212
David Cameron urges BBC to describe Hamas as terrorist organisation
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 May 2024
212 points (94.2% liked)
World News
39376 readers
1935 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Because the BBC is not the PR arm of the British government. It is supposed to be an independent and impartial entity.
brit living in America. It is astonishing the difference between news feeds
the BBC waivers and has its faults and biases, but even biases I loosely agree with are so partisan in the US it makes me feel a bit unwell.
It's the official stance of the country from their own government, by extension the british people. Are you saying that's not what the BBC represents?
No. The BBC does not represent the official stance of the country and never has. It is an independent journalistic body.
Of course they do. The aren't allowed to print anything they want. Public service is governed by state. Well at least in Sweden but the principle is the same.
They are, in fact, allowed to print anything they want. They are not beholden to the government. That's a simple fact.
No dude, they are regulated by the Ofcon, a government approved state department and their prints are regulated by Ofcon statures:
https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/regulation
And if you know your history, you also know that the BBC was heavily censored during the war. And that's about it.
I'm not sure how you think that changes anything that I said and makes them beholden to the government, but okay.
I'd think the fact that they aren't doing what David Cameron wants them to do proves you wrong, but you seem to think your "research" trumps reality, so...
Well, the BBC is clearly regulated by the government, while you claim that is not the case due to 'simple facts'...
The simple fact being that David Cameron told them to call Hamas terrorists and they said no. Read the article. If they are beholden to the government, how is that possible?
Hm, well see, that's not what you referred the 'simple fact' to be is it?
Again- if that is not a fact, why are they allowed to go against what David Cameron is telling them to do?
Because David Cameron cannot personally dictate the state...
One thing I've learnt in life is the value of accepting when I'm in the wrong.
So... you're saying that the BBC must be beholden to the state in terms of messaging, but a senior cabinet member does not? That's really your argument?
No for gods sake, I never said that. Is it truly so horrific to simply admit to be in the fault?
Yes, I get very much that you want me to say that I'm wrong in order to validate your ego, but I'm not especially interested in continuing this conversation while you continually insist I say so.
And if I moderated my own conversations, which I do not, you would be taking a break for harassing someone.
No. They’re saying the BBC is not the government’s mouthpiece. It is an impartial public broadcaster. The same BBC that has reported on both IRA bombings and Sinn Féin elections. If you understand that last sentence you may realise why the BBC speaks as it does.
BBC is regulated by the government in the form of Ofcom according to:
https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/regulation
Ofcom is a “government approved regulator” as opposed to the “government regulating approval.“ There is a difference. It’s a .org not .gov domain.
They regulate the BBC that's all you need to focus on.
Ofcom regulates EVERY television broadcaster, every radio broadcaster, all the phone providers, all the broadband providers, the postal providers and the wireless providers in the UK. That’s a lot more companies than just the BBC. That is what I’ll be focusing on; rather than your suggestion. Thanks all the same.
Yeah, so the BBC is government regulated....
Wow. Believe whatever you want - don’t let facts get in the way of your opinions. You are so colossally misunderstanding what the phrase “government approved regulator” means. Thanks for the laugh.
They're regulated, you for some reason don't belevie they are, that's it, not sure what else to add.
I’m not questioning that they’re regulated and never have - you absolute ham sandwich. I’m correcting you in your mistaken belief that the regulator is the government. Ofcom is not the government - regardless of what you want to believe. It doesn’t matter how loud you shout - you’re wrong when you say the BBC is regulated by the government. It is regulated by Ofcom. Please do some research.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofcom?wprov=sfla1
First fucking words of the article.
Lmao ffs dude. The only reason I keep going is to see where this will take us. You cannot have this fragile an ego...
You definitely need to work on your reading comprehension… but try the bit further down your quoted article where it says that Ofcom is a “statutory corporation”. And then read the article on that phrase. Still convinced Transport For London is a government agency? Hell, with your (incorrect) argument that would make the actual BBC a government agency as it itself is a statutory corporation. So why would the government need Ofcom? Hmmmm
It says it a government agency on the wikipedia page, in the summary no less! Are you really this petty, my god dude!
To quote your own source again: “…government-approved regulatory and competition authority…” If you think that is synonymous with being a part of the UK government then that is on you and no amount of help will change that. On a side note - are you interested in replacing Ofcom with an industry approved regulator instead?
Your ego really don't allow you to be wrong once?
The irony of that comment has really tickled me. Thanks internet stranger. Best of luck to you for the future. Good bye. 👋
The Office of Communications, commonly known as Ofcom, is the government-approved regulatory and competition authority for the broadcasting… looks like it says government-approved to me. That’s different to being a part of the government.