4 ms·

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 influ

by 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."

by toyg 4y ago

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."