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!
Why does it seem like tankies repeat talking points ad verbatim? If I have a penny every time I hear BBC for being biased and unreliable, I would have already retired. What do they think of RT or any Chinese media? I always say that these terminally online tankies are extremely sad people who are only larping as communists to feel a sense of belonging in a group. They’re literally just a gang doing things just for the fun of it.
From what I understand, Tankies are okay with RT and Chinese state media.
Are there reasons to criticize the BBC? Yes. For example, their whole Devil’s advocate/false balance approach to reporting. Everything has a “matter-of-fact” feel to it that even if what reporting is factually true, it lacks the nuance and complexities of the issue at hand.
I mean, they’re literally state media. They’re ok on some subjects, but do have various biases.
They have a lot of bias against migrants and trans people. They have this both-sides-ism where they give opposing sides equal validity even when one is quite loony. The result? Incredible surges in transphobic politics and TERFism and xenophobic rhetoric and the rise of the far right under Nigel Farage. Sometimes foreign news tends to be of a better quality than domestic, but they are plagued with the same issues as other news sources. Funding cuts are something else they deal with as despite their slow move to a nationalist perspective, the Government still questions their purpose, and so they often try to appease those groups.
There’s a lot to criticize about the BBC
This is probably the least controversial thing dessalines has said.
The average thing the BBC posts may not be outright lies but I wouldn’t go as far as calling them credible.
If this was about actual critisism of the BBC and them not living up to actual journalistic standards, then i could agree with this.
But we know its not, its because they disagree with his picture of reality. So a shitty chinese propagabda source with blatantly lower journalistic standards would be seen as a legitimate source, simply for being anti-west or pro China.
News is - and always has been - unreliable. Complex topics condensed to digestible, engaging narratives. Biases both overt and subconscious always creep in, even if it’s a subtle choice of words. Important data, context, and facts are always missed. Opinions find their way in and op-eds further confuse issues.
There is no single source of news that can be trusted and even if you dig deep you can never know how much you really know, how much you really missed, or how compromised you’ve been by all the subtle biases in writing style and coverage.
Take everything you read anywhere with copious amounts of salt and suspicion.
Hmm I don’t believe you
Aussiemandeus
Amazing username or best username?
Why not both?
But thank you
What does “orientalist” even mean
I don’t know what he meant by it, but orientalism is the tendency of western authors, audiences, etc. to conflate many different eastern cultures. It usually stems from a lack of familiarity with any particular culture, and a very shallow knowledge and understanding thereof. An example could be using Mongolian designs in a Persian setting.
I am pretty sure the chink in his armor was to write something other than “orientalist”. Pathetic really
Can you not use that word even if it’s ironic?
Do you mean removed in his armor?
It would be if that was the message I was writing. I’m saying that term is nothing more than a dog whistle and I used a dog whistle myself.
I’m sorry, I was making a joke. lemmy.ml censors the word “chink” and changes it to “removed”, making “chink in his armor” turn into “removed in his armor”.
Of course it isn’t, have you seen the crap they write about Gaza?
Sad to see how they’ve fallen. They were considered the gold standard of journalism.
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.
They despise the current government and it shows in their reporting. The BBC are used to getting paid regardless of who is in government, and have been almost overtly right leaning for years now. They’re currently headed by a former conservative political candidate. Laura Kuennsberg has had more accusations of bias levied against her than is normal for someone who’s job is quite literally to be politically unbiased.
Flick on to BBC News 24 and watch some of their coverage of Charlie Kirk. The final nails are firmly in that coffin.
And again, this only pointed BBC being bias in favour of israel.
And again, let’s not mixed up “bias” with “credibility”.
bias in favour of israel.
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.
“Well they omit truths and lie, so they can’t be that bad!”
They are biased towards saying things that are untrue, but they are still credible!
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?
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”.
What about the things they don’t post?
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 thought the purpose of this comm was to shit on tankies like bullies in high school, not to elevate their opinions.
Based take, keep it up
Woah woah bobby, I didn’t know I was under interrogation. I’ll reply to yours if you reply to mine first. Are you a zionist goat?
Define zionism
Do I think Israel has a right to exist? Yeah
Do I think it has the right to enact imperialism? No
I don’t think genocide denialism is based. Shh tho… we should watch out what we say, the mod of this comm is very “strict” and could ban us for “”OfF ThE tOpic diScuSSion””. Don’t worry, I’m sure you didn’t do it on purpose to get me banned.
Anyway according to the wikipedia definition:
Zionism is an ethnocultural nationalist movement that emerged in late 19th-century Europe to establish and support a Jewish homeland through the colonization of Palestine.
So you support colonial ethno-nationalism, that sounds bad… maybe you are watching too much BBC? :)
Just because I think Israel has the right to exist doesn’t mean I have to agree with its method of doing so.
I’m also one of the least strict mods. If you break the rules, you only get a temp ban.
I thought only people have rights, not countries… Mmm can you point me to the international law where it says the countries have a right to exist?
So, you support a colonial ethno-nationalist country committing genocide on the base of a non-existing law.
“I support serial killers, I just I don’t agree with their nasty “killing” policy duh!”
And you are the only mod of this community documenting hate speech? I’m confused goat…
Looks more like this dessalines guy is not a reliable source of information.
I don’t know. He’s pretty reliable. Reliably on whatever side benefits Russia.
He’s pretty reliable in being entirely wrong.
“We trained him wrong on purpose, as a joke”
.ml is not a reliable source of information, they routinely allow straight propaganda sources like RT and places like southfront.press or incredibly biased sources like The Grayzone
If you want to learn the latest Russian talking points, you can rely on .ml to shovel them to you.
get back to work dessalines
Why is this guy shitposting instead of writing the code he’s paid to write? Seems like a grift
I mean shit, there’s some validity to that argument at times.
Especially when it comes to trans issues. They’ve been running complete lies on that front for like 15 years now.
Hold on, do you mean to say that news agencies are fallible?!
No that sounds naive, I wouldn’t say fallible I would say purposely misleading and dishonest at times.
What a deep thought, nobody would have come up with that in a million years.
Intentionally spreading misinformation for Israel*
Yeah they might not technically be lying, but they are really trying their hardest to make themselves look like fucking zionist defenders sometimes.
What do you mean trying? The amount of ass-kissing they do for Israel is insane and horrific.
Balanced by ass-kissing for Hamas. They refuse to call them terrorists despite the UK government designating them thus.
The BBC middle east editor is Rafi Berg. An Israeli ex-IDF spy unit.
And they do zero ass kissing for Hamas that is simply Zionists crying that Hamas gets any airtime.
There was also the Balen report, which the BBC is still suppressing to this day
Basically an extensive report written by the former director of the BBC investigating antisemitism and anti-Israel bias within the BBC.
That report does nothing to negate the fact I mentioned.
And a former director of BBC is hardly unbiased. No wonder he ignored the point so as to clear his mates at the BBC.
yeah no shit, I’m adding to your point
An important lesson that you can learn from the Gaza bullshit that’s going on is that all media has an ideology and cannot ever be trusted to be completely unbiased, especially the ones that present themselves as unbiased.
The truth is always found somewhere in the middle. But sometimes it’s really, really far away from some of these propaganda outlets. Often times it’s really, really close to a particular news source. Sadly, we can’t just say “the BBC is often really-really-close to the truth”, therefore they are always really-really-close to the truth. Sometimes, on certain topics, they are just spouting propaganda, and they always will be, because that’s their ideological position and what they are posting will always be consistent with that ideological position, not with truth. They can still, as part of the ideological position, post a lot of stuff that is if not exactly the truth, very very close to it. But they can never be trusted to always do that, they will always have an agenda and an ideology.
Consider the source doesn’t mean “find something truly unbiased and ignore everything else” it means understand why the source is saying the things they’re saying, the way they’re saying them, and why they’re omitting what they’re omitting, and compare that against other sources doing the same things, or different things, based on the understanding that you’ve developed of their biases, and also to develop further understanding of those biases. Media literacy is critical, especially with how much we’re getting bombarded with fake news and how much the rug has been pulled out from beneath legitimate quality journalism. We need to thoroughly consider and understand sources these days. It’s not easy, it’s also a lot of work. We shouldn’t have to do it. But we live in the information age, and information is a battleground, so we must. Those are the skills we need to survive in this world now.
The truth is always found somewhere in the middle
No, sometimes the truth is outside the box
Really? I have seen the evidence of the opposite.
You are just giving examples of (what you think is) more pro-Israel bias. Regardless of whether it is so, I gave you an example of pro Hamas bias and The Guardian article does not address my example.
Zionists crying is not evidence.
Here is who runs the BBC middle east news. Literal Israeli ex-IDF.
So you cannot refute my point and have to resort to mocking. I showed you evidence of where BBC retracted their statement calling Hamas terrorists. Now it is up to you to show that they did call them terrorists elsewhere.
My point is that the bias isn’t one way in BBC.
What is typical ProPal is starting a war then crying when losing. Oct 6 looks pretty good now doesn’t it?
Have you been calling for Hamas to surrender or at least stop hiding in hospitals? If you care about civilian collateral deaths.
Whats the lie there?
Bias by omission. They retracted their calling Hamas a terrorist organization and other than that “slip” have never called them that.
They also mislead by always quoting from “Gaza Health Ministry” instead of from Hamas who run the Ministry. This gives the impression they writing from a reliable. The Al Ahli hospital fraud shows it is far from reliable.
I could go on but I doubt anyone here is interested in muddying the water when they have a black and white narrative to defend. And it is getting off topic anyhow.
The point is that no source is 100% reliable but I would argue that BBC is as reliable as it gets (unfortunately).
Forensic architecture research has shown that it was Israel who bombed El Ahli hospital.
BBC is literally famous for saying “Hamas run health ministry”. Which is a Zionist adjective because they do not do it for Israel (which has lied plenty about their casualty count)
Strange you bring up the hospital bombing after Israel literally bombed a hospital by the way.
No forensics are needed because the hospital was not hit by anyone. That is just a further lie.
There was footage the next day taken by a Gazan of the hospital showing it unscathed except for a small crater in the carpark. There were shattered windows in a nearby chapel. Unfortunately there were people camped in the carpark so about 20 people died (not 500 as Hamas lied).
Notice that Hamas didn’t even release any footage of any damaged building let alone AlAhli hospital. They didn’t even have to try because media around the world lapped it up without question.
There was also footage of the rocket barrage by the PIJ streamed live by Al Jazeera which showed one of the rockets boomeranging and a citizen’s footage showing similar closer by.
I was outraged by the recent double tap of the hospital looking rescuers. Even if there was a Hamas base there it is inexcusable.
Apparently Hamas documents have been found last week showing their basing themselves in hospitals.
I can back up the above but I doubt people in this thread are interested in such messy departure from any narrative which isn’t black and white.
That is so much misinformation I am not going to bother responding. Everything you typed is a lie. Go look up the Forensic Architecture report.
