:bbc: The BBC

:bbc: The BBC


People in the UK can still read these days? My, so the reports of failing education systems may have been exaggerated then.


I honestly believe that while there are a lot of truthful reporting going on on Twatter, @CB-Saint has a valid point about a lot of other shit going on there.

It is difficult to sort the truth from blatant untruths. Unfortunately people these days seem to believe only what suits their already fixed mind set and use the “facts” to justify their position. (Ok, a generalisation)

If anyone can show me how to differentiate the wheat from the chaff then I’m all ears.


Surprised Pap isn’t wading in to the Jezza on the Beeb laying a wreath story.
And that is as far as I’m going on that subject


The beeb doesn’t need to mislead on that - Jezza is perfectly capable of fucking that up on his own.

" I was there, but i don’t think I was involved" is his current response to try and kill it. His press officer must weep into his cornflakes some mornings.


Apparently there are things called fact checker websites that you can use to, errrmmmm, check your facts.

However, who fact checks the fact checkers (note that fact check is a verb when used in the subjunctive mood!!)


They have one on the BBC - called Reality Check


My question is rather simple. There seems to be concern that the BBC has an innate bias and that somehow the ‘people’ might be hoodwinked and are unable to to differentiate fact from propaganda… but yet, for arguments sake, the people are deemed smart enough to perceive bias and not be hoodwinked by the bias provided by our written media or social media? (see our most ardent Brexit supporter defending the ‘peoples’ abilities on ‘that’ thread)

This is it. Are ‘we the people’ stupid or smart? Or does this depend on the issue being reported…

Appears to me, ALL are at risk who take news from only one source, or sources that only offer the same perspectives and conclusions. It’s why I am often very suspicious of those that are politically so evangelical because whilst principles and ideals allow one to be so, practical ‘real-life’ TM is inevitably about the politics of compromise and pragmatism.


It’s a false point, though, @Cobham-Saint.

You may as well say “I’d prefer to believe xyz news agency” rather than the bloke down the pub.

No-one is claiming that the bloke down the pub is as reliable as a well resourced news agency with international scope. No one expects him to be.

So quite why the electronic version of the bloke down the pub is being to used to excuse the actions of an organisation that we pay for and can get arrested for if we don’t, I don’t know.

Probably something for @CB-Saint to field.


Your average bloke down the pub who sits in a the corner spouting bollocks usually has an audience of three, who are usually too pissed to remember what had been said and are very likely to tell him to STFU when he becomes boring.

The electronic version has a potential audience of millions, has no restraint (big bloke at the bar threatening to knock his teeth in) and it is a permanent record.

That is the problem I have - social media is completely unregulated and unaccountable. It allows people to look for and find a reality that reaffirms what they believe regardless of whether there is any truth in it.

The BBC and print media are accountable and they are regulated and as such , whilst they can present a set of fact in a way to influence opinion, they still have to be facts (generally). If they print lies, etc they can be easily held to account.


I’d disagree. The permanent record is the restraint. It’s also quite untrue to say that social media is unregulated (communications laws cover this) or unaccountable (check out us, prosecuting people for things they’ve said on social media ).

They’re who you’re worried about? Really? These folk don’t have the aegis of the UK state to hide under, or the vast wealth of the independent media barons.

If you genuinely think social media is a free for all, go defame someone under your own name. Social media in the abstract isn’t accountable. You as an individual certainly are.


I’m not sure that permanent record is a deterrent, or at least, does not outweigh the permanence of a post that contains incorrect information. When you add to that the difficulty in stopping people propagating these posts particularly if they reside is other legal jurisdictions, you have a real problem.

The only incident that I can think of where everyone got their heads handed to them was when Lord McAlpine went after everyone regarding those tweets. But that took a huge amount of money and legal time to achieve.

The SM companies hide behind free speech because they dont want to pay the huge sums involved policing their platforms. That is why eventually there will be legislation and criminal responsibility of the senior execs, to make sure they do it.


Y’see, you say all that, but who’s holding these large media firms and state run broadcasters to account? For years, no-one was.

We can both agree that bollocks should not be published. Where we differ is in our assessment of who’s capable of producing that bollocks, and why they’re doing it.

I would also agree that you should research everything you read on the Internet. In many cases, this is very easy because people are linking direct sources, straight from the horse’s mouth.

That’s a lot harder when dealing with the mass media. It conspires, connives and coalesces. The spirit of independent journalism that the likes of John Pilger fostered is all but dead; you’ll read the same story, almost verbatim, across the Western mainstream media. You’ll see the same agendas pushed every single day.

There’s no value in the BBC as a news organisation anymore. The only use that department has for me is getting to know what the government of the day wants you to believe, and the lies it’ll tell to support that fantasy. It is there to misinform and obfuscate. Even judged on that basis, it’s shit these days.



Soon to be shown on BBC


Is it the Institution or is it the people in the institution.
IF Pap wrote an article on Anti-Semitism in the Labour Party would it read the same as one written by (say) MoT?
The Editor of the Fail is right wing, capitalist and pro globalisation so Pap writing for them would have a short career.
This is the nub of the argument, Politics is personal, so because everyone sees and comprehends different emphasis a Tommy Robinson fan and a Tony Benn fan would interpret the same article differently.
The BBC is not (yet) an AI programme, it is people - Editors - who choose the order of the news, newscasters who choose the gravity of their voice in an article OR who choose which category and at what place on the web sites that news appears.

So back to my argument, in a Democracy, views are polarised left right, black white, when reality (as we see in the Syria thread is very very grey.
We have grey journalism. Democracy doesn’t like that, it is not free speech. So who wins? Who is right?

Anyway the Beeb will soon replace everyone with AI and stream news from Reuters, Associated Ppress et al without comment. That is really dull. It would be like reading a version of Euronews which is often the only English Language show you can find when in Asia.


Mine would be longer :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


Show off!!


Could have popped this in a few different places but I’ll put it here to annoy Saint Bristol.


Carpet bomb the other thread with this article @Goatboy