The truth is objective; there are no gradations of truth. The truth is that, which when spoken, written, recorded or witnessed, objectively and accurately, raises no disturbance to the conscience.

But surely that’s a subjective definition? That which troubles the conscience of one person may leave another quite undisturbed.

Since organisations are not sentient entities, they cannot have a conscience in their own right.

I don’t think you’re very wide of the mark at all.

After a mere three days of media analysis, the reports of the Eastleigh by-election all come together to suggest the strongest possibility of lasting change to the political order in this country.

They really don’t, John.

An unpopular party of Government had its backside handed to it in a byelection, losing votes to a populist ‘protest party’ in a single seat.

This happens over and over again and it is perverse to pretend that it heralds some kind of revolution.

It does not, any more than the BNP winning a single seat in the European Parliament heralded a series of victories for that party in the following General Election. As we all know, the BNP vote actually collapsed.

Eastleigh was a LibDem seat on Thursday morning, and it’s still a LibDem seat today.

I’m afraid you’ll have to wait a little longer for the dawn of your Neuordnung.

John, does any individual or organisation that fails to tell the truth suffer the loss of their credibility?

I was referring to all of my posts under the ‘BBC deceit’ ttopic.

Ah, that explains the confusion. Thanks for the clarification.

I still don’t agree with you, but at least I understand what you’re saying now.

I hope Sky News does not provoke such a reaction as the BBC.

It might if it reached out to as large an audience and had the same cultural resonance.

It’s US counterpart Fox News provokes some pretty strong reactions – both pro and anti -across the Pond.

Comedy gold! 😀

Do you know what the funniest thing about that paranoid ‘reds under the bed’ rant is, John?

It’s that you clearly sincerely believe every word of it.

And that’s your ‘critical analysis’, is it?

What a very individual interpretation.

This is the first post where I have offered an extensive critical analysis of BBC’s position on global warming.

We must be talking about different posts. I see no critical analysis in post #311, just (presumably) copyrighted material copied from a US magazine.

Which post were you referring to?

Heaven alone knows how they’ve managed so successfully to infiltrate not only the BBC but also Education, the Justice system and most comprehensively of all, the Civil Service.

‘They’?

Who are ‘they’, John? :confused: