Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Over the past fortnight BBC News has led (or had very early on) in ther 10 O'Clock news with articles about the effect social media is having on teen suicides and self harming and last night, in the disseminartion of 'fake news'
Amol Rajan (he of the brown suit, orange tie and judge, jury and executioner demeanour) has been using the tragic suicide of teenager Molly Russell to berate Instagram and Facebook for showing pictures of self-harm and providing easy access to sites showing such material.
Suicide is a complex act, and certainly deserving a more thorough exposition than that afforded by Rajan. Instead, he provides an uncritcal platform to the parents of Ms Russell, who blame social media sites for the death of their daughter. It's morally questionable whether relatives in such a situation should be interviewed but when this occurs with such frequency on the BBC's fagship news programme, I'm wondering what the real agenda here is?
Could it be that the BBC are keen to dish a bit of dirt out to (social media outlets) where people are increasingly turning for 'the truth'?
Could this be laying a false trail to other media sites to draw attention away from the BBC's increasingly questionable attitude to news reporting both in the bias shown in this coverage and the events they choose to cover and, more importantly, choose not to cover, in a (I would say, vain) attempt to promote the assertion that their output is unfailingly trustworthy?
Certainly when the smug Rajan started accusing Instagram and Facebook of delivering 'Fake News' (as was the case on the 10 O'clock news last night) my bullsh1t detector needles started going into the red.
Question everything!
Amol Rajan (he of the brown suit, orange tie and judge, jury and executioner demeanour) has been using the tragic suicide of teenager Molly Russell to berate Instagram and Facebook for showing pictures of self-harm and providing easy access to sites showing such material.
Suicide is a complex act, and certainly deserving a more thorough exposition than that afforded by Rajan. Instead, he provides an uncritcal platform to the parents of Ms Russell, who blame social media sites for the death of their daughter. It's morally questionable whether relatives in such a situation should be interviewed but when this occurs with such frequency on the BBC's fagship news programme, I'm wondering what the real agenda here is?
Could it be that the BBC are keen to dish a bit of dirt out to (social media outlets) where people are increasingly turning for 'the truth'?
Could this be laying a false trail to other media sites to draw attention away from the BBC's increasingly questionable attitude to news reporting both in the bias shown in this coverage and the events they choose to cover and, more importantly, choose not to cover, in a (I would say, vain) attempt to promote the assertion that their output is unfailingly trustworthy?
Certainly when the smug Rajan started accusing Instagram and Facebook of delivering 'Fake News' (as was the case on the 10 O'clock news last night) my bullsh1t detector needles started going into the red.
Question everything!
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 76
|
By:
'Flagship'
Freudian slip! |
|
By:
Hanx - who on social media or online in general would you trust to give you impartial and "true" news?
|
|
By:
Personally I would take a sift from all social media platforms (including this very repository of intellect!)
Discard the way-to-vocal nutters from eiter end of the political spectrum / Brexit divide and the no-platform, ghetto-area mentalists and you can still come across some interesting views and events / situations that I would think are 'news' even if they're ignored by the MSM. Whilst the BBC can alert one to breaking stories and give a general feel as to what's happening out there, their assertion (on their website) as to 'why you can trust the BBC' is risible in the extreme to anyone with an enquiring (okay, cynical) mind. |
|
By:
I liked their vox pop this morning on the ISIS girl BBC News website.
They asked the opinion of four ASIAN WOMEN in BETHNAL GREEN. FFS |
|
By:
Don’t think the op is making much sense , the BBC are right on some things and wrong on some things
I think they are right on this |
|
By:
Jack, you couldn't make it up
 |
|
By:
Should of asked the kwik fit fitters.
|
|
By:
Or the man from del monte.
|
|
By:
They are apparently going to cut 10 minutes of the 10 o clock news so they can fit some sh1t "yoof programs" in.
(this from the people who pay themselves ridiculous salaries but cut bbc3, they youth channel). It'll be interesting, they'll have to condense their anti Brexit, anti Trump, and "showbiz diversity" stories into shorter forms. Or just cut everything else out apart from that, which are after all the 3 main pillars of the BBC news in 2019. |
|
By:
Hope they get bought out soon by the russians today channel.
|
|
By:
The Day Today was a better news provider than the BBC in 2019.
|
|
By:
Should certainly bring Partridge back.
|
|
By:
He's on ITV now though, does the racing.
|
|
By:
Self-harm and suicide don't begin with viewing stuff on the internet. That's further down the line. The origins are found closer to home. It's easier for parents to blame others rather than look at the home life they created and the signs they ignored/failed to see.
|
|
By:
I can't say how I would react if my kid killed herself. I'd probably want to blame something or somebody and that's a natural reaction.
My point was, why is the BBC allowing grief stricken parents to be exploited like this and to uncritically blame social media sites who are then, Chinese execution style, bought before the cameras to wring their hands in front of another news provider who (metaphorically) grins in triumph? I mean, we haven't even established if social media is an editorial platform or merely a conduit (like the telephone) for the dissemination of information, yet this 'mock trial' approach to news is aired time and time again, witht he BBC and their questionable attitude to the truth never put in the dock. |
|
By:
Hanx I find your posts difficult to understand.
What I think you're saying is that it's ok for Instagram and Facebook to allow posts of self-harm and suicide tips and that the BBC are wrong to condemn this. Any platform that allows the promotion of self-harm and suicide is wrong. It's not a complex thing it's quite simple. I think you just want to have a go at the BBC not address the issues. |
|
By:
Any platform that allows the promotion of self-harm and suicide is wrong.
Even suicidebombersofpeace.org? |
|
By:
Especially suicidebombersofpeace.org.
|
|
By:
I think hanx is trying to interpret their approach deeper than the superficial aspect Charlie.
|
|
By:
As in?
|
|
By:
Spot on Hanx - the BBC "tech is bad" agenda is transparent and self-serving. Not only because the BBC are far behind the curve in SM and are losing ground in news but also because, more and more, the state broadcaster bends to a "Govt in the national interest" narrative. Then a free social media becomes a problem. Be careful what you wish for in respect of "managing the internet."
|
|
By:
BBC will be livid when Zuckerburg succeeds the Donald.
|
|
By:
Fck me I must have lost touch with the English language as no one seems to talk in words I can understand.
I'll try and be as clear as I can ub: do you think any platform should promote self-harm and suicide? |
|
By:
No.
|
|
By:
Unless there's a fast buck in it.
|
|
By:
Fck me I must have lost touch with the English language as no one seems to talk in words I can understand.
I'll try and be as clear as I can ub: do you think any platform should promote self-harm and suicide? Promote? Host? Discuss? My point is why is the BBC repeatedly giving such superficial, sensationalist coverage to this subject if it isn't to go ' social media bad - BBC good'? Their narrative moved on last night to how social media dissemenates fake news (they never did define what this was, just as they throw around terms like 'left-wing', right-wig, cliff edge' etc) without a shred of irony in howm for example they control their news agenda along strictly defined lines How many Gilet Jaunes are going to be injured tonight by the French State's use of rubber bullets and worse? Bet you won't find THAT out on the BBC. |
|
By:
For all the BBC's faults I must say I've yet to see them promoting self-suicide.
|
|
By:
My point is why is the BBC repeatedly giving such superficial, sensationalist coverage to this subject if it isn't to go ' social media bad - BBC good'?
How about because self-harm is bad as is suicide? Do you have an answer to that? |
|
By:
I'll try and be as clear as I can ub: do you think any platform should promote self-harm and suicide?
Post a link, Charlie. |
|
By:
Read the OP.
|
|
By:
I read the OP Charlie, where is your link to the site on the internet that promotes self-harm and suicide?
|
|
By:
I don't have one. I was replying to the OP. What do you think he meant?
|
|
By:
I think he meant - BBC "tech is bad" agenda is transparent and self-serving. Not only because the BBC are far behind the curve in SM and are losing ground in news but also because, more and more, the state broadcaster bends to a "Govt in the national interest" narrative. Then a free social media becomes a problem. Be careful what you wish for in respect of "managing the internet."
More importantly Charlie, what axe are you grinding? |
|
By:
Warranty expired on his BBC micro.
|
|
By:
I would agree with the op.
The BBC clearly have an agenda and report things that support their agenda or in a way that supports their agenda. If people go on other media sites including social media sites. People will get a different view. I think this very important, it protects free speech. In the final analysis people will make their own decision or choose what they want to believe. Self harming is slightly different, sadly people want to end their lives and ask for advice on the Internet. But I think the majority of social media sites tend to block these posts. |
|
By:
ebul I think you are one of these rare people who thinks it is possible to be sitting and standing at the same time ?
|
|
By:
Do you think that everything the BBC reports is true lfc1971?
|
|
By:
I've fact-checked Newport 1 Citeh 4
|
|
By:
I won't dispute that then mouse..it was rather difficult to see Newport doing much better tbh
|