Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
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!
Show More
Hanx - who on social media or online in general would you trust to give you impartial and "true" news?
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.
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.
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
They asked the opinion of four ASIAN WOMEN in BETHNAL GREEN. FFS
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
I think they are right on this
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.
(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.
Hope they get bought out soon by the russians today channel.
The Day Today was a better news provider than the BBC in 2019.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Any platform that allows the promotion of self-harm and suicide is wrong.
Even suicidebombersofpeace.org?
Even suicidebombersofpeace.org?
I think hanx is trying to interpret their approach deeper than the superficial aspect Charlie.
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."
BBC will be livid when Zuckerburg succeeds the Donald.
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?
I'll try and be as clear as I can ub: do you think any platform should promote self-harm and suicide?
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.
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.
For all the BBC's faults I must say I've yet to see them promoting self-suicide.
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?
How about because self-harm is bad as is suicide? Do you have an answer to that?
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.
Post a link, Charlie.
I read the OP Charlie, where is your link to the site on the internet that promotes self-harm and suicide?
I don't have one. I was replying to the OP. What do you think he meant?
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?
More importantly Charlie, what axe are you grinding?
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.
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.
ebul I think you are one of these rare people who thinks it is possible to be sitting and standing at the same time ?
Do you think that everything the BBC reports is true lfc1971?
I won't dispute that then mouse..it was rather difficult to see Newport doing much better tbh
I've had me fact-check team beavering away all nite. Can confirm the BBC was also correct wiv Brighton 2 Derby 1
I watched that one live….so I can't dispute that one either mouse
You are not being very fair here
You are not being very fair here
Well OK those were the easy ones. But stand by because the fact-check team will be reporting back in the next 48 hours weather Donald has made America grate again.
I'm not sure you can 'promote' self-harming, just like the Clause 28 legislation banning the promotion of homosexuality. You have an existing pre-disposition which makes you go search (I imagine) and then you've opened Pandora's Box. Even if one could agree on a definition of 'promoting' it's not the BBC's job to give such superficial, accusatory and repeated coverage to a complex subject - unless they have an agenda of their own.
I don't hate the BBC BTW. They could be one of the unifying entities of our nation at a time when we're more split along any number of lines then we've ever been. However, their news coverage is more actively hostile than, say, The Guardian, Mail, Fox News or Channel Four. You know what you're getting there and the spin they're going to put on things and you go there to pander to your prejudices.
The BBC's news coverage is way more insidious, subliminal and therefore way more dangerous, especially when it keeps insisting on how you can trust their journalists and journalism.
I think the very fct we've had this discussion in this little cul-de-sac of the Internet shows a deeper degree of interest in the issue of self-harm and fake news and its coverage than the BBC have given it, repeatedly, these last few weeks
I don't hate the BBC BTW. They could be one of the unifying entities of our nation at a time when we're more split along any number of lines then we've ever been. However, their news coverage is more actively hostile than, say, The Guardian, Mail, Fox News or Channel Four. You know what you're getting there and the spin they're going to put on things and you go there to pander to your prejudices.
The BBC's news coverage is way more insidious, subliminal and therefore way more dangerous, especially when it keeps insisting on how you can trust their journalists and journalism.
I think the very fct we've had this discussion in this little cul-de-sac of the Internet shows a deeper degree of interest in the issue of self-harm and fake news and its coverage than the BBC have given it, repeatedly, these last few weeks
As Hanx says, as social media reports the things that the BBC avoids putting in their news programmes, people don't trust the BBC to tell them the news.
The BBC's response is to try and demonise social media. Which I can tell them isn't going to work.
The genie is out of the bottle and there's no going back. The BBC have squandered whatever trust the public had in them of fair reporting.
So now the BBC are no more than ''on a par'' with other news sources.
As Trump put it ''here's another beauty'' when he was referring to the BBC.
The BBC's response is to try and demonise social media. Which I can tell them isn't going to work.
The genie is out of the bottle and there's no going back. The BBC have squandered whatever trust the public had in them of fair reporting.
So now the BBC are no more than ''on a par'' with other news sources.
As Trump put it ''here's another beauty'' when he was referring to the BBC.
Spot on, Dr Crippen.
Scary convergence of purpose between authoritarian Govt and state-broadcaster. "Tech is bad."
Be wary about talk of "managing the internet."
Scary convergence of purpose between authoritarian Govt and state-broadcaster. "Tech is bad."
Be wary about talk of "managing the internet."
At it again today.
John Pienaar talking about TIG as being moderate centrists.
Are they?
Clearly the BBC diktat has been to wholeheartedly accept this description, notwithstanding their one, sole, uniting policy appears to be the overthrow of the referendum result and the return of Britain to the EU. Sounds very far from moderate and to many, anti-democratic.
Now whether you are a Leaver or Remainer at heart, this cavalier use of language and lazy acceptance of a questionable consensus by our leading mass-media outlet should give you cause for concern.
John Pienaar talking about TIG as being moderate centrists.
Are they?
Clearly the BBC diktat has been to wholeheartedly accept this description, notwithstanding their one, sole, uniting policy appears to be the overthrow of the referendum result and the return of Britain to the EU. Sounds very far from moderate and to many, anti-democratic.
Now whether you are a Leaver or Remainer at heart, this cavalier use of language and lazy acceptance of a questionable consensus by our leading mass-media outlet should give you cause for concern.
The BBC have been like that for decades long before social media
The two things are not connected
The two things are not connected
TIG - of course they're moderate centrists. It's a group of Blairite ex-Labour and Remain tories. You may be desperate to take offence at the term but really it's pretty damn accurate.
I would trust the internet, especially forums
rather than the BBC or our governments, because the BBC and Governments have an agenda to persuade us how to think.
People just stick up what they feel on forums...it shows how people really feel
and nobody has to agree if they do not want to
rather than the BBC or our governments, because the BBC and Governments have an agenda to persuade us how to think.
People just stick up what they feel on forums...it shows how people really feel
and nobody has to agree if they do not want to
I suspect the fact-checking on here may be somewhat lacking in rigidity.
BBC "balance" has been gamed by Iain Duncan Smith and the ERG, who talk of a "war of the airwaves." They insist on the perspective of a flat-earther getting equal time with that of an astronaut.
May be, but I do think everything the Government or BBC says is true either mouse
I may have posted that before????
People should make their own decisions and try to think for themselves
Explore the internet, check for yourself, see opposing views, it is what humans have a brain for
I may have posted that before????
People should make their own decisions and try to think for themselves
Explore the internet, check for yourself, see opposing views, it is what humans have a brain for
mouse muldoon
20 Feb 19 22:43
Joined: 05 Jun 03 | Topic/replies: 17,723 | Blogger: mouse muldoon's blog
Regy's a lovely fella though.
I agree with that mouse
and you are no bad yourself
20 Feb 19 22:43
Joined: 05 Jun 03 | Topic/replies: 17,723 | Blogger: mouse muldoon's blog
Regy's a lovely fella though.
I agree with that mouse
and you are no bad yourself
But shock horror tactics are the order of the day on here and the standard response is to register ones disgust without checking facts or considering a balanced view.
This developing bromance might shock a few who's grooming who?
Well nothing happens as a result of what of what is said on here tbh mouse
Some people just like to get their anger out on here, it is understandable
Some people just like to get their anger out on here, it is understandable
As long as you two are just getting your angers out
I don't have angers or other such issues to deal with, being neither sunni nor shia nor catholic.
I do not groom people Denzil
We all like some posters better than others, especially if they agree with us
and of course we are all anonymous
We all like some posters better than others, especially if they agree with us
and of course we are all anonymous
Was expecting some humerous quips looks like it's a serious one today
I've done a few humerous, maybe not my best day, no mart to bounce off.
apologies Denzil
No problem bad timing easy on here it was of course my fault initially,p.s not trying for a threeway 
I'm planning to poast a broad selection of humer tomorrow.
Meanwhile, a selection from 1993
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmUZ6nCFNoU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmUZ6nCFNoU
Feb 21, 2019 -- 12:03AM, mouse muldoon wrote:
I'm planning to poast a broad selection of humer tomorrow.
At last !
It could happen, but I need to get Dr Cretin on bored first.
Slippery customer, you will need to dart him/her first !
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539