BBC news double standard

[Flagg]

Yeah, I got my facts wrong. But at least I don't declare everything critical of your beloved China "fake news". You literally sound like a shit eating Trumpist douche. So have fun with that.

I guess opiod dependence has finally crushed what semblance of sense your microcephalic brain actually possessed, as you grasp at straws to build your strawman. I will make it easy for you dipshit, back up your claim that I "declare everything critical of China as fake news."

It was an insult not a claim. Or are you going to have to pay for me to get some brain scans? Did it just really give you a sad when you predicted I'd defend a news source you seem to hate and I did the exact opposite for you to go that low? Or did you just think it would "set me off"? Well you failed, asshole. Are you going to go on a twitter rant now?

[Flagg]

Yeah, I got my facts wrong. But at least I don't declare everything critical of your beloved China "fake news". You literally sound like a shit eating Trumpist douche. So have fun with that.

I guess opiod dependence has finally crushed what semblance of sense your microcephalic brain actually possessed, as you grasp at straws to build your strawman. I will make it easy for you dipshit, back up your claim that I "declare everything critical of China as fake news."

It was an insult not a claim. Or are you going to have to pay for me to get some brain scans? Did it just really give you a sad when you predicted I'd defend a news source you seem to hate and I did the exact opposite for you to go that low? Or did you just think it would "set me off"? Well you failed, asshole. Are you going to go on a twitter rant now?

To clarify, it was an insult after a concession.

[Flagg]

Which "shit" did you call me out on? The same shit where in the next post you admitted you got your facts on it wrong. You totally showed me up mate.

The "shit" was the assumption you made that I would defend the Guardian because I'm some kind of opiate riddled moron who cares more about hearing what I want than hearing the truth, dumbass. Funny how you were wrong and totally failed to acknowledge it. You didn't even respond to my points about resistance against occupation, instead you just used the medication I take for illness as a weapon to try and get me riled up (didn't work ). A pathetic, sad, and shitweasel thing to do, but I would expect no less from someone who calls a news source that makes errors in reporting in some articles "fake news" when in reality "fake" implies complete fabrication.

So have fun in Imagination Land with the rest of the shit for brains using Trumpspeak.

[mr friendly guy]

It was an insult not a claim.
<snip>
To clarify, it was an insult after a concession.

So you admit that the statement I "declare everything critical of China fake news" is incorrect. Good to know.

The "shit" was the assumption you made that I would defend the Guardian because I'm some kind of opiate riddled moron who cares more about hearing what I want than hearing the truth, dumbass.

Oh really.

Wait, in what warped world view are people resisting brutal foreign occupation getting "justice" when the occupying authorities execute them?

This was after I posted the Guardian article lambasting them for describing murderers as "protesters". Your defense was that these executed people were resisting brutal foreign occupation. I didn't realise burning a clothing store down with workers in it counted as resisting foreign occupation, but what would I know. But back on topic, yeah you did defend it, got called on it, and your defense is, well I didn't defend the Guardian a second time.... until you then criticise me for describing them as fake news, because they are not fake enough apparently (see your brilliant argument below).

You didn't even respond to my points about resistance against occupation, instead you just used the medication I take for illness as a weapon to try and get me riled up (didn't work ). A pathetic, sad, and shitweasel thing to do, but I would expect no less from someone who calls a news source that makes errors in reporting in some articles "fake news" when in reality "fake" implies complete fabrication.

I did address your point dumbfuck. I pointed its hardly an occupation if the majority don't want independence. But who cares they want, certainly not Flagg. Ignore evidence to fit your narrative right? Then pretend I didn't deal with it. But it doesn't stop there for you does it? You are now nitpicking the definition of fake. What an argument. A news source doesn't tell a sufficiently big enough lie enough to be considered "fake," therefore I am wrong to call them fake news. Not only is that argument pathetic, you would be wrong because the BBC article I posted did fabricate their claim. You would know that of course if you actually read my argument.

BTW asshole, I don't need to mention your opiod addiction to get you riled up. I just need to mention fake news and you go ballistic. I think its because I culturally appropriated that term from the US.

So have fun in Imagination Land with the rest of the shit for brains using Trumpspeak.

Flagg's argument.

Trumptards use the term fake news. I use the term fake news. Therefore I must be like Trumpist douche. Nevermind that I actual back up my points with arguments and videos showing the event (oh wait, Flagg isn't even going to read the evidence, so it must be totally the same as Trumptards who produce no evidence). Man, what a great argument. What's next? Both myself and Trumptards use English, therefore we are totally the same. How can I ever hope to counteract such a intellectually brilliant man? Oh I know. Lets debate when I am so drunk that I am barely conscious, and then finally it will be a contest of equals.

[Flagg]

You really are pathetic.

[Thanas]

I find it very funny how people living outside of China have no problem believing chinese media when this is the same state that routinely disappears and tortures people, has recently instituted a brutal crackdown on human right lawyers and refused a dissident cancer treatment.

Any student of dictatorships of the past should know how state media is being manipulated in such nations and how one should never trust them on anything.

The BBC might not be the best in reporting, but at least it is an agency which is transparent, which has oversight and whose rights as journalists are protected.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I am not finding a rule violation to justify a recent report. Flagg, don't report people for being a dick right back at you. Mr. Friendly Guy, insulting people for a medical condition is taking dickery to a new level and your response was disproportionate. DIal it back.

[Flagg]

I am not finding a rule violation to justify a recent report. Flagg, don't report people for being a dick right back at you. Mr. Friendly Guy, insulting people for a medical condition is taking dickery to a new level and your response was disproportionate. DIal it back.

Sorry, I was under the impression that libel was a rule violation. Won't make that mistake again.

[Flagg]

Just to add, libel may not be a rule violation, but libel laws in Canada are much stricter than in this failed Republic. So if someone decides to use my legally prescribed medications taken as ordered for validly diagnosed medical conditions that causes intractable chronic pain and the medication required to ease that pain I will be looking into my legal options since those in charge have abdicated that responsibility. I will not tolerate being slandered because I disagree with someone and I shouldn't have tl

[mr friendly guy]

Well someone reported me to the mods. I seem to remember Aerius using the same type of insult in the Trayvon Martin thread. But fine, I will dial it back.

I find it very funny how people living outside of China have no problem believing chinese media when this is the same state that routinely disappears and tortures people, has recently instituted a brutal crackdown on human right lawyers and refused a dissident cancer treatment.

I am always cynical of media reports, no matter the source. I am not sure how it is Germany, but over here we actually were taught about how people have their own agenda's and tactics to influence. The problem is, you're so use to at least western media has oversight blah blah, that you go easy on them compared to state run media like RT or Xinhua. However despite this, its very hard to argue against video evidence. When BBC says x, and in a few minutes of google I can find video evidence (not from the Chinese state) of the event showing the contrary, I think you can't keep on hiding behind the line that state run media sucks.

It gets worse when free media blatantly quotes mine these unreliable state run media. I mean how does the Guardian get from "according to Chinese state media rioters who were convicted of arson and burning people to death to be executed" to "according to Chinese state media rioters protesters who were convicted of arson and burning people to death to be executed". How do they decide which part of state run media is believable. The execution part, the convicted of arson part, but they convicted of murder part just so happened to be unbelievable? If you think Chinese media is so unreliable, they don't defend western media for selectively quote mining any part out of them. Get your own reporters to do the job.

I am curious though, what oversight does BBC give their journalists when they lie, er I mean make such blatant errors which gives a false narrative. CNN apologised to China and altered their cropped pictures when people complained that it was deceptive. Their journalists also fell on their swords when an anti Trump story turned out to be false. BBC just seems to double down.
*************************************************************************************************************
You know what. I am going to quote from the pro Israel lobby when they complain of leftist media reporting. They classify the tactics used by leftist outlets using the three D's, double standard, demonisation, and delegitimisation. Look at a news report and see if they fit those 3 D's as a starting point.

[Thanas]

I am not really sure what your point is other than a general "boohooo china is treated so unfairly in the western news", which quite frankly sounds a lot like the complaints I have read from many citizens or supporters of dictatorships in the past. It is often accompanied by anecdotal evidence to back it up instead of a systematic study of coverage and the same applies here. In fact, it is disturbingly close to Trumpism with the argument being "[insert media fail here] happened, ergo the media as a whole has a bias against [insert nation/person here], ergo the media cannot be trusted/is doing it for nefarious reaons/ is engaged in a campaign gainst [insert nation/person here], ergo one should listen to [insert foxnews/propaganda outlet of choice here]."*

I don't think I will have to explain why that argument is not a proper one and why it should not be followed.



*before there is a nitpick I should add that not all of those elements need to be present.

[Thanas]

Oh and by the way, it is so fucking easy to find out how the BBC disciplines and covers breaches of ethics and editorial standards. The reports are published on the internet for everybody to see by the BBC Trust. You will also frequently find lines like "the executive producer was replaced" or "BBC terminated the contract with" etc in those reports.

[Flagg]

Oh and by the way, it is so fucking easy to find out how the BBC disciplines and covers breaches of ethics and editorial standards. The reports are published on the internet for everybody to see by the BBC Trust. You will also frequently find lines like "the executive producer was replaced" or "BBC terminated the contract with" etc in those reports.

I find it hilarious that a news outlet that takes it upon itself to publish a correction of a mistake they published previously is now labeled by those who use Trumpspeak as "fake news". Or if they describe an anti-dictatorship group in a very contested situation in a way those who hold an opposing viewpoint don't like, they are again given the Trumpspeak label of "fake news".

In the worldview of these sad and really pathetic wastes of good organs there is no room for errors, mild bias, or really, any reporting they dislike whatsoever for publications and outlets that don't share their outlook which is why they dismiss them altogether in favor of outlets that tell them what they want to hear. Which ironically (and hilariously) tend to be the state controlled media outlets of truly brutal Dictatorships with no free press. There's a word for the garbage put out by the state run media outlets of Dictatorships with no free press: Propaganda. Which is literally "fake news".

I now await being called a "junky" again, since apparently that's allowed.

[mr friendly guy]

I am not really sure what your point is other than a general "boohooo china is treated so unfairly in the western news", which quite frankly sounds a lot like the complaints I have read from many citizens or supporters of dictatorships in the past.

Well that is certainly true that China is treated unfairly, but my point (if you're referring specifically to the above reply) is that its untrue to say that I have no problem believing what is reported on state news, especially since I also apply the same standards and fact check, usually things which Chinese news cannot fake, ie video images from a third party, reports on satellite images, peer review journal articles etc. Yes Thanas, I have looked at journal articles in air pollution.

Presumably when you say "how people living outside of China have no problem believing chinese media", you're referring to me right? I actually have checked more Chinese reported stories in the fields that interest me, particularly business, economics, environment, tech and the occasional political sections of China than I have BBC. If you demand, I can provide most links of stories (outside from Chinese media, sometimes back to the original source Chinese media quotes). I have checked and kept them bookmarked for future reference. So this claim that I just accept Chinese news without question but am so unfairly hard on BBC is just pure fucking bullshit.

That is of course, if you're referring to me, and if not me, who are you referring to when you say "people living outside of China have no problem believing Chinese media." Aerius? Flagg?

However if you think my specific claims on BBC in this thread is untrue, then call me out on it. Don't fluff around with this well some supporters of dictatorships say the same thing. Which part of my claim do you think is unfair? Wait, you did at least read my arguments right, unlike Flagg.

It is often accompanied by anecdotal evidence to back it up instead of a systematic study of coverage and the same applies here.

Oh, have you done the same with RT or some other state control media? Its almost like no matter how many examples people can point to of errors, you would just say its anecdotal evidence, doesn't count, but we can summarily dismiss anything from state run media by countries you dislike.

In fact, it is disturbingly close to Trumpism with the argument being "[insert media fail here] happened, ergo the media as a whole has a bias against [insert nation/person here], ergo the media cannot be trusted/is doing it for nefarious reaons/ is engaged in a campaign gainst [insert nation/person here], ergo one should listen to [insert foxnews/propaganda outlet of choice here]."*

I don't think I will have to explain why that argument is not a proper one and why it should not be followed.

I guess its a good thing then people ask me before in previous threads, I am careful to point out which outlets I think are crap, and not to generalise them. Is this suppose to be your attempt at poisoning the well? I would hope not, because that would mean I overestimated you.

Oh and by the way, it is so fucking easy to find out how the BBC disciplines and covers breaches of ethics and editorial standards. The reports are published on the internet for everybody to see by the BBC Trust. You will also frequently find lines like "the executive producer was replaced" or "BBC terminated the contract with" etc in those reports.

A quick glance would show that people have made complaints about its coverage of UK political parties, complaints which locations they put in the weather, complaints about the Arab Spring, but not complaints about China or Russia coverage. So I am going to guess they just get away with half arse apologies then. Good to know.

[mr friendly guy]

In the worldview of these sad and really pathetic wastes of good organs there is no room for errors, mild bias, or really, any reporting they dislike whatsoever for publications and outlets that don't share their outlook which is why they dismiss them altogether in favor of outlets that tell them what they want to hear. Which ironically (and hilariously) tend to be the state controlled media outlets of truly brutal Dictatorships with no free press. There's a word for the garbage put out by the state run media outlets of Dictatorships with no free press: Propaganda. Which is literally "fake news".

I love when I called you out on this earlier you quickly covered yourself by saying, hey it was just an insult, and wasn't meant to be a truthful claim. Then repeat the same untrue claim yet again.

I now await being called a "junky" again, since apparently that's allowed.

But using terms like "pathetic wastes of good organs" is totally fine right? Your lack of self awareness is amazing.

[LadyTevar]

Ok Jackasses. This Thread is LOCKED, due to Mr Friendly Guy and Flagg's little dispute. Once it's handled, we MAY unlock it again.