The bbc, again.

[Spiderman]

Fact checkers are a useful source. So are reliable, objective, non political broadcasters. The BBC being one.

So to, and increasingly important, is the wealth of information on the internet.

Anyone who dismisses such sources is clearly biased and a failed human being!

Have you ever dismissed views other posters have obtained from the internet? Is it not subjective who are considered reliable objective non political broadcaster, depending on your own views?

 

[Teddy Eagle]

They’ve apologised for the mistaken edit, but not for the programme. They’ve denied, rightly in my opinion, that it could have caused him harm, as he won the election. They have also denied any responsibility because the programme wasn’t broadcast by them in the USA.

So absolutely no admission of guilt. Quite the opposite in fact. A polite but firm denial.

They haven’t made it worse at all. They have boxed Trump in. If he proceeds now, with what will look like a hopeless but vindictive claim, he will just look more like the grifter he is.

Had it been a mistaken edit that might be truer.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

"The bbc, again" ???​

And you say I am obsessed.

You started it.
Take it to the climate thread if you must. It won't make your original assertion any more right.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Who remembers this rabbit hole?

What about this BBC classic from the day of 9/11. They reported the collapse of building 7. The only problem was that it hadn't collapsed and was visible standing behind the reporter.
It then 'unexpectedly' collapsed 25 minutes after the BBC report!

Have we ever had an official explanation?

The whole 9/11 affair stinks to high heaven.

 

[silvertop]

You started it.
Take it to the climate thread if you must. It won't make your original assertion any more right.

Maturely expressed
🙂

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Maturely expressed
🙂

But factually accurate.

I know that facts annoy you.

 

[eaglesdare]

Access Restricted

Harming our children. Seems to be a theme with the BBC.

 

[McAhuna]

Have we ever had an official explanation?

The whole 9/11 affair stinks to high heaven.

No.

Quite the opposite in fact. The 9/11 commission investigation barely mentioned Building 7. It was brushed under the carpet.

....and I know that no-one sentient is expecting an honest explanation from the BBC any time soon 😉

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

No.

Quite the opposite in fact. The 9/11 commission investigation barely mentioned Building 7. It was brushed under the carpet.

....and I know that no-one sentient is expecting an honest explanation from the BBC any time soon 😉

Conspiracies are easy to create, but the building 7 thing along with other details does give cause for suspicion.
This is the country who killed its own president and blamed it on a lone gunman, when the evidence to discount that was clear on a film, and refuted by loads of witnesses and professionals who were ignored.
And don't forget the suspect being shot by a mob connected nightclub owner.

You couldn't make it up. Well, actually, they did.

 

[McAhuna]

Conspiracies are easy to create, but the building 7 thing along with other details does give cause for suspicion.
This is the country who killed its own president and blamed it on a lone gunman when the evidence to discount that was clear on a film, and refuted by loads of witnesses and professionals who were ignored.
And don't forget the suspect being shot by a mob connected nightclub owner.

You couldn't make it up. Well, actually, they did.

Well that one is still officially a conspiracy as well.

As the saying goes, the difference between 'Tin-foil hat conspiracy' and serious discussion in mainstream circles is about 5 years (and coming down all the time). With the Epstein 'suicide' it was about 5 minutes

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Well that one is still officially a conspiracy as well.

As the saying goes, the difference between 'Tin-foil hat conspiracy' and serious discussion in mainstream circles is about 5 years (and coming down all the time). With the Epstein 'suicide' it was about 5 minutes

You just to get old enough to see the patterns.

 

[McAhuna]

You just to get old enough to see the patterns.

I don't know, I suspect that the majority don't believe the Epstein suicide, or trust their governments/institutions any more.

I don't believe that was the case 20 years ago. People generally believed the media and trusted their institutions. A lot more people have woken up.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

I don't know, I suspect that the majority don't believe the Epstein suicide, or trust their governments/institutions any more.

I don't believe that was the case 20 years ago. People generally believed the media and trusted their institutions. A lot more people have woken up.

For sure.
Information is more readily available, and various events have made people less likely to blindly accept anything authority says.

Although, I hear that there are some places in Cornwall where this doesn't apply.

 

[Badger11]

Lisa Nandy is worried about political appointees to the BBC board. I agree 1 Tory and 9 lefty Liberals, it does seem unfair and unbalanced.

Considering how many Labour supporters have been appointed to the board over the last 20 odd years Labour doesn't really have much to complain about.

 

[eaglesdare]

For sure.
Information is more readily available, and various events have made people less likely to blindly accept anything authority says.

Although, I hear that there are some places in Cornwall where this doesn't apply.

Probably a lack of Internet coverage down there. Nothing Starlink couldn't fix 😏

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Probably a lack of Internet coverage down there. Nothing Starlink couldn't fix 😏

That would be a pleasing irony.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Have you ever dismissed views other posters have obtained from the internet? Is it not subjective who are considered reliable objective non political broadcaster, depending on your own views?

I have and for good reason.

I judge on reputation before I consider content. When any source has a reputation for taking a specific line I don’t trust it.

Sources with a reputation for objective analysis, like the well established fact checkers, I do. If a source has demonstrated reliability then I tend to trust it. If a source has demonstrated unreliability then I don’t.

That’s not subjectivity. It’s common sense.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

I have and for good reason.

I judge on reputation before I consider content. When any source has a reputation for taking a specific line I don’t trust it.

Sources with a reputation for objective analysis, like the well established fact checkers, I do. If a source has demonstrated reliability then I tend to trust it. If a source has demonstrated unreliability then I don’t.

That’s not subjectivity. It’s common sense.

It is subjective though. When others take this view of the BBC it's not common sense. It's political bias.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Had it been a mistaken edit that might be truer.

They have already denied there was any malice involved.

Why do you think you know better?

This is actually just a side issue. The real issue is whether the overall story was true, or not? Not whether an 11 second extract, taken out of context and considered alone, was.

If every documentary, made by anyone, was divided into 11 second segments and each examined on their own we would never cope with the number of claims of misleading content.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

They have already denied there was any malice involved.

Why do you think you know better?

This is actually just a side issue. The real issue is whether the overall story was true, or not? Not whether an 11 second extract, taken out of context and considered alone, was.

If every documentary, made by anyone, was divided into 11 second segments and each examined on their own we would never cope with the number of claims of misleading content.

I think I know better for the same reason you think you do. It's an opinion and in mine the splicing together of different parts of a speech to create a different meaning wasn't an accident. If there was no malice involved why did they air the same clip twice, years apart, after being told it was wrong?