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.

  • 📛Maven
    link
    English
    908 months ago

    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.

    • @Wilibus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      178 months ago

      I generally don’t like the CBC, but I personally find their international political reporting top tier due to this kind of approach.

      • Shadow
        link
        fedilink
        English
        208 months ago

        Opinion and interview pieces are obviously different. I didn’t realize Trudeau worked for the cbc.

        • @Nighed@sffa.communityOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          5
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          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.

          • Enkrod
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            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”.