4 ms·

'Following the searches, Gaurav Bhatia, a spokesperson from Modi’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), described the BBC as the “most corrupt organisation in t

'Following the searches, Gaurav Bhatia, a spokesperson from Modi’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), described the BBC as the “most corrupt organisation in the world”.' Which just about sums up the independence of the process.

londons_explore 4y ago
[flagged]
- croes 4y ago
  But "most corrupt organization in the world"? Come on.
- toyg 4y ago
  This is whataboutism. Mr. Sharp is hated by most of the BBC workforce precisely because he is the corrupt representative of a corrupt government. Whatever influence he might ever have had on editorial decisions has long gone.
  - bawolff 4y ago
    I don't think it is. Whether appointments to the bbc are the results of bribes is material to if the BJP statement is just making things up as implied by the original poster. Whataboutism isn't a catch all term that can be used to get rid of every opposing argument.
    - toyg 4y ago
      Unless they can show a pattern of corruption in BBC appointments, they're just taking a single example to support an otherwise-baseless argument. Sharp is an outlier, brought about by one of the worst ever UK governments in living memory, which is why we know of him and he's under pressure to leave.
      - bawolff 4y ago
        Sure its not enough to prove the point, but its relavent to the point.
    - esperent 4y ago
      > Whataboutism isn't a catch all term No, but it certainly applies to this comment and a whole load of other comments in the thread where people are trying to draw false equivalence by pointing out isolated incidents of corruption or police violence in Europe and thereby implying that we shouldn't be looking too harshly on other countries. False/shaky equivalence as a distraction, AKA whataboutism.
      - bawolff 4y ago
        > by pointing out isolated incidents of corruption or police violence in Europe and thereby implying that we shouldn't be looking too harshly on other countries I don't think they said this. Certainly if they made this argument it would be whataboutism.
  - berdario 4y ago
    The problem is not only Sharp, the BBC is widely known for being partisan https://www.medialens.org/2019/the-arrogance-of-bbc-news/ https://www.medialens.org/2019/the-arrogance-of-bbc-news/ Of course "most corrupt organization in the world" is hyperbole, and I wouldn't discount this specific investigation on BJP (but I have limited interest in that, since I haven't been to India in years) But blaming others of whataboutism is harmful, since it stifles deserved criticism. Especially because no one here is really defending the Indian government corruption (for now), so it's not even truly whataboutism.
    - toyg 4y ago
      Tories hate the BBC for being a hive of lefties, and slowly strangle its source of funds; Labour hate the BBC for being partisan to Tories, and will loudly shout they're being ignored at every turn. Apart from a handful of highly-visible figures (Dimbleby, Kuenssberg, Neil), who are easily ignored, the truth is somewhat in the middle. Occasionally too much in the middle, like on Brexit, but in the middle nonetheless.
      - arp242 4y ago
        The article is a bit long, rambling, and rankly not very well written, but it's definitely not a "Tory complains left-wing bias in BBC"-type of article. Example: "And here we arrive at a truly awesome, structural bias that is barely guessed at by journalists themselves. The fact is that it is simply understood by ‘mainstream’ media at election time that foreign policy – especially our leaders’ high crimes – is somehow unaccountably, inexplicably, irrationally, not an issue the electorate need trouble its pretty little head about. Even after the devastating, illegal 2003 invasion-occupation of Iraq, with the crime still fully underway, foreign policy barely featured as an election issue in 2005. Corbyn was presented, relentlessly, as a moral monster, as a threat to humanity on the basis of miniscule, in fact non-existent, evidence. But Johnson and the Tories, and Corbyn’s Blairite enemies, escaped all scrutiny – for the simple reason that their very real crimes have been declared a non-issue by an awesomely corrupt system of media corporations serving the power of which they are an integral part."
- _aaed 4y ago
  I don't know why you are being slated for stating facts. Of course the BBC is not the most corrupt organisation in the world but it's far from benevolent.
- sigg3 4y ago
  Whether someone took a bribe or not is not really as interesting as the genocide they're pretending didn't happen.
- rhaway84773 4y ago
  This is an irrelevant false equivalence. The leader of the BBC is quite obviously corrupt and placed in his position in a highly corrupt process. Which has absolutely no bearing on the Indian government’s response to what was a fairly ordinary piece of media.
- a_humean 4y ago
  To claim that this incident justifies calling the BBC the "most corrupt organisation in the world" is laughable. And on this specific case internally within the BBC this man is loathed precisely because it has hurt the reputation of the BBC and he is very likely to resign soon. There is basically zero insitutional support within the BBC for their chair.
- altacc 4y ago
  Actually it points to the opposite, given the continued press coverage of this (in some media), the lack of confidence in him and the rising likelihood that he will have to resign. In a truly corrupt country everyone knows what happened but there is no repercussion. In the BBC, everyone knows what happened and have zero respect for him and he might have to resign. No system is perfect but the BBC & Modi's government are very, very far apart on the corruption index.
headsoup 4y ago
Can't help but feel there's some projection going...

londons_explore 4y ago

[flagged]

croes 4y ago
But "most corrupt organization in the world"? Come on.
toyg 4y ago
This is whataboutism. Mr. Sharp is hated by most of the BBC workforce precisely because he is the corrupt representative of a corrupt government. Whatever influence he might ever have had on editorial decisions has long gone.
- bawolff 4y ago
  I don't think it is. Whether appointments to the bbc are the results of bribes is material to if the BJP statement is just making things up as implied by the original poster. Whataboutism isn't a catch all term that can be used to get rid of every opposing argument.
  - toyg 4y ago
    Unless they can show a pattern of corruption in BBC appointments, they're just taking a single example to support an otherwise-baseless argument. Sharp is an outlier, brought about by one of the worst ever UK governments in living memory, which is why we know of him and he's under pressure to leave.
    - bawolff 4y ago
      Sure its not enough to prove the point, but its relavent to the point.
  - esperent 4y ago
    > Whataboutism isn't a catch all term No, but it certainly applies to this comment and a whole load of other comments in the thread where people are trying to draw false equivalence by pointing out isolated incidents of corruption or police violence in Europe and thereby implying that we shouldn't be looking too harshly on other countries. False/shaky equivalence as a distraction, AKA whataboutism.
    - bawolff 4y ago
      > by pointing out isolated incidents of corruption or police violence in Europe and thereby implying that we shouldn't be looking too harshly on other countries I don't think they said this. Certainly if they made this argument it would be whataboutism.
- berdario 4y ago
  The problem is not only Sharp, the BBC is widely known for being partisan https://www.medialens.org/2019/the-arrogance-of-bbc-news/ https://www.medialens.org/2019/the-arrogance-of-bbc-news/ Of course "most corrupt organization in the world" is hyperbole, and I wouldn't discount this specific investigation on BJP (but I have limited interest in that, since I haven't been to India in years) But blaming others of whataboutism is harmful, since it stifles deserved criticism. Especially because no one here is really defending the Indian government corruption (for now), so it's not even truly whataboutism.
  - toyg 4y ago
    Tories hate the BBC for being a hive of lefties, and slowly strangle its source of funds; Labour hate the BBC for being partisan to Tories, and will loudly shout they're being ignored at every turn. Apart from a handful of highly-visible figures (Dimbleby, Kuenssberg, Neil), who are easily ignored, the truth is somewhat in the middle. Occasionally too much in the middle, like on Brexit, but in the middle nonetheless.
    - arp242 4y ago
      The article is a bit long, rambling, and rankly not very well written, but it's definitely not a "Tory complains left-wing bias in BBC"-type of article. Example: "And here we arrive at a truly awesome, structural bias that is barely guessed at by journalists themselves. The fact is that it is simply understood by ‘mainstream’ media at election time that foreign policy – especially our leaders’ high crimes – is somehow unaccountably, inexplicably, irrationally, not an issue the electorate need trouble its pretty little head about. Even after the devastating, illegal 2003 invasion-occupation of Iraq, with the crime still fully underway, foreign policy barely featured as an election issue in 2005. Corbyn was presented, relentlessly, as a moral monster, as a threat to humanity on the basis of miniscule, in fact non-existent, evidence. But Johnson and the Tories, and Corbyn’s Blairite enemies, escaped all scrutiny – for the simple reason that their very real crimes have been declared a non-issue by an awesomely corrupt system of media corporations serving the power of which they are an integral part."
_aaed 4y ago
I don't know why you are being slated for stating facts. Of course the BBC is not the most corrupt organisation in the world but it's far from benevolent.
sigg3 4y ago
Whether someone took a bribe or not is not really as interesting as the genocide they're pretending didn't happen.
rhaway84773 4y ago
This is an irrelevant false equivalence. The leader of the BBC is quite obviously corrupt and placed in his position in a highly corrupt process. Which has absolutely no bearing on the Indian government’s response to what was a fairly ordinary piece of media.
a_humean 4y ago
To claim that this incident justifies calling the BBC the "most corrupt organisation in the world" is laughable. And on this specific case internally within the BBC this man is loathed precisely because it has hurt the reputation of the BBC and he is very likely to resign soon. There is basically zero insitutional support within the BBC for their chair.
altacc 4y ago
Actually it points to the opposite, given the continued press coverage of this (in some media), the lack of confidence in him and the rising likelihood that he will have to resign. In a truly corrupt country everyone knows what happened but there is no repercussion. In the BBC, everyone knows what happened and have zero respect for him and he might have to resign. No system is perfect but the BBC & Modi's government are very, very far apart on the corruption index.

headsoup 4y ago

Can't help but feel there's some projection going...