5 ms·

The original title ask whether sugar is REALLY bad for you, implying even in the title that it may not be that bad. Then, in the body of the article you get a

by aritmo 7y ago

The original title ask whether sugar is REALLY bad for you, implying even in the title that it may not be that bad. Then, in the body of the article you get a feeling that it was commissioned by the sugar lobby. Showing the evidence but casting doubt every time. It concludes with a "it does not matter".

timthorn 7y ago
> you get a feeling that it was commissioned by the sugar lobby But as it is a BBC site, you also know that isn't the case.
- friendlybus 7y ago
  You can buy ad slots in BBC news like anywhere else.
  - timthorn 7y ago
    But not content, and also not in the UK.
    - radicalbyte 7y ago
      The BBC has gone all free market, it's very much a mouthpiece for the Tories nowadays.
      - bmsleight_ 7y ago
        Please supply some evidence for this assertion. When the BBC is annoying people on both side of the argument, it must be sitting on the fence. I recommend watching a few USA new programs or even reading a few UK daily papers to see what "mouthpeice for the Tories" really are. Just because the BBC may not agree with everyone all the time, it does not mean it is biased.
        radicalbyte 7y ago
        The BBC had been run by the BBC trust, which was headed by ext-Tory ministers* and is now run by OFCOM, which is the government media regulator. It's clearly visible in the political coverage of BBC News, which is ran by @bbclaurak. She's a conservative firebrand, the Sarah Sanders of the UK. Only she's running what is supported to be a neutral news organization. Further, I don't know - you just have to watch the way they cover subjects that you understand and see how they totally bend the facts to favor which ever corporate interest they've been told to support. This is particularly the cases with coverage of climate change (their position seems to be that the solution is plastic straws and letting consumers decided to buy 'green electricity') and the hostility to Jeremy Corbyn. The problem with the BBC is that it has been under attack by Sky TV (the premium commercial TV provider then owned by Murdoch) for two decades. A weak or compromised BBC is good business for them and a BBC under the control of the government is great a win-win for those in power..? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rona_Fairhead,_Baroness_Fairhead https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rona_Fairhead,_Baroness_Fairhe..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Patten https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Patten
        todd-davies 7y ago
        The BBC comes under fire from both the left and the right for being biased, and a quick Google search shows that if anything, there appears to be more concern about it being bias towards the left [1, 2]. Here's a really detailed Wikipedia page on BBC bias if you're interested (or want to contribute) [3]. Surely the BBC has a tough line to walk; differing perspectives on the left and the right mean that both sides likely will view its content differently (and sometimes conclude it was biased). Despite this, it has to broadcast some content, since that's (literally) its mandate. Perhaps the best solution is to have continued scrutiny from both sides of the political spectrum, and independent regulator to manage complaints... which is what we already have (and what you're helping achieve!)? [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=left+wing+BBC https://www.google.com/search?q=left+wing+BBC [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=right+wing+BBC https://www.google.com/search?q=right+wing+BBC [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
    - factorialboy 7y ago
      If you can't buy the publisher, then you buy the author. Or you feed a neutral author the experts you purchased.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - friendlybus 7y ago
      You can and in the UK.
- scottlocklin 7y ago
  You have a rather credulous view of how the sausage gets made. The author of this piece is a freelance journalist[1] who has written numerous obvious submarines[2]. Do you know how much a freelance journalist costs? Basically: nuthin! I could have put someone like that on my credit card when I was in grad school. [1]http://www.jessicaebrown.com/writing http://www.jessicaebrown.com/writing [2] http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
  - teilo 7y ago
    Thank you for the PG article. Excellent read. I didn't know this term.
  - bonoboTP 7y ago
    Always interesting to re-read that article. Written in 2005, before Facebook got big, the last paragraphs says > PR people fear bloggers for the same reason readers like them. And that means there may be a struggle ahead. As this new kind of writing draws readers away from traditional media, we should be prepared for whatever PR mutates into to compensate. When I think how hard PR firms work to score press hits in the traditional media, I can't imagine they'll work any less hard to feed stories to bloggers, if they can figure out how. And today we have "influencers", native content marketing and Medium (etc) blogs that are way less authentic than what PG wrote about in this post.
- rkachowski 7y ago
  I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not, but the impartiality of BBC content is currently under scrutiny. For those unaware, the BBC is primarily funded by UK public funds (not quite a tax, but a "TV Licence") and as such is prohibited from - amongst other things - 1) selling advertisements and 2) supporting any one political party more than any other. There are of course exceptions (especially wrt to international + online content + commercial arms of the BBC) but an article sponsored by the sugar lobby displayed by a non-commerical arm of the BBC as a UK public service would clearly be prohibited by the BBC charter. The current atmosphere of Brexit has pushed the BBC under more scrutiny due to accusations of pushing articles that disporportionaly support the government line, rather than opposition.
  - ndzig 7y ago
    It's funny, it's always the same thing: super reputable source turns out to be as disreputable as any other. Never trust journalists, never trust the media.

by aritmo 7y ago

timthorn 7y ago

> you get a feeling that it was commissioned by the sugar lobby But as it is a BBC site, you also know that isn't the case.

friendlybus 7y ago
You can buy ad slots in BBC news like anywhere else.
- timthorn 7y ago
  But not content, and also not in the UK.
  - radicalbyte 7y ago
    The BBC has gone all free market, it's very much a mouthpiece for the Tories nowadays.
    - bmsleight_ 7y ago
      Please supply some evidence for this assertion. When the BBC is annoying people on both side of the argument, it must be sitting on the fence. I recommend watching a few USA new programs or even reading a few UK daily papers to see what "mouthpeice for the Tories" really are. Just because the BBC may not agree with everyone all the time, it does not mean it is biased.
      - radicalbyte 7y ago
        The BBC had been run by the BBC trust, which was headed by ext-Tory ministers* and is now run by OFCOM, which is the government media regulator. It's clearly visible in the political coverage of BBC News, which is ran by @bbclaurak. She's a conservative firebrand, the Sarah Sanders of the UK. Only she's running what is supported to be a neutral news organization. Further, I don't know - you just have to watch the way they cover subjects that you understand and see how they totally bend the facts to favor which ever corporate interest they've been told to support. This is particularly the cases with coverage of climate change (their position seems to be that the solution is plastic straws and letting consumers decided to buy 'green electricity') and the hostility to Jeremy Corbyn. The problem with the BBC is that it has been under attack by Sky TV (the premium commercial TV provider then owned by Murdoch) for two decades. A weak or compromised BBC is good business for them and a BBC under the control of the government is great a win-win for those in power..? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rona_Fairhead,_Baroness_Fairhead https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rona_Fairhead,_Baroness_Fairhe..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Patten https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Patten
        todd-davies 7y ago
        The BBC comes under fire from both the left and the right for being biased, and a quick Google search shows that if anything, there appears to be more concern about it being bias towards the left [1, 2]. Here's a really detailed Wikipedia page on BBC bias if you're interested (or want to contribute) [3]. Surely the BBC has a tough line to walk; differing perspectives on the left and the right mean that both sides likely will view its content differently (and sometimes conclude it was biased). Despite this, it has to broadcast some content, since that's (literally) its mandate. Perhaps the best solution is to have continued scrutiny from both sides of the political spectrum, and independent regulator to manage complaints... which is what we already have (and what you're helping achieve!)? [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=left+wing+BBC https://www.google.com/search?q=left+wing+BBC [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=right+wing+BBC https://www.google.com/search?q=right+wing+BBC [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
  - factorialboy 7y ago
    If you can't buy the publisher, then you buy the author. Or you feed a neutral author the experts you purchased.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - friendlybus 7y ago
    You can and in the UK.
scottlocklin 7y ago
You have a rather credulous view of how the sausage gets made. The author of this piece is a freelance journalist[1] who has written numerous obvious submarines[2]. Do you know how much a freelance journalist costs? Basically: nuthin! I could have put someone like that on my credit card when I was in grad school. [1]http://www.jessicaebrown.com/writing http://www.jessicaebrown.com/writing [2] http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
- teilo 7y ago
  Thank you for the PG article. Excellent read. I didn't know this term.
- bonoboTP 7y ago
  Always interesting to re-read that article. Written in 2005, before Facebook got big, the last paragraphs says > PR people fear bloggers for the same reason readers like them. And that means there may be a struggle ahead. As this new kind of writing draws readers away from traditional media, we should be prepared for whatever PR mutates into to compensate. When I think how hard PR firms work to score press hits in the traditional media, I can't imagine they'll work any less hard to feed stories to bloggers, if they can figure out how. And today we have "influencers", native content marketing and Medium (etc) blogs that are way less authentic than what PG wrote about in this post.
rkachowski 7y ago
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not, but the impartiality of BBC content is currently under scrutiny. For those unaware, the BBC is primarily funded by UK public funds (not quite a tax, but a "TV Licence") and as such is prohibited from - amongst other things - 1) selling advertisements and 2) supporting any one political party more than any other. There are of course exceptions (especially wrt to international + online content + commercial arms of the BBC) but an article sponsored by the sugar lobby displayed by a non-commerical arm of the BBC as a UK public service would clearly be prohibited by the BBC charter. The current atmosphere of Brexit has pushed the BBC under more scrutiny due to accusations of pushing articles that disporportionaly support the government line, rather than opposition.
- ndzig 7y ago
  It's funny, it's always the same thing: super reputable source turns out to be as disreputable as any other. Never trust journalists, never trust the media.