrincessFiona said:
Not necessarily,, of course it depends. One minute you say you can't use the word, now you disagree with how others use it (even though you say can't use it that way, despite it being accepted in the dictionary).why misquote?PragueAddick said:
And what is the meaning, according to the OED, of this new adjective?PrincessFiona said:
Language is evolving - its in the Oxford English Dictionary as an adjective btwPragueAddick said:
The word highlighted is the past participle of a verb. It is not an adjective.PrincessFiona said:
There is no way the BBC news is right wing. Sky is far worse than it used to be,: one too fat left and too wokeJamesSeed said:
Well the news sort of is although, as ever, the right thinks it’s left wing and the left thinks it’s right wing. Personally I’d say they give the government an easy ride, but it was ever thus. Comes with being a state owned broadcaster I guess.PrincessFiona said:
The issue is the BBC aren't impartialJamesSeed said:
The impartiality rules only apply to news programmes, and they apply equally to ITV news programmes.RickAddick said:
Not bothered what the commercial TV sector pay for the interview, assuming Djokovic was paid a fee.JamesSeed said:
The same problem might have arisen; Djokovic would still have wanted a veto, and ITV would probably have caved in and given the interview to a high profile sports guy, rather than lose the interview. They’d know the interview would get decent ratings, and money talks.RickAddick said:
I can see that the BBC are glad to have a scoop, but if the interviewee is allowed to choose the interviewer and veto the questions he doesn't want to answer, I would have preferred the BBC to have left this one to the commercial sector. Where is value for money for the licence payer here?JamesSeed said:
The Beeb are often a bit of a soft touch with these sort of interviews. Didn’t see it myself, but Djokovic’s team would have had a say (or a veto) in who conducted the interview.SELR_addicks said:Nice bit of PR for Novak set up by a huge PR firm with the BBC.
Allowed to air his views without much debate to millions of people in the UK. So much for being cancelled.
Amol Rajan is Media editor at the Beeb, and was probably never going to be someone who’d ask the toughest questions. They would have steered clear of anyone with a medical brief (health editor for example) or anyone with a Paxman like reputation. An Emily Maitless for example, as mentioned by Prague.So when it runs you can guarantee a small percentage of the audience will be persuaded by his arguments, but it’s unlikely anyone will be persuaded to switch the other way.
My objection is the BBC using TV license money (if this was the case) to give Djokovic publicly, if the BBC is prevented from asking questions that Djokovic doesn't want to answer.
Better ways for a supposedly hard up BBC to spent the license cash.
If no money changed hands, there is still an issue, as the BBC can't be impartial if they can't ask the pertinent questions.
The Beeb are having their news coverage budgets slashed year on year. The government doesn’t like being criticised, even when the criticism is justified and impartial. They can’t affect ITV, so they concentrate on the BBC (and are attempting to damage C4). In a true democracy you need a free news media, but that’s currently under real threat.Still, I’d much rather have the Beeb than farm out the news to vested interests with deep pockets, like Rupert Murdoch. Remember, they don’t get involved in TV news to make a profit, so what’s in it for them?“A way to describe a person whose opinions annoy me” ?0 - Sponsored links:
-
How’s life where you are these days? Relatively back to normal?Stu_of_Kunming said:
Which is insane, as it's quite obviously a positive thing.JamesSeed said:Woke is used as a put down though. Why has it been co-opted as the right as some kind of insult? Culture wars are just a diversion to avoid facing real issues that actually matter.0 -
We don't all use words the same way shocker! That's language for you. People say should 'of' not should have, say somethink, not something and the commonly used you 'was" not you were. And don't get me started on the youngsters use of some words in completely differently ways that I'm too old to begin to understandPragueAddick said:
To some extent I'm being tongue in cheek about that, doing a grumpy old git thing, but I still think it is an ugly abuse of the language and specifically the grammar aspect, and I couldn't give a **** if the OED decides to give it a veneer of credibility. Have they also done that for "innit" yet? If not they soon will. But that's another abuse of grammar.PrincessFiona said:
Not necessarily,, of course it depends. One minute you say you can't use the word, now you disagree with how others use it (even though you say can't use it that way, despite it being accepted in the dictionary).why misquote?PragueAddick said:
And what is the meaning, according to the OED, of this new adjective?PrincessFiona said:
Language is evolving - its in the Oxford English Dictionary as an adjective btwPragueAddick said:
The word highlighted is the past participle of a verb. It is not an adjective.PrincessFiona said:
There is no way the BBC news is right wing. Sky is far worse than it used to be,: one too fat left and too wokeJamesSeed said:
Well the news sort of is although, as ever, the right thinks it’s left wing and the left thinks it’s right wing. Personally I’d say they give the government an easy ride, but it was ever thus. Comes with being a state owned broadcaster I guess.PrincessFiona said:
The issue is the BBC aren't impartialJamesSeed said:
The impartiality rules only apply to news programmes, and they apply equally to ITV news programmes.RickAddick said:
Not bothered what the commercial TV sector pay for the interview, assuming Djokovic was paid a fee.JamesSeed said:
The same problem might have arisen; Djokovic would still have wanted a veto, and ITV would probably have caved in and given the interview to a high profile sports guy, rather than lose the interview. They’d know the interview would get decent ratings, and money talks.RickAddick said:
I can see that the BBC are glad to have a scoop, but if the interviewee is allowed to choose the interviewer and veto the questions he doesn't want to answer, I would have preferred the BBC to have left this one to the commercial sector. Where is value for money for the licence payer here?JamesSeed said:
The Beeb are often a bit of a soft touch with these sort of interviews. Didn’t see it myself, but Djokovic’s team would have had a say (or a veto) in who conducted the interview.SELR_addicks said:Nice bit of PR for Novak set up by a huge PR firm with the BBC.
Allowed to air his views without much debate to millions of people in the UK. So much for being cancelled.
Amol Rajan is Media editor at the Beeb, and was probably never going to be someone who’d ask the toughest questions. They would have steered clear of anyone with a medical brief (health editor for example) or anyone with a Paxman like reputation. An Emily Maitless for example, as mentioned by Prague.So when it runs you can guarantee a small percentage of the audience will be persuaded by his arguments, but it’s unlikely anyone will be persuaded to switch the other way.
My objection is the BBC using TV license money (if this was the case) to give Djokovic publicly, if the BBC is prevented from asking questions that Djokovic doesn't want to answer.
Better ways for a supposedly hard up BBC to spent the license cash.
If no money changed hands, there is still an issue, as the BBC can't be impartial if they can't ask the pertinent questions.
The Beeb are having their news coverage budgets slashed year on year. The government doesn’t like being criticised, even when the criticism is justified and impartial. They can’t affect ITV, so they concentrate on the BBC (and are attempting to damage C4). In a true democracy you need a free news media, but that’s currently under real threat.Still, I’d much rather have the Beeb than farm out the news to vested interests with deep pockets, like Rupert Murdoch. Remember, they don’t get involved in TV news to make a profit, so what’s in it for them?“A way to describe a person whose opinions annoy me” ?
There's also evidence that the OED definition isn't the only way, or even the usual way people use it. There is evidence right here on this thread, from you, in fact. In the run-up to the court ruling on Novax, everyone was speculating that he might get off, when the majority - and here you and I were in agreement - hoped that he would not. I was though surprised to see that you worried about a "woke" judge. With no explanation why you called him/her that. I couldn't be arsed to comment on it at the the time. And when the verdict went the way you hoped, of course the judge was beyond further comment. But why did you use the word then? I am not sure exactly what you had in mind but I don't think it fits with the OED definition?0 -
You're absolutely right, but it's nothing new. I believe the ultimate, all time, phrase-reversal for the benefit of the idiot minority is 'do gooder'. Should we set out to do bad, then?Stu_of_Kunming said:
Which is insane, as it's quite obviously a positive thing.JamesSeed said:Woke is used as a put down though. Why has it been co-opted as the right as some kind of insult? Culture wars are just a diversion to avoid facing real issues that actually matter.1 -
It's been 'normal' for quite some time, unless there's a minor outbreak then loads of stuff gets closed, but that's only happened twice in the last year.JamesSeed said:
How’s life where you are these days? Relatively back to normal?Stu_of_Kunming said:
Which is insane, as it's quite obviously a positive thing.JamesSeed said:Woke is used as a put down though. Why has it been co-opted as the right as some kind of insult? Culture wars are just a diversion to avoid facing real issues that actually matter.
Sadly the inability to leave the country is starting to grate, so more and more of my friends are packing up and leaving, with a wife and kid that's not an easy option for me.1 -
It doesn't have to be politicised as I know people who are more moderate and left of centre who use it in the same way - it is more of a liberal thing than right and left.JamesSeed said:Woke is used as a put down though. Why has it been co-opted as the right as some kind of insult? Culture wars are just a diversion to avoid facing real issues that actually matter.
No wonder we are becoming more polarised, if people keep politicising everything. I disagree that it is a way of avoiding issues, more how they are handled. Some initiatives, intended to deal with issues, actually do more harm than good2 -
Isn't going to the US Open.
0 -
As much as I think he's a knob for his refusal to get jabbed I think the tournament is better with him in it.0
-
I'm not so sure, think he'd have won it comfortably so at least it might be interesting.blackpool72 said:As much as I think he's a knob for his refusal to get jabbed I think the tournament is better with him in it.1 -
Wins the French Open to secure a record 23rd Grand Slam title. Out on his own now.
Also becomes the first man to win each major at least 3 times.0 -
Not sure there’s ever been a less likeable all time great in any sport.Chris_from_Sidcup said:Wins the French Open to secure a record 23rd Grand Slam title. Out on his own now.
Also becomes the first man to win each major at least 3 times.14 - Sponsored links:
-
Floyd Mayweather?se9addick said:
Not sure there’s ever been a less likeable all time great in any sport.Chris_from_Sidcup said:Wins the French Open to secure a record 23rd Grand Slam title. Out on his own now.
Also becomes the first man to win each major at least 3 times.
Maybe Verstappen if he continues to win world titles will be up there.2 -
Novak is a legend.. deserved win0
-
Loathe him for his feigned injuries, excessive toilet breaks, excessive bouncing and Covid arrogance.6
-
LegendChris_from_Sidcup said:Wins the French Open to secure a record 23rd Grand Slam title. Out on his own now.
Also becomes the first man to win each major at least 3 times.0 -
You can't argue with the stats. Not the most popular "legend" though, not that he'll care.1
-
superb competitor and his record speaks for itself, definitely the G O A T .. BUT, as a stylist, I'll take Roger Federer anytime .. Federer lacked that killer/never give a sucker an even break mentality that makes Djokovic the all time winner that he is .. will we ever see the like again ?1
-
Crowds took against him for whatever reason long before he took his poorly considered stance on covid vaccination. I remember seeing him early in his career and he impressed me with the way he just got on with the tennis. He lost some people who were important to him and struggled - he then got upset when crowds took against him, and I remember that they were quite toxic. For that reason I look forward to seeing him continue his brilliant career for the few years he has left.0
-
I think he did care, and it was a problem for him.killerandflash said:You can't argue with the stats. Not the most popular "legend" though, not that he'll care.0 -
He'll always be seen as a lesser 3rd compared to Federer and Nadal. Bet it stings.0
-
Not sure how you come to that conclusion but it's about subjective enjoyment of a players style as much as actually winning more matches.0
