A bit like all the LBC presenters never mentioned Global radio's tax situation...
I presume you are employed. If it was suggested that your employer was doing something wrong, you would be quite happy to announce it publicly through the company / organisation?
Not Like Steve Allen's 'In Conversation' then. This is all about him and his experiences!
Why on earth would listeners want to hear from some boring actor or writer or singer when they could hear about Steve's meeting with Julie Andrews for the umpteenth time?
I presume you are employed. If it was suggested that your employer was doing something wrong, you would be quite happy to announce it publicly through the company / organisation?
You make far too many assumptions, Martin, and you're wrong on all counts.
I think you're right. I get the impression that a lot of comment (including yours!) is influenced by the perceived political leanings of the presenter about whom the comments are made. Hence their inability to give balanced views on shows to which they evidently listen only to find fault, even if the presenter has given a balanced view or provided an interesting discussion on a non-political topic.
I suppose it's even very subjective as to whether one thinks a presenter has given a balanced view or not!
The counter I'd make personally is that I used to like Ferrari, James Max, James Whale and Ian Collins (I even bought Ian's self-published book with the creatures of the night). I still like them when they steer away from politics. The thing is that LBC doesn't steer away much anymore, and that when they do politics, I find some of their views so appalling and ill-informed that I have to turn off.
Ferrari has developed a nasty streak that presents itself more and more. James Max, as I said earlier, interrupts almost every caller within about 3 seconds, and Ian Collins talks down to people, but without substance, far too often for my liking. James Whale's shock-jock was funny in a late-night slot, but all wrong at drive-time on serious topics.
I don't like JOB when he gets all uppity and I have said so many times. It's just that I hear him do that a lot less than the others I have mentioned.
I think you're right. I get the impression that a lot of comment (including yours!) is influenced by the perceived political leanings of the presenter about whom the comments are made. Hence their inability to give balanced views on shows to which they evidently listen only to find fault, even if the presenter has given a balanced view or provided an interesting discussion on a non-political topic.
I agree, and feel that this trait is exemplified most by one particular poster whose apparent vehement dislike of JOB seems to border on the masochistic by virtue of his apparent inability to abstain from listening to the "offending" presenter. Come to think of it, I don't think he's very keen on AD either. (Not referring to you GS)
I shan't bother to continue this as you are obviously not going to reveal any more about yourself, or your employment situation.
I maybe missing your point, but you are missing mine!
(Remember, a rich man's jokes are always funny!)
You haven't actually made a point yet, Martin, just made some incorrect assumptions.
I recall not long ago you mounted a defence against another poster about presenters not needing to reveal their salaries or other private matters about their employment, but you seem to think I should reveal things about mine. Hmmmm....
However, I don't mind. I am self-employed. I have also whistle-blown.
So yes, I think an employee should blow the whistle on important issues. I presume you don't think that Winterbourne, Staffs NHS, the undercover policeman on the Lawrence case or people who knew about Jimmy Saville should all have kept quiet, do you? I think I can predict the point you were going to make, but I also think you were about to be absolutely wrong. What do you think about those examples, plus the myriad others we could all come up with?
The point is that we need to acknowledge there is a problem. When the news is about tax-avoiding companies and LBC is supposedly a news station... surely you can see there's a bit of an issue there?
So yes, I think an employee should blow the whistle on important issues. I presume you don't think that Winterbourne, Staffs NHS, the undercover policeman on the Lawrence case or people who knew about Jimmy Saville should all have kept quiet, do you? I think I can predict the point you were going to make, but I also think you were about to be absolutely wrong. What do you think about those examples, plus the myriad others we could all come up with?
The point is that we need to acknowledge there is a problem. When the news is about tax-avoiding companies and LBC is supposedly a news station... surely you can see there's a bit of an issue there?
Okay, I would agree with you the cases you refer to should be publicised (is that the answer you expected?).
However from what I understand (and I am not a tax expert) that Global have done nothing illegal with their tax payments. So what would you want, one their presenters to have a phone-in on tax avoidance and saying that Global Radio, owners of this station have been doing just that.
I don't expect many if any of their presenters are aware of how Global finance themselves, and would rely on reported articles.
I agree, and feel that this trait is exemplified most by one particular poster whose apparent vehement dislike of JOB seems to border on the masochistic by virtue of his apparent inability to abstain from listening to the "offending" presenter. Come to think of it, I don't think he's very keen on AD either. (Not referring to you GS)
You can't mean me as I only ever hear JOB a maximum of two hours a week and my recent support of Anthony Davis has been nothing short of glowing.
However from what I understand (and I am not a tax expert) that Global have done nothing illegal with their tax payments. So what would you want, one their presenters to have a phone-in on tax avoidance and saying that Global Radio, owners of this station have been doing just that.
I don't expect many if any of their presenters are aware of how Global finance themselves, and would rely on reported articles.
Martin - seriously - are you really unable to acknowledge the inherent problem with a news station, in a context where the news of the month is companies avoiding their tax, being amongst those companies?
As for the whole 'it's not illegal' line... don't you think that's just a teensy bit silly? In any case, that's not the point. LBC presenters were tutting at tax-avoiding companies (or in some ludicrous cases, even defending them), whilst having to ignore their own employer.
The word "illegal" is irrelevant. There are many things that are legal and shouldn't be, that is the whole point. Legality is just a piece of paper and even then it is constantly bent, folded, scrawled upon, screwed up and even ripped into shreds by the government and legal system if deemed convenient. I don't think I need to specify exactly which current news stories are demonstrating this to great effect. If the lawmakers have contempt for the law it renders it rather useless.
So, specifically, whether avoiding corporation tax is legal or illegal is beside the point. The fact is that all the austerity cuts that are decimating various services across society are due to a lack of tax revenue. And nobody is prepared to address the one source of tax revenue that would fund any and all of these services up to and beyond their former levels. While this issue is not dealt with all the rest are meaningless murmurings, fiddling about with small change that makes no difference.
Martin - seriously - are you really unable to acknowledge the inherent problem with a news station, in a context where the news of the month is companies avoiding their tax, being amongst those companies?
As for the whole 'it's not illegal' line... don't you think that's just a teensy bit silly? In any case, that's not the point. LBC presenters were tutting at tax-avoiding companies (or in some ludicrous cases, even defending them), whilst having to ignore their own employer.
Can't you see a problem with that picture at all?
Depends whether or not the presenter considers it worth committing professional suicide.
In Germany they have been building memorial statues to the kinder transport outside mainline stations. We have the same one outside Liverpool Street, where most arrived.
Comments
Not Like Steve Allen's 'In Conversation' then. This is all about him and his experiences!
I presume you are employed. If it was suggested that your employer was doing something wrong, you would be quite happy to announce it publicly through the company / organisation?
Why on earth would listeners want to hear from some boring actor or writer or singer when they could hear about Steve's meeting with Julie Andrews for the umpteenth time?
You make far too many assumptions, Martin, and you're wrong on all counts.
What say you now?
I presume you are not employed then, perhaps an employer?
So, if one of your employees published something about you, what would be your reaction?
I suppose it's even very subjective as to whether one thinks a presenter has given a balanced view or not!
The counter I'd make personally is that I used to like Ferrari, James Max, James Whale and Ian Collins (I even bought Ian's self-published book with the creatures of the night). I still like them when they steer away from politics. The thing is that LBC doesn't steer away much anymore, and that when they do politics, I find some of their views so appalling and ill-informed that I have to turn off.
Ferrari has developed a nasty streak that presents itself more and more. James Max, as I said earlier, interrupts almost every caller within about 3 seconds, and Ian Collins talks down to people, but without substance, far too often for my liking. James Whale's shock-jock was funny in a late-night slot, but all wrong at drive-time on serious topics.
I don't like JOB when he gets all uppity and I have said so many times. It's just that I hear him do that a lot less than the others I have mentioned.
Nope, wrong again!
But to be honest, you're entirely missing the point anyway.
I agree, and feel that this trait is exemplified most by one particular poster whose apparent vehement dislike of JOB seems to border on the masochistic by virtue of his apparent inability to abstain from listening to the "offending" presenter. Come to think of it, I don't think he's very keen on AD either. (Not referring to you GS)
I shan't bother to continue this as you are obviously not going to reveal any more about yourself, or your employment situation.
I maybe missing your point, but you are missing mine!
(Remember, a rich man's jokes are always funny!)
Being employed or unemployed are not the only statuses in adult life.
You haven't actually made a point yet, Martin, just made some incorrect assumptions.
I recall not long ago you mounted a defence against another poster about presenters not needing to reveal their salaries or other private matters about their employment, but you seem to think I should reveal things about mine. Hmmmm....
However, I don't mind. I am self-employed. I have also whistle-blown.
So yes, I think an employee should blow the whistle on important issues. I presume you don't think that Winterbourne, Staffs NHS, the undercover policeman on the Lawrence case or people who knew about Jimmy Saville should all have kept quiet, do you? I think I can predict the point you were going to make, but I also think you were about to be absolutely wrong. What do you think about those examples, plus the myriad others we could all come up with?
The point is that we need to acknowledge there is a problem. When the news is about tax-avoiding companies and LBC is supposedly a news station... surely you can see there's a bit of an issue there?
BTW, I'm sorry to hear that things are so tight for you at the moment
Okay, I would agree with you the cases you refer to should be publicised (is that the answer you expected?).
However from what I understand (and I am not a tax expert) that Global have done nothing illegal with their tax payments. So what would you want, one their presenters to have a phone-in on tax avoidance and saying that Global Radio, owners of this station have been doing just that.
I don't expect many if any of their presenters are aware of how Global finance themselves, and would rely on reported articles.
If you'd given any other answer, I would have been pretty disgusted! Who wouldn't agree?
But doesn't this kind of undermine the point I think you were about to try and make?
You can't mean me as I only ever hear JOB a maximum of two hours a week and my recent support of Anthony Davis has been nothing short of glowing.
Martin - seriously - are you really unable to acknowledge the inherent problem with a news station, in a context where the news of the month is companies avoiding their tax, being amongst those companies?
As for the whole 'it's not illegal' line... don't you think that's just a teensy bit silly? In any case, that's not the point. LBC presenters were tutting at tax-avoiding companies (or in some ludicrous cases, even defending them), whilst having to ignore their own employer.
Can't you see a problem with that picture at all?
So, specifically, whether avoiding corporation tax is legal or illegal is beside the point. The fact is that all the austerity cuts that are decimating various services across society are due to a lack of tax revenue. And nobody is prepared to address the one source of tax revenue that would fund any and all of these services up to and beyond their former levels. While this issue is not dealt with all the rest are meaningless murmurings, fiddling about with small change that makes no difference.
Depends whether or not the presenter considers it worth committing professional suicide.
Morning all.
Cheers for this Mel. I will take a look at Liverpool Street next time I am there.
http://files.myopera.com/FOAMAR/STATS/lbc/?1365494840?1372228582
All part of the joys of belonging to the EU! :mad:
Indeed :mad:
Yes, exactly the point, but not exactly a ringing endorsement of LBC as a news station.
There's an inherent problem when the news reporters become the news makers, especially for a commercial station.