4 ms·

"Divides" is a stretch here. The BBC must report both points of view, so by default, anything they right must 'divide people'. The 'division' in this article c

"Divides" is a stretch here. The BBC must report both points of view, so by default, anything they right must 'divide people'. The 'division' in this article comes from: >Some posted on Instagram concerns that clubs could suffer as social media videos of their night act as free adverts Doesn't really paint the picture of this nightclub having its fanbase split in half arguing about whether it's good or bad....

MortyWaves 2y ago
I hate that this is the case. It’s been incredibly frustrating over the years seeing perfectly normal and universally accepted things be reported about, but they have to find the absolute dregs of society with whacky and extremely stupid ideas simply so they can say they “are impartial”. It’s been everything from Brexit to Covid and everything in between.
- immibis 2y ago
  Is it because they have to, or they choose to? There are a great many right wing outlets that call themselves impartial.
  - lmm 2y ago
    The BBC being publicly funded has a genuine obligation to be neutral, which sometimes turns into "both sides" weirdness.
    - Symbiote 2y ago
      I think it's a more recent phenomenon that they go to lengths to find someone to report "both sides". 20 years ago, they didn't need to interview extremists — staying neutral meant reporting on the centre viewpoint.
    - immibis 2y ago
      Having an obligation to be neutral isn't the same as being neutral - people and especially institutions break their obligations all the time, often without penalty.
    - maeil 2y ago
      It's still a choice. They don't do it when there's an article on the dangers of the rise of Neo-Nazism, or on the horrors of IS. "Now we interview Paul (32), who doesn't think it's dangerous at all, in fact he thinks it's pretty great!". Or on new cancer medicine; "Now we go to Mary (55) who isn't a fan of the new medicine, advocating that cancer patients cure it with yoga instead.". "Neutral" also doesn't have to mean "both sides".
    - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
      Neutral is kind of a silly concept. Any attempt to even describe the sides, or even to enumerate them, will reveal inherent bias. You see this all over newspapers in the US who try to remain unbiased (between the two political parties), which results in an incredibly nasty feedback loop where parties and the media dictate policy to each other while ignoring every other viewpoint in existence. Give me reporting with clear polemic any day, please. At least I can adjust for that and consume contrary polemics.
- Mountain_Skies 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - maeil 2y ago
    Potential rise in racist incidents must overrule accurate reporting on and research into what may have spawned a global pandemic directly killing 6+ million people (more than the Vietnam war and Korean war combined) and indirectly killing many more.
  - Der_Einzige 2y ago
    The glowies believe it was a lab leak and that’s good enough for me.
- tjalfi 2y ago
  That reminds me of a great Dara Ó Briain routine[0] about pseudoscience. [0] https://youtu.be/YKZN-hBTBUE https://youtu.be/YKZN-hBTBUE
seb1204 2y ago
Most headlines nowadays turn me off. Why not say it's a good thing and as always there are few that don't like it?

MortyWaves 2y ago

I hate that this is the case. It’s been incredibly frustrating over the years seeing perfectly normal and universally accepted things be reported about, but they have to find the absolute dregs of society with whacky and extremely stupid ideas simply so they can say they “are impartial”. It’s been everything from Brexit to Covid and everything in between.

immibis 2y ago
Is it because they have to, or they choose to? There are a great many right wing outlets that call themselves impartial.
- lmm 2y ago
  The BBC being publicly funded has a genuine obligation to be neutral, which sometimes turns into "both sides" weirdness.
  - Symbiote 2y ago
    I think it's a more recent phenomenon that they go to lengths to find someone to report "both sides". 20 years ago, they didn't need to interview extremists — staying neutral meant reporting on the centre viewpoint.
  - immibis 2y ago
    Having an obligation to be neutral isn't the same as being neutral - people and especially institutions break their obligations all the time, often without penalty.
  - maeil 2y ago
    It's still a choice. They don't do it when there's an article on the dangers of the rise of Neo-Nazism, or on the horrors of IS. "Now we interview Paul (32), who doesn't think it's dangerous at all, in fact he thinks it's pretty great!". Or on new cancer medicine; "Now we go to Mary (55) who isn't a fan of the new medicine, advocating that cancer patients cure it with yoga instead.". "Neutral" also doesn't have to mean "both sides".
  - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
    Neutral is kind of a silly concept. Any attempt to even describe the sides, or even to enumerate them, will reveal inherent bias. You see this all over newspapers in the US who try to remain unbiased (between the two political parties), which results in an incredibly nasty feedback loop where parties and the media dictate policy to each other while ignoring every other viewpoint in existence. Give me reporting with clear polemic any day, please. At least I can adjust for that and consume contrary polemics.
Mountain_Skies 2y ago
[flagged]
- maeil 2y ago
  Potential rise in racist incidents must overrule accurate reporting on and research into what may have spawned a global pandemic directly killing 6+ million people (more than the Vietnam war and Korean war combined) and indirectly killing many more.
- Der_Einzige 2y ago
  The glowies believe it was a lab leak and that’s good enough for me.
tjalfi 2y ago
That reminds me of a great Dara Ó Briain routine[0] about pseudoscience. [0] https://youtu.be/YKZN-hBTBUE https://youtu.be/YKZN-hBTBUE

seb1204 2y ago

Most headlines nowadays turn me off. Why not say it's a good thing and as always there are few that don't like it?