[Misc] The BBC- Is there such a thing as independent media anymore ?

[seagulls4ever]

The journalistic standards at the BBC have certainly dropped in recent times. There's a real lack of depth and knowledge to their reporting.

 

[Eeyore]

The journalistic standards at the BBC have certainly dropped in recent times. There's a real lack of depth and knowledge to their reporting.

Including proof reading on their website which has notably declined. There was never mistakes on the current level.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Including proof reading on their website which has notably declined. There was never mistakes on the current level.

Is that deliberate?

The current article about the attack on the BBC news website seems reasonable. There is no finger pointing going on.

 

[seagulls4ever]

Including proof reading on their website which has notably declined. There was never mistakes on the current level.

Yes I've noticed this, and I've mentioned it on the past here as well. I regularly see clear errors on their website.

I try to watch/read a variety of different news sources. The UK version of Russia Today isn't actually as bad as many would probably expect, covering some interesting topics that other media outlets don't give much coverage to. The US version, however, is terrible from what I've seen - however, I think that's partly a reflection of US news/TV in general.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

That would be the Tom Duggan working for the Assad regime providing the unbiased critcal reporting would it?

 

[Glawstergull]

In the "world according to the BBC" every 5th news story involves a celebrity or a LBGT that works for Auntie Beeb.

 

[Sirnormangall]

The journalistic standards at the BBC have certainly dropped in recent times. There's a real lack of depth and knowledge to their reporting.

I agree. I feel that too much of their news is based on opinion rather than fact - it’s cheaper to produce the former than the latter.

 

[vegster]

Russia claiming no evidence of a chemical attack in Douma.... So, the BBC right not to give the story any credence.

 

[Eeyore]

That would be the Tom Duggan working for the Assad regime providing the unbiased critcal reporting would it?

I didn't know that. Shall I take your word for it ?

Comes back to my original point really.

'Syrian-based journalist, Tom Dugan, who has been living in the country for the last four years, claims no gas attack happened. Rather, he asserts that the Syrian air force destroyed a terrorist-owned and controlled chemical weapons factory mistaking it for an ammunition dump, and “the chemicals spilled out.” This seems to be the most plausible explanation'

Assad mouthpiece ?

BBC haven't reported that one..

https://cultureandpolitics.org/tag/tom-duggan/

 

[seagulls4ever]

What bugs me is their method of updating news stories by adding new information to articles over time. Means I have to read through stuff I've already read to see what the latest updates are. I'm sure there's a better way.

 

[scamander]

I've seen it argued from both sides

Assad did it
The acknowledgement that he will use chemical attacks will mean rebels will move out of defended locations much quicker. Using it on what is termed a soft target is a real statement.

False Flag
The US were looking to move out of Syria and the use of it by rebels will stop that. It'll also put the Assad (and by default Russian) involvement more closely under the spotlight. If so it's a desperate tactic.

Though I have made a case for Assad's use it would be a very stupid move, at best it might quicken the victory over the rebels and at worst it will bring certain parties back into the fray (e.g. the US).

I suppose the concern is how we are prepped to accept news without considering the facts. In this instance it's highly difficult, the guilty party will want to deny any access. What is true is that both the rebels (not a united force but formed of several groups, some of which make ISIS look liberal) and Assad have used chemical weapons in this conflict.

 

[Eeyore]

A new avenue of theory is that it was a Syrian government attack on a munitions dump that has unleashed chemicals being stored there. Whilst this is just another theory, given the situation, it is plausible. Again, obviously, we don't know the truth here.

I suspect it is a theory that will be dismissed out of hand without any proper inquiry. It doesn't fit the narrative.

Be interesting to see if there is coverage in the mainstream though. Again, to clarify, I have no position either way. I just want to see unbiased reporting on all sides.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

The BBC has always been biased, however I do think it depends on how you look at. I know they have been accused of being pro labour and conservative, pro Brexit and anti Brexit.

They wind me up as I think they are very much anti Brexit but then I see others moan the other way.

Fundamentally it is very hard to be unbiased. They try very hard with regards to domestic politics but always seem to pedal an agenda overseas where presumably they don't have to justify anything to anyone?

So which way are they biased then?

 

[clapham_gull]

..presumably they don't have to justify anything to anyone?

Since they broadcast from the UK everything is subject to the same rules.

Sent from my BLA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[looney]

Having long been an ardent supporter of the BBC, I find myself saddened that what I believed to be the bastion of independent media seems to be cowering to the government narrative in foreign affairs.

The glaring omissions in the reporting of the alleged chemical attack in Douma this weekend, and the lack of question over the perpetrators, has tipped the balance for me. Reading independent reports, especially Tom Duggan’s Vlog from Damascus (Do the BBC actually have anyone on the ground there ?), there seems to be more to this than meets the eye.

I left thinking that, whilst the BBC still serves a great purpose, no media outlet can be trusted to present an unadulterated view of things.

Is there such a thing as independent media anymore ?

The BBC has always had a leftish cosmopolitan slant, this has been added to in recent years by its god awful standard of jornalism and obsession with idetity politics that makes it look like the Groan's big brothjer.

 

[studio150]

The BBC News has been going downhill since they let Angela Rippon dance on the Morcambe and Wise show, and was finished as a serious news outlet when the male newscasters appeared on the same show with their South Pacific pastiche

 

[Eeyore]

So which way are they biased then?

My view is that they seem to run with the government of the day when it comes to international matters. This is not a left/right thing.

The scenery is set by a tepid analysis of government policy and printed media headline as opposed to impartial investigative journalism.

The BBC should be building the set. That what's we pay them to do and judge them upon. They should dance to no-ones tune.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

BBC news mostly presents evidence, not 'facts' (presented as facts) which is why it is news. It also presents opinion and, to me, this sounds like opinion. Rarely do we have all the facts, and rarely do the BBC muddle up the three.

If you can't tell the difference between evidence, opinion and fact....give your head a wobble. You are basically in thrall to whoever tickles your personal prejudices.

Even historians disagree, and often long after the passage of time, which may give a clue about what is actual fact and what is evidence and opinion.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

The journalistic standards at the BBC have certainly dropped in recent times. There's a real lack of depth and knowledge to their reporting.

Or even checking the facts.
https://twitter.com/PeterStefanovi2/status/982897676583948288

[tweet]982897676583948288[/tweet]

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

A lot of Americans I know use the BBC as a preferred news source - not surprising when you see what they think of their own