Why BBC news cannot be trusted

Post Reply New Topic

I would say their love affair with Farage is quite weird, aside from that there is little to criticise them for (although the fringe lunatics will obv)

Well I didn't say any of that. You just built an argument out of Plasticine. You can see real news anywhere provided you're not being lied to, or you can learn things firsthand. I said the odds of misdirection are lower in the largest possible sample group, which the BBC unequivocally is. Practically no story they air directly supports my political interests; BBC is helpful to me 24/7 because I have to follow global news to forecast what my work situation looks like. It's also indispensable because I have friends from all around the planet; it's only courteous to stay up to date. Following global standards of any kind means separating weak reporting out for yourself. I don't follow any media outlets with stated political alignments; that means CNN/CBS/FOX/MSNBC/CSPAN/RT/Breitbart /The Guardian/Daily Mail/NYT/WSJ/USAToday/Facebook, SinaWeibo & VKontakte are ALL NIXED - also that's just the start of my blacklist. BBC has no identifiable nor implied political alignment because they consist of numerous holding firms within & outside the UK as a matter of necessity.

From across the pond that just looks like somebody's cashing in.

Is just a way to make sure the BBC dances to the government's tune. Do you see the government as some kind of pillar of truth? Just because they say something, doesn't make it true or mean they genuinely believe it. Whenever the government needs the BBC to beat the drums of war, they gladly oblige.

That isn't an attack on the government because they oppose the government wholly, the BBC is against us leaving the EU, it wants to try and drum into people's heads what a mess they've made by voting the wrong way. Again, the BBC needs to appear to be impartial.

These are minor issues in comparison. The BBC never goes against the war mongering.

The BBC supported UKIP between 2010-2015 to destroy the BNP, putting Farage on TV pretty much every single day. If they're doing it now, it'll be to try and take down Jeremy Corbyn. The BBC isn't remotely impartial on the most important issues in the world. They are a propaganda machine.

I think they generally promote fringe views too much in order to remain "impartial". The classic example is climate change. If a new study comes out saying that climate change is going to reduce butterfly diversity or something, then they'll get on a scientist and someone like Nigel Lawson. The scientist will say "yes, global warming, we'll probably see more of this, reduce carbon emissions", and then Nigel Lawson will say "load of bollocks, Chinese, warmer summers!" and the presenter will go "interesting discussion, thanks to you both", presenting them as equal rather than one person who knows their stuff and one who doesn't.

That's the classic example, but we see it all the time. Not so much with political stuff (e.g. you wouldn't have got a Corbyn-type criticising the Coalition - although I remember Skinner getting quite a bit of TV time), but matters of science are rarely presented as nuanced discussions between academics who agree on 95% but disagree on a few details. Similarly, religious discussions usually seem to attract nutters - see The Big Questions for the worst example, but then that isn't news. Before he was leader of the Conservatives, David Cameron would exploit this by telling BBC researchers that he had extreme views, and then presenting sensible ones when he got on the air.

All in all they're still the best news source out there, bar Reuters perhaps, but they still have room for improvement.

Yeah I do laugh a little when any news programme feels the need to bring on someone with a polar opposite view to person who's life's work is dedicated to the topic just so they can say it is a balanced discussion.

Also, as a general news gripe, if they want to bring more than one person on to show a balanced view then surely it would be more representative to bring on 10 people, have 8 of them all as moderate folk who weigh up the subject and take a middle ground view, then a mouth frother from either end of the spectrum too.

I meanwhile find it pretty hilarious that the same people twisting my words are the ones complaining most about disinformation.

Don't let your own biases construct your judgements on anyone you don't know.

"Fringe views", "moderates" and "extreme views" all mean absolutely nothing. Yes, they have idiots on to debate things, just shows what a trashy news service they are. The BBC wants people to be confused about the climate, because there is massive vested interests in both sides of the argument. With areas like war, the corporate interest is only one way, more war = more money. So the BBC lies, spews out endless propaganda and posts fake videos to help the war machine.

Here's a great example of the trashy and propaganda ridden BBC getting dismantled by a real journalist.

#tinfoilhat

Aww, stuff the BBC doesn't tell you is all just "conspiracy theories".

This was also brilliant, when Noam Chomsky humiliated Andrew Marr. Marr saying that the stuff Chomsky says is thought by most of us to be a "load of old hat", (yeah, I guess those of us who rely on the BBC for news ). By the end of the interview, after educating Marr on stuff he knew nothing about, Marr is pouring with sweat and looks like he's going to pass out.

If you stop manipulating my viewpoint I can inform the way these things are viewed by those in the know. Televised news is just always going to require subtext, they're not about to broadcast Gaza IRL to anybody who could be asleep on the couch with their kid. American media is FAR more guilty of that. For that matter I'd say the contemporary meaning of 'conspiracy' has been debased in many efforts to silence legitimate accusations of wrongdoing. I'm not here to accuse anyone of baseless conjecture.

"I own a TV because tragedy thrills me..."
-Maynard James Keenan

I think you're looking at blissful ignorance rather than subconscious malice. By no means do I think that excuses disinformation but it's wrong to trash the whole organization over a corrupt faction. Forget the news for a minute & just look at how much they really document.

You've got to realize BBC would've been erased decades ago had they failed in their inevitable chore of keeping ALL news palatable to squeamish, myopic westerners. That however doesn't mean such people are their only market. It also doesn't mean that those of us who do seriously follow current events would ever accept a single outlet for global coverage.

Try reading what I wrote on previous pages. I'm talking about BBC News on TV. Some of their shows are more independent, like the ones mentioned by the others.

The BBC is just another propaganda organ for liberal internationalism, promoting open borders for Western nations and idiotic attacks against countries who dare to follow their own path (e.g., Russia, Iran etc). The BBC lets religious sorts on to argue about science because they are no threat to the BBC's most important liberal internationalist narratives. Whenever their liberal internationalist narratives are concerned, they do the opposite of what you are claiming; that is to say they invite people on who have virtually the same opinions and they present them as polar opposites. The classic example is of course debates about immigration, where you'll have a liberal who supports totally open borders and a piss weak conservative who wants to limit immigration to say a million a year "as long as they learn English" or something. The result is that the average dolt, so convinced that he is witnessing a free debate, cannot even conceive that alternative ideas exist.