5 ms·

it spent a little too long excusing and downplaying a nazi style genocide to depict it as having a "slight leftward skew". realistically it generally functions

by pydry 1y ago

it spent a little too long excusing and downplaying a nazi style genocide to depict it as having a "slight leftward skew". realistically it generally functions more of a bellwether for what the british elites wants people to think rather than as a news outlet. the cackhanded attempt to smear trump that led to this resignation was part of that and the crackdown signifies that the British establishment has largely shifted from "fervently anti trump" to a policy of appeasement / cordial relations. Two years ago this kind of dishonest editing would probably have been tolerated if not outright encouraged (as it was when done to Jeremy Corbyn). The way that Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy declared powerless "not President Trump" a "tyrant" and "a woman-hating, neo-Nazi-sympathising sociopath" but is now keen on cordial relations is another reflection of this narrative shift: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2z1zm1pk3o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2z1zm1pk3o

pjc50 1y ago
The Lammy thing is such absurd cowardice. You were right the first time and now you just look like an appeaser. I'm not even sure the Jan 6th reporting was dishonest. Does anyone have an edit/unedit comparison to show us that isn't ridiculously long?
- mvdtnz 1y ago
  It's difficult to show you an unedited one that isn't ridiculously long because the segments that were spliced together in the documentary were 50 minutes apart in real time.
- iso1631 1y ago
  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cr7mp7rnx48o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cr7mp7rnx48o Note that they took two parts of the speech and merged them together so it sounded like "We're going to march down to the capital and we fight like hell" Rather than "We're going to march down to the capital. (later in speech -- usually something like a fade to white and back) We fight like hell" Of course in reality Trump didn't march down to the capital, but his supporters did fight like hell.
throwaway290 1y ago
> it spent a little too long excusing and downplaying a nazi style genocide to depict it as having a "slight leftward skew". a measure of how out of touch this comment is: among the reasons for her stepdown and accusations of bias according to this article was literally that BBC (especialy BBC Arabic) parroted Hamas a little too much at times. Edit to reply: Do you actually watch BBC? I watch BBC a lot. As in I sub and don't just get what algorithms throw at me. I didn't get even a slightest feeling they were slavishly pro Israel. Their videos about Gaza were regular and almost all negative of Israel reporting about destruction and suffering in Gaza. Just go to bbcnews youtube and search Gaza. You can also search Gaza genocide. didn't watch every video but headlines are telling. It feels like talking to somebody who says things that exist in their head and not reality
- pydry 1y ago
  oh yeah ive no doubt not being slavishly pro Israel enough was part of if not most of the reason why the establishment cracked down here. (accusations of being pro hamas for providing an honest account of the situation is the racist's calling card of 2025...) the bbc journalists have been in near open revolt about being told to misrepresent and lie on behalf of Israel: https://www.financialexpress.com/world-news/forced-to-do-pr-for-israeli-government-bbc-employees-revolt-accuse-organisation-of-anti-palestinian-racism-in-coverage/3902489/ https://www.financialexpress.com/world-news/forced-to-do-pr-... The current leadership relented a little on the crackdown on their journalists in the last ~6 months ever since the UN declared it a genocide and allowed slightly more honest reporting of the genocide. Im pretty sure that recent glimmer of honesty will stop under new leadership. >Do you actually watch BBC? Yes, and I know people who work there too. Which is why found the journalists' revolt over management's orders to push racist Israeli tropes about "avoiding being too pro hamas" to be entirely unsurprising.
  - throwaway290 1y ago
    > They claim staff have faced accusations of bias for sharing articles critical of Israel on social media I heard if you work for BBC you can't even mention a toothbrush maker without going through alternatives. yes they are anal about bias. in this case on one side there is a jihadist organization (and civilians who judging by polls support it) with stated goal of genocide and many examples of attempting it as best they can, currently shooting its own people accused of collaborating with the enemy, vs country that done a bunch of stuff like settling villages outside of its borders and protecting them with violence, fighting that jihadist organization with civilian casualties, blocking borders etc. if what you are saying is that things are clear and there is no "bias" in painting one side as baddies and the other as goodies, I can't see that. therefore it's important to stick to factual reporting and if you work for a big news org regular people trust you and you should avoid bias even if you publish on your own twitter. from https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality/guidelines https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartial... > They may provide professional judgements, rooted in evidence and professional experience, but may not express personal views on such matters publicly, including in any BBC-branded output or on personal blogs and social media. > Achieving due impartiality requires awareness that unintended biases can result from the use of loaded language, from subconscious assumptions and from choices about prominence. For example, a phrase like 'the burden of taxation' might imply a view of taxation that is biased. Advice is available from Editorial Policy I think BBC is very cool for having this rules. And it sucks they broke their own rules editing Trump speech. And I say that as mostly Trump hater > accusations of being pro hamas for providing an honest account of the situation is the racist's calling card of 2025... Ah yes. I have not mentioned race but there we go American white guilt... people from Palestine are ethnically all super similar including Jews, just with different religions/politics. I didn't watch/read BBC Arabic but on main channel I think they so far had pretty factual coverage and I hope they keep it up...
constantius 1y ago
> bellwether for what the british elites wants people to think This is accurate: the BBC is definitely not seen as speaking truth to power by anyone, independent of their political allegiance. Their coverage of the genocide was revealing of this, if one only cared to look.

by pydry 1y ago

pjc50 1y ago

The Lammy thing is such absurd cowardice. You were right the first time and now you just look like an appeaser. I'm not even sure the Jan 6th reporting was dishonest. Does anyone have an edit/unedit comparison to show us that isn't ridiculously long?

mvdtnz 1y ago
It's difficult to show you an unedited one that isn't ridiculously long because the segments that were spliced together in the documentary were 50 minutes apart in real time.
iso1631 1y ago
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cr7mp7rnx48o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cr7mp7rnx48o Note that they took two parts of the speech and merged them together so it sounded like "We're going to march down to the capital and we fight like hell" Rather than "We're going to march down to the capital. (later in speech -- usually something like a fade to white and back) We fight like hell" Of course in reality Trump didn't march down to the capital, but his supporters did fight like hell.

throwaway290 1y ago

> it spent a little too long excusing and downplaying a nazi style genocide to depict it as having a "slight leftward skew". a measure of how out of touch this comment is: among the reasons for her stepdown and accusations of bias according to this article was literally that BBC (especialy BBC Arabic) parroted Hamas a little too much at times. Edit to reply: Do you actually watch BBC? I watch BBC a lot. As in I sub and don't just get what algorithms throw at me. I didn't get even a slightest feeling they were slavishly pro Israel. Their videos about Gaza were regular and almost all negative of Israel reporting about destruction and suffering in Gaza. Just go to bbcnews youtube and search Gaza. You can also search Gaza genocide. didn't watch every video but headlines are telling. It feels like talking to somebody who says things that exist in their head and not reality

pydry 1y ago
oh yeah ive no doubt not being slavishly pro Israel enough was part of if not most of the reason why the establishment cracked down here. (accusations of being pro hamas for providing an honest account of the situation is the racist's calling card of 2025...) the bbc journalists have been in near open revolt about being told to misrepresent and lie on behalf of Israel: https://www.financialexpress.com/world-news/forced-to-do-pr-for-israeli-government-bbc-employees-revolt-accuse-organisation-of-anti-palestinian-racism-in-coverage/3902489/ https://www.financialexpress.com/world-news/forced-to-do-pr-... The current leadership relented a little on the crackdown on their journalists in the last ~6 months ever since the UN declared it a genocide and allowed slightly more honest reporting of the genocide. Im pretty sure that recent glimmer of honesty will stop under new leadership. >Do you actually watch BBC? Yes, and I know people who work there too. Which is why found the journalists' revolt over management's orders to push racist Israeli tropes about "avoiding being too pro hamas" to be entirely unsurprising.
- throwaway290 1y ago
  > They claim staff have faced accusations of bias for sharing articles critical of Israel on social media I heard if you work for BBC you can't even mention a toothbrush maker without going through alternatives. yes they are anal about bias. in this case on one side there is a jihadist organization (and civilians who judging by polls support it) with stated goal of genocide and many examples of attempting it as best they can, currently shooting its own people accused of collaborating with the enemy, vs country that done a bunch of stuff like settling villages outside of its borders and protecting them with violence, fighting that jihadist organization with civilian casualties, blocking borders etc. if what you are saying is that things are clear and there is no "bias" in painting one side as baddies and the other as goodies, I can't see that. therefore it's important to stick to factual reporting and if you work for a big news org regular people trust you and you should avoid bias even if you publish on your own twitter. from https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality/guidelines https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartial... > They may provide professional judgements, rooted in evidence and professional experience, but may not express personal views on such matters publicly, including in any BBC-branded output or on personal blogs and social media. > Achieving due impartiality requires awareness that unintended biases can result from the use of loaded language, from subconscious assumptions and from choices about prominence. For example, a phrase like 'the burden of taxation' might imply a view of taxation that is biased. Advice is available from Editorial Policy I think BBC is very cool for having this rules. And it sucks they broke their own rules editing Trump speech. And I say that as mostly Trump hater > accusations of being pro hamas for providing an honest account of the situation is the racist's calling card of 2025... Ah yes. I have not mentioned race but there we go American white guilt... people from Palestine are ethnically all super similar including Jews, just with different religions/politics. I didn't watch/read BBC Arabic but on main channel I think they so far had pretty factual coverage and I hope they keep it up...

constantius 1y ago

> bellwether for what the british elites wants people to think This is accurate: the BBC is definitely not seen as speaking truth to power by anyone, independent of their political allegiance. Their coverage of the genocide was revealing of this, if one only cared to look.