4 ms·
The article itself may not have been written for the purpose, but the timing, release and prominence on the homepage certainly is.
by robinduckett 6y ago
The article itself may not have been written for the purpose, but the timing, release and prominence on the homepage certainly is.
- tweetle_beetle 6y agoProminence - It's currently only being linked to in the least prominent headline slot (7th) on the Tech section of the news site, after being published for less than a day. Presumably it will be shunted off altogether by tomorrow. Timing - It's release is based on source material that was just released a couple of days ago - around how long it might take to write an article to cover a story which is not breaking news. I'm sure whoever you think is manipulating the BBC could find a more effective tactic for delivering a propaganda attack.
- robinduckett 6y agoEverything is calculated. Calculated risk. Calculated reward. If they have moderation to check if something should be posted or not, then you can sure bet that the moderation goes the other way and determines timing et al. The government "own" the BBC, that is no secret.
- tweetle_beetle 6y agoSo the overlords insist on sidestepping journalistic integrity to create a punishing propaganda piece in the party organ to rile up their opponents, but they are so worried about appearing to break editorial guidelines that they tone it right down hide it in an obscure corner of the website? You can't have it both ways - either they're trying to make a point or they're not. If it's so subtle that it takes this level of interpretation, then it's not an attack. I'm certainly no fan of the current government, but if you want some actual corruption stories to get stuck into, then just buy a copy of Private Eye - corruption is usually a lot more straightforward that this.