←back to thread

Open letter accuses BBC board member of having a conflict of interest on Gaza

(www.theguardian.com)
523 points mhga | 5 comments | 08 Jul 25 02:18 UTC | HN request time: 0.28s | source
Show context
engine_y ◴[08 Jul 25 03:06 UTC] No.44496585[source]▶
I read the article but not sure which pro Israeli editorials the BBC has published.

My experience is quite the opposite with BBC having a clear anti war stance.

replies(6): >>44496634 #>>44496652 #>>44496655 #>>44496837 #>>44497014 #>>44497355 #
molteanu ◴[08 Jul 25 03:40 UTC] No.44496837[source]▶
It's about the careful wording, about who gets to be on the spotlight, about who gets to call the other side a tyrant, an evil state, about saying things like "regime change" and no-one batting an eye. Slowly, but surely, you form an opinion as to who the bad actor is as you've seen or read about its bad behaviour (but not of the behavior of the other party)

Most interestingly, it's about who holds the microphone and is allowed to say whatever they want, unquestioned.

replies(3): >>44496894 #>>44497087 #>>44497882 #
1. dmix ◴[08 Jul 25 03:50 UTC] No.44496894[source]▶
In a meta sense, yes, but in practice it’s mostly just a large collection of journalists and editors, real humans, working in a chaotic information space where there’s a large variety of angles and sources being put out at all times depending on the context.

It’s equally easy to cherry pick this sort of thing to build a narrative of some ulterior agenda. Especially given the high pace that news demands in the social media age.

What gets covered could simply be who a journalist happened to talked to the past week or what is trending on social media that will get clicks.

replies(4): >>44497095 #>>44497242 #>>44497455 #>>44497606 #
2. memonkey ◴[08 Jul 25 04:30 UTC] No.44497095[source]▶
> What gets covered could simply be who a journalist happened to talked to the past week or what is trending on social media that will get clicks.

Do you believe this with regard to what is happening in Israel/Palestine?

The chaos of information and what is truth is only bubbled up when 1) there's very few journalists in the area or 2) all the journalists are being killed or 3) there's no journalists and only special interests.

Consider that even if it was a "narrative" which at this point is controlled by social media, as it stands it seems to be: "these people are evil, they should be killed, sorry not sorry about the babies" or "these people are committing genocide, this bad."

3. garbagewoman ◴[08 Jul 25 05:03 UTC] No.44497242[source]▶
Thats a very reductive view of the situation, have you been keeping track of the headlines or are you just a disinterested outsider?
4. dvdplm ◴[08 Jul 25 06:25 UTC] No.44497606[source]▶
This is the kind of comment that at first glance seems measured and well-phrased. I’m sure it depicts a common situation in journalism too, after all they’re just humans like the rest of us.

The problem here is the enormity of what is actually going on in Gaza: a slaughter and a terror campaign we haven’t seen the likes of since Pol Pot. It is not two sides in disagreement, each jostling for attention on roughly equal terms, each somewhat right and somewhat wrong. Two years in, we’re well beyond that and the only thing that matters is that one side is sadistically slaughtering the other and the world is pretending it’s not happening.

replies(1): >>44498835 #
5. Paradigma11 ◴[08 Jul 25 10:50 UTC] No.44498835[source]▶
"...a slaughter and a terror campaign we haven’t seen the likes of since Pol Pot."

So you are saying, you dont know of:

The genocide in Tigray

The Darfur genocide

The history of the DRC

The Rwandan genocide

The Genocide of Isaaqs ...