Did you read the actual apology?
Corrections and Clarifications
The BBC's responses to editorial, technical and corporate issues.
www.bbc.co.uk
Split Thread BBC news reporting
- Thread starter Andy_Ross
- Start date
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Well, why don't you just tell everybody here that you don't understand nuance, without actually saying that you don't understand nuance. If you were actually paying attention to what is being said instead of always searching desperately to find something you can mindlessly bleat and whinge about, you would realize that TWO THINGS CAN BOTH BE TRUE AT THE SAME TIME!!! I have known pre-teens with better comprehension skills that yours!! And if you still don't understand (and I'm betting you almost certainly don't) let me walk you through this in baby steps.
Just because what the Panorama documentary implied about The Fat Orange Turd is true (i.e. that he incited the mob HE CALLED TO WASHINGTON) to attack the Capitol does not mean it was OK for the producers to deceptively edit his words to make it seem as if he said something he didn't actually say. BBC Panorama have a sufficiently good reputation to not have to stoop to such low levels. If the facts are presented accurately and without bias, the truth will present itself, and there is no need for the producers to help it along - just present the bloody facts and let the audience draw their own conclusions -
But on other matters relating to BBC bias, they are CLEARLY biased against Israel and favorable to Palestine and Hamas - they refuse to describe Hamas as a terrorist organization (which it is) but are happy to describe Israel as genocidal (which they are not). They are also CLEARLY biased against Gender Critical people but are favorable towards transgender advocates.
The job of a news organization is to report the bloody news in a fair and unbiased way, NOT to put their thumb on the scale or take sides on political issues. The BBC needs to do better.... a LOT better
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. Its a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ train-wreck of lies, misrepresentations, factual errors, factual omissions and shoddy research - and Olusoga is the train driver.
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Nor do I!
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
I did... these bits are paramount
"unintentionally created the impression that we were showing a single continuous section
"The BBC would like to apologise to President Trump for that error of judgement.
These are weasel words for "sorry if you were offended by what we did." They are a CLEAR indication that the BBC considers that its actions lack malice.
Last edited:
They admitted a mistake. You said they were saying they didn't do anything wrong.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Lol.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Doing something wrong implies intent.
Making a mistake does not
Admitting you did something wrong is not the same as admitting a mistake.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Indeed, I thought his failure to understand nuance was funny as well!
Nonsense.
This is untrue. The BBC policy is not to use the term genocide until a court has ruled on the issue. The BBC has never described Israel, the Israeli government nor the IDF as genocidal. They have reported on claims by others, the progress of court cases, reports from organisations that may have used that term. It would be extreme censorship to prevent the BBC from e.g. reporting on the ICC or UN.
angrysoba
Philosophile
The TWO THINGS which CONTRADICT EACH OTHER is your claim that Trump would WIN!!!! followed by your claim Trump would LOSE!!!!!
A toddler can understand BASIC LOGIC!!!!!!!!!! So knock off the twaddle about "NUANCE"!!!!!
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Using "reporting" as cover doesn't impress me in the slightest.
Also, the BBC continues to unquestioningly accept Hamas claims and statistics regarding the deaths in Gaza
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,096
That just sounds paranoid. Reporting what people say is not agreeing with it.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Nope, not nonsense, fact...
How many times have you heard a leader offer up that kind of explanation for something they’ve done?
Got caught fudging the numbers? “I’m sorry. I made a mistake.”
Told a blatant lie? “I’m sorry. I made a mistake.”
Had an inappropriate relationship? “I’m sorry. I made a mistake.”
Here’s the point. Somewhere along the way, our culture has come to accept the phrase, “I made a mistake” as being the same as acknowledging, “I was wrong.”
But these are not the same thing. Not even close.
- A mistake is an honest error involving facts or miscalculating an outcome.
- Doing something wrong involves a moral failure.
Last edited:
Is the opinion of some guy I've never heard of.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
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.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Scott Cochrane is an author, public speaker and business coach... .. and you are?
Your opinion is no more valuable or scholarly than his. I find his opinion fair and reasonable, and it comports with my life experiences. For mine, your opinion fails the fair and reasonable test.
Last edited:
What "moral failure" was involved in making it look like Trump was encouraging the crowd to storm the Capitol?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
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?
Split Thread Post in thread 'BBC news reporting'
They can carry that through to claim that while, yes, they made a mistake (no intent), they still have the truth on their side, i.e. The Fat Orange Turd DID incite the mob to attack the Capitol.
Split Thread Post in thread 'BBC news reporting'
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
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!
Last edited: