Split Thread BBC news reporting

[smartcooky]

The IDF are proven liars, their statements are evidence of nothing. It is unclear if other intelligence agencies were basing their opinions on Israeli intelligence sharing or other independent evidence. Published evidence (given in source above) suggests the missile came from the direction of Israel. I don't know, certainly both explanations seem possible.

They are not both possible. Even the UK military intelligence is sure it came from Gaza.

Do facts matter? This is a skeptic forum, I argue they do.

And everything I presented was factual, apart from getting a name wrong.

You got both the name of the hospital wrong,

Boo ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ hoo

and the alleged perpetrators,

Again boo ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ hoo.
I pretty much make no distinction between different Islamic terrorist organizations, be it Al-Jihad whatever, Hamas, Hezbollah or any of the rest. They're all the same to me, a collection of murderers and criminals that soil the planet with their presence. Terrorists ought to be exterminated... every terrorist that gets eliminated makes the world a safer place for the rest of us.

your prejudice altered your presentation of the facts you blamed Hamas when not even the IDf blame Hamas. My guess is that your prejudice affected your memory of the facts.

Nope, as I said, they're all the same to me

Hamas = terrorists
Al-Jihad = terrorists
Hezbollah = terrorists
Al-Qaeda = terrorists
ISIS/ISIL = terrorists
etc...

Was the BBC the only organisation to report this?

It was the first, everyone else picked up on the story.

Was accuracy of reporting limited by the Israeli decision to prevent access of independent journalists to Gaza?

No. Jeremy Bowen was right there only a few metres away and reported directly.

You attribute violence to the BBC's reporting, perhaps it was other's reports that contributed?

Nope. The BBC was the source of the false reporting, so they are ultimately responsible. If they weren't so biased with this obsessive need to rush every pro Arab/anti-Israel story to press, this all could have been avoided.
Why wasn't BBC Verify all over this?
.

It seems more likely arab language sources than English language news would affect the average Arabic speaker.

Blah Blah Blah! You should apply for a job at the BBC as a Spin Doctor... you'd be a shoe-in

The ONLY thing I got wrong was the name of the hospital. Big ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ deal?

Are you arguing the BBC should keep up reports that are incorrect?

I'm arguing they should do what every other honest media outlet does... print/publish a retraction when the get it wrong, like this...

"On the 17th of October 2023 we reported a story in which we said that an explosion at Al-Ahli Arab hospital in Gaza City indicated the destruction of that hospital by an Israeli air strike. We now know that this was wrong, that the hospital wasn't destroyed, and instead, the explosion was caused by a missile fired from inside Gaza towards Israel, falling short and landing in the hospital car park. We unreservedly and uncondtinally apologize for this incorrect and misleading reporting"

Of course, you would never get such an apology from them - those words would stick in the craws of the elitist, self-rightous liberal asshats that infest the BBC.

If BBC verify went through reports prior to publication they wouldn't be news they'd be history. Everyone should be aware that first reports may contain errors.

Excuses, excuses, excuses.

You dismiss the possibility of the IDF committing war crimes.

Yes, I do. So far we only have the word of terrorists and terroist adjacent organzations that any war crimes have been committed

The only way we will know the truth is once forensic teams are allowed in to examine the bodies. Superficially the reports suggest the possibility of crimes. It isn't unknown for criminals to conceal bodies in graves. IDF exhumed the bodies from the mass graves near the hospitals, then reburied the bodies. It is certainly possible they added bodies, some evidence reported suggests that includes the bodies of executed detainees.

Nasser Hospital mass graves - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bollocks. Those graves were there prior to the IDL being anywhere near Nasser Hospital.

 

[catsmate]

Wrt the borderline hysterical attacks on the impartiality of the BBC it's interesting to look at an actual systematic study.
Curiosity these studies (e.g. this one by Cardiff University) show the BBC portrays
"a Conservative, Eurosceptic, pro-business version of the world, not a left-wing, anti-business agenda".
Presumably this isn't sufficiently far-right biased for certain commentators.....

 

[3point14]

Wrt the borderline hysterical attacks on the impartiality of the BBC it's interesting to look at an actual systematic study.
Curiosity these studies (e.g. this one by Cardiff University) show the BBC portrays
"a Conservative, Eurosceptic, pro-business version of the world, not a left-wing, anti-business agenda".
Presumably this isn't sufficiently far-right biased for certain commentators.....

My perception is that for reasons I don't understand, the BBC is held to a ridiculously high standard. Other news organisations seem to be allowed to make errors, indulge in shoddy fact checking and simply provide an apology while the BBC is required to indulge in a great period of self flagellation and be castigated and threatened with extinction at even the slightest hint of inaccuracy (Such inaccuracies always being deliberate and malicious where the BBC is concerned and merely the result of trying to get news quickly when made my other new organisations (or, rather "news organisations")

 

[Darat]

Is there independent research that looks at the accuracy of the news reporting in regards to the current Palestinian/Israeli situation? As we are all very well aware the "need" for getting your stories out there as quickly as possible means that initial reports - on all topics - contain factual errors and have to be corrected as more verification is done and more detailed information comes to light, I would have thought that would be even worse in circumstances such as reporting on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict so I am curious how well BBC News stacks up compared to other organisations.

 

[smartcooky]

My perception is that for reasons I don't understand, the BBC is held to a ridiculously high standard.

When you hold yourself out as being The Gold Standard, you need to hold yourself to that standard

The chief problem with the BBC is the inherent group-think you get when you have a collection of metropolitan liberal elites ... you have a group of people who consider themselves to be a cut above everyone else, a group who think their worldview is the right one, and the only one possible, and anyone who disagrees with that worldview is down there with the peasantry.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Liberal elites appointed by a Conservative government because they were conservatives.

 

[3point14]

When you hold yourself out as being The Gold Standard, you need to hold yourself to that standard

And other news agencies all advertise themselves as 'second rate'? I really don't think so. Ask any editor of any major news outlet and they will tell you that they are the 'gold standard'.

 

[Planigale]

No. Jeremy Bowen was right there only a few metres away and reported directly.
Nope. The BBC was the source of the false reporting, so they are ultimately responsible. If they weren't so biased with this obsessive need to rush every pro Arab/anti-Israel story to press, this all could have been avoided.
Why wasn't BBC Verify all over this?
.
Blah Blah Blah! You should apply for a job at the BBC as a Spin Doctor... you'd be a shoe-in

I'm arguing they should do what every other honest media outlet does... print/publish a retraction when the get it wrong, like this...

"On the 17th of October 2023 we reported a story in which we said that an explosion at Al-Ahli Arab hospital in Gaza City indicated the destruction of that hospital by an Israeli air strike. We now know that this was wrong, that the hospital wasn't destroyed, and instead, the explosion was caused by a missile fired from inside Gaza towards Israel, falling short and landing in the hospital car park. We unreservedly and uncondtinally apologize for this incorrect and misleading reporting"

Of course, you would never get such an apology from them - those words would stick in the craws of the elitist, self-rightous liberal asshats that infest the BBC.

Your ignorance of the facts is clear here.

The IDF has allowed no independent journalists to enter Gaza, except under IDF escorted visits. Bowen was reporting from Israel, he was not a few meters away.

Within 24 hours of the blast - which happened at 1900 local time on 17 October - the BBC Verify team had assessed video footage, pictures and other materials in an effort to understand what might have happened. A BBC journalist* was also able to visit the site the day after the blast.

* Not Bowen

Gaza hospital blast: What does new analysis tell us?

The BBC Verify team examines the latest evidence and assessments about what may have caused the explosion.

www.bbc.com

You consistently demonstrate how you create claims of facts to meet your prejudice. The BBC have updated their reports on the Al-Ahli hospital. They have also issued an apology contrary to your claim they have not.

“The BBC was criticized heavily for its reporting of that event. Tell us what happened that night. And, you know, bluntly, where were you getting your information? And do you regret anything that you said that night?” Bowen was asked.

“So it broke in, I suppose, mid-evening. And to answer your question, no, I don’t regret one thing in my reporting, because I think I think I was measured throughout. I didn’t race to judgment,” he replied.

“But you said that building had been flattened,” the interviewer countered.

“Oh, yeah. Well, I got that wrong because I was looking at the pictures and what I could see was a square that appeared to be flaming on all sides. And there was a, you know, sort of a void in the middle. And it was I think it was a picture taken from a drone. And so, you know, we have to piece together what we see. And I thought, well, it looks like whole buildings gone. And that was my conclusion from looking at the pictures. And I was wrong on that. But I don’t feel too bad about that,” Bowen replied.

The BBC offered a correction of its reporting on the hospital explosion on October 19th for speculating Israel was behind the blast. The network later added an apology to its correction on the 24th.

BBC’s International Editor Grilled On Coverage Of Gaza Hospital Bombing

The BBC has interviewed International Editor Jeremy Bowen about his coverage of the Gaza hospital bombing.

deadline.com

You are entitled to your prejudices; that the IDF cannot be guilty of war crimes and thus evidence of war crimes by the IDF can be dismissed without consideration, that all Islamic groups that are involved in armed struggle / terrorism / violence are identical. In reality there is a large difference between a local 'self defence' organisation such as Hezbollah, and one that is dedicated to global war such as ISIS. However we should not accept that your prejudice justifies you claiming as facts things that are demonstrably untrue.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

When you hold yourself out as being The Gold Standard, you need to hold yourself to that standard

The chief problem with the BBC is the inherent group-think you get when you have a collection of metropolitan liberal elites ... you have a group of people who consider themselves to be a cut above everyone else, a group who think their worldview is the right one, and the only one possible, and anyone who disagrees with that worldview is down there with the peasantry.

Liberal elites? Only in the sense of classic liberalism a la Thatcher.

The high ups in the BBC are almost uniformly Tories, appointed by the tories, and that continues down to heads of various departments.

Oh not all I'm sure, but most of them.

 

[The Atheist]

My perception is that for reasons I don't understand, the BBC is held to a ridiculously high standard. Other news organisations seem to be allowed to make errors, indulge in shoddy fact checking and simply provide an apology while the BBC is required to indulge in a great period of self flagellation and be castigated and threatened with extinction at even the slightest hint of inaccuracy (Such inaccuracies always being deliberate and malicious where the BBC is concerned and merely the result of trying to get news quickly when made my other new organisations (or, rather "news organisations")

You know, there are few things piss me off more than someone making a point that I was going to make, so you are now in bold on my mortal enemies list.

OMG!! The Beeb made a couple of mistakes - make the bastards fall on their swords!

At a time when almost all independent media is begging for crumbs to stay alive, while Murdoch-owned rags, et al, publish outright lies and conspiracies as fact, I'm sure there's nothing the right want more than the extinction of the best and most-reliable international news source.

 

[Andy_Ross]

deleted

 

[smartcooky]

Clip: The long history of BBC bias
Simon Clark discusses his work tracking BBC bias during the Thatcher era, with Chris Snowdon and Tom Slater.This is a clip from the latest episode of Last Orders.

Enjoy...

 

[smartcooky]

Wrt the borderline hysterical attacks on the impartiality of the BBC it's interesting to look at an actual systematic study.
Curiosity these studies (e.g. this 13 year old one by Cardiff University) show the BBC portrays
"a Conservative, Eurosceptic, pro-business version of the world, not a left-wing, anti-business agenda".
Presumably this isn't sufficiently far-right biased for certain commentators.....

Clarified that for you!

 

[plague311]

Clip: The long history of BBC bias
Simon Clark discusses his work tracking BBC bias during the Thatcher era, with Chris Snowdon and Tom Slater.This is a clip from the latest episode of Last Orders.

Enjoy...

Quick question, what news source do you believe is without bias? We know that you obviously have a visceral hatred for the BBC, right? I mean, you couldn't possibly make that more clear, but you've linked to some absolute ◊◊◊◊ sites while going off on your tangent here. So what do you consider to be a valid news site? The telegraph?

 

[3point14]

Quick question, what news source do you believe is without bias? We know that you obviously have a visceral hatred for the BBC, right? I mean, you couldn't possibly make that more clear, but you've linked to some absolute ◊◊◊◊ sites while going off on your tangent here. So what do you consider to be a valid news site? The telegraph?

He's stated that he holds the BBC to a higher standard.

My personal view is that the BBC is attacked by Billionaire media owners as it's very difficult to do a Fox News and utterly gaslight one's audience when there's a reasonable, factual reporter of great reputation providing a brake on the abject ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ that Murdoch and others would like to sell you.

If the BBC dies, we will see the UK go the way of the USA and have a growing poulation of people with 'facts' that vary so much from reality that they believe fantastic things such as 'Trump is doing a good job'.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Simon Clark, for context, is known for being the director of FOREST, a pro tobacco lobby group and spin off group 'The Free Society' which campaigns against government intervention to promote healthy eating. FOREST is funded by the tobacco industry, we could make some guesses as to who funds TFS.

 

[angrysoba]

Clip: The long history of BBC bias
Simon Clark discusses his work tracking BBC bias during the Thatcher era, with Chris Snowdon and Tom Slater.This is a clip from the latest episode of Last Orders.

Enjoy...

Of course, the Revolutionary Communist Party-cum-libertarian Institute of Ideas outlet Spiked is a great source of news!

 

[angrysoba]

Simon Clark, for context, is known for being the director of FOREST, a pro tobacco lobby group and spin off group 'The Free Society' which campaigns against government intervention to promote healthy eating. FOREST is funded by the tobacco industry, we could make some guesses as to who funds TFS.

How very Spiked!

 

[smartcooky]

Quick question, what news source do you believe is without bias? We know that you obviously have a visceral hatred for the BBC, right? I mean, you couldn't possibly make that more clear, but you've linked to some absolute ◊◊◊◊ sites while going off on your tangent here. So what do you consider to be a valid news site? The telegraph?

Quick answer... none.
What I do its try to look at various news sources to see how their reporting differs. Its why I use Ground News as an aggregator - it makes that task a lot easier. The problems come when news media on the left suppress reporting, or don't report at all on certain issues. For example, its hard to assess the BBC's position on Gender Critical issues when their LGBTQ desk gatekeeps publication and pressures reporters not to publish.
When I can't find reporting on things that interest me on the BBC or the Guardian, I go with what I can find, which is often outlets such as the Times, the Telegraph, Spectator, GBNews and Spiked etc. Unfortunately, this forum has such a massive left wing bias, that y'all consider any outlet that doesn't pander to the prejudices of the loony left, to be a far right racist rag. There's nothing much I can do about that. I will keep posting what I post, and if the lefties here choose to bury their heads in the sand, that is their prerogative.

 

[angrysoba]

You know, there are few things piss me off more than someone making a point that I was going to make, so you are now in bold on my mortal enemies list.

OMG!! The Beeb made a couple of mistakes - make the bastards fall on their swords!

At a time when almost all independent media is begging for crumbs to stay alive, while Murdoch-owned rags, et al, publish outright lies and conspiracies as fact, I'm sure there's nothing the right want more than the extinction of the best and most-reliable international news source.

The Beeb? I think you mean Al-Beeb, you know the one’s who are big supporters of the well-known terrorist group Al-Jihad! Not to be confused with Islamic Jihad.