She accepted and attended a meeting with a major global leader - her credibility and integrity are allowed to be questioned in this case.
And as such, others have the right to question her integrity as a credible journalist.
5 Likes
There is no integrity when sheâs out there pushing a biased political agenda to a political leader rather than objectively covering the news or conducting a special report.
Hell if it wasnât being reported or shown on TV it could be considered espionage.
âJournalistâ
6 Likes
Well thatâs us told, then.
1 Like
The likes on this post tell me some sad statistics about this site and itâs users.
1 Like
With all due respect, while everyone is allowed to have their opinion about not liking Sky News, others are also allowed to express their support for Sky News.
11 Likes
Itâs not support for a ânewsâ station, itâs support for a hate fountain. This isnât 10 v 7.
Sometimes I just hate this world.
1 Like
Because you cant accept that people have different views to you?
6 Likes
They never said that they agreed with her views, or opinions - they said that they think that she is allowed to express her views.
Sure, Sky News might be a bit more right leaning than other outlets, and yes, they should be called out whenever they say stuff that is racist, sexist, etc, however, diversity in media is a necessity of our democratic society.
2 Likes
Thatâs an understatement if ever I saw it. They deal in extreme right wing misinformation. Just watch PML and Outsiders.
2 Likes
I was trying to put it politely - of course they lean to the extreme right - however, diversity in media is still important in our democracy.
Of course it is. Except they spend too much time lying. This is the issue. I donât think diversity of opinion is bad just when you lie and engage in fear to try and control the masses. Theyâre also a propaganda arm of the coalition.
3 Likes
Fair point, however, my original point is people on this forum shouldnât be put down for speaking favourably about Sky News.
People are allowed to challenge those views, however, putting others down for having those views in the first place is wrong - they arenât being or endorsing sexism, racism, etc - they are just expressing their opinion about the content of Sky News.
I, for one, agree with you, and that Sky News commentators should be called out for their behaviour, but, that doesnât mean we have to attack those on this site who support it.
4 Likes
My point exactly.
They arenât just disagreeing, cross-analysing, debating, or presenting an alternate angle, theyâre blatantly and deliberately lying and spreading mistruth and hate in order to divide people and stoke the fires.
I donât have an issue with people having different views to mine, but when they (who clearly do have an issue with alternate views) are genuinely dangerous and harmful it becomes a problem.
4 Likes
No one on this site, at least from what I have seen, have agreed or tried to promote any âdangerousâ or âharmfulâ opinions or views of Sky News presenters.
But please, feel free to show some examples because honestly I have no idea what you are talking about.
I feel like you donât realise this is one and the same. If I endorse Politician X, I am inherently saying I agree with their views. If I defend âCommentatorâ X, I am inherently saying what they are saying is something I believe too.
Now you may be correct in your case or in a few/most cases here, however there are members who âdefendâ Sky and concurrently have expressed the same views they have previously. I apologise if I lumped you in with them, it was not my intention. Unless someone says âI defend their right to freedom of (hate) speech but donât agree with their opinionsâ, you have to agree that itâs assumed they agree with the opinions they defend?
2 Likes
Look, I donât want this getting to out of hand as well.
However, from what I saw over the past few days, theyâve defended presenters because they have been called what they deemed to be offensive terms - nothing to do with the content.
Again, I am waiting to see some examples of the posts you say are endorsing their views.
1 Like
Hereâs one. Iâm not going to go back through the COVID threads to find comments that reflect Skyâs views.
Neither do I. Happy to take this into PM if the mods would like it and declutter the thread.
How can you defend someone who spouts so much hate? (whether they believe it or not). I donât condone name-calling or âoffensiveâ terms (terms used include: flog, treasonous, snowflakes), but these are not that.
And questioning how an award-winning journalist can stoop to this type of programming is also not âoffensiveâ or âderogatoryâ. The mods havenât deemed anything Iâve said (other than making a joke about how Sky/the right calls people like myself âsnowflakesâ for having views other than their own - still donât get why - tbf to the mods someone reported it) âbadâ enough to remove.
I donât like Skyâs dangerous content: why isnât that allowed to be expressed?
3 Likes
Absolutely this. 
Itâs the disgusting names that members have been calling these presenters and not about the presenters and their opinions themselves.
4 Likes
Such as âflogâ? I canât remember ever using a slur on the internet. Show me something Iâve said that isnât acceptable.
Well for starters thereâs a post 3 days ago I can see where a moderator has edited your post citing âunnecessary name callingâ. I donât know what you said cause itâs not there anymore but thatâs a pretty big example of what youâre asking for.
FYI I actually wasnât talking about you but since you asked thatâs my response.