4 ms·

The second sentence/paragraph of this article: >> The Center for Countering Digital Hate founder was among five people denied US visas ... Has a link to an ea

• like_any_other 10mo ago
  The earlier article has a brief mention of CCDH's Labour links, and none of the other information in my post. It does cite the US govt. accusations, but makes very sure that's all it cites - painting a picture of he-said she-said, as if those accusations were not easily verifiable. It also parrots UK govt. talking points on how much they value free speech and how denying visas is equivalent to censorship and witch-hunts, but neglects to mention the UK has banned, among others, Renaud Camus and Martin Sellner, from entry, based upon their speech.
  • 1659447091 10mo ago
    It does give information about "former Labour strategist [1,2], the CCDH he leads was founded by another Labour strategist and current Downing Street Chief of Staff" not in your exact words, but clearly disclosed connections and work: has links to senior Labour figures. He was previously an aide to Labour minister Hilary Benn, and Sir Keir Starmer's chief of staff Morgan McSweeney has served as a director of the group he founded. > but neglects to mention the UK has banned, among others, Renaud Camus and Martin Sellner, from entry, based upon their speech. This event isn't about whatever broken system they have in the UK about banning people. It's about the US taking action against a US resident, which has clear free speech protections from the government doing what it is doing. As I would expect of any reporting, that it not go off on tangents that are unrelated to this event. They have included or invite to comment from all parties involved. It's a mistake to read a subject's quote that is un-agreeable as biased reporting from a news outlet when the bias is coming from the people involved -- either the UK govt, the US govt, or the people at the center of it. They quote UK govt officials making their UK talking points the same as they printed the US govt officials talking points. The "witch-hunts" and other claims are quotes from the people directly involved. As for the "goal" or "tactics" that you found on some substack that is full of scare-quotes with an emotionally written bent -- is subjective at best. It has no relevance to real-world reporting, it doesn't meet journalistic standards to take every random one-sided internet theory as fact -- nor are they obligated to investigate and verify every substack posting on the internet.
    • snvzz 10mo ago
      >As for the "goal" or "tactics" that you found on some substack that is full of scare-quotes with an emotionally written bent -- is subjective at best. There's plenty reason to suspect BBC is partial, particularly after the recent exposure of their awful edits on Trump's speech[0]. 0. https://factually.co/fact-checks/media/bbc-edits-trumps-speech-what-and-why-2ac2d0 https://factually.co/fact-checks/media/bbc-edits-trumps-spee...
    • like_any_other 10mo ago
      > It does give information about "former Labour strategist.." That's what I wrote? From my post: The earlier article has a brief mention of CCDH's Labour links, and none of the other information in my post. > This event isn't about whatever broken system [..] As I would expect of any reporting, that it not go off on tangents that are unrelated to this event. When a government complains about something, I would expect of any half-competent journalist to mention that they are guilty of the exact same thing. Just repeating statements of the parties involved is not journalism, but stenography. Naturally I disagree that it is "unrelated". > They quote UK govt officials making their UK talking points the same as they printed the US govt officials talking points. You don't notice propaganda when it's right in your face. The first three paragraphs of the BBC article: The Center for Countering Digital Hate founder was among five people denied US visas - not "he claims he was denied" after the Trump administration accused them of seeking to "coerce" tech platforms into censoring free speech. - but here it is a mere 'accusation', despite the CCDH's well-documented tactics [1] of deplatforming and going after the finances of media they dislike. The move brought a backlash from European leaders defending the work of organisations monitoring online content. - they mention the monitoring, but not the deplatforming campaigns. Again, not a he-said she-said, but in the journalistic voice of stating facts. > As for the "goal" or "tactics" that you found on some substack The tactics are directly from the wikipedia page for the CCDH, as cited in my post. > It has no relevance to real-world reporting, it doesn't meet journalistic standards to take every random one-sided internet theory as fact -- nor are they obligated to investigate and verify every substack posting on the internet. It's not a "theory" but documents leaked by a whistleblower. Maybe it's false, but it's not random, but by Matt Taibbi [2]. Please don't ignore half my post, and misrepresent the other half. I find it sad that you think stenography is journalism, but investigating or providing context is irrelevant and sub-standard. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Countering_Digital_Hate#Campaigns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Countering_Digital_... [2] In 2021, Ross Barkan of New York wrote, "Taibbi is—or was, depending on your view—one of the most celebrated investigative journalists of his generation." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Taibbi#Assessments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Taibbi#Assessments