4 ms·

Are there good examples of this from the BBC? Genuine question - no snark intended.

• blitzar 21d ago
  US insists Strait of Hormuz is open as it exchanges strikes with Iran - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9gkpp0dkeo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9gkpp0dkeo Iran says Strait of Hormuz is 'open' but tracking shows few ships moving - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwydexp39ddo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwydexp39ddo
  • wat10000 21d ago
    Those have the same implication even if it's written slightly differently. "US insists" makes it clear that "open" is a claim by the US, not an independent fact. The first one doesn't match the supposed pattern where one side's claims are stated as facts, despite the lack of quotation marks.
    • frereubu 21d ago
      I think it's a fair example given how untruthful the US administration has been about whether the strait is "open" or not compared to the practical reality. Both would work with or without quotes, but the Iranian one is quoted. Still doesn't show systematic bias, but it's what I asked for.
      • wat10000 21d ago
        I'm pretty sure the Iranian one is quoted because they used the word, whereas the US one is not quoted because the statements that the reporting was pulled from never used the actual word "open." I see how it would read as bias if one interprets them as scare quotes, but it really does just mean "this is verbatim" when used here.