I guess not strictly news - but with all of the vitriol I have seen in discussions on the Israel situation, that have boiled down to arguments over wording, I feel that this take from the BBC is worthy of some discussion.
Mods, feel free to remove if this is not newsy enough.
I miss when this was the standard for news. Now most (e: major) outlets don’t even try to pretend they have no bias and instead push a subjective point. Even when I agree with the point, I don’t like it when my “news” pushes it instead of just, you know, reporting.
Give me the info and let me form my own opinions.
The news in Australia literally adds dramatic music to their edits. They’re disgraceful, and manipulative.
I think your confusing a current affair/today tonight with actual news programs. I channel surf from 5-7:30pm and have never heard the main news programs of 7, 9, 10, SBS, nor the ABC editorialise like that in my 38yrs on this planet. At a stretch, they play clips of articles they’ve already covered at the end with the shows theme song over the top.
Interesting. I see it every time I visit my parents nearly. Doom drama music plays. ‘Journalist’ creates drama. I recommend John Simpson’s book
I see it all the time on aca and TT. Never on the main news shows, like I said, never in my 38yrs of being alive - and for the last 15yrs I’ve been watching the news between 5-7:30 unless I’m out. I seriously think you’re conflating current affairs shows with the news. Current affairs shows are held to a different (read: lower) standards and ethics levels than that of the news. Not to say there isn’t any bias or manipulation of the viewer, but they aren’t doing it with music. That’s aca and TTs domain.
It could well be that. I’ll pay attention next time I’m there.
While us Brits love to complain about the BBC being biased (probably an actual issue for internal UK politics) its good to remember that it’s still a world leading media outlet, and one of very few that can be considered not to be push an agenda. (I imagine I can find a lot of people that can probably disagree with that too…)
Even Routers has started editorialising, and I thought they were just meant to be raw facts!
Pretty much all news sources are good for something, so long as it’s outside of their bias’ sphere of influence. A fully state run national news outlet can potentially give very unbiased news about events in another country - maybe even better than local news sources - so long as there isn’t some conflict of interest.
Regardless of their wording, BBC news has a super Israel bias, and they even got called out on live TV during the news for it. They are not the place for unbiased reporting of this specific issue. The UK will always pretend Israel can do no wrong because they created them.
I went on the BBC’s news site just now and looked at the top stories from the middle-east.
Here’s a BBC article which suggests that Egypt warned Israel days before Hamas struck, despite Netenyahu denying it:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67082047
Here’s an article which features the video diary of a (crying) Palestinian girl. “Gaza: Children screamed in the street”
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67077224
Here’s another video. Title: “Gaza: ‘I wish I could be a normal child living with no war’”
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-67058592
Does the BBC have a ‘super Israel bias’?
Or are you biased which makes you mistakenly think the BBC is ‘super’ biased in favour of Israel and claim the UK ‘will always pretend Israel can do no wrong’?
Well that’s good, perhaps the guy having a go at them had an effect. There was literally nothing about the first counterattack shelling by Israel when it happened and I thought it was very strange.
On the front page of the BBC News website right now:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-middle-east-67074435 - Hiding at home, blinded and choked by dust - life in Gaza
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-67078664 - Israel-Gaza attacks: Humza Yousaf’s wife fears for ‘terrified’ family
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67082047 - Egypt warned Israel days before Hamas struck, US committee chairman says
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67077224 - Gaza: Children screamed in street as we fled 2am air strike
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-middle-east-67073970 - Push for lifesaving access to Gaza as Israel cuts off power and supplies
Well that’s good, perhaps the guy having a go at them had an effect. There was literally nothing about the first counterattack shelling by Israel when it happened and I thought it was very strange.
Well yeah, but like you say that’s more of a UK thing than a BBC thing. And in any case, the BBC refraining from calling Hamas terrorists shows that they do at least have some limits on their biases, where they do have them.
Absolutely.
It’s also a testament to the terrifying numbing that the passage of time has on events.
They describe WW2 where they called the Nazis, “the enemy”, then in the next sentence compare The IRA to the fucking Nazis.
Not even remotely close.
What? Did we read the same article? Maybe I’m suffering from a reading comprehension deficit, here, but that wasn’t my interpretation at all. Could you quote where you think they draw that comparison?
Removed by mod
I disagree; it’s a loaded, politicized word. Even if you say that the “entire western world” considers Hamas a terrorist organization, that’s a sweeping generalization which, even if it could be called 100% true, does not represent the whole world.
Tell me the facts without giving me those loaded words. I’m smart enough to draw my own conclusions.
Removed by mod
You’re not objectively correct, “designated as terrorist by current and former national governments, and inter-governmental organizations” - they’ve expressed an opinion. You’re taking that opinion and presenting it as objective fact.
Removed by mod
Yes I do. I just explained it to you. Is there some part of what I said that you’re struggling with?
Removed by mod
No, I’m saying a fact is a fact and an opinion is an opinion. You’ve confused the two.
In addition to the word “adjective”, you should also look up the definition of “objective”. Because you keep digging and digging and it’s making you look silly.
You are wrong. Whether it’s because you don’t understand what is being said or you are intentionally ignoring it, what you are saying is inaccurate and factually incorrect.
A man’s called a terrorist or liberator
A rich man’s a thief or philanthropist
Is one a crusader or ruthless invader?
It’s all in which label is able to persist
There are precious few at ease
With moral ambiguities
So we act as though they don’t exist
It does sound wonderful.
Removed by mod
For most of german people at the time, yes
Removed by mod
That is the argument I’m making. Which label was able to persist? To many conservatives they still see him as a liberator.
Removed by mod
Now do all the people that were in the German army and that showed up to his rallies. Go ahead… we’ll wait…
You know Donald Trump slept with Mein Kampf next to him, right? Trump loves Hitler.
You misunderstand.
Proper old-school journalists, like John Simpson, won’t be quick to call someone a terrorist. They will however report on someone who called them a terrorist.
It is their job to report the facts. That means that they report what they see and what they hear. Nothing more. That is journalism.
Coming to the conclusion that someone is a terrorist, isn’t news or journalism. It’s analysis or opinion. Often the journalist is in no position to form an opinion either way, and it’s not really his job anyway.
The reason this sounds weird to many, is because journalism has gone down the shitter. This used to be standard. Reuters for example, is still quite rigorous in this. But most news organisations now mix factual reporting with analysis. Some ‘news’ organisations remove the news/facts entirely. Basically, reading an article written by a good journalist, you should not be able to tell what side of the argument they are.
Eg.
Good: According to Mr. X, the apple was red and tasty. -> the journalist is simply reporting on what Mr. X said. The reader can decide if Mr. X was telling the truth.
Bad: According to Mr. X, the red apple was tasty. -> the journalist wasn’t there to see if the apple was red, Mr. X could be mistaken. The reader doesn’t realise that the colour of the apple was described as being red by Mr. X and can’t form their own opinion on whether to believe Mr. X.
The journalist doesn’t avoid mentioning the apple is allegedly red. They just make it clear that they themselves aren’t saying what colour it is, as they weren’t there to witness what colour it was and because their opinion doesn’t matter
And I know this may sound stupid, but it helps avoid (inadvertent) bias or accusations thereof.
It’s spelled “Xitter” now… as in “going down the Xitter”.