4 ms·

They wrote about it last month, and in January. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-68625232 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-68625232 https://www.bbc.

They wrote about it last month, and in January. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-68625232 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-68625232 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-68128177 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-68128177

random9749832 2y ago
Well that's ok, I guess they don't have to report on it anymore.
- mynameisvlad 2y ago
  The bar set by GP comment is that the BBC “ignored this”. Any amount of coverage proves that to not be the case. Have they reported on it enough? No. But that’s not what was being claimed.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    That claim was preceded by the language "hardly covered this". You're being uncharitably literal.
    - ruszki 2y ago
      Fascists are gaining power because people are allowed to be not literal enough, and they are allowed to use dog whistles and euphemism.
      - Gud 2y ago
        Sorry, I don’t understand what you are saying. Are you claiming that the person criticising the UK state media is a fascist? Or are you saying that the state media not covering these law changes adequately make them fascist?
        ruszki 2y ago
        None of those.
        Gud 2y ago
        Ok, would you clarify for me?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - slackfan 2y ago
    Soviet media hardly covered Soviet labor camps, but it absolutely covered them!!11
    - mynameisvlad 2y ago
      Maybe next time, GP should be more precise with their words when they make two statements in one comment so low quality replies like these don’t have to exist.
- Supermancho 2y ago
  Hey it's mentioned here on HN. That counts as being reported!?
ode 2y ago
I haven't seen any TV coverage of this at all.
- chgs 2y ago
  Neither have I, but that’s because I don’t watch TV. At least 80% of people in the U.K. don’t watch tv news.
pera 2y ago
Unfortunately this sort of news rarely show up in the home page though: https://web.archive.org/web/20240322155020/https://www.bbc.co.uk/ https://web.archive.org/web/20240322155020/https://www.bbc.c... https://web.archive.org/web/20240323161503/https://www.bbc.co.uk/ https://web.archive.org/web/20240323161503/https://www.bbc.c... https://web.archive.org/web/20240129162322/https://www.bbc.co.uk/ https://web.archive.org/web/20240129162322/https://www.bbc.c... https://web.archive.org/web/20240130140028/https://www.bbc.co.uk/ https://web.archive.org/web/20240130140028/https://www.bbc.c... Maybe because they are categorised as "Technology" instead of "UK" | "Society" | "Politics"
- walthamstow 2y ago
  The front page is too full of reality TV, US news/sports, and garden variety human interest stories to fit this kind of thing in
  - permo-w 2y ago
    slightly tangential, but at this point I think BBC News just needs to spun off into a visibly separate body from creative production. I wish it wasn't the case - I personally have no problem with BBC News - but it's just too big of an attack surface, and it's not worth sustaining if it risks the loss of probably Britain's greatest cultural asset for the sake of fucking news. amputate the limb before it kills the host

random9749832 2y ago

Well that's ok, I guess they don't have to report on it anymore.

mynameisvlad 2y ago
The bar set by GP comment is that the BBC “ignored this”. Any amount of coverage proves that to not be the case. Have they reported on it enough? No. But that’s not what was being claimed.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  That claim was preceded by the language "hardly covered this". You're being uncharitably literal.
  - ruszki 2y ago
    Fascists are gaining power because people are allowed to be not literal enough, and they are allowed to use dog whistles and euphemism.
    - Gud 2y ago
      Sorry, I don’t understand what you are saying. Are you claiming that the person criticising the UK state media is a fascist? Or are you saying that the state media not covering these law changes adequately make them fascist?
      - ruszki 2y ago
        None of those.
        Gud 2y ago
        Ok, would you clarify for me?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- slackfan 2y ago
  Soviet media hardly covered Soviet labor camps, but it absolutely covered them!!11
  - mynameisvlad 2y ago
    Maybe next time, GP should be more precise with their words when they make two statements in one comment so low quality replies like these don’t have to exist.
Supermancho 2y ago
Hey it's mentioned here on HN. That counts as being reported!?

ode 2y ago

I haven't seen any TV coverage of this at all.

chgs 2y ago
Neither have I, but that’s because I don’t watch TV. At least 80% of people in the U.K. don’t watch tv news.

pera 2y ago

Unfortunately this sort of news rarely show up in the home page though: https://web.archive.org/web/20240322155020/https://www.bbc.co.uk/ https://web.archive.org/web/20240322155020/https://www.bbc.c... https://web.archive.org/web/20240323161503/https://www.bbc.co.uk/ https://web.archive.org/web/20240323161503/https://www.bbc.c... https://web.archive.org/web/20240129162322/https://www.bbc.co.uk/ https://web.archive.org/web/20240129162322/https://www.bbc.c... https://web.archive.org/web/20240130140028/https://www.bbc.co.uk/ https://web.archive.org/web/20240130140028/https://www.bbc.c... Maybe because they are categorised as "Technology" instead of "UK" | "Society" | "Politics"

walthamstow 2y ago
The front page is too full of reality TV, US news/sports, and garden variety human interest stories to fit this kind of thing in
- permo-w 2y ago
  slightly tangential, but at this point I think BBC News just needs to spun off into a visibly separate body from creative production. I wish it wasn't the case - I personally have no problem with BBC News - but it's just too big of an attack surface, and it's not worth sustaining if it risks the loss of probably Britain's greatest cultural asset for the sake of fucking news. amputate the limb before it kills the host