1
"The BBC is not a credible news source" ~dessalines, .ml admin, head Lemmy dev (media.piefed.world)
submitted 2 weeks ago by cm0002@piefed.world to c/meanwhileongrad@sh.itjust.works
42 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Join the lemmy.ml boycott today and help foster a better Lemmy-verse! No more posts, comments (except to counter their propaganda ofc!) or upvotes on any comms on the Lemmy.ml instance!

And consider donating to individual instances instead.

Check the megathread for more!

top 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 weeks ago

Dessaline did not understand the difference between "credible" and "biased". Which is why he often confused between the two.

[-] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

BBC is not credible nor unbiased.

[-] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Biased? Yes. They're singing the tune of UK government and whoever pay the bill.

Not credible? As in most of the thing they posted is non-factually correct? Highly doubt it.

[-] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)
[-] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 weeks ago

And again, this only pointed BBC being bias in favour of israel.

And again, let's not mixed up "bias" with "credibility".

[-] fort_burp@feddit.nl 1 points 2 weeks ago

bias in favour of israel.

It's much worse than this, the article explains it pretty well. If BBC management decides to inject political spin on the topic of Palestine, why wouldn't they do it on another topic as well? That is why they lose credibility in some people's eyes.

[-] njm1314@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

I mean shit, there's some validity to that argument at times.

[-] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah they might not technically be lying, but they are really trying their hardest to make themselves look like fucking zionist defenders sometimes.

[-] sqgl@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago

Really? I have seen the evidence of the opposite.

[-] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 2 weeks ago

Whats the lie there?

[-] sqgl@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Bias by omission. They retracted their calling Hamas a terrorist organization and other than that "slip" have never called them that.

They also mislead by always quoting from "Gaza Health Ministry" instead of from Hamas who run the Ministry. This gives the impression they writing from a reliable. The Al Ahli hospital fraud shows it is far from reliable.

I could go on but I doubt anyone here is interested in muddying the water when they have a black and white narrative to defend. And it is getting off topic anyhow.

The point is that no source is 100% reliable but I would argue that BBC is as reliable as it gets (unfortunately).

[-] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

Forensic architecture research has shown that it was Israel who bombed El Ahli hospital.

BBC is literally famous for saying "Hamas run health ministry". Which is a Zionist adjective because they do not do it for Israel (which has lied plenty about their casualty count)

Strange you bring up the hospital bombing after Israel literally bombed a hospital by the way.

[-] sqgl@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

No forensics are needed because the hospital was not hit by anyone. That is just a further lie.

There was footage the next day taken by a Gazan of the hospital showing it unscathed except for a small crater in the carpark. There were shattered windows in a nearby chapel. Unfortunately there were people camped in the carpark so about 20 people died (not 500 as Hamas lied).

Notice that Hamas didn't even release any footage of any damaged building let alone AlAhli hospital. They didn't even have to try because media around the world lapped it up without question.

There was also footage of the rocket barrage by the PIJ streamed live by Al Jazeera which showed one of the rockets boomeranging and a citizen's footage showing similar closer by.

I was outraged by the recent double tap of the hospital looking rescuers. Even if there was a Hamas base there it is inexcusable.

Apparently Hamas documents have been found last week showing their basing themselves in hospitals.

I can back up the above but I doubt people in this thread are interested in such messy departure from any narrative which isn't black and white.

[-] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

That is so much misinformation I am not going to bother responding. Everything you typed is a lie. Go look up the Forensic Architecture report.

[-] sqgl@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

There are no photos in the report of hospital building damage which is what was claimed by Hamas.

AFAIK There is also no news story from that day displaying damage to Al Ahli hospital either.

Hamas say 471 people were killed and 342 injured. There is no way to fit that many in that car park. Here is a video by a Gazan the morning after.

The Forensic Architecture report has been debunked.

[-] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

r/Destiny

Say no more.

[-] goat@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago

Can you go over the Al Ahli hospital explosion?

[-] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

Yes, the person said that Destiny, who sexted a age 16 or 17 year old, is not a pedophile, but an ephebophile.

Fun fact, there is no difference.

[-] goat@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago

What about countries where the age of consent is 16? You'll find most of the world decides 16 is the minimum age.

Regardless, go over the Al Ahli Hospital explosion.

[-] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

It used to be 7 in the UK 200 years ago.

Israel bombed a hospital and Hamas invited journalists to investigate and Israel blocked them.

Then Israel said it was not them and they would never bomb a hospital. That was around 20 hospitals ago and bombing a hospital because they saw journalists.

[-] goat@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago

Neither Israel nor Hamas ever bombed the Al Ahli Hospital. It was determined to be a malfunctioning PIJ rocket

[-] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

It was determined it was Israel. And it is always Israel.

[-] goat@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 weeks ago

That's verifiably false

[-] sqgl@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

What does the sub matter? Look at the contents of that post.

Never heard of Destiny before. I just found that thread with Google but you got me curious.

he has promoted the idea that college campuses should have students who have diverse opinions in order to reduce polarization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destiny_%28streamer%29

Thanks. I may join the sub now.

He made a stupid comment during the George Floyd protests though. Am trying to find out if he recanted.

[-] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

Destiny is also a notorious sex offender and pedophile.

[-] sqgl@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

He isn't a pedo. He says a 23yo with a 16yo isn't pedophilia. Which is technically true: it is ephebophilia. He seems to have been baiting outrage.

https://old.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/11uvamp/i_dont_understand_the_value_in_destinys/

He hasn't been convicted of sexual abuse AFAIK but he certainly does seem dodgy on that front...

https://www.reddit.com/r/youtubedrama/comments/1h6nvdj/why_is_nobody_concerned_about_the_streamer/

That sub should rename itself to distance itself from such behavior. Don't think I want to add to its karma by joining or participating. So thanks for the warning.

Still doesn't invalidate the debunking of that report though.

[-] hatorade@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

He isn’t a pedo. He says a 23yo with a 16yo isn’t pedophilia. Which is technically true: it is ephebophilia. He seems to have been baiting outrage.

"No no, I'm not a pedo, to prove it, I looked pedophilia in a dictionary! It's actually ephebophilia! ...You don't care that I used a new word? Well, I was just doing it as a joke! It's your fault you'd think I would molest a minor!"

When someone rapes a minor as a joke, someone still raped a minor.

[-] goat@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Why are you using zio? That's a term coined by David Duke to refer to jews. Where'd you learn that?

[-] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

Some antisemitic guy referred to Jews as Zionists? Wow that is crazy.

Why are you protecting Zionists on your community who advocate for genocide? He is admitting it himself.

[-] goat@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

"Zio" is a term coined by David Duke long before this current conflict, and instead of saying 'Oh, my bad, I won't use Zio,' you refer to him as just some antisemitic guy, he's the leader of the KKK.

Why are you defending David Duke and calling him just some guy? And more importantly, will you admit that you will no longer use Zio now that you know the origins of the word?

[-] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

Source?

[-] goat@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago

Here

The latest chapter in the Chicago Dyke March controversy unfolded late last week after the group walked back its use of the term “Zio,” a pejorative brought into prominence by former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke and often deployed by white supremacists.

You need to stop using it

[-] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

Why does it seem like tankies repeat talking points ad verbatim? If I have a penny every time I hear BBC for being biased and unreliable, I would have already retired. What do they think of RT or any Chinese media? I always say that these terminally online tankies are extremely sad people who are only larping as communists to feel a sense of belonging in a group. They're literally just a gang doing things just for the fun of it.

[-] goat@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago

From what I understand, Tankies are okay with RT and Chinese state media.

[-] FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

As someone who has been accused of being a tankie, I view RT and Chinese state media as roughly equal in level of bias and reliability to western corporate and state media.

All media tends to be more or less factual, the main difference is in what facts are reported and how the facts are talked about.

You can consume media from all of the available sources as long as you recognize what the biases are and why some sources are better for some topics and worse for others.

[-] goat@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago

why tho? Liberal media make their reporting transparent and allow you to contact them if there are any mistakes they make

[-] FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

It's not about factuality, it's about what stories are chosen and how those stories are written. Liberal media's primary motivation is to make money by putting your eyes on advertisements (which they mostly do by trying to outrage you). Since liberal media is largely all owned and operated by capitalists, their secondary motivation is to propagandize capitalism to their audience. Therefore, liberal media promotes stories that 1) largely don't interest me, and 2) are promoting a world view that is blatantly against my own self-interest.

Edit; I’ll add that I don’t think that RT or Chinese state media is necessarily for my interest, but I do think they can be valuable just for the different perspectives and attention to different topics. For example, western media tells me all about the terrible shit Russia and China do, and non-western media tells me about all the terrible shit the west does. I take each side with a grain of salt, and end up with a more complete worldview than if I just listened to one.

[-] goat@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago

That's not true though, BBC isn't looking to make money.

[-] FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

BBC is controlled by a capitalist state, so part 2 (they promote a worldview that is harmful to me) still stands true.

[-] jerkface@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The state does not have editorial control over the BBC. The BBC is not a political mouthpiece.

[-] FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

The state appoints the editorial board. What do you mean they don't have control?

[-] jerkface@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

There is no "editorial board." The Chair and the four non-executive “nation members" (for England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland) of the actual board of directors is appointed via a public process following the Governance Code for Public Appointments. The rest of the members are chosen by the Board itself.

Did you actually think that the state just picks whomever they want, so that they can dictate the editorial positions of the BBC? Shit, man! No wonder you hate the BBC! I'm so happy I could relieve you of this misapprehension, I'm sure you feel tremendously better. I am sure having facts will change your outlook, like a rational person.

this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)

MeanwhileOnGrad

2006 readers
33 users here now

"Oh, this is calamity! Calamity! Oh no, he's on the floor!"

Welcome to MoG!

Meanwhile On Grad

Documenting hate speech, conspiracy theories, apologia/revisionism, and general tankie behaviour across the fediverse. Memes are welcome!

What is a Tankie?

Alternatively, a detailed blog post about Tankies.

(caution of biased source)

Basic Rules:

Sh.itjust.works Instance rules apply! If you are from other instances, please be mindful of the rules. — Basically, don't be a dick.

Hate-Speech — You should be familiar with this one already; practically all instances have the same rules on hate speech.

Apologia — (Using the Modern terminology for Apologia) No Defending, Denying, Justifying, Bolstering, or Differentiating authoritarian acts or endeavours, whether be a Pro-CCP viewpoint, Stalinism, Islamic Terrorism or any variation of Tankie Ideology.

Revisionism — No downplaying or denying atrocities past and present. Calling Tankies shills, foreign/federal agents, or bots also falls under this rule. Extremists exist. They are real. Do not call them shills or fake users as it handwaves their extremism.

Tankies can explain their views but may be criticised or attacked for them. Any slight infraction on the rules above will immediately earn a warning and possibly a ban.

Off-topic Discussion — Do not discuss unrelated topics to the point of derailing the thread. Stay focused on the direct content of the post, rather than engaging in unrelated arguments.

Brigading — If you're here because this community was linked in another thread, please refrain from voting, commenting or manipulating the post in any way, this includes alt accounts. All votes are public, and if you are found to be brigading, you will be permanently banned.

You'll be warned if you're violating the instance and community rules. Continuing poor behaviour after being warned will result in a ban or removal of your comments. Bans typically only last 24 hours, but each subsequent infraction will double the amount. Depending on the content, the ban time may be increased. You may request an unban at any time.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
goat@sh.itjust.works