"The BBC is not a credible news source" ~dessalines, .ml admin, head Lemmy dev
Join the lemmy.ml boycott today and help foster a better Lemmy-verse! No more posts, comments (except to counter their propaganda ofc!) or upvotes on any comms on the Lemmy.ml instance!
And consider donating to individual instances instead.
Check the megathread for more!
Looks more like this dessalines guy is not a reliable source of information.
.ml is not a reliable source of information, they routinely allow straight propaganda sources like RT and places like southfront.press or incredibly biased sources like The Grayzone
If you want to learn the latest Russian talking points, you can rely on .ml to shovel them to you.
I don't know. He's pretty reliable. Reliably on whatever side benefits Russia.
He's pretty reliable in being entirely wrong.
"We trained him wrong on purpose, as a joke"
Dessaline did not understand the difference between "credible" and "biased". Which is why he often confused between the two.
I mean shit, there's some validity to that argument at times.
Yeah they might not technically be lying, but they are really trying their hardest to make themselves look like fucking zionist defenders sometimes.
An important lesson that you can learn from the Gaza bullshit that's going on is that all media has an ideology and cannot ever be trusted to be completely unbiased, especially the ones that present themselves as unbiased.
The truth is always found somewhere in the middle. But sometimes it's really, really far away from some of these propaganda outlets. Often times it's really, really close to a particular news source. Sadly, we can't just say "the BBC is often really-really-close to the truth", therefore they are always really-really-close to the truth. Sometimes, on certain topics, they are just spouting propaganda, and they always will be, because that's their ideological position and what they are posting will always be consistent with that ideological position, not with truth. They can still, as part of the ideological position, post a lot of stuff that is if not exactly the truth, very very close to it. But they can never be trusted to always do that, they will always have an agenda and an ideology.
Consider the source doesn't mean "find something truly unbiased and ignore everything else" it means understand why the source is saying the things they're saying, the way they're saying them, and why they're omitting what they're omitting, and compare that against other sources doing the same things, or different things, based on the understanding that you've developed of their biases, and also to develop further understanding of those biases. Media literacy is critical, especially with how much we're getting bombarded with fake news and how much the rug has been pulled out from beneath legitimate quality journalism. We need to thoroughly consider and understand sources these days. It's not easy, it's also a lot of work. We shouldn't have to do it. But we live in the information age, and information is a battleground, so we must. Those are the skills we need to survive in this world now.
Really? I have seen the evidence of the opposite.
Especially when it comes to trans issues. They've been running complete lies on that front for like 15 years now.
If this was about actual critisism of the BBC and them not living up to actual journalistic standards, then i could agree with this.
But we know its not, its because they disagree with his picture of reality. So a shitty chinese propagabda source with blatantly lower journalistic standards would be seen as a legitimate source, simply for being anti-west or pro China.
This is the issue. They never give actual criticism of the reporting or the reporters or go into any depth on the bias. By being an English language outlet not based in Russia/China they are, ipso facto, a lying tabloid rag. It's an absurd cyclical logic.
Of course it isn't, have you seen the crap they write about Gaza?
Sad to see how they've fallen. They were considered the gold standard of journalism.
This is probably the least controversial thing dessalines has said.
The average thing the BBC posts may not be outright lies but I wouldn’t go as far as calling them credible.
Are there reasons to criticize the BBC? Yes. For example, their whole Devil's advocate/false balance approach to reporting. Everything has a "matter-of-fact" feel to it that even if what reporting is factually true, it lacks the nuance and complexities of the issue at hand.
get back to work dessalines
Some people have a lot of trouble existing in an environment unless they are "the ones in charge" who can dictate to everyone what's going on and what's allowed and not. They can just issue orders, and people can obey or suffer the consequences.
People who are trying to lead (and garner respect and support for their decisions and the reasons behind them) just react totally differently and talk to people totally differently than this.
They have a lot of bias against migrants and trans people. They have this both-sides-ism where they give opposing sides equal validity even when one is quite loony. The result? Incredible surges in transphobic politics and TERFism and xenophobic rhetoric and the rise of the far right under Nigel Farage. Sometimes foreign news tends to be of a better quality than domestic, but they are plagued with the same issues as other news sources. Funding cuts are something else they deal with as despite their slow move to a nationalist perspective, the Government still questions their purpose, and so they often try to appease those groups.
There's a lot to criticize about the BBC
Why is this guy shitposting instead of writing the code he's paid to write? Seems like a grift
News is - and always has been - unreliable. Complex topics condensed to digestible, engaging narratives. Biases both overt and subconscious always creep in, even if it’s a subtle choice of words. Important data, context, and facts are always missed. Opinions find their way in and op-eds further confuse issues.
There is no single source of news that can be trusted and even if you dig deep you can never know how much you really know, how much you really missed, or how compromised you’ve been by all the subtle biases in writing style and coverage.
Take everything you read anywhere with copious amounts of salt and suspicion.
I mean, they're literally state media. They're ok on some subjects, but do have various biases.
Why does it seem like tankies repeat talking points ad verbatim? If I have a penny every time I hear BBC for being biased and unreliable, I would have already retired. What do they think of RT or any Chinese media? I always say that these terminally online tankies are extremely sad people who are only larping as communists to feel a sense of belonging in a group. They're literally just a gang doing things just for the fun of it.
From what I understand, Tankies are okay with RT and Chinese state media.
As someone who has been accused of being a tankie, I view RT and Chinese state media as roughly equal in level of bias and reliability to western corporate and state media.
All media tends to be more or less factual, the main difference is in what facts are reported and how the facts are talked about.
You can consume media from all of the available sources as long as you recognize what the biases are and why some sources are better for some topics and worse for others.
What does "orientalist" even mean
I don’t know what he meant by it, but orientalism is the tendency of western authors, audiences, etc. to conflate many different eastern cultures. It usually stems from a lack of familiarity with any particular culture, and a very shallow knowledge and understanding thereof. An example could be using Mongolian designs in a Persian setting.
I thought the purpose of this comm was to shit on tankies like bullies in high school, not to elevate their opinions.
Based take, keep it up
The BBC lost any remaining credibility when they reported on Sept. 11 2001 that WTC-7 had collapsed 20 minutes BEFORE it actually did, and then refused to provide the source of their information.
Also, they are absolutely one sided in reporting on Pissreal.
yeah, im not defending bbc, or any big mainstream portal owned by a lizardface fuckhat
Why do you even get worked up about that statement, you are embarrassing yourself. The BBC laid bare their orientalism by acting as a mouthpiece for Israel troughout the Palestinian genocide, it‘s not an untrue statement. Get a grip.
Nothin but a lil troll
Nice argument.
Do the bit about how authoritarianism is a made up word next!