[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

[jcdenton08]

If you're going to Newsbeat for hard hitting journalism of any political persuasion you're definitely better off with Reuters.

Once again, as I said before, I am talking about the BBC's editorial position and their focus on visibility with these types of articles. It is on the front page of the BBC news mobile website, about half way down.

People would make an obvious assumption it was therefore "news".

 

[pb21]

From the front page.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-61865657

"Women from ethnic minority or deprived backgrounds are more likely to get STI trichomonas vaginalis (TV) than others.

That's according to new research carried out into the largely unknown sexually transmitted infection by sexual health organisation PreventX."

Now, if you do research into PreventX, you will realise they have absolutely no credibility or experience in these findings, which themselves are extremely dubious. There is no challenging of the findings, no rebuttal or clinical examination of the findings, and an outrageously small test sample was used.

It is simply an opportunity to force a medical journal piece (a dubious one at that) onto the site, call it "news" and fulfil a quota by discussing an issue which may, allegedly, possibly affect a very small number of black women.

I stick to Reuters or the AP now.

That story is right at the bottom of the news page, under the newsbeat section, hardly "pushed heavily to the fore ahead of much more critical news stories". It looks like you can 'block' newsbeat stories if you wanted to.

Also argue that there is nothing newsworthy in this piece. It might not be based on the best science, but isn't necessarily extremely dubious.

 

[Baldseagull]

That would be superfluous, because the front page and editorial lines on a day to day basis sum up their approach for all to see. It appears to be mandated to have stories about social issues and alleged injustices pushed heavily to the fore, ahead of much more critical news stories. This is practically always with no countering view for balance.

A recent example of this was a transgender paramedic, who wrote an op-ed claiming that people have refused to be treated to them because they are trans. There was absolutely no evidence of this apart from the individual's claims, no discussion of how or why people may have refused treatment (if this even happened) and a very biased piece overall.

Go to the news front page right now, I can guarantee there will be a minimum of two "news articles" about social issues, without anything actually newsworthy being in them.

It is very much like the National Theatre or RSC of the present day, where they are so concerned with checking boxes and representation that they end up over-representing minority human interest stories over actual news.

You'd expect that from the Guardian, and you'd expect the hand-wringing opposite view from the Mail, but the BBC has shifted mightily from the centre to the left in recent years.

It's all very hashtags.

I would call that first person testimony, usually considered as evidence, not proof, just evidence.

 

[BBassic]

Once again, as I said before, I am talking about the BBC's editorial position and their focus on visibility with these types of articles. It is on the front page of the BBC news mobile website, about half way down.

People would make an obvious assumption it was therefore "news".

And I, respectfully, disagree.

 

[WATFORD zero]

From the front page.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-61865657

"Women from ethnic minority or deprived backgrounds are more likely to get STI trichomonas vaginalis (TV) than others.

That's according to new research carried out into the largely unknown sexually transmitted infection by sexual health organisation PreventX."

Now, if you do research into PreventX, you will realise they have absolutely no credibility or experience in these findings, which themselves are extremely dubious. There is no challenging of the findings, no rebuttal or clinical examination of the findings, and an outrageously small test sample was used.

It is simply an opportunity to force a medical journal piece (a dubious one at that) onto the site, call it "news" and fulfil a quota by discussing an issue which may, allegedly, possibly affect a very small number of black women.

I stick to Reuters or the AP now.

And what is 'left wing' about that report ?

How would a 'right wing' or 'apolitical' news source report it ?

Or could it be that you are searching all over the BBC website for something you don't want to read about, and the article about 'black women' fitted your agenda

 

[jcdenton08]

And what is 'left wing' about that report ?

How would a 'right wing' or 'apolitical' news source report it ?

They wouldn't. Because it isn't news. It's a dressed up medical journal piece (of which hundreds by more credible sources are published annually) chosen for publication solely because it touches on an issue which may tangentially involve minorities.

 

[Stato]

I find the BBC rather left wing, actually.

Compared to what? If your news generally comes from the right, then the BBC, as it seeks to provide balanced news reporting in the context of a capitalist society, would seem to be giving more credence to some left wing ideas than you are used to and therefore may seem leftist. However, check out any BBC news report that concerns the monarchy and you'll see that scope for providing actual left wing views is extremely limited.

Today's culture warriors on the right would have us all believe that a thing like calling trans people by their preferred pronouns is left wing. It isn't, its not actually political at all, just considerate of people's feelings. Actual left wing ideas like internationalist anti capitalism, moving towards public ownership, redistribution of wealth across the planet, dismantling of public schools, abolishing of private medicine, putting an end to inherited wealth and status, foreign policies based on what is best for people, not for the first world exploitation of resources are given virtually no airtime by the BBC.

To be fair, half the people who claim to be left wing have fallen for the same con, believing that having liberal personal politics makes you left wing. It doesn't. It makes you personally liberal. Its just as easy to couple these social views with right wing economic values as it is with left wing ones. However, its convenient to focus on because all the time the media is arguing about the vagaries of language around race sexuality or gender, they don't have to be reporting ideas that may be critical of the way the world's preferred economic system continues to exploit the powerless majority to the benefit of the powerful minority regardless of what language is being used.

 

[jcdenton08]

Compared to what?

Reuters or the AP, who report fact, like the BBC should stick to.

But thanks for the Marxist diatribe, I rather enjoyed it.

 

[WATFORD zero]

And what is 'left wing' about that report ?

How would a 'right wing' or 'apolitical' news source report it ?

Or could it be that you are searching all over the BBC website for something you don't want to read about, and the article about 'black women' fitted your agenda

They wouldn't. Because it isn't news. It's a dressed up medical journal piece (of which hundreds by more credible sources are published annually) chosen for publication solely because it touches on an issue which may tangentially involve minorities.

Maybe if you had said that in the first place

I'll leave you to it

 

[clapham_gull]

Reuters or the AP, who report fact, like the BBC should stick to.

But thanks for the Marxist diatribe, I rather enjoyed it.

They used to say when you mention the Nazis you've lost the argument.

 

[Baldseagull]

From the front page.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-61865657

"Women from ethnic minority or deprived backgrounds are more likely to get STI trichomonas vaginalis (TV) than others.

That's according to new research carried out into the largely unknown sexually transmitted infection by sexual health organisation PreventX."

Now, if you do research into PreventX, you will realise they have absolutely no credibility or experience in these findings, which themselves are extremely dubious. There is no challenging of the findings, no rebuttal or clinical examination of the findings, and an outrageously small test sample was used.

It is simply an opportunity to force a medical journal piece (a dubious one at that) onto the site, call it "news" and fulfil a quota by discussing an issue which may, allegedly, possibly affect a very small number of black women.

I stick to Reuters or the AP now.

You had a moan about the BBC running a story about a TG paramedic facing discrimination from patients, and a lack of evidence, would you mind providing some evidence that you found in your research to show PreventX, a company providing sexual health testing, and have analysed their data, "have absolutely no credibility or experience in these findings".

 

[jcdenton08]

And what is 'left wing' about that report ?

How would a 'right wing' or 'apolitical' news source report it ?

Or could it be that you are searching all over the BBC website for something you don't want to read about, and the article about 'black women' fitted your agenda

Yeah, you see, this is why it is impossible to speak about politics because it always just goes to the lowest common denominator. You point out something that involves a POC, "oh, you're racist". You point out omissions and biased writing in the Johnny Depp Vs Amber Heard civil case? "Oh, you condone violence against women".

This is what always happens.

Myself, I am the son of a immigrant and engaged to a POC. Does that matter or make my views any more or less valid? It won't matter because the next time I sigh at a completely worthless social justice "news" story appearing on the BBC about a gay person, I'll be labelled "homophobic".

 

[Baldseagull]

They wouldn't. Because it isn't news. It's a dressed up medical journal piece (of which hundreds by more credible sources are published annually) chosen for publication solely because it touches on an issue which may tangentially involve minorities.

But this one was published today, do you get the concept of "News"?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I find the BBC rather left wing, actually.

Examples, in context? Or is this another vacuous bit of nonsense like your spooky coincidence notion from the other day?

You are of course welcome to your prejudices.

 

[jcdenton08]

Examples, in context? Or is this another vacuous bit of nonsense like your spooky coincidence notion from the other day?

You are of course welcome to your prejudices.

And what prejudices would those be, the racism, the transphobia, the homophobia or the sexism?

 

[pb21]

Reuters or the AP, who report fact, like the BBC should stick to.

But thanks for the Marxist diatribe, I rather enjoyed it.

Was the story you posted not factual?

The BBC is not the same as Reuters, you can read its remit here:

https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/mission

 

[Stato]

Reuters or the AP.

To be fair, both of which are consistently listed in the centre on any chart of media bias..... Right next to the BBC.

You call my post a Marxist diatribe. Although I'm not sure this shows a clear understanding of the meaning of the word diatribe, it does show that you can recognise Marxist economic ideas. It would seem to follow that you can also notice their almost total absence in virtually all of the BBC's news analysis, so in what way is their reporting left wing?

 

[pb21]

Deleted

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Reuters or the AP, who report fact, like the BBC should stick to.

But thanks for the Marxist diatribe, I rather enjoyed it.

You think that [MENTION=22849]Stato[/MENTION]'s sober and considered response is a marxist diatribe? Are you perhaps a bit thick? Or are you just a WUM. If you are intent on coming out with a load of old bollocks on a regular basis, give me a heads up and I'll gladly put you on ignore. And I thought you were reasonably sound. Disappointing. Oh well.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

And what prejudices would those be, the racism, the transphobia, the homophobia or the sexism?

Your prejudice against the BBC. I'm beginning to worry you may have recently experienced a TIA.

Ar you going to stop messing about now?