Join the lemmy.ml boycott today and help foster a better Lemmy-verse! No more posts, comments (except to counter their propaganda ofc!) or upvotes on any comms on the Lemmy.ml instance!
And consider donating to individual instances instead.
Check the megathread for more!
Dessaline did not understand the difference between “credible” and “biased”. Which is why he often confused between the two.
BBC is not credible nor unbiased.
Biased? Yes. They’re singing the tune of UK government and whoever pay the bill.
Not credible? As in most of the thing they posted is non-factually correct? Highly doubt it.
And again, this only pointed BBC being bias in favour of israel.
And again, let’s not mixed up “bias” with “credibility”.
It’s much worse than this, the article explains it pretty well. If BBC management decides to inject political spin on the topic of Palestine, why wouldn’t they do it on another topic as well? That is why they lose credibility in some people’s eyes.
I’m not gonna further argue with that, that is bias issue and not credibility issue. That’s all. If you guys want to single out that one issue and purposefully mix credibility with bias, so be it.
No false reporting by repeating false Israel claims.
What about the things they don’t post? If they don’t post what’s really happening in Gaza but post Israel’s statements about it that would be factually correct but would you call them a credible source for what’s happening in Gaza?
That’s the bias vs credibility distinction. Credible = you expect what they say to be factual. Unbiased = you expect them not to favor one side in their reporting. Credible and unbiased should report everything they find that’s true, regardless of side in an issue. Credible and biased would underreport one side. Incredible and biased might just make shit up on both sides. Incredible and unbiased is more like a satire website or just incompetent reporters.
I will not trust them on israel/palestine conflict, yes, because it’s extremely biased in favour of israel, but credibility is about the thing they posted, not on thing they omitted. That’s why i said they’re biased.
That makes sense, so credibility is that they don’t edit/lie what they report in an instance, and if their reports as a whole don’t present the whole picture, it’s bias?
You cannot just ignore that single topic knowing they are lying about it. Facts are facts. Lies are lies. A genocide is not a small lie to gloss over
You cannot focus on that single topic knowing they’re bias about it, and then paint them as not credible for all the news.
Again, let’s not mix up “bias” and “credible”.