Yeah it’s an opinion piece but some interesting stuff about how even conservative journalists when they don’t toe the line are pushed to the side.
Yeah it’s an opinion piece but some interesting stuff about how even conservative journalists when they don’t toe the line are pushed to the side.
My problem with the BBC is the reporting is so hyper-conservative that the plot of Mars Attacks would be:
All factually correct but nothing that says that WE’RE UNDER ATTACK BY INVADERS FROM ANOTHER PLANET. I’m not looking for hyperbole, just some context on the story.
Under the Tories the BBC would constantly say “X said the sky is yellow” and leave it at that. It’s totally impartial to say “X incorrectly states that the sky is yellow”. It’s factually wrong and not saying that looks to many like tacit endorsement of the statement. Similarly with Trump, he’s taking actions that are unheard of in American history. The BBC will just say what he’s doing and not how exceptional it is, making it seem like just another Monday. It validates his actions.
There is a long history of objective journalism refraining from passing judgement. This is the distinction between news journalism and editorials. There is nothing wrong with partisan journalism, but the BBC is by and large not that. When I look over at the hellscape that is U.S. “journalism,” I don’t see a compelling role model. In fact, I think that is irrefutable evidence that the BBC is correct to remain impartial. Remember: impartiality is subjective. Making judgements - even ones which appear reasonable to you - open the author and publication up to endless accusations of editorialism. If the BBC were to ever switch to U.S.-style journalism, I believe they would be defunded almost immediately.
None of what I wrote was about passing judgement.
I agree that once you do you lose your objective foundation. However saying that something has never happened before, or it’s being justified under emergency powers, or that something is a factually incorrect statement is not opinion.