4 ms·

As someone who grew up quite a while ago with the BBC, there's some serious delusion going on here about the historical and present day nature of that instituti

As someone who grew up quite a while ago with the BBC, there's some serious delusion going on here about the historical and present day nature of that institution. Whether or not it is true that the BBC has (or has not) been "captured by wokeness", the objections to this tend to hinge on its reputation for objectivity and dispassion in the past. But the BBC has never been objective or dispassionate. It has been a steadfast supporter of the status quo. If it didn't treat socialism and communism with the idiocy that modern day Fox News does, it certainly offered them no serious coverage outside of a few intellectual "talk shows", even then only as a curiosity set against "what we all know is the truth". The fact that someone might be upset that the BBC or other similar organizations choose not to give "full coverage" to conservatism should not obscure that the same organizations have never provided much to any "radical" cultural or political phenomenon. The cherry-picking was always real, and it is generally only Americans who live under the ridiculous idea that there can be "objective" journalism. There isn't, and there never has been, and there never will be (in the context of broadcast or daily media, anyway).

specialist 2y ago
> [BBC] has been a steadfast supporter of the status quo. Exactly. Ditto NY Times (and maybe Wash Post). They aren't left or right; they're establishment. They defend the status quo (as they see it).
AlbertCory 2y ago
"It was never objective" is similar to Scientific American apologists who say "science was always political." > It has been a steadfast supporter of the status quo Yes, but at one time, "status quo" didn't mean one party. It meant two, either of which might happen to be in power. You're correct that they didn't give much coverage to groups outside of that "mainstream." > the ridiculous idea that there can be "objective" journalism. There are degrees of seriousness in the approach to that ideal. You can go into the New York Times archives for the late 19th and early 20th centuries, to see what it looked like when it was taken seriously.

specialist 2y ago

> [BBC] has been a steadfast supporter of the status quo. Exactly. Ditto NY Times (and maybe Wash Post). They aren't left or right; they're establishment. They defend the status quo (as they see it).

AlbertCory 2y ago

"It was never objective" is similar to Scientific American apologists who say "science was always political." > It has been a steadfast supporter of the status quo Yes, but at one time, "status quo" didn't mean one party. It meant two, either of which might happen to be in power. You're correct that they didn't give much coverage to groups outside of that "mainstream." > the ridiculous idea that there can be "objective" journalism. There are degrees of seriousness in the approach to that ideal. You can go into the New York Times archives for the late 19th and early 20th centuries, to see what it looked like when it was taken seriously.