4 ms·

Wow so it sounds like the BBC hasn't attended the hearing at all and is just reporting what is on the court docket.

Angostura 6y ago
Since the report has direct quotes from Assange's QC inside the court and from supporters outside of the court, that seems an odd assessment.
pydry 6y ago
It's consistent with the BBC acting as a propaganda arm of the British state - something that had become more true ever since the Hutton enquiry and the raft of new political appointees at the head of the organization.
- colordrops 6y ago
  And yet you'll find that twitter only marks Russian and Chinese accounts as "state media".
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    I guess you can’t mark something they didn’t report as fake or misleading.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      Sounds a lot like wikileaks itself ;)
  - rootsudo 6y ago
    To be fair, the name of the state is in BBC itself.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      Twitter's been fairly open about their decisionmaking process here, so we know that's not the relevant factor - they say they don't label BBC because it has editorial independence.
      - colordrops 6y ago
        Sounds hand-wavy. How is editorial independence measured?
        SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        I agree with your skepticism of the objectivity here. Twitter says only that they "consulted with a number of expert groups": https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2020/new-labels-for-government-and-state-affiliated-media-accounts.html https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2020/new-label...
      - pydry 6y ago
        Twitter is wrong then. They used to have editorial independence before the Hutton enquiry. Any editorial independence they have now is purely nominal.
        rootsudo 6y ago
        And this is the issue with social media being able to moderate and curate content as they choose. Makes me wonder about Mccain and the CDA.
    - chokolad 6y ago
      > To be fair, the name of the state is in BBC itself. As opposed to RT ?
    - iso1210 6y ago
      Last time I was in the U.S. I watched Good Morning America on the American Broadcasting Company network
- DanBC 6y ago
  No, it's consistent with news sources in the UK having to obey the law about reporting restrictions on cases currently before the courts. https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/guides/the-sub-judice-rule-and-contempt-of-court https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/guides/the-sub-judice-... > Matters are considered to be sub judice (Latin for 'under judgment') once legal proceedings become active. > Criminal proceedings are deemed active once a person is arrested, a warrant for arrest has been issued, a summons has been issued or a person has been charged and remain active until conviction. Civil proceedings become active, in England, when the hearing date for the trial is arranged and, in Scotland, when the parties' pleadings have been finalised and the record is closed. > Publication of material which is sub judice comprises contempt of court, a crime which is punishable by a fine of unlimited amount and/or imprisonment for up to two years. Third party costs orders may also be awarded against the media organisation, enabling the courts to recover the costs of any trial aborted as a result of the prejudicial reporting.

Since the report has direct quotes from Assange's QC inside the court and from supporters outside of the court, that seems an odd assessment.

pydry 6y ago

It's consistent with the BBC acting as a propaganda arm of the British state - something that had become more true ever since the Hutton enquiry and the raft of new political appointees at the head of the organization.

colordrops 6y ago
And yet you'll find that twitter only marks Russian and Chinese accounts as "state media".
- arcticbull 6y ago
  I guess you can’t mark something they didn’t report as fake or misleading.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    Sounds a lot like wikileaks itself ;)
- rootsudo 6y ago
  To be fair, the name of the state is in BBC itself.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    Twitter's been fairly open about their decisionmaking process here, so we know that's not the relevant factor - they say they don't label BBC because it has editorial independence.
    - colordrops 6y ago
      Sounds hand-wavy. How is editorial independence measured?
      - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        I agree with your skepticism of the objectivity here. Twitter says only that they "consulted with a number of expert groups": https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2020/new-labels-for-government-and-state-affiliated-media-accounts.html https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2020/new-label...
    - pydry 6y ago
      Twitter is wrong then. They used to have editorial independence before the Hutton enquiry. Any editorial independence they have now is purely nominal.
      - rootsudo 6y ago
        And this is the issue with social media being able to moderate and curate content as they choose. Makes me wonder about Mccain and the CDA.
  - chokolad 6y ago
    > To be fair, the name of the state is in BBC itself. As opposed to RT ?
  - iso1210 6y ago
    Last time I was in the U.S. I watched Good Morning America on the American Broadcasting Company network
DanBC 6y ago
No, it's consistent with news sources in the UK having to obey the law about reporting restrictions on cases currently before the courts. https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/guides/the-sub-judice-rule-and-contempt-of-court https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/guides/the-sub-judice-... > Matters are considered to be sub judice (Latin for 'under judgment') once legal proceedings become active. > Criminal proceedings are deemed active once a person is arrested, a warrant for arrest has been issued, a summons has been issued or a person has been charged and remain active until conviction. Civil proceedings become active, in England, when the hearing date for the trial is arranged and, in Scotland, when the parties' pleadings have been finalised and the record is closed. > Publication of material which is sub judice comprises contempt of court, a crime which is punishable by a fine of unlimited amount and/or imprisonment for up to two years. Third party costs orders may also be awarded against the media organisation, enabling the courts to recover the costs of any trial aborted as a result of the prejudicial reporting.