jt512
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2011
- Messages
- 5,068
Ah, the ad hominem fallacy. The one that skeptics once famously proscribed.
Last edited:
Split Thread BBC news reporting
- Thread starter Andy_Ross
- Start date
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,079
Oh, it wasn't an argument, simply a passing comment. I could go through the articles, locate the inaccuracies and selective reporting and present a considered rebuttal of whatever absolute right wing lunacy is in them, but, given that such an effort would have zero effect on the perspective of anyone whose views are in opposition to mine, I went to the pub instead.
The argument is three doors down on the right. I'm not playing.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist
Emulating your hero Trump, I see?
Well documented in the Daily Telegraph? That tabloid piece of crap?
Nobody is forcing anybody to watch the BBC. It's not compulsory.
If you want to watch Netflix, you need to pay a subscription. How archaic!
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
They were about 55 minutes apart in the speech. Given the average attention span of people, it is unlikely people would have made the connection in their own.
It doesn't matter anyway - it is the principle that matters, and it does not excuse them from their many other egregious breeches of journalistic ethics....
- lying to their audience that Israel fired a rocket into a hospital when it was actually a misfiring Hamas rocket which struck that hospital
Israel accuses BBC of ‘modern blood libel’ over reporting of hospital strike
Corporation defends initial comments, saying they were made in immediate aftermath but then clarified in later reports
www.theguardian.com
There had already been criticism in the UK of the BBC report that was aired in the immediate aftermath of the explosion, in which the correspondent Jon Donnison suggested it was likely the blast was the result of an Israeli rocket.
- blaming "Jews" for attacks on Gaza in English language broadcasts but blaming "Jews" in their Arabic Language broadcasts.
A section of the BBC program includes in interview with a young Palestinian man who uses the term “Yahud” in Arabic three times and in each instance it appears in in a subtitled translation as “Israelis.”
...the BBC responded that “we took advice from a number of translators in Gaza and London and were advised that the most accurate interpretation of what the contributors were saying in this context was ‘Israeli.’” But Sussex Friends of Israel pointed out at the time that the BBC had written in a separate article that “Al Yahud is Arabic for ‘the Jew.’”
- using the son of a Hamas (terrorist) minster to narrate a documentary about Gaza
BBC asked to remove Gaza documentary over narrator’s father’s ties to Hamas
Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone’s 13-year-old narrator, Abdullah, has been revealed to be the son of Ayman Alyazouri, a deputy agriculture minister in the Hamas-run government
www.theguardian.com
The BBC has been asked to remove a documentary about children living in Gaza from BBC iPlayer after it emerged the film’s 13-year-old narrator is the son of Ayman Alyazouri, a deputy agriculture minister in the territory’s Hamas-run government.
- suppressing stories favouring gender critical views while promoting stories favouring transgender ideology
Latest news & breaking headlines
The latest breaking UK, US, world, business and sport news from The Times and The Sunday Times. Go beyond today's headlines with in-depth analysis and comment.
www.thetimes.com
The memo, sent to BBC board members by Michael Prescott, a former standards adviser, also claimed that trans coverage was biased towards stories celebrating the trans experience, and subject to “effective censorship” by LGBT reporters who refused to cover gender-critical stories.
Leng echoed such claims, and said that younger LGBT reporters on the “learning and identity” desk often acted as “gatekeepers” on trans stories. She added: “If it was mentioned that ‘identity’ is aware of this or ‘identity’ say they’re looking at it — that was enough to stop anybody else going anywhere near it.”
How did these stories get past fact checking.... past BBC Verify?
The claim will of course be that these were just "mistakes". Yeah, right
... that is a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ lot of mistakes on very controversial subjects where fact checking needs to be very, very strict.
Last edited:
jt512
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2011
- Messages
- 5,068
You're right it was more an excuse.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
FTFY
Don't get me wrong, they deserve to be criticized for some, if not many of their stated policies, but the BBC are DEFINITELY NOT pushing Reform's barrow. If I lived in the UK (the country of my birth) the thought of Farage getting into No. 10 would terrify me.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Not a chance!
Why the BBC does not call Hamas gunmen terrorists
The BBC’s world affairs editor John Simpson explains why the BBC does not describe Hamas militants as "terrorists".www.bbc.co.uk
"Government ministers, newspaper columnists, ordinary people - they're all asking why the BBC doesn't say the Hamas gunmen who carried out appalling atrocities in southern Israel are terrorists.
It's simply not the BBC's job to tell people who to support and who to condemn, says the BBC's World Affairs editor John Simpson".
What pathetically weak sauce! They're pretty damned quick to condemn Israel for defending themselves, to "tell people to support" transgender ideology, "and to condemn" the gender critical.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
As has been pointed out before, the Telegraph is not as far to the right as the Guardian is to the left
That's true, but failing to pay the license fee is a criminal offence with a £1000 fine. Subscription news services don't send cops and court bailiffs to collect their subscription!
...they just cut off your access.
Yet!
BBC TV Licence fee fury as Brits vow to cancel - 'Why should I pay'
The Labour Party government are reportedly considering making people pay the TV license fee even if they only use streaming services - and Brits are far from happy
www.essexlive.news
The Labour Party government are reportedly considering making people pay the TV license fee even if they only use streaming services - and Brits are far from happy. UK households are scurrying to ditch their BBC TV Licence and dodge the impending £174 charge as new regulations loom. Under Labour's rule, there are talks of mandating the TV licence fee for individuals who solely utilise streaming platforms.
This potential measure forms part of the Government's scheme to revamp the funding model for the public-service broadcaster, according to Bloomberg.
angrysoba
Philosophile
I love it when the centre-left totally-not-Trump/Reform fans come rushing in to denounce the BBC for being insufficiently right-wing and bring along a whole list of right-wing grievances with them. No pattern there at all.
Gulliver Foyle
Philosopher
Fixed your post for accuracy. TACO 100% did intend to incite a coup that day. Given what was going on at the time (especially the open letter to the armed forces generals from all the then ex presidents), his handlers were expecting military backing to the coup.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
But there's this documentary that shows clearly that everyone is required to watch the Big Brother Corporation.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
They are complaining about a few seconds of a full documentary. I assume everything else it reported is not contested.
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,179
It would have been easy to edit it, to show that more had been said between each comment. As for the other issues you raised, I would like to see how many other news sources reported the same stories and how accurate they were. Bear in mind accuracy is a loose term, meaning what people want to hear and believe, in that one person's accurate description of a freedom fighter is another person's accurate description of a terrorist.
Helen
Implicitly explicit
I think it's great that we have now started discussing the possible bias of the BBC, and not the actual words, no matter how far apart they occurred in that speech...
This is the true genius of Trump; he is always ready to be outrageous enough to get people to look away from the real issues.
This is the true genius of Trump; he is always ready to be outrageous enough to get people to look away from the real issues.
I read a Danish article about these issues, and the writer said that a big part of the problem was how the leadership of the BBC handled the cases once they appeared. Like when the Prescott mail was leaked, that they refused to comment a leaked mail.mthis is a situation that should have called for quick damage control, but silence, or refusal to answer was the response instead.
One wonders why the leadership of BBC does not know how to handle a media crisis. They should certainly know how not to handle it.
One wonders why the leadership of BBC does not know how to handle a media crisis. They should certainly know how not to handle it.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist
They edited footage! Everyone edits footage. It's the normal way of bringing footage to broadcast.
Well, there's editing, and there's editing …
I wonder how many people have watched the programme in question?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Of course The Fat Orange Turd intended to incite a coup!! Anyone who has a brain between their ears can see and understand that is what he was trying to do. But that does not make what the BBC did acceptable! The BBC claim to set the highest standards of journalism for themselves - fair, balanced, politically and socially unbiased, to be the most respected media platform in the world. But media platforms that like to call themselves fair, balanced and unbiased do NOT do dodgy editing like this. It is the journalistic equivalent of a cop planting evidence to frame a suspect he was 100% sure is guilty.... even if the suspect did actually commit the crime, framing them is wrong, completely wrong.
The end NEVER justifies the means!
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,158
You're getting carried away. No, it isn't.
They didn't attribute anything to Trump he didn't actually say in that speech. They juxtaposed two parts which made his incitement sound much more blatant than it was.
If I say Trump told them we were going to go to the Capitol and in the same speech he said we were going to fight like hell against fraudulent elections, that is me making his incitement sound more blatant than he made it, and yet I do not consider I am "planting evidence". Do you?
Last edited: