By MAYA ZANGER-NADIS NOVEMBER 12, 2023 19:09 Updated: NOVEMBER 12, 2023 21:26
Israeli security forces delivered 300 liters of diesel fuel to Shifa Hospital in Gaza early Sunday morning and later received intelligence indicating that Hamas had intercepted the delivery, according to a Sunday night IDF statement.
…
The BBC is imperfect - but BBC Verify does excellent work analysing and verifying disputed footage https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/reality_check - I’m impressed with their work.
I’m not sure what you think the “party line” is in this case - the BBC has been covering the current action in Gaza robustly with their foreign correspondents. How they covered the investiture of the head of state, doesn’t really tell you mucgh about their coverage of Israel-Palestine.
They are good until they aren’t. Up until a month or two ago, I would have gone to bat for Al Jazeera as the closest thing you can get to an “unbiased” source on the never ending invasions of the Middle East. But right from the start of this round of Israel vs Palestine, they have very strongly been showing their side as state funded media. I still think they are incredibly valuable, but now as an alternate source to try to make sense of this mess rather than as a “reliable” source, if that makes sense.
And the BBC has already demonstrated how quickly they will bend the knee to whatever the British government wants, “when it matters”.
Am I saying you should assume they are liars? No. But I would lean more toward the outlets that aren’t state affiliated for something so intrinsically tied to global politics and relations.
Can you give an example of an investigative story where they have ‘bended their knee?’ are you talking about the coverage of the coronation? Overall 62% of the UK population still support the idea of Monarchy https://www.statista.com/statistics/863893/support-for-the-monarchy-in-britain-by-age/
So they should appease the userbase rather than tell the truth? how the fuck is that an argument?
It’s not an argument. I was asking for an example where the BBC had ‘bended the knee’ to the UK government, and was suggesting that the coverage of the Coronation was a bad example.
It REALLY isn’t worth arguing with the Royalist crowd.
Like, I’ll dick around with a tankie or a CCP shill. But the Royalists are just rabid in a way that isn’t even fun. Probably a side effect of having one of the most detested Brits of the past few decades (and that is saying A LOT) as a King and having him now defend and protect the Royal Nonce at every step.
It’s certainly worth talking about the merits of the monarchy, but that’s not the issue here. I was asking about the extent to which the BBC’s monarchy coverage had anything to do with its ability to verify footage coming from the IDF. In my opinion they are unrelated.