• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread BBC news reporting

smartcooky said:
Back in the "good old" unbiased days of the BBC, when they simply reported the news, and didn't put their own political spin on stories, you had newsreaders and reporters like Richard Baker, Angela Rippon, Michael Buerk, Martin Bell, John Humphreys and others, people of intergrity, whose reporting was fair balanced. They would report BOTH sides of a story.

The problem with today's BBC is that the politically left view gets presented, and opposing rarely if ever gets presented. Yes, the BBC reports that the UN or IAGS says Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, but they don't balance those claims with counter claims, for example, that the UK and US governments both say there is not evidence to reach a conclusion about the accusations of genocide, and in fact the UK government's position is that the specific intent required by the 1948 Genocide Convention has not been met.
Click to expand...
I looked up “BBC genocide Israel” to see if your claims held out that they did not give the opposing view. And look what I found…

The UN and a number of Western nations have said that they will only consider a ruling by a court that genocide is taking place as authoritative.
Click to expand...

The UN's top court, the International Court of Justice, is currently considering a case brought by South Africa in 2023 that argues that Israel is committing genocide. The ICJ has not yet made a determination on the subject and has granted Israel an extension until January 2026 to present its defence.
Click to expand...

Israel has accused the case of having antisemitic motivations, calling it a "blood libel", in reference to historic allegations that Jewish communities ritually murder Christian children.
Click to expand...

In other words, different opinions are presented in the article.
 
smartcooky said:
Again, and as usual, YOU are not paying attention.
I thought the original case might be in a UK court. I thought he could win there because of the "true in substance and fact" aspect of libel/slander suits in UK courts.

In a US court, it is much harder to win a libel/slander case.

PLEASE TRY TO KEEP UP!
Click to expand...
No, try to remember what you wrote which is:

“the truth is always a rock-solid defence in any slander or libel lawsuit”

In any! Not in any US court!
 
angrysoba said:
I looked up “BBC genocide Israel” to see if your claims held out that they did not give the opposing view. And look what I found…


In other words, different opinions are presented in the article.
Click to expand...

One of the critisism's of the BBC is that they present both sides of arguements in a way that sometimes makes opinion seem far more equally split amoung experts than is actually the case, James O'Brien left Newsnight after being required to treat ex-Director General of the IMF Pascal Lamy and Angela Jenkins as equally qualified to predict the future actions of the IMF. Emily Maitlis described how their researchers would have no problem finding economists who thought Brexit was a mistake but would spend hours trying to find one who'd speak in support of it, but the two sides were presented as though opinion was relatively equally divided.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
One of the critisism's of the BBC is that they present both sides of arguements in a way that sometimes makes opinion seem far more equally split amoung experts than is actually the case, James O'Brien left Newsnight after being required to treat ex-Director General of the IMF Pascal Lamy and Angela Jenkins as equally qualified to predict the future actions of the IMF. Emily Maitlis described how their researchers would have no problem finding economists who thought Brexit was a mistake but would spend hours trying to find one who'd speak in support of it, but the two sides were presented as though opinion was relatively equally divided.
Click to expand...
Yep, it is the nature of the BBC. Too left wing, too right wing and too balanced! How dare they!
 
smartcooky said:
I'm arguing that there was no moral failure (that the BBC didn't do anything wrong) but that they made a mistake, for which they have apologized. I think you have confused yourself, have just swapped arguments and are now agreeing with me?
Click to expand...
You said this:

“there is absolutely NO excuse for what the BBC did - willfully allowing the airing of footage they KNEW was intentionally edited together for the purpose of misleading the public.... ”

But you now say they did nothing wrong.

Rule 12 breach removed.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
Last edited by a moderator:
angrysoba said:
Yep, it is the nature of the BBC. Too left wing, too right wing and too balanced! How dare they!
Click to expand...

The thing about the balance is that often is an artificial balance, reality isn't always two equal and opposed opinions, if one side says it's raining and the other says it's fine, sometimes a journalist should stick their head out the window and say what they see.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
The thing about the balance is that often is an artificial balance, reality isn't always two equal and opposed opinions, if one side says it's raining and the other says it's fine, sometimes a journalist should stick their head out the window and say what they see.
Click to expand...
Completely agree. Much of the griping about the BBC being the “voice of the liberal elite” is not necessarily wrong. The point is that many of the “liberal elite” have been to university which means they are educated and cosmopolitan, tend not to have extreme racist or sexist or anti-immigrant views, and are persuaded that climate change is a real thing, and also don’t enjoy looking at bombed hospitals, etc…

So it is not that surprising that those values and assumptions make it into the BBC broadcasts.

That’s not such a bad thing in my opinion.
 
angrysoba said:
Completely agree. Much of the griping about the BBC being the “voice of the liberal elite” is not necessarily wrong. The point is that many of the “liberal elite” have been to university which means they are educated and cosmopolitan, tend not to have extreme racist or sexist or anti-immigrant views, and are persuaded that climate change is a real thing, and also don’t enjoy looking at bombed hospitals, etc…

So it is not that surprising that those values and assumptions make it into the BBC broadcasts.

That’s not such a bad thing in my opinion.
Click to expand...
What the right don't want the rest of us to know is that the liberal elite are overwhelmingly a bunch of right wingers themselves, it's just that their ancestors gained wealth and power from business and trading rather than from land.
 
All the UK Patriots getting behind the BBC

How dare they try to not give Donald his $10 billion!

Lee Anderson MP
@LeeAndersonMP_
BBC COMES OUT FIGHTING

With your money

Ridiculous headline but a reminder that if you pay your TV licence fee then you are footing the bill for this?

Was it you spliced the Trump speech to make him look bad?

Thought not
Click to expand...
 
smartcooky said:
They are also clearly biased when it comes to the presentation of history, especially British history. Their latest effort Empire with host David Olusoga is unwatchable for anyone with even a modest understanding of British history. It’s a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ train-wreck of lies, misrepresentations, factual errors, factual omissions and shoddy research - and Olusoga is the train driver.
Click to expand...
As someone who has almost finished a pretty epic tome on the British Empire (Piers Brendon’s Decline and Fall), I would like to watch it before making a judgment. I don’t believe it was broadcast in New Zealand so how did you watch it?
 
smartcooky said:
Not really.

"sorry if you were offended by what we did"

Does not mean we think we did anything wrong

Also, apologies are not made under oath..

23 million people in Florida, and not one of them saw the Panorama doco when it was broadcast .. because none of the are expats with a VPN and access to BBC iPlayer?
Click to expand...
Presumably only relevant if they are also a voting citizen?
 
angrysoba said:
As someone who has almost finished a pretty epic tome on the British Empire (Piers Brendon’s Decline and Fall), I would like to watch it before making a judgment. I don’t believe it was broadcast in New Zealand so how did you watch it?
Click to expand...
It's co-produced with the OU so very much doubt that Smartcooky's description is accurate.

ETA: https://connect.open.ac.uk/empire/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom