England's BBC launches "BBC Verify" to stop "misinformation"

[Marc_LFD]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65650822

This is so stupid it made me laugh at its ridiculousness, 'cause it's like if CNN/CBS/FOX News decided to stop "misinformation" when they're the ones spreading it.

 

[kiaghi7]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65650822

This is so stupid it made me laugh at its ridiculousness, 'cause it's like if CNN/CBS/FOX News decided to stop "misinformation" when they're the ones spreading it.

So the BBC are going to shut down their "news" division all together then?

 

[Xzi]

I'm not going to pretend that the BBC is the most trustworthy source of news on the planet, or even that they deserve to be, but their factual accuracy is still leagues higher than any right-wing "news" source you can name. And therein lies the problem: can real news survive when so many people just want their own opinions regurgitated back to them instead? Bad enough that people already expect instant gratification when real journalism takes weeks, months, or even years. When enough people start instinctively reacting negatively to being presented with facts, that's the straw that breaks the camel's back. Idiocracy here we come.

 

[Flame]

How do I get verified? Can I just pay £8 a month?

 

[tabzer]

I'm going to rationalize the existence of BBC by pointing out that garbage exists.

 

[Xzi]

I'm going to rationalize the existence of BBC by pointing out that garbage exists.

Garbage that somehow still has the nerve to call itself "news," yes. What else am I meant to compare it to, graphic novels?

 

[tabzer]

Garbage that somehow still has the nerve to call itself "news," yes. What else am I meant to compare it to, graphic novels?

If you compare an apple to an orange, it doesn't make the apple "news".

 

[Xzi]

If you compare an apple to an orange, it doesn't make the apple "news".

If you're aware of other news sources rated better on factual accuracy over time by outside organizations, great. So am I. The point remains that, given the sheer volume of how many boomer-tier sources are on the web now, BBC objectively doesn't even rank in the bottom half. Nobody asked for your feelings and biases on that.

 

[tabzer]

If you're aware of other news sources rated better on factual accuracy over time by outside organizations, great. So am I. The point remains that, given the sheer volume of how many boomer-tier sources are on the web now, BBC objectively doesn't even rank in the bottom half. Nobody asked for your feelings and biases on that.

Touch grass. Listening to BBC doesn't make you informed. It makes you a customer.

 

[Xzi]

Listening to BBC doesn't make you informed. It makes you a customer.

I read articles with various adblockers/paywall removers and I've never given BBC a dime. If you actually want to improve the average quality of journalism by getting rid of outlets, we should probably start with podcasts that exclusively advertise crypto scams and penis enhancement pills, and then we can eventually work our way up to BBC.

 

[MariArch]

anyways

 

[tabzer]

I read articles with various adblockers/paywall removers and I've never given BBC a dime. If you actually want to improve the average quality of journalism by getting rid of outlets, we should probably start with podcasts that exclusively advertise crypto scams and penis enhancement pills, and then we can eventually work our way up to BBC.

It's ignorant to assume that your willingness to visit and promote the BBC doesn't financially benefit them. Also, improving the "average quality of journalism" isn't meaningful. Basically, you want to keep your shit and get rid of other shit, so your shit only looks better because it has less to be compared to.

 

[Xzi]

It's ignorant to assume that your willingness to visit and promote the BBC doesn't financially benefit them.

They're certainly welcome to those tenths of a cent, not gonna keep me up at night.

Also, improving the "average quality of journalism" isn't meaningful. Basically, you want to keep your shit and get rid of other shit, so your shit only looks better because it has less to be compared to.

Logically, if I wanted to make BBC look better by comparison, I'd be in favor of adding more shit outlets rather than subtracting them.

 

[tabzer]

Logically, if I wanted to make BBC look better by comparison, I'd be in favor of adding more shit outlets rather than subtracting them.

Your previous interest was in the "average quality of journalism" and my comment was about them looking better by not having a comparison. Wtf is wrong with you?

 

[Xzi]

Your previous interest was in the "average quality of journalism" and my comment was about them looking better by not having a comparison. Wtf is wrong with you?

Jesus kid, think about it for a second: if we take away all the shitty rags BBC compares favorably against, the only outlets left to compare it to would be superior, and so it would compare poorly against those. Sometimes I legit wonder if you're missing half a brain.

 

[tabzer]

Jesus kid, think about it for a second: if we take away all the shitty rags BBC compares favorably against, the only outlets left to compare it to would be superior, and so it would compare poorly against those. Sometimes I legit wonder if you're missing half a brain.

Why do you think I was talking about that?

 

[mrdude]

"BBC Verify", Hmmm this is just like them asking you to trust a peodophile to look after your children.

Hang on a minute - the BBC already had a bunch of peodo's working there (Jimmy Savile and his gang) and covered it up. BBC HQ still has a statue of a small boy above its front door which was created by a peodo!

BBC is a left wing biased news organisation and was definately a covid vaccine disinformation bureau that regularly withheld news from sceptical scientists and those with concerns about side effects - they still don't report on those that suffered vaccine injuries. They were anti Donald Trump and anti Brexit and are always trying to bring down anyone they dislike or has a different political view from them.

Can you trust the BBC to give you unbiased facts? Hmmm - probably just about the same as you could trust Garry Glitter to run a youth hostel without trying to fiddle with the children.

 

[Marc_LFD]

"BBC Verify", Hmmm this is just like then asking you to trust a peodophile to look after your children.

Hang on a minute - the BBC already had a bunch of peodo's working there (Jimmy Savile and his gang) and covered it up. BBC HQ still has a statue of a small boy above its front door which was created by a peodo!

BBC is a left wing biased news organisation and was definately a covid vaccine disinformation bureau that regulatry withheld news from sceptical scientists and those with concerns about side effects - they still don't report on those that suffered vaccine injuries. They were anti Donald Trump and Brexit and always trying to bring down anyone they disliked or had a different political view from them.

Can you trust the BBC - NO YOU CAN'T!

There's so much wrong with BBC you could pile up evidence and it still wouldn't matter because the government would probably support them, making it all effectively pointless and irrelevant. Heck, just look at the police defending the "Just Stop Oil" unemployed losers.

Savile was a piece of shit and I read that his headstone was removed so people can't do justice (he got away with it while enjoying life).



The council doesn't want to dig him up? I'm sure there's plenty of people who wouldn't mind doing it for free and then burn the remains of this sick bastard who violated children and women.

 

[Taleweaver]

I'm not going to pretend that the BBC is the most trustworthy source of news on the planet, or even that they deserve to be, but their factual accuracy is still leagues higher than any right-wing "news" source you can name.

From what I gather, BBC is pretty good at ignoring news and twisting events that don't align with tory rhetoric. The main difference is that they're not completely detached from reality. You won't catch them on soundbites that 's the equivalent of denying gravity.

And therein lies the problem: can real news survive when so many people just want their own opinions regurgitated back to them instead? Bad enough that people already expect instant gratification when real journalism takes weeks, months, or even years. When enough people start instinctively reacting negatively to being presented with facts, that's the straw that breaks the camel's back. Idiocracy here we come.

True. But I seriously doubt they'll certify channels like TL;DR news, a different bias or Robespierre (okay... Tl;dr i could see happening).

Post automatically merged: May 28, 2023

I'm going to rationalize the existence of BBC by pointing out that garbage exists.

... You're arguing the BBC is created as a byproduct of media consumption?

 

[Valwinz]

BBC fake news