[Closed] bbc fake news?

I think a lot of people's votes were the result of either biggotry or racism but I don't know that for sure.

You should spend an evening in my local boozer. You'd be left in no doubt

Binners, your local has a flat roof. 😉

It's always funny to see people deride the Telegraph at every opportunity, then use the expenses story as the paragon of journalistic freedom.

More news is a good thing. Especially when it's from all sorts of political angles.

It doesn't actually flashy. Its a lovely pub. The people inside it however are a vile collection of shit thick, Daily Mail reading, UKIP voting racists.

Getting back to the original 'Fake News' theme, these idiots believe every word of the 'straight bananas', a million quid given to every immigrant, claptrap that they've been fed for years for our hateful national press, who've been making it up as they go along for years

I find it amazing you've got people on here moaning about the BBC when we're now facing the calamity ushered in, in part, by our wonderful 'Enemies of the People' free press

I didn't make any effort to work it out as I don't give a **** about the story. It's your reply I had an issue with. HTH.

The BBC reported recently that Jezza was Leader of HM Opposition - wrong on two counts 😉

Headline is 'Trump tries to clarify Sweden remarks'.
The headline could read 'Trump clarifies Sweden remarks', which is a bit more generous.

The BBC story makes it clear that Trump has not provided any coherent explanation of his remarks, so "tries to clarify" seems to be a concise and accurate headline. "Clarifies" would be incorrect.

Trump has achieved his aim by simply repeating "Fake News" until many people now assume all media is inherently untrustworthy, instead of critically evaluating each story and source on its merits. It's just diversion and an easy response for people that don't want to think too hard about anything that challenges their world view.

Listen, everyone makes mistakes.

What matters is:

1) How often you make them

and

2) How you deal with the mess caused by your mistake.

Trump makes a mistake every time he opens his mouth, and he deals with them by just lamely blaming someone else (anyone else but himself). it's quite clear his public oration is terrible (if he were 9, he'd fail his media class), and he clearly

1) doesn't listen to anything anyone tells him (99% talk, 1% listen)
2) Is so stupid he can't actually understand the politics or situation involved.

So, yes, the BBC and others are right to have a go at him. In this world, if you're not a t**t, the media tend to treat you ok. People like David Attenbourgh don't get loads of "oh, look at this muppet" type headlines because they are sensible, decent, moral people. Trump is none of those things.....

You'd think as president he'd have people to check stuff.

Has anybody yet pointed out that the OP is fake news?

Regarding a balanced press, let me just put this one here:

[img] [/img]

The opening post of this thread is one of the stupidist I've seen( and theres been a few), it and the poster deserve ridicule.

There's a story the BBC blatantly changed to fit their programming that sticks in my mind from a few years back.

On the 10pm news was a story about some one who rescued a sea turtle who had had his eyes gouged out. Apparently some fisherman did this routinely to turtles that came up in the nets as revenge for them eating [i]their[/i] fish and it was determined that this was what had happened to this one.

Local news the next night there was a lovely, heartwarming story at the end, you know the kind of crap. Well blow me, there's the same turtle but now it was a courageous fisherman who had saved it after the silly thing got caught in his propeller and lost both it's eyes but with no other head trauma...

I think it's because the subject was relatively insignificant that it really bothered me. This was fabricating a story and glossing over brutality just to fill three minutes before the weather. At least if there was a sinister government influence I could see why they would buckle like a belt and report what they were told but this was purely optional.

I'm not pro Trump but I am anti BBC and the way they are bleating on they are only helping to convince people he is right about them.

BBC and ITN I think are pretty good, they don't deliberately report fake stuff for sure. That's not to say they don't make the odd mistake like we all do.

As an aside Evelyn Waugh and some good stuff to say about the media over 50 years ago in Scoop. Worth a read.

Apparently there's been rioting in Paris, it's not on the BBC website are the riots fake news?

The local news story I recounted above was not a mistake, it was a blatant lie.

Apparently some fisherman did this routinely to turtles that came up in the nets as revenge for them eating their fish and it was determined that this was what had happened to this one.

Local news the next night there was a lovely, heartwarming story at the end, you know the kind of crap. Well blow me, there's the same turtle but now it was a courageous fisherman who had saved it after the silly thing got caught in his propeller and lost both it's eyes but with no other head trauma...

The local news story I recounted above was not a mistake, it was a blatant lie.

trouble with the bbc is it takes its impartiality from the middle of the political range of the press - which gives it an automatic right of centre / establishment bias and it also gives equal billing to absurd positions as well as sensible ones.

Nobody should be taking anything printed or published in the media as FACT. It is just a point of view expressed, maybe with one or two supporting facts often cherry-picked by the journalist to maximise the impact/appeal/shock of the story to sell more copies.

Up to a point, Lord Copper.

1. The Telegraph
a). "We hate the EU" = opinion
b). "MPs fiddle their expenses" = fact

2. The Guardian
a). "We love the EU" = opinion
b). "The News of the World hacks phones" = fact

The better printed media is pretty good at separating factual reporting from opinion... problems start when the likes of the Daily Mail conflate the two.

lazybike - Member

Apparently there's been rioting in Paris, it's not on the BBC website are the riots fake news?

Not sure if serious but
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39011298

Yeah ok, I waded in there without the reasoning. The 10pm news article was pretty in depth. They spoke to a lady from a local (to the turtle) wildlife trust/organisation who said she had seen such injuries before and had gone "undercover" to investigate her hunch that it was fisherman causing them and concluded that she was right. She pointed out that it was inarguably an intentional injury by a controlling attacker due to the accuracy and lack of other injuries.

When the same source provides two conflicting versions of events then one has to be wrong and intent has be considered.

PS. As someone who has seen a human go though an outboard motor propeller I know that that turtle had not been there.

Although of course, that is only my opinion.

I don't doubt your reasoning, but there appears no evidence that the story was made up or manipulated by the BBC. They might be guilty of being gullible, but probably no more than that.

Northwind - Member
lazybike - Member
Apparently there's been rioting in Paris, it's not on the BBC website are the riots fake news?
Not sure if serious but
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39011298

I assume it was taking the piss, I noticed the same phrase word for word in comments under BBC Facebook posts on Sweden yesterday.

[i]Has anybody yet pointed out that the OP is fake news?[/i]

Totalshell does seem to have a knack for kicking off a debate and then not contributing...

I don't doubt your reasoning, but there appears no evidence that the story was made up or manipulated by the BBC. They might be guilty of being gullible, but probably no more than that.

The BBC went to the island this happened on and got a story about a turtle, the same turtle then stars in a very different story broadcast by, the BBC.

Same turtle, same news outlet, two different versions of events.. One or the other version had to have been manipulated, I really can't see any other rational conclusion.

All news stories are manipulated to some extent or another. First of all the news organisation decides whether or not to even run with it. Then it looks for the best 'angle', depending on the information in front of it. Later on, the angle may change depending on what interviews etc throws up.

Without seeing the two versions, you couldn't say for sure, but my slightly cynical interpretation of what you've put there (as a former reporter) points to the first version produced a complaint, possibly threats of legal etc, and the second, smilier version and interview was the agreed way of making that go away? 😀

Local news can be a bit ragtag and amateurish, and news from all sources should be read with a critical eye, whether it's looking for the dead hand of an unaltered press release or an editorial 'interpretation' which slants the story in an unfair way.

Hmm. Yes I see the reasons but if it's necessary that examples like the one I gave happen then I say that something has to be fundamentally wrong.

I maintain the second story was blatant fabrication for sake of having a nice ending. But I won't continue trying to convince anyone else of it, as you say without the footage to compare it's just boils down to my opinion and understanding of it all.

When I was a teen I saw a ship, the Maria Asumpta, sink on the coast. That evening the local news said that rescue services arrived in minutes, yeah, about 90 minutes. It angered me at the time because I stood there helpless and watched people dying, unable to help and yet the public were being told that they were being rescued. I can understand why they said that, Cornwall depends on tourists and tourists depend on the sea here. Knowing they could be in trouble if they get in deep water would keep many away. But it wasn't true. It was not the truth.

That evening the local news said that rescue services arrived in minutes, yeah, about 90 minutes. It angered me at the time because I stood there helpless and watched people dying, unable to help and yet the public were being told that they were being rescued. I can understand why they said that,

Because the police/coastguard told them that?

It's always difficult to dig into the reasons why there are inaccuracies in press reports. It can be the kind of bad faith motive you put forward, or it can be simple misunderstanding/incompetence or simply being given the wrong information. Generally the simplest explanation is the most likely.

[quote=lazlowoodbine ]Knowing they could be in trouble if they get in deep water would keep many away.

Completely irrelevant to the main point you're making (where you have a point - I didn't see the features, so don't feel able to comment further), but I already know I'd be in trouble if I get in deep water. I doubt accurate reporting would make any difference at all to tourism - how many tourists arrive by sailing ship? (anyway, I'd be more interested in how the captains actions were reported)

I reckon in this case you're definitely seeing conspiracy where there is none.

Yeah I don't know for sure where the inaccuracy stemmed from, that is a fair point. Eye witnesses would have been a good place to start for an accurate account though..

I used an unfortunate term with "deep water". People come here in the summer for the beaches and no most of them arrive via the a30.
I'm not seeing conspiracy, martinhutch gives a better informed, more articulate explanation than I can of why such things happen just a few posts above. People deceive others for all sorts of reasons, the media are no different.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/8492870.stm

I think what Trump and co are accusing the media of is a world away from one news source cocking up (or manipulating) a story about a turtle.

They are alleging systematic and coordinated misreporting or suppression of news by many outlets. It's nonsensical.

Indeed. Anyone who has seen journalists reports about things they actually know about, tends to be a bit sceptical. Knowing people at Uni who then went on to be reasonable high profile journalists has not made me any less sceptical.

But Trump is different - he just lies for the hell of it and then labels any attempt to correct it as "fake news" - and this from a bloke who trusts Breitbart.

I'd recommend every one to watch last weeks "Last Week tonight with John Oliver" where he totally nails this... not that catching him at it and explainig where he gets his lies from will help in the slightest...

I stopped trusting the BBC when their news presenters stopped wearing full evening dress, and I wasn't even born then.

I knew it! It's cut of of their collective jib that is at the root of my discontent.

Indeed. You can only trust people who are well dressed.

[img] [/img]

"Anyone who has seen journalists reports about things they actually know about, tends to be a bit sceptical."

This.

The media is appalling and the print media are by far the worst.

It really is only in the last few months that media outlets which were hitherto despised by all have become very considered gospel by everyone.

Not sure if serious but
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39011298

Lazlowoodbine...

On the 10pm news was a story about some one who rescued a sea turtle who had had his eyes gouged out. Apparently some fisherman did this routinely to turtles that came up in the nets as revenge for them eating their fish and it was determined that this was what had happened to this one.

Local news the next night there was a lovely, heartwarming story at the end, you know the kind of crap. Well blow me, there's the same turtle but now it was a courageous fisherman who had saved it after the silly thing got caught in his propeller and lost both it's eyes but with no other head trauma...

I want to check something out so can you answer a few questions for me.
You say the turtle story was on the 10, then the next day your regional news did the same story with a compleatly different take on it.
What's your regional news programme?
I assume this is something that happened off the coast of the UK.
You reckon a couple of years ago, can you be more specific? It'll just help me out if I can dig up anything

Thing is,what you describe just strikes me as so improbable I'd like to see for myself.

The media is appalling and the print media are by far the worst.

Do you believe that mike

The beauty of on-line papers is that it's easy to read lots of papers

For me the most striking thing these days is the deficit of proper journalism. Far too much of the papers is made up of the same material lifted ad verbatim from the same source with the occasional topping and tailing

It's reporting and information not journalism and knowledge in the main

Given the online papers are mostly the print media I do, I read a lot form various sources and mostly they out do the new online lot by researching, checking and references. Named sources and multiple where unique named are used. Read a great one from the Washington post I think where they had taken the time to interview and print the views from the Trump supporters at the rally - and not in a condescending way. They were also there covering the protest outside of the rally.

"I'll give you some print media (tabloids) but most still do good journalism. Most report facts and most clearly label opinions."

Totally disagree.

Papers are terrible, even local papers. They print anything to make sales and even if they wanted to get it right their circulations have dropped off a cliff which makes it impossible to research stories properly.

The media is appalling and the print media are by far the worst

I don't agree as a generalisation. Some publications are very poor and always have been, but some papers are still doing proper reporting. Look at the stuff the Guardian did on the Panama papers, or the investigations the NY Times is doing on Trump.

There has been a general decline in the amount of old fashioned, original journalism because it is expensive. Papers can't afford to keep the numbers of journos they used to, so more of your paper will be padded with recycled press releases.

Online media has the same problem. You still need to do the legwork and digging to stand up proper stories, however you publish your stuff.

Totally disagree.

Papers are terrible, even local papers.