5 ms·

BBC, CNN, and al jazeera are complete trash. Economist always was good but I have not read it in a while so I can't speak to it. If it has not changed, that wo

by fsckboy 2mo ago

BBC, CNN, and al jazeera are complete trash. Economist always was good but I have not read it in a while so I can't speak to it. If it has not changed, that would be great.

michaelmrose 2mo ago
Let's pick one. Why is the BBC trash?
- inigyou 2mo ago
  It only covers Israel/Palestine from the pro-Israel side?
  - Arkhaine_kupo 2mo ago
    That is a weird accusation considering the fact that the BBC is still hiding an internal report they made about their Israel / Palestine reporting after they were accused of antisemitism in the early 2000s. If the report exonerated them, and showed they even have a Israeli bias, why would they spend 50k in lawyer fees (disclosed so far, real number is probably higher) to hide that report? There is obvious distrust on western sources of the conflict and the UK active participation in the creation of the 2 state solution, as well as its alliance with America all taint the possible impartiality or accuracy of the BBC. But the accusations against them for antisemitism and anti israeli bias go back decades
    - Poacher5 2mo ago
      The BBC's "impartiality" is frequently it's biggest downfall - It's a very standard UK joke that if the BBC was discussing if the earth was flat you'd get a 5 minute interview with a top geographer or physicist from Cambridge followed by an equally credulous 5 minute interview with a madman in his basement claiming it's all the work of the lizard people. The covererage of the Genocide in Palestine (and I'm betraying my view just by calling it that) just brings this into incredibly sharp relief as there are, to a first approximation, no real centrists in that discussion. And yet you still get the same 5 minutes of interview for a doctor on the ground in Palestine and for Ben Gvir, presented as if there's some kind of happy middle ground that everyone can broadly agree on.
- Arkhaine_kupo 2mo ago
  The CEO was placed by the conservative party in 2017 ending decades of impartiality. He is a hack with a background in tabloid news, which has slowly swept into BBC entire ecosystem. Their entire political reporting side is headlined by Laura Kuenssberg who is on her best day mediocre and on her worst actively participatory on the decline of democratic principles in the UK. Her "mistakes" such as giving her questions to Boris Johnson ahead of time, would be fireable offenses in any other high stakes job. But despite repeated mistakes all somehow helping the more radical, anti democratic, side of the conservative spectrum her position has never been in danger. She also hosts far right parties 500% more time than their current seats in parliment and is directly responsible for the cleaning of image of repudiable characters such as Nigel Farage. So if becoming a slightly less abrasive Daily Mail while being paid with public money is not worthy of being called Trash, then idk what is. Its becoming the New York Post but without slurs
  - neuroticnews25 2mo ago
    FWIW i've heard rightwing people call BBC absolute trash for not covering the rape gangs. IDK if it sums up or averages out.
    - Arkhaine_kupo 2mo ago
      > 've heard rightwing people call BBC absolute trash for not covering the rape gangs. yeah so the story about that... its mostly a right wing hoax. The real story is as follows, many police departments refused to help working class people specially women. This was repeatedly reported and demanded to eb reformed multiple times. A woman finally got the story through in the early 2010s. Which led to a big trial. Due to reporting laws in the UK, newspapers couldn't report on it. Names are sealed until the trail and a bunch of other protections. However Facebook and Twitter were blooming. And a man by the name of Yaxley, now Tommy Robinson, decided to make the case about race before any news could report on it. He spent years calling the case "Asian Grooming gangs" without any news reporting due to trail muzzle laws in the UK. By the time the case was out in the open, the name had made the rounds and newspapers like the Sun and Daily Mail used it from day one. Most cases found had white perpetrators, but the ones with Asian men got all the headlines due to the Tommy Robinson years of shit stirring. The most famous case found that the police had been investigated twice over their lack of helping vulnerable girls. A judge had ignored a video of a girl being taken advantage of, saying "this girls like it". No prior investigation found race to be a reason why they weren't helped. In 2016, the chief of police was fired because he was found to be responsible in part for the 17 years of abuse this girls suffered as something he actively ignored. After he was fired, he repeated a twitter talking point "we didnt help because we were scared of being accused of being racist". This was repeated by other fired member in the 2020 report, but somehow didnt show up in the 2011 report, the 2007 report or the 2001 report. All of which highlighted ignoring girls for being poor, drug users, sex workers, or coming from foster homes and nothing about the race of the abusers. So its funny how right wing people complain about the bbc not reporting about the gangs, when its a conspiracy made up by a neo nazi felon, in active contradiction to every police investigation from before twitter narratives and which is now a talking point in most far right circles. So I dont think it averages out, making up shit to be angry about when police reform is something they have opposed for decades is not warranty to keep an incompetent far right spokesperson in the most important political journalistic office in the country.
- fsckboy 2mo ago
  >Let's pick one. Why is the BBC trash? i don't agree that I should do all the work to prove something while the person (GP) whose naked opinion I was responding to is not asked the same about his opinion. This leads me to believe on the basis of evidence that you are selective and share his bias. so yeah, let's pick one, you: How are you not biased?
  - michaelmrose 2mo ago
    I am extremely biased. I have an entire world view and like everyone else I tend to believe things that concur with what I already believe and reject things that are inconsistent correctly or incorrectly. For instance rejection of "mainstream media" is often correlated not with thoughtful analysis but rather with blatant anti-intellectualism common among right wingers. Asking "are you a dumb conservative bigot" is offensive and shuts down dialogue even when the person wasn't. Better to ask for the fellow to expand on their comment

by fsckboy 2mo ago

BBC, CNN, and al jazeera are complete trash. Economist always was good but I have not read it in a while so I can't speak to it. If it has not changed, that would be great.

michaelmrose 2mo ago

Let's pick one. Why is the BBC trash?

inigyou 2mo ago
It only covers Israel/Palestine from the pro-Israel side?
- Arkhaine_kupo 2mo ago
  That is a weird accusation considering the fact that the BBC is still hiding an internal report they made about their Israel / Palestine reporting after they were accused of antisemitism in the early 2000s. If the report exonerated them, and showed they even have a Israeli bias, why would they spend 50k in lawyer fees (disclosed so far, real number is probably higher) to hide that report? There is obvious distrust on western sources of the conflict and the UK active participation in the creation of the 2 state solution, as well as its alliance with America all taint the possible impartiality or accuracy of the BBC. But the accusations against them for antisemitism and anti israeli bias go back decades
  - Poacher5 2mo ago
    The BBC's "impartiality" is frequently it's biggest downfall - It's a very standard UK joke that if the BBC was discussing if the earth was flat you'd get a 5 minute interview with a top geographer or physicist from Cambridge followed by an equally credulous 5 minute interview with a madman in his basement claiming it's all the work of the lizard people. The covererage of the Genocide in Palestine (and I'm betraying my view just by calling it that) just brings this into incredibly sharp relief as there are, to a first approximation, no real centrists in that discussion. And yet you still get the same 5 minutes of interview for a doctor on the ground in Palestine and for Ben Gvir, presented as if there's some kind of happy middle ground that everyone can broadly agree on.
Arkhaine_kupo 2mo ago
The CEO was placed by the conservative party in 2017 ending decades of impartiality. He is a hack with a background in tabloid news, which has slowly swept into BBC entire ecosystem. Their entire political reporting side is headlined by Laura Kuenssberg who is on her best day mediocre and on her worst actively participatory on the decline of democratic principles in the UK. Her "mistakes" such as giving her questions to Boris Johnson ahead of time, would be fireable offenses in any other high stakes job. But despite repeated mistakes all somehow helping the more radical, anti democratic, side of the conservative spectrum her position has never been in danger. She also hosts far right parties 500% more time than their current seats in parliment and is directly responsible for the cleaning of image of repudiable characters such as Nigel Farage. So if becoming a slightly less abrasive Daily Mail while being paid with public money is not worthy of being called Trash, then idk what is. Its becoming the New York Post but without slurs
- neuroticnews25 2mo ago
  FWIW i've heard rightwing people call BBC absolute trash for not covering the rape gangs. IDK if it sums up or averages out.
  - Arkhaine_kupo 2mo ago
    > 've heard rightwing people call BBC absolute trash for not covering the rape gangs. yeah so the story about that... its mostly a right wing hoax. The real story is as follows, many police departments refused to help working class people specially women. This was repeatedly reported and demanded to eb reformed multiple times. A woman finally got the story through in the early 2010s. Which led to a big trial. Due to reporting laws in the UK, newspapers couldn't report on it. Names are sealed until the trail and a bunch of other protections. However Facebook and Twitter were blooming. And a man by the name of Yaxley, now Tommy Robinson, decided to make the case about race before any news could report on it. He spent years calling the case "Asian Grooming gangs" without any news reporting due to trail muzzle laws in the UK. By the time the case was out in the open, the name had made the rounds and newspapers like the Sun and Daily Mail used it from day one. Most cases found had white perpetrators, but the ones with Asian men got all the headlines due to the Tommy Robinson years of shit stirring. The most famous case found that the police had been investigated twice over their lack of helping vulnerable girls. A judge had ignored a video of a girl being taken advantage of, saying "this girls like it". No prior investigation found race to be a reason why they weren't helped. In 2016, the chief of police was fired because he was found to be responsible in part for the 17 years of abuse this girls suffered as something he actively ignored. After he was fired, he repeated a twitter talking point "we didnt help because we were scared of being accused of being racist". This was repeated by other fired member in the 2020 report, but somehow didnt show up in the 2011 report, the 2007 report or the 2001 report. All of which highlighted ignoring girls for being poor, drug users, sex workers, or coming from foster homes and nothing about the race of the abusers. So its funny how right wing people complain about the bbc not reporting about the gangs, when its a conspiracy made up by a neo nazi felon, in active contradiction to every police investigation from before twitter narratives and which is now a talking point in most far right circles. So I dont think it averages out, making up shit to be angry about when police reform is something they have opposed for decades is not warranty to keep an incompetent far right spokesperson in the most important political journalistic office in the country.
fsckboy 2mo ago
>Let's pick one. Why is the BBC trash? i don't agree that I should do all the work to prove something while the person (GP) whose naked opinion I was responding to is not asked the same about his opinion. This leads me to believe on the basis of evidence that you are selective and share his bias. so yeah, let's pick one, you: How are you not biased?
- michaelmrose 2mo ago
  I am extremely biased. I have an entire world view and like everyone else I tend to believe things that concur with what I already believe and reject things that are inconsistent correctly or incorrectly. For instance rejection of "mainstream media" is often correlated not with thoughtful analysis but rather with blatant anti-intellectualism common among right wingers. Asking "are you a dumb conservative bigot" is offensive and shuts down dialogue even when the person wasn't. Better to ask for the fellow to expand on their comment