-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Split Thread BBC news reporting
- Thread starter Andy_Ross
- Start date
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Once before, I posted a partial transcript of a shortish video especially for people who who "don't do Facebook" and/or "don't do YouTube" and one of you two promptly edited it out of my post claiming it was a Rule 4 violation.
Now I can understand Rule 4 applying when someone posts the entire text of a webpage that anyone could easily go to and read for themselves, but when a significant number of members here have expressed their allergy to video links, and get very crotchety when you only provide a video link, it should not be a Rule 4 violation to post a transcript for them as a service to them, and in deference to their apparent allergy!!
Now I have a transcript ready to go if you'd like me to post it, and if you promise not to hit me with a Rule 4 violation. If not, then I am not prepared to waste any more of my time summarazing a 1min 38sec video reel for you
I'm not doing your homework for you.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
You don't have to post a full transcript in order to summarise a video. You can, and should, do it in your own words. Heck, you could even use an AI to do it for you, but you should probably fact-check it first.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, I do exactly that (Facebook Transcript Generator for Facebook, and Downsub for YouTube) for transcripts that I post on other forums (which incidentally don't have any problem with people posting full transcripts). I might do a "summary in my own words" for a 15-20 minute video, but for a 90 second video, no way. That is just my time being wasted doing the same thing watching the video would do.
People can click and watch it, or not. I am past caring one way or the other.
I see @Shepherd has posted the YT version. Thanks for that!
Last edited:
angrysoba
Philosophile
This is obviously not true at all. You frequently dismiss arguments depending on who makes it.
In your case, you are relying on someone about as trustworthy as Alex Jones.
This is an "investigative journalist" who claimed he didn't know he was being paid by the Russians. If he isn't lying then he's not really a very good investigative journalist is he?
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Bill Maher is not reputable either. You can't attack journalistic standards using vapid opinions. Maher has some interesting opinions but when it comes to facts he's not reliable. Watch his opinions on anything COVID.
I'm all in favour of improving BBC journalistic standards but worthless opinions won't do it for me.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
How much time can it possibly take to summarise a 90 second video? "In this video Fred says that bleems are actually vogos." That's all that you need to do.
If you can't be bothered to put just a little effort into your own arguments, I can't be bothered to engage with them. The end.
That is the total opposite of the BBC news so not sure why smartcooky posted it.
And I haven't come across this bloke before so I can only judge by this video but he is a typical internet personality of the Joe Rogan style - physics is a "fake" and is a religion, he knows because a teacher didn't answer his question but he went on the internet and read stuff, listen to him at the end around 1:25:00 you will learn he is no longer an atheist because of entropy.... And interesting how he tries to pull back when he realises his standard speil is being made to an atheist and not a god-believer (can't happen much for him).
I would have to have verified documented evidence of anything he claims before I'd even start to listen to anything else from him.
ETA: I see I've been a little bit ninja'd! - corrected Josh to Joe
Last edited:
angrysoba
Philosophile
I made a thread about Tim Pool here. Hilarious to see that smartcooky is relying on this moron…
As you are also well aware, he was being paid by indirectly by RussiaI made a thread about Tim Pool here. Hilarious to see that smartcooky is relying on this moron…
2024 Tenet Media investigation - Wikipedia
At best he was a useful idiot.
Lies not lives
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
What a complete load of arse-gravy. Please point out where Bill Maher is even mentioned in that article.As you are also well aware, he was being paid by indirectly by Russia
2024 Tenet Media investigation - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
At best he was a useful idiot.
And you realize you're quoting an article about Tenet Media right? A right-wing, ultra-conservative media company founded by Lauren Chen and Liam Donovan. Of all the people to use as a source for anything, you have managed to somehow pick one of the worst for lies and misinformation.
Bill Maher has no professional or financial connection to Tenet Media - not even indirectly. His income comes entirely from his long-running HBO show Real Time with Bill Maher, as well as his stand-up comedy tours, the podcast Club Random, and past work like Politically Incorrect. He has an estimated net worth built entirely through his mainstream American media career.
Furthermore, he has been, and still is, a frequent and vocal critic of Russian interference in US politics and has frequently targeted Vladimir Putin and politicians with close ties to Russia in his opening monologues and comedy segments.
Bill Maher goes 'CSI' and investigates Trump's ties to Putin - Salon.com
The late-night comedian treated it like a crime scene investigation and unveiled a bulletin board with lots of yarn
www.salon.com
Last edited:
Gulliver Foyle
Philosopher
Pool was paid lots of money by Russian agents after the invasion of Ukraine to spread lies about it being full of nazis and illegal biological weapons and so on. His excuse for doing so "I didn't know the Russians asking me to spread Russian state propaganda were Russian agents. Honest!"
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
I'm not relying on him, but its hilarious to see you don't understand the difference between who a person is and what they have said.
The truth is the truth no matter who says it! The ONLY thing that matters to me is.. "Is what Pool said true?"... That's all. I don't give a flying ◊◊◊◊ who he is, or what he's done, or who pays him. He could be a serial killer on death row, paid personally by Vlad himself for all I care. The ONLY thing that matters is this... Is his claim about the ABC and its "Mission-driven reporting" true. All I can say is, I see no reason to call him a liar on this claim, and no-one he named has denied the truth of what he said.
If any of you have evidence that its not true, then present it, otherwise shut up!\
Skeptics dismiss or accept the validity of claims on EVIDENCE, not on the character of the claimant. I would expect someone with your obvious intelligence as you to know this!
angrysoba
Philosophile
The clip is of two idiots: Bill Maher and Tim Pool claiming that news organizations are profit-driven organizations depending on clicks, likes and sharing and pandering to the prejudices of their elderly audiences.
You, in your infinite wisdom, believe that that is the BBC to a tee, when it very clearly, by your sharing and liking is much more clearly a representative of the kind of media that YOU like.
It is much, much more obviously the very business model of people like Tim Pool who literally was paid to spout propaganda and who obviously juices the algorithm to get as many views as possible. The BBC is paid for by license fee payers, not subscriptions.
So your claim is stupid and retarded and all ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up and we should all point and laugh in your senile reactionary old face.
Last edited:
Count me in!
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Any time the evil opposition notices facts your preferred sources never mentioned, you're on the wrong side of history.
Complaining that the opposition noticed facts that you preferred to ignore just cements your wrongness.
Complaining that the opposition noticed facts that you preferred to ignore just cements your wrongness.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Careful with all that spittle-filled rage. You might burst a blood vessel in your brain!!
angrysoba
Philosophile
This makes no sense. The clip is being used to describe the BBC even though a) it doesn't describe the BBC because it is about a completely different business model and b) the clip doesn't even mention the BBC.
So why is it being put forward as a critique of the BBC?