6 ms·

BBC, literally one of the most reliable news sources in the world is according to you "UK propaganda". Feel free to expand on this

tgma 11mo ago
The GP felt it is okay to disparage Arab News solely because they are funded by the Saudis, which evidently they don't like. By the same standards, the BBC is literally funded by another state, the UK. Both are state funded media, thus propaganda almost by definition. Remember, propaganda does not have to be false or unreliable. (Although, ironically, BBC right now is in trouble for deceptive portrayal of Trump.) Hacker News guidelines[1] recommend posting the original source, not BBC over Arab News. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter."
- rileymat2 11mo ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_News https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_News The newspaper has been described as "a mouthpiece for the Saudi regime" by Qatari-owned The New Arab,[24] and regarded as "reflecting official Saudi Arabian government position" by the Associated Press and Haaretz.[5] This is much different than the BBC which attempts to maintain independence.
  - tgma 11mo ago
    > This is much different than the BBC which attempts to maintain independence. Independence? That's just your opinion. They are clearly better at marketing than the Saudis.
    - rileymat2 11mo ago
      Widely held: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_independence The corporate governance is significantly different as well.
      - tgma 11mo ago
        [flagged]
        rileymat2 11mo ago
        I'd make the case that the resignations are a good thing. It shows a commitment to journalism as a profession.
        tgma 11mo ago
        Sure, one can debate this ad nauseam. I would even concede that on average, BBC is perhaps more reliable than Arab News. However, if your standard is ArabNews not OK because Saudi government funds it, but BBC OK, you might just as well say it in plain English that you simply don't like the opinion of the Saudi government but on board with the UK's (which is a stance that by the way I mostly share, but refuse to preach on a neutral forum like Hacker News as policy.) I would not be surprised that for some stories, Arab News would be a better source than BBC.
        tavavex 11mo ago
        This equation is extremely reductionist in ways that end up giving the Saudi government's stance as much merit as possible, while denying it to the UK every step of the way. The implication of what you're saying is that the structure of the government and the precise way in which it owns a state media outlet doesn't really matter, if there's any ownership then it's a propaganda mouthpiece regardless of all other circumstances. But as far I can see, authoritarian states tend to have a direct path from their governments' sacred opinion to the eyes and ears of the people, there are levers of direct influence within their media industries that let them directly dictate what the journalists will pretend to report on. One can debate back and forth about how the BBC may suffer from the biases of its British writers, implicit pressure from their government, individual cases of bias and even attempts at government overreach, but despite all of it, none of these infractions would rival even 1/10th of what countries like Saudi Arabia or Russia do with their media. Despite all of their countless issues, the UK still values independence far more than what the Saudis could even dream of. Moreover, the BBC is implicitly checked by having neighboring media outlets with no government ownership, while the countries I listed exercise degrees of total control over the entire industry. The BBC may in individual instances be biased towards the current sitting government or pro-British views or whatever, but it is not a blind mouthpiece like these other countries. It's not simply a difference in preferring one ruthless government narrative over another.
- maltalex 11mo ago
  You don’t see a difference between a major news outlet from a democratic country which has freedom of speech and an outlet from a religious monarchy which has no notion of free speech or even human rights?
  - tgma 11mo ago
    UK does not have Freedom of Speech.
    - tavavex 11mo ago
      It does if your reference point is Saudi Arabia.
      - nandomrumber 11mo ago
        The UK is number one for wrong-speech arrests.
        tavavex 11mo ago
        Saudi Arabia is one of the world leaders by number of death sentences. They have no qualms with putting you to death or giving you life imprisonment for all sorts of things, including "wrong-speech" in the form of leaving the state religion, or opposing the government. The UK isn't some shining beacon of freedom by Western standards, but it's not even in the same universe as Saudi Arabia.
        nandomrumber 11mo ago
        At least Saudi Arabia has a positive trajectory. SA parents can genuinely see improvements in their kids lifetime. Compared to whatever tf the UK thinks it’s doing. Why should UK citizens want their government to invest in infrastructure and defence capabilities if they’re just handing same to radical Islamists.
  - abtinf 11mo ago
rileymat2 11mo ago
There was a recent scandal with respect to a misleading quote from a news story about President Trump and the General Director and Head of News resigned. Yes, it would have been better if they had not spliced the clips so closely together, but that does show a commitment to taking its role seriously.
- y-c-o-m-b 11mo ago
  "Misleading" is a stretch. It's not even controversial imo, because his actual intent was provably the same as what the BBC represented with this stitching. It's a non-issue for all practical purposes and only a problem on paper. The fact the BBC is holding themselves to a higher standard and integrity on this is actually a very good thing here (which you allude to as well).
LtWorf 11mo ago
BBC is propaganda coated with a thin paint of respectability.

tgma 11mo ago

The GP felt it is okay to disparage Arab News solely because they are funded by the Saudis, which evidently they don't like. By the same standards, the BBC is literally funded by another state, the UK. Both are state funded media, thus propaganda almost by definition. Remember, propaganda does not have to be false or unreliable. (Although, ironically, BBC right now is in trouble for deceptive portrayal of Trump.) Hacker News guidelines[1] recommend posting the original source, not BBC over Arab News. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter."

rileymat2 11mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_News https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_News The newspaper has been described as "a mouthpiece for the Saudi regime" by Qatari-owned The New Arab,[24] and regarded as "reflecting official Saudi Arabian government position" by the Associated Press and Haaretz.[5] This is much different than the BBC which attempts to maintain independence.
- tgma 11mo ago
  > This is much different than the BBC which attempts to maintain independence. Independence? That's just your opinion. They are clearly better at marketing than the Saudis.
  - rileymat2 11mo ago
    Widely held: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_independence The corporate governance is significantly different as well.
    - tgma 11mo ago
      [flagged]
      - rileymat2 11mo ago
        I'd make the case that the resignations are a good thing. It shows a commitment to journalism as a profession.
        tgma 11mo ago
        Sure, one can debate this ad nauseam. I would even concede that on average, BBC is perhaps more reliable than Arab News. However, if your standard is ArabNews not OK because Saudi government funds it, but BBC OK, you might just as well say it in plain English that you simply don't like the opinion of the Saudi government but on board with the UK's (which is a stance that by the way I mostly share, but refuse to preach on a neutral forum like Hacker News as policy.) I would not be surprised that for some stories, Arab News would be a better source than BBC.
        tavavex 11mo ago
        This equation is extremely reductionist in ways that end up giving the Saudi government's stance as much merit as possible, while denying it to the UK every step of the way. The implication of what you're saying is that the structure of the government and the precise way in which it owns a state media outlet doesn't really matter, if there's any ownership then it's a propaganda mouthpiece regardless of all other circumstances. But as far I can see, authoritarian states tend to have a direct path from their governments' sacred opinion to the eyes and ears of the people, there are levers of direct influence within their media industries that let them directly dictate what the journalists will pretend to report on. One can debate back and forth about how the BBC may suffer from the biases of its British writers, implicit pressure from their government, individual cases of bias and even attempts at government overreach, but despite all of it, none of these infractions would rival even 1/10th of what countries like Saudi Arabia or Russia do with their media. Despite all of their countless issues, the UK still values independence far more than what the Saudis could even dream of. Moreover, the BBC is implicitly checked by having neighboring media outlets with no government ownership, while the countries I listed exercise degrees of total control over the entire industry. The BBC may in individual instances be biased towards the current sitting government or pro-British views or whatever, but it is not a blind mouthpiece like these other countries. It's not simply a difference in preferring one ruthless government narrative over another.
maltalex 11mo ago
You don’t see a difference between a major news outlet from a democratic country which has freedom of speech and an outlet from a religious monarchy which has no notion of free speech or even human rights?
- tgma 11mo ago
  UK does not have Freedom of Speech.
  - tavavex 11mo ago
    It does if your reference point is Saudi Arabia.
    - nandomrumber 11mo ago
      The UK is number one for wrong-speech arrests.
      - tavavex 11mo ago
        Saudi Arabia is one of the world leaders by number of death sentences. They have no qualms with putting you to death or giving you life imprisonment for all sorts of things, including "wrong-speech" in the form of leaving the state religion, or opposing the government. The UK isn't some shining beacon of freedom by Western standards, but it's not even in the same universe as Saudi Arabia.
        nandomrumber 11mo ago
        At least Saudi Arabia has a positive trajectory. SA parents can genuinely see improvements in their kids lifetime. Compared to whatever tf the UK thinks it’s doing. Why should UK citizens want their government to invest in infrastructure and defence capabilities if they’re just handing same to radical Islamists.
- abtinf 11mo ago

rileymat2 11mo ago

There was a recent scandal with respect to a misleading quote from a news story about President Trump and the General Director and Head of News resigned. Yes, it would have been better if they had not spliced the clips so closely together, but that does show a commitment to taking its role seriously.

y-c-o-m-b 11mo ago
"Misleading" is a stretch. It's not even controversial imo, because his actual intent was provably the same as what the BBC represented with this stitching. It's a non-issue for all practical purposes and only a problem on paper. The fact the BBC is holding themselves to a higher standard and integrity on this is actually a very good thing here (which you allude to as well).

LtWorf 11mo ago

BBC is propaganda coated with a thin paint of respectability.