3 ms·
Is the title here editorialized? Or did BBC update their title because the old one was incorrect?
by boxed 1y ago
Is the title here editorialized? Or did BBC update their title because the old one was incorrect?
- mhga 1y agoIt's copied from BBC's post on X It may be editorialized https://x.com/BBCWorld/status/1956791643413094490 https://x.com/BBCWorld/status/1956791643413094490
- cholantesh 1y agoOr alternatively, the subsequent walk-backs are editorialized.
- Fred27m 1y agoThe changed title is because of something the BBC do repeatedly. - Put up a factually incorrect article accusing Israel of something - Let it sit on the front page for a day or two so a lot of people read it - Take it off the front page and quietly correct it
- Chris2048 1y agouser: Fred27m created: 6 minutes ago karma: 0
- Fred27m 1y agoThat's correct. I normally just read but thought I'd comment today. (I might have commented before on an old account but if so I've forgotten the details.) You can clearly see that the BBC edited this headline. I've seen them do this a lot, but whether you believe me or want to investigate further yourself is entirely up to you.
- Chris2048 1y agoPerhaps, but the effect is what would otherwise be called a "throwaway" account.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago> You can clearly see that the BBC edited this headline. Well, sure, but people also commonly believe that they are pressured to do so and eventually relent to the pressure. That they changed something is not strictly evidence that the old version was "factually incorrect". > I normally just read but thought I'd comment today. (I might have commented before on an old account but if so I've forgotten the details.) Since we're already on the topic of worthless throwaway accounts, I feel the need to comment on this. This reads like a bit like a "regular internet citizen" phrase of someone who is not that attached to their accounts, which is, of course, a reasonable perspective, but it also reads a lot like someone who's literally paid to read popular discussion sites ("I normally just read") and make accounts they don't care about ("I might have commented before on an old account but if so I've forgotten the details") for the sake of voicing an opinion that benefits their employer if widely believed ("thought I'd comment today"). Just food for thought for the person who is presumably commenting with their genuine opinions. And, of course, readers who are interested in observing sneaky phrases that could potentially cause their thinking to be misdirected.
- boxed 1y agoSo? I've seen BBC do this before. Not to mention posting much much worse things and just quietly taking it down without offering some apology or article to try to set the record straight.
- Chris2048 1y ago> I've seen BBC do this before. So n=2? How about examples?
- boxed 1y agohttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/07/bbc-breached-guidelines-more-1500-times-israel-hamas-war/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/07/bbc-breached-gui... is pretty damning
- cholantesh 1y agoThink tank slop rarely is.
- youngtaff 1y agoWhat a surprise… a UK lawyer who lives in Jerusalem and is a member of the Israeli Bar, founded an organisation named BBCWatch to “analyse BBC media coverage of the Middle East” wrote a report that was critical of the BBC If anything Israel gets pretty much a free ride in the UK press and particularly on the BBC
- regnull 1y agoWhat does it have to do with the substance of the comment?
- Chris2048 1y agoIt provides context. The post was a bare claim without context or evidence, But a poster without any history. I'd say if you post an accusative claim on a controversial topic as your first post with a new account, it should probably include far more information.
- regnull 1y agoI agree that the context is important. However, there is still a problem here: - The user name already shows in green, which means a new account. Thus, your comment does not give any additional context. - If your goal is to provide context, I'm sure you do not fail to provide it when an account with a long history and a tons of karma makes a comment that goes contrary to what you want to believe, right?
- Chris2048 1y agoI didn't know that. The shade is so slight I couldn't tell. > I'm sure you do not fail to provide it when an account with a long history and a tons of karma makes a comment that goes contrary to what you want to believe Why would that be necessary? They wouldn't be "throwaway" in that case.
- youngtaff 1y agoYou can find the same story in plenty of other serious press outlets
- youngtaff 1y agoIt was probably changed under pressure from the Israeli Embassy press office