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.
As is appropriate for journalism.
removed by mod
legally
Whose law?
UK Parliament added Hamas on the list of proscribed terrorist organizations in 2021. Press release here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/islamist-terrorist-group-hamas-banned-in-the-uk
The EU have them listed as well (didn’t bother checking since when).
The US has listed them since 1997 (US Department of Treasury Office of Foreign Asset Control is the agency in charge of sanctions enforcement).
So yeah.
Legally.
For better or (and very clearly) for worse, Hamas has been the government in Palestinian since 2006.
Either laws and governments matter, or they don’t.
You don’t get to have it both ways.
You asked by whose law they are defined as terrorists. You got your answer: UK law, EU law, US law.
The BBC answers to UK law at the end of the day, not Gazan law, not US law, and not your law.
The BBC answers to UK law at the end of the day
Actually no, the role of journalism isn’t just to parrot and re-express the views of the current government from where they are based.
I agree they shouldn’t parrot the views of the UK government blindly. But the BBC are not above the law. Stop that nonsense.
Hamas is a terrorist organization. They organize and commit acts of intentional violence against civilians with the express purpose of spreading terror.
Calling them anything else other than that is a disservice to the readers of the BBC and implicitly condones their actions by not labelling them as such.
And the BBC will report the fact that Hamas has been designated a terrorist group by those bodies.
Hamas has been the government in Palestinian since 2006.
No theyre not.
The Palestinian Authority is in charge of the West Bank and Hamas is “in charge” of Gaza (even tho Israel controls everything).
If you think Hamas is the government of Palestine, it actually makes sense. Israel loves pretending that’s true in the media. And probably the only reason they haven’t done anything about Hamas despite controlling every aspect of life in Gaza
You didn’t have to give me a link showing me I’m right…
But you could edit your original comment now that you know.
removed by mod
Wikipedia is a lawmaking body?
I think you are missing the point.
removed by mod
Law is not some immutable force. Many countries have laws.
In some of those countries, Hamas is a designated terrorist organization. In others, it is not, and even considered and ally (or has been previously, such as Afghanistan, Algeria, Iran, Qatar, Syria).
Hamas its self is a government. They have their own laws. So whose laws should we defer to?
The point is that who is or isn’t a terrorist depends on the context and point of view you are speaking from.
There is no universality in that kind of word, and so its appropriate that the BBC isn’t using it.
So you are insane.
So how far did you get in this article? Did you see the title and go into rage posting or did you actually read it?
This dude writes 50 comments a day on multiple accounts. From what I’ve seen they are completely filled with hatred and spitefulness and their personal conviction is more important than deliberation or compassion. It must be exhausting.
The UN doesn’t, according to your own source.
Critically, though, not the U.N. I linked to the same thing above before I saw your comment but came to a different conclusion. I personally call them terrorists but I’m not a journalist trying to be impartial on a global network. I think it’s fine for the BBC to just say which countries do label them terrorists without taking a side.
Kinda weird that New Zealand takes the time to differentiate calling the political arm of Hamas not terrorists and the militant arm of Hamas (Qassam Brigades) terrorists. Maybe someone should look into why.
The well known phrase is “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. I Imagine from their point of view, Israel is the ‘terrorist’ group, routinely bombing apartment buildings etc and that their actions are a proportionate counter (recent events nonwithstanding!)
Both sides of the current conflict have/are committing atrocities, but the reporting of those atrocities should be as factual and unbiased as possible.
removed by mod
So do you call the Israeli army terrorists? Because they’ve done all of those things to an even greater extent than Hamas has.
You know, they BOTH do that shit, right? It’s important that you know this.
…whataboutism sucks. Regardless if it’s true.
But complaining about whataboutism while you ignore the problem everytime somoeone powerfull or ally does sucks the same. A war of suckers.
But redirecting attention away from the topic being discussed just so you can whine about someone else doing the same makes it appear as if you’re justifying it so long as someone else does it.
Stop doing this. It’s juvenile and muddies the water. You want to discuss how shitty America is, do it in its own post where that can be discussed in full. Here, it doesn’t belong.
The military prosecuted and convicted the leader who ordered the killings, so implying the US military condones these actions is really stupid
Regardless of the wrist-slap the criminal President gave him, he was convicted. There is no legal recourse after a Presidential commutation.
My Lai was not an isolated incident.
Only one involved was convicted as stated, but then completely let off so who cares? The higher ups that enabled it were completely let off. Others who were involved in the cover up completely let off. The whistleblowers, etc were shunned and ostracized by the military for decades.
so who cares
Being that is invalidates the point you were making, you should care.
But then, your only interest in contrarianism, so no one really gives a fuck about your opinion either, you sick fucking terrorist apologist.
deleted by creator
Excellent
And while you have every right to your opinion, your opinion isn’t a newsworthy or relevant fact.
The best way I’ve heard it described is that they both view the other group of people as existential evil. Far beyond enemies, something which is evil just for existing. Not just the militaries, but the nation, race, state, religion, whatever classification. With that viewpoint, any action you take can be justified. Just as nobody would think twice about killing a million mosquito larvae in a country that has thousands die from malaria, killing a few thousand of the other side is morally neutral at worst.
This is going to continue to be horrific for a while.
Journalists should never label a group of people with an adjective. It’s Journalism 101. Your writing should be free of personal bias and report the facts and quoted statements. No assumptions are allowed.
removed by mod
Alright, buddy… quit while you’re behind.
“Hamas is a terrorist organization”. Help me spot the adjective there, cowboy.
It is an adjective.
Sorry that my source did not invent the usage, the word or language itself.
deleted by creator
They have the right to call them whatever they want, that doesn’t make it correct.
Neither does your opinion
removed by mod
Lmao, you’re seriously linking to a deleted comment to try to make your case?
Laws are, by definition, a legal opinion— which can be overturned, by the way, by another legal opinion. The only fact here is that it is, is some jurisdiction, a law.
That just is not the point. I mean, if you are involved in the conflict you can totally believe in anything, but the point is in the moment you call them terrorist and call it a day you lost any possibility to analyze the situation and understand WTF is happening and why.
BBC is not saying they are NOT terrorists, but it does not matter in this context.
deleted by creator
The U.S., U.K., E.U., and others designate them as a terrorist group but the U.N. does not. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_groups
The reality is that they’re the militant faction of the de facto government of a quasi-state under Israeli occupation. It is complicated so the BBC just says who thinks they’re a terrorist group. That seems reasonable for journalists striving to be neutral.
“Everybody wants to occupy ‘the holy land’ and everyone who is taking part of that sucks”
While Israel has been basically a terrorist state, attacking Palestinians nonchalant, bombing civilian districts, and Hamas has grown in number, also basically being a terrorist state (the iron dome exists for a reason), it feels like we are forgetting that this whole argument comes down to religious rights. The argument will never end. The conflict will never end. Both groups are thumping their book claiming it’s their land. The war will go on for centuries until there’s nothing left to claim. That’s how religious war works, unless some other great motivator stops it.
The war will go on for centuries until there’s nothing left to claim
The US is older than Israel. My grandfather is older than Israel and he’s still alive. There was no state of Israel in 1920 and the Jewish population in the region was ~11%. This hasn’t been going on for centuries. It’s been going on for century.
The history of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel has its origins in the 2nd millennium BCE, when Israelites emerged as an outgrowth of southern Canaanites, During biblical times, a postulated United Kingdom of Israel existed before splitting into two Israelite kingdoms occupying the highland zone
The Crusades, the Ottoman Empire, thankfully those only lasted a century and that’s when we determined who got what.
Yes I’m sure that since they didn’t have it before, they wouldn’t try to have it again. My point is not about nations that rise and fall. It’s that they will continue to rise and fall for this holy war on what they consider to be “their land”
Are you really sure that without US intervention, and the nation of Israel starting, there wouldn’t be orthodox Jewish terrorists on the other side of the border claiming it was “their land?”
Those claiming it’s “their land” will continue to fight, until everyone is dead. That’s my point.
What list is this?
Bullshit. They’ve used the word ‘terrorist’ for every other attack in the past two decades (9/11, London Bridge, Manchester Arena, 7/7, etc.). Was that not ‘choosing sides’ then?
They just can’t admit that the UK fucked up and condemn Israel because the lawyers told them not to
Here is an article that doesn’t refer to it as “terrorism”:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-40008389
The articles I have seen that refer to it as terrorism, tend to be from local BBC services, rather than the national one.
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.
The news in Australia literally adds dramatic music to their edits. They’re disgraceful, and manipulative.
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.
Interesting. I see it every time I visit my parents nearly. Doom drama music plays. ‘Journalist’ creates drama. I recommend John Simpson’s book
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.
It could well be that. I’ll pay attention next time I’m there.
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!
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.
BBC news has a super Israel bias, … The UK will always pretend Israel can do no wrong because they created them.
I went on the BBC’s news site just now and looked at the top stories from the middle-east.
Here’s a BBC article which suggests that Egypt warned Israel days before Hamas struck, despite Netenyahu denying it:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67082047
Here’s an article which features the video diary of a (crying) Palestinian girl. “Gaza: Children screamed in the street”
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67077224
Here’s another video. Title: “Gaza: ‘I wish I could be a normal child living with no war’”
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-67058592
Does the BBC have a ‘super Israel bias’?
Or are you biased which makes you mistakenly think the BBC is ‘super’ biased in favour of Israel and claim the UK ‘will always pretend Israel can do no wrong’?
Well that’s good, perhaps the guy having a go at them had an effect. There was literally nothing about the first counterattack shelling by Israel when it happened and I thought it was very strange.
On the front page of the BBC News website right now:
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-middle-east-67074435 - Hiding at home, blinded and choked by dust - life in Gaza
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-67078664 - Israel-Gaza attacks: Humza Yousaf’s wife fears for ‘terrified’ family
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67082047 - Egypt warned Israel days before Hamas struck, US committee chairman says
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67077224 - Gaza: Children screamed in street as we fled 2am air strike
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-middle-east-67073970 - Push for lifesaving access to Gaza as Israel cuts off power and supplies
Well that’s good, perhaps the guy having a go at them had an effect. There was literally nothing about the first counterattack shelling by Israel when it happened and I thought it was very strange.
-
Well yeah, but like you say that’s more of a UK thing than a BBC thing. And in any case, the BBC refraining from calling Hamas terrorists shows that they do at least have some limits on their biases, where they do have them.
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.
removed by mod
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.
removed by mod
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.
Are you on crack or something? Do you understand how the world works?
Do you understand how the world works?
Yes I do. I just explained it to you. Is there some part of what I said that you’re struggling with?
removed by mod
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.
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
removed by mod
For most of german people at the time, yes
No. Wtf.
That is the argument I’m making. Which label was able to persist? To many conservatives they still see him as a liberator.
No fucking person that isn’t insane sees him as liberator, at least not in Germany!
Source: i am German.
Now do all the people that were in the German army and that showed up to his rallies. Go ahead… we’ll wait…
You know Donald Trump slept with Mein Kampf next to him, right? Trump loves Hitler.
It does sound wonderful.
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.
It’s spelled “Xitter” now… as in “going down the Xitter”.
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.
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?
The same thing’s happening in Canada with the CBC; bunch of people calling them out for not saying “terrorist” implying it means they’re in favour of the attacks, when CBC simply has a policy of not saying that about anyone, because it’s not their job.
This is why we need CBC and can’t let the Conservative Party of Canada destroy them.
I generally don’t like the CBC, but I personally find their international political reporting top tier due to this kind of approach.
removed by mod
Opinion and interview pieces are obviously different. I didn’t realize Trudeau worked for the cbc.
As long as they are balanced, if you only ever have opinion pieces from one opinion, your just being biased by proxy.
This can lead to being over balanced though and inviting climate deniers etc.
I have to disagree.
Best example comes to us via the BBC above, during WW2 they never called the Nazis wicked or evil, but they did not and did not need to have Nazi-apologists on air to present a “fair and balanced” view Fox-News style.
As long as you present opinion as opinion and reporting as reporting and refrain from loaded language in your reporting you’re perfectly fine. Could it be better? Yes. But while you might not have arrived at “morally good”, you have clearly left “morally bad”.
??? They call neo-nazis terrorists.
Because they unambiguously are. Nobody reasonable is debating that. We’re never going to look back and say “actually they were right”
So burning babies is ambiguous to you?
No proof, just hearsay from the IDF.
they shared photos…
Of Palestinian children in a Palestinian hospital?
blocked for making bad faith “arguments”
The lack of self awareness is almost as funny as the liberal fascist siding with the nazis.
It’s so refreshing to see real journalistic integrity once in a while. Thanks for sharing.
I mean the guy has integrity so that’s good. But the BBC and integrity are not two words that go together
Yeah, this was for the journalist, not the outlet. I agree with you on that front.
removed by mod
It’s a very one-sided genocide. It’s just plain ridiculous to equate the two sides when it was Zionists who stormed the Arab mandate in 1947, Zionists (and later, Israel) who created hundreds of thousands of refugees with millions still stuck in miserable camps on the borders, Israel who has kept Palestinians under brutal occupation and blockade since 1967, and Israel who bombs densely populated cities with fighter jets while the brand new Hamas air force is using hang-gliders powered by fans.
It’s such a difficult thing to explain to people whose primary exposure to the conflict is through the Western media but these accounts, by two Palestinian and Israeli non-violent activists, are well worth a read. Unfortunately I can’t find the original transcripts so it’s a google books extract and is missing some of George’s testimony.
My man colonialism created India and Pakistan but if Pakistan started slaughtering Indian civilians that would still be Pakistan’s responsibility.
You seem to have replied to the wrong comment. Or Lemmy is fucking up the indexing.
Either is possible.
It’s not a suffering Olympics. Yes, the history is tumultuous, and yes, the State of Israel has more than likely caused way more suffering to Palestinians than Hamas has to Israelis. But that’s besides the point. The point is, civilians on both sides are now paying the price. No one wants to get shot at or bombed, and support for either side’s civilian population is NOT tacit support of the militants of the opposite side.
This is hardcore and I respect the shit out of it
No, it’s announcing their cowardice. They use ‘terrorist’ for any other non-Israel/Palestine attack (9/11, London Bridge, 7/7, etc) so the entire argument is invalid.
The lawyers told them not to because everyone’s scared of being called anti-semitic, that’s all
I approve of it. Terrorist is a loaded term designed to draw an emotional response from the reader. Every nation could be called a terrorist organization. Any rebellion could be called terrorists. It’s not a useful term. It’s especially not useful in this case because the number killed by Israel is so much higher than Hamas.
Terrorist is generally just a term used to describe those without power using the tools of their oppressor against them. Fear and violence are only “allowed” to be used if you’re the one with power, for whatever reason. It’s stupid.
Domestic attacks and attacks against allies will be called terrorist attacks obviously, because they see value in supporting the status quo.
Well sure, I agree. But the BBC isn’t taking the moral high ground here. They have previously and will again use the word ‘terrorist’ to evoke an emotional response for international attacks.
It’s a decision that senior lawyers are criticising - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/10/11/bbc-not-calling-hamas-terrorists-ofcom-top-lawyers/
Interestingly, on their Bitsize page, they describe the Palestinian Liberation Front as a terrorist group, which is true. The mere fact that they have a page on ‘terrorism’ indicates that they don’t take a moral position against the word, just against calling Israel (and Israeli factions/allies) terrorists - https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zy7nqhv/revision/1
The lawyers told them not to because everyone’s scared of being called anti-semitic, that’s all
Honest question, how would labelling the Hamas as terrorists get them to be called anti-semitic?
Anti-semitic, as far as I know, means “against Jews” both in academics and colloquially. Hamas aren’t Jews.
Maybe you meant something like islamophobe instead?
deleted by creator
I don’t think you need to call hamas what they are, a far right fundamentalist extremist terrorist organisation. Their actions speak for themselves.
What they mean as that they could also say Israel is a terrorist state. That’s what some people think. And some people, specially those who have friends or family who have been killed in Palestina, might say that Hamas are defending their people and are not terrorists.
But you and me, citizens without voice, can call them terrorists (that’s what they are) but doing so we are somehow chosing a band in a conflict.I’m not sure I’d call Israel a terrorist state, but absolutely an apartheid state.
If you live in Gaza, you really don’t have a lot to lose by attacking Israeli non-combatants, because you have no hope, and the Israeli gov’t keeps going farther and farther to the right. Gaza looks a lot like the Warsaw ghettos prior to rounding all the Jews up and murdering them. The uprisings in the Warsaw ghetto were punished with the same kind of wildly disproportionate force as we’re already seeing Israel use against Gaza.
Hamas and Palestinian militants were, and are, wrong to target and murder non-combatants. And, at the same time, Israel has been doing exactly the same fucking thing for 20-odd years now; from 2008 through 2020, more than 120,000 Palestinians–mostly non-combatants–were wounded or killed by the Israeli military. In that same time period, 6,000 Israelis were wounded or killed by Palestinian militants.
Israel can not claim to be a democracy, because they refuse to give Palestinians a voice in government at all.
As an aside, the parallels between how Israel has treated Palestinians, and how the US has treated Native Americans is uncomfortable.
As an aside, the parallels between how Israel has treated Palestinians, and how the US has treated Native Americans is uncomfortable.
Which is even more ironic when you realise that that’s exactly where a certain mustachioed German dictator got his ideas from.
IIRC, Hitler originally wanted to ship all the Jews out. Except that no one else wanted them either. Extermination became the “logical” conclusion.
I’m not sure I’d call Israel a terrorist state, but absolutely an apartheid state. […] Israel can not claim to be a democracy, because they refuse to give Palestinians a voice in government at all.
There are two million Arab citizens of Israel, the vast majority of whom are Muslim. They vote. There are Arab Muslims in the Knesset.
This is a somewhat different situation from that of blacks in apartheid South Africa, who were denied civil rights on the basis of their race and ancestry.
I’m not saying Israeli society treats Arab Israeli citizens fairly or that there isn’t social discrimination. I haven’t been there; and from all reports there certainly is. But I think you’re exaggerating … or else understating how bad “actual” (South African) apartheid was.
“Arab citizens of Israel” =/= Palestinians.
Given that Israelis can, and do, burn out Palestinians in the occupied areas in order to seize their land, and Israeli authorities do nothing, and even help the arsonists, I don’t think that I’m overstating that. Moreover, the Arab voices in the Knesset are a minuscule minority; I think it’s something like a total of 5 seats, while Likud and their far-right allies have 63 seats.
While I get what you mean, I don’t think it should automatically mean (even a lot of people think it does) that you can either say Hamas is a terrorist group or Israel is a terrorist state.
In my own view both are terrorist, both commit atrocities and the result of that are innocent lives lost from both sides.
I despise centrism so saying that hurts a little bit on the inside, but this is one of the rare cases where fighting at all is meaningless and both sides that are fighting (and commiting atrocities) are in the fault.
Based
John Simpson is a legend. His book, A Mad World, My Masters, is exceptional reading.
The guy has been reporting since before many of us were even born. If you can catch his show on the BBC it’s a great antidote to the sensationalized, biased reporting that passes for journalism these days.
Commendable to resist such pressure and remain as objective as possible
deleted by creator
Manchester was a terror attack.
Under international law the Palestinians have a right to resist the occupation. That their tactics are not always in accordance with international law is a point you can make only if you recognise that Israel violates these laws far more frequently, and far more brutally, causing far more deaths and an indescribable amount of misery for millions, every day.
The BBC will never describe Israel as a terrorist state and so they are quite correct not to label Palestinian resistance as terrorism.
deleted by creator
You need to work on your reading comprehension. Very weak.
I think one key difference is that Israel has compulsory service for everyone. Like if in the 1770s the Torrey soldiers on leave held a music festival and they all got gunned down, I’m fairly certain the history books would not change substantially. It’s abhorrent, but if you were in the same situation - occupation by some analogous group to wherever you live who have overwhelming military superiority - would you give up your Identity and assimilate, or try to make them hurt? I’m absolutely NOT saying Palestinians are the good guys, I’m just saying I understand where they’re coming from.
It could be an interesting thing to go through various incidents and look, it might boil down to if the parties involved both hold territory?
And be sure to follow them on the fediverse: @BBC_News_Labs@social.bbc
Is it possible to follow a mastodon account on lemmy?
Not presently, see discussion here.
So, basically: people performed atrocities. Are they evil? Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t, the BBC has no idea whether it is evil to perform atrocities. Right.
So basically, you can’t read above a 2nd grade level.
BBC is saying they report the facts and let people make their own judgements. I know this might be hard for your biased mind to understand, but the word ‘terrorist’ has been thrown around so much it’s practically meaningless. Heck, even when it should be applied (American terrorists shooting substations), it isn’t. It’s a political term at this point, nothing more.
You’re trying to advocate for news outlets to tell us how to think instead of showing us information, which is shitty journalism for idiots.
deleted by creator
I can tell you completely ignored my 2nd paragraph.
Either that, or you’re not capable of comprehending it.
Either way, have a nice day.
Gonna block you now.
They are saying they do not use language that makes judgement, because that is not what they do. They are a neutral reporter of what is happening in the world (ie the news).
Everyone laments that “news” has been overrun by opinion journalism that tries to influence left or right. This is what “just news” looks like.
No, they will report on the attrocities committed. Is it important for you for the BBC to tell you whether the attrocities are evil or not?
I still can’t understand why naming Hamas a terrorist group goes against their “present only the facts” view. It’s the same group that raped and killed civilians just six days ago. They posted videos of their horrid raid on the internet and plan to stream hostage executions. These are facts, it is not subjective. Isn’t this the plain definition of terrorism? Why is BBC reluctant to brand a group that performs acts of terror as terrorists? This goes for how they treated IRA stories as well. I really can’t see how this adheres to good journalism principles, unlike many people here seem to be praising. It just seems to me a weird hill to die on.
deleted by creator
Got a link or a citation?
I’m almost certain I remember there being more “”“both sides are valid/we’re just being informative”“” articles about trans people more recently, but here’s an example of one from a couple years ago that was so controversial it got its own Wikipedia article: “We’re being pressured into sex by some trans women”
You claim the BBC are “suggesting that trans people are deviants who are going to ruin the moral fabric of society”, yet this is the best example you can find? Such bold claims require proof, are you sure you’re almost certain you remember the articles, or could you have read a comment parroting this narrative with no actual proof?
That article has been edited multiple times due to an influx of complaints. A fuller timeline can be found documented in videos here: https://youtu.be/b4buJMMiwcg
The original article is based on poor premises, elevates the voices of explicitly hateful people, mislead the reader to a false conclusion that trans women are coercing lesbians into sex, platformed a known sexual-assaulter who called for the execution of all trans women. And finally the BBC also just straight up lied about if they interviewed trans people for the article.
It’s genuinely a terrible piece of journalism that the BBC should be utterly ashamed of.
From the wiki:
…On 31 May 2022, the BBC released rulings from the Head of the Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) that stated that the article was a “legitimate piece of journalism overall” but that it had breached the BBC’s standards of accuracy in two ways. Firstly, the headline “gave the misleading impression that the focus of the article would be on pressure applied by trans women” when the actual article focused to an equal degree on “internalised pressure experienced by some lesbians as a result of a climate of opinion … within the LGBT community”.[5] As a result, the title of the article was changed to “The lesbians who feel pressured to have sex and relationships with trans women”.[7] Secondly, the head of the ECU found that the coverage of the Get the L Out survey “did not make sufficiently clear that it lacked statistical validity”. The wording of the article surrounding the survey was subsequently altered.
I’m aware of the history of the article. The original article was significantly worse, as my comment stated.
But even above that, the article still should not have seen the light of day. It was based on a terrible premise to start with. A similar article would not have been written about other marginalised groups, and if it had it would have rightly been lambasted as absurdly bigoted. The BBC does not write articles like “do people of X race commit crimes?!”
And the fact that the BBC found Lily Cade to be a worthy contributor, even after they were informed of her history of sexual assault, raises so many red flags.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/b4buJMMiwcg
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I literally replied to two other comments with an example. I’ve deleted the original post because I’m starting to get nasty DMs and I’m really not interested in continuing this now. Here’s the link if you want it, unless you’re just here to be a shithead, in which case fuck off: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/“We’re_being_pressured_into_sex_by_some_trans_women”
I’ve asked for examples of these articles, and nobody has ever been able to produce them.
Part of the problem is that when you have a significant number of news sites fueling anti-trans hate, either directly or indirectly, it all starts to blend together. Nevertheless, here’s an example from a couple years ago, though I’m almost certain I’ve seen similar articles more recently.
It was an article that implied that trans women were coercing sex from lesbians.
Now the article was based on a poor premise to start with, “Do some \ do ?” is almost always going to be “yes” because there are bad people in basically every demographic. That doesn’t mean we go around writing fearmongering articles about those groups. But it gets far, far worse.
The article was based on a survey of 88 women from a group called “Get the L out”, whose entire purpose is trans exclusion. So heavily sampling bias to start, to say the least. The group, and the survey, also considered things like saying that trans women are women or can be lesbians to count as “being coerced into having sex with trans women”, because implying that trans women are women means that they can be lesbians means that they are within the broader dating pool of lesbians, and to them that amounts to coercing lesbians to date men. Which is obviously absurd and not what a normal person would think of when hearing “coerce into sex”. So the survey was deeply misleading and not at all what the headline implied.
The second main contributor to the article was adult actress Lily Cade. Who has admitted to sexually assaulting multiple women. Which makes her an odd choice for an article about sexual assault, don’t you think? These assaults were known long before the article was written, and came up with a Google search. Odd that it slipped through the BBC’s rigorous editorial process. Cade also went on a rant a few days after the article was published, where she called for all trans women to be executed, and called for several named trans women to be lynched. The BBC cut her contribution with a vague message not explaining why.
The BBC also claimed to have reached out to prominent trans women who speak about sex, and claimed that nobody agreed to speak with them. Which was proven to be a lie when Chelsea Poe, a high-profile trans woman who speaks about sex and relationships, revealed that she had in fact been interviewed.
Genuinely one of the most disgustingly biased pieces of “journalism” I’ve ever seen.
