“Stood around” is still neutral wording versus what they actually did, which was watch a human being bleed to death slowly and painfully.
Huh the bloke stops the BBC publishing stories like this must be on holiday again.
People complain about the BBC but I would still take them over any US billionaire owned propaganda.
In general I don’t notice a large difference between US billionaire rags and the BBC.
Headlines like there are once in a blue moon. Rags like NYT will also occasionally do actual journalism such as with the flour massacre.
Why is that the only alternative when we have phenomenal independent journalism at Democracy Now, Drop Site News, ect
Sadly torries and labour both working to change BBC to be more like other media news networks
Similar situation for the CBC in Canada.
Probably easier to list where it isn’t happening. Wonder how long until one of them gets a stealth catamaran to start wars like in Tomorrow Never Dies https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0120347/
They’re certainly better in certain regards but still imperfect. As the post says, it’s rare that the BBC, which strives for a misguided notion of “total” neutrality, to make such a specific headline in regards to the conflict. In the past, it would’ve been something like 'Boy killed in West Back/Gaza Strip." I remember saying this on another post sometime ago but the BBC tries to be neutral in such a way that their reporting lacks any substance and ends up, de facto, supporting the status quo in the end. It goes something like this: Thing Happened > Here’s what known about thing that happened > People are calling thing that happened a tragedy > On to next thing.
BBC does not use “neutral” language. In general they only use that for Israel. When Russia or Hamas does something BBC digs up all the adjectives. This post is a rare exception.
Strangely enough, they’re not very popular with the pro-Zionist
criminalscrowd. When news broke out that Hamas’s then leader, Yahya Sinwar, was killed, I saw tons of comments under the comment sections of the BBC’s (and other mainstream outlets) Youtube videos saying something along lines of “I’m sorry to hear about your loss, BBC.” Thinking about now, it was mostly likely a Zionist bot network.Those are bots. Zionist tactic #1 is call everything slightly critical of Israel “Hamas”. This way the enlightened centrists will say that both sides are not happy and therefore BBC is “neutral”.
A great example of BBC censorship is the BBC censoring "free Palestine’ from a speech at the Bafta’s recently. While leaving in someone saying the n-word.
If all the comments say the same thing or similar things, it’s likely crowdsourced through Riseapp/Act.il
Peter Mandelson in the clink for all of five minutes and this happens.
don’t worry, he won’t be in there for very long. lol
People on Lemmy complain the BBC is too right wing, the right wingers I know complain it’s too left wing. Maybe it actually is doing something right at being ‘central’.
The news is right, the comedy is left
“Being a bit pro-genocide is good because it pisses off the lefties”
Compared to what, The Telegraph?
it’s defining the boundaries between right and left for you to make sure that you only look at it from that perspective.
if you use a class perspective, you would see that they’re doing whatever makes them profit and part of that is making sure that they have your attention.
I’m all for bashing the BBC, but profit? They’re publicly funded
not entirely and not for long.
What’s this a reference to? Is the BBC allowed to take outside funding?
The enlightened centrist position of manufacturing consent for the genocide of trans people and other fascist policy
Its very much not. Think about it in terms of class, not political ideology. The BBC, and every other mass media platform, is for the elite. Sometimes the elite like policies the left likes because it makes them money. Sometimes the elite like policies the right like because it makes them money. It will NEVER be for the other 95% of the populace
I don’t see it as a left vs right bias, it’s a pro-establishment one which does tend to benefit the right more often.
