It's simply not the BBC's job to tell people who to support and who to condemn, writes the BBC's World Affairs editor.

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.

  • ALQ@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1791·
    1 year ago

    It’s simply not the BBC’s job to tell people who to support and who to condemn - who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.

    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.

    • makingStuffForFun@lemmy.mlEnglish
      471·
      1 year ago

      The news in Australia literally adds dramatic music to their edits. They’re disgraceful, and manipulative.

      • StorminNorman@lemmy.worldEnglish
        6·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • makingStuffForFun@lemmy.mlEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          Interesting. I see it every time I visit my parents nearly. Doom drama music plays. ‘Journalist’ creates drama. I recommend John Simpson’s book

          • StorminNorman@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            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.

    • Nighed@sffa.communityOPEnglish
      381·
      1 year ago

      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!

      • TWeaK@lemm.eeEnglish
        7·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • drekly@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1711·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • Kbin_space_program@kbin.social
      324·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • enkers@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        231·
        1 year ago

        then in the next sentence compare The IRA to the fucking Nazis.

        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?

      • ALQ@lemmy.worldEnglish
        371·
        1 year ago

        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.

          • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.worldEnglish
            233·
            1 year ago

            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.

          • Zoolander@lemmy.worldEnglish
            132·
            1 year ago

            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.

      • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.worldEnglish
        231·
        1 year ago

        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

      • Hyperreality@kbin.social
        142·
        1 year ago

        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.