THE BBC has been asked to explain why it has not reported on a large-scale anti-Brexit rally in the centre of London …

  • towerful@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    147
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Whilst the BBC is impartial and independent and whatever etc. Key positions have been packed with Tory Party supporters/donors/friends.
    It’s no surprise they toe the government line, especially for their fellow Tories

    • darq@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      94
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I feel like the BBC’s “aura” of impartiality makes it all the more dangerous when it does occasionally engage in propaganda. A lot of regular folks put a lot of trust in the BBC.

      • towerful@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        41
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yup.
        Similar to the “equal airtime” or “show both sides” when it comes to science.
        It puts unscientific opinions alongside scientific theory as if they are equal.

        The only thing I can say in favour of the BBC is that it seems like the majority of people feel it’s coverage is favourable to “the other side”.
        So, while we may be saying “BBC is clearly biased” because of things like this, I guarantee there are people that we don’t agree with saying exactly the same about other topics.
        So the situation is probably not as bad as it seems.

        It does seem the majority of these “scandals” are about the BBC acting in favour of the Westminster UK government. But maybe that just the ones I actually see.

        • darq@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          31
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m a little hesitant to put much stock in conservatives’ claims of bias, because plain factual reporting tends to strike a lot of them as biased. Reality is biased against modern conservatism.

          I don’t think the BBC is the worst by any means. But a couple of years ago, they did come out with one of the most egregiously misleading articles I’ve ever seen with regards to transgender people. Very obviously deliberate in its misinformation and even including proven lies about contacting sources. And to this day the BBC stands by it and has dismissed complaints.

          So yeah, worth being wary.

          • towerful@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Very good points.
            I just wanted to temper the discussion a bit, and just check that I wasn’t getting too carried away, echo-chambered or whatever.
            Having done that, I still agree with you. I don’t think the BBC is impartial or unbiased.

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      It no longer is impartial. It just reports what it’s told.

      It’s not the job of a journalist to report that someone says it’s raining. They have to stick their head out of the window and check, and then report what they find. They have forgotten this and it’s shameful.

      • bpm@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        1 year ago

        Mostly hate and misery, with a good dash of racism.

        For a more serious answer, “tory” is the nickname for a member of the Conservative party, the UK’s major centre-right party. Much like in the US, they’ve been shifting further right in the past few decades and focusing more on “culture war” BS.

      • towerful@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        A Tory is the Conservative Party.
        They are to the right. Although, if it’s US politics you are used to they would probably be considered center or old-school right - not this new Right bullshit that’s prevalent these days

        • DominusOfMegadeus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          1 year ago

          So, their party revolves around thinly veiled plans to divert money to the rich, and tighten their control over the common people?

          • towerful@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Pretty much.
            Their whole deal is “fiscal responsibility”, which apparently means applying austerity for about a decade and cutting huge amounts of public service budgets.

            Mild tinfoil hat
            Things like the amazing NHS end up underfunded (and leveraged as a bargaining tool, like when Brexit would give the NHS 350m extra per week). Obviously waiting lists get longer, some people maybe start seeking private care for some things. Then the Tories can turn around and say “the NHS is broken, people are using private care, we should sell off the remaining NHS and do the American thing. Think of the tax cuts!”.
            /Mild tinfoil hat

            They also hate immigrants, want the old Rule Britannia/British Empire thing back, think dealing with climate change is untenable, a whole bunch of fun stuff like that.

            • palordrolap@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              Jeremy Hunt, current Chancellor of the Exchequer, literally co-authored a book on how to dismantle the NHS and replace it with a health-insurance based system.

              He was Secretary for Health at one point too, and his policies didn’t exactly rule out that he might be following the game-plan of that book.

              There’s no tinfoil hat needed here. The Tories are all but open about what they’re doing at this point.

              • towerful@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                There’s no tinfoil hat needed here. The Tories are all but open about what they’re doing at this point.

                I know, but a part of me has to believe that the government is working for the benefit of all it’s citizens.
                Otherwise, what the fuck am I doing here? The future is bleak enough with hyper-consumerism, class/wealth gaps and climate change.

          • SoylentBlake@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Torys have been buying up the land that NHS hospitals are on and jacking up their rents

            …then railing on and on about the ever rising costs of health care

            Playing the long game until some crisis comes and then poof, welcome to the American Health* care system, you give us everything you own and we’ll give you 3 months to live. Maybe.

            And forget about dental and vision. That’s for rich people.

            Seriously Neoliberalism is anti-nationalist. The rich fucking despise regular people and do everything they can to, first, ensure that they are getting the government contracts, and then B, looting all that money, saying government doesn’t work and dismantling us back to fuedalism.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The Tory are a nickname for the right-wing conservative party.

        Historically it has been used in a somewhat derogatory manner. If somebody is a Tory then they tend to engage in more right wing policies than a Conservative who tends to be more center-right. Although technically there’s no actual difference and they’re all the same party.

        Anyway they’ve lately started calling themselves Tory in a weird “let’s take the word back” way, so you can more or less now just use the two words interchangeably.

        Internally they have a lot of infighting about this, because some of the Backbenches (politicians who are members of the party but are not actually in government, think the equivalent of senators in the US) are unhappy with the parties direction because they feel that going full on lunatic right wing nut job might harm their chances of getting reelected. And based on current polling data it would seem that they are correct.

  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    84
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Brexit has been an unmitigated disaster, but I feel like it’s time to rebrand the cause. The battle is over and the war is lost. There is no point to being anti-Brexit because the Brexit happened. You can’t stop it without a tardis (or a Delorean, for my fellow Americans). Rejoining the EU will require an entirely new set of applications and negotiations. Somebody should come up with a new brand and some catchy slogans. Brexit was a brilliant piece of marketing, for example.

    Like Breunion but better than that.

    • SirQuackTheDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      As an EU citizen, I’m very conflicted about the UK just rejoining the European Union.

      Your administration made the weird decision to lean on a marginal difference on a referendum, and left with a whole lot of fuss and customised paperwork. Who’s to say you won’t do it again?

      While I do like a stronger Union, the UK will likely try to get back the position they had before (with all kinds of exceptions), but the only way the UK should be allowed to rejoin (in my opinion), should be with a full commitment, not just “we’re sort of joining but also not”.

      • Phanatik@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Didn’t the EU say that if we were to rejoin, the UK would have to adopt the Euro and all the other shit that the rest of the EU got when they joined. I don’t think we’re really in a position to dig our feet in and demand exceptions that we threw in the EU’s face when we left.

        • JoeCoT@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          1 year ago

          Right. If the UK tries to rejoin they’re going to get no favors from the rest of the EU, as an example to other member states that you can’t just play hokey pokey with a continental union. The UK will be miffed as a response. It’ll potentially take decades for a deal to work out for the UK to rejoin the EU, if that’s even its form at that point.

      • mindlessscrollingparrot@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        As a Brit, I fully support the idea that we should rejoin with full commitment. No way do I want a repeat performance where we can be taken out by a minority of gullible idiots.

      • r00ty@kbin.life
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        When it was clear the referendum was going to be actioned, I never understood why the UK government didn’t just try to implement a move to the EEA or similar satellite level. It would satisfy the terms of the referendum entirely. The referendum was to leave the European union. The wording was very succinct.

        The UK probably would never have joined schengen (that’s really of hugest benefit to mainland Europe), we never took the European parliament seriously (you can argue that we should have, but we sent fucking Farage, so. No, we never took it seriously).

        But the common trading area and freedom of movement did benefit us (and the BS use of it to get votes from the right was filled with lies of course). Which (as I understand it) is the main features of being part of the EEA. It still of course means we’d need to adopt trade related laws of course (Oh my gaawwwd our sovereignty!!!). But we already were and it didn’t hurt us one bit!

        But no, it had to be full brexit or nothing (for some inexplicable reason).

        Yes, before people say anything. We’d need to be admitted into the EEA. I know that. But it wasn’t even tried! That’s the annoying thing. It was rejected straight off the bat.

        • SirQuackTheDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          but we sent fucking Farage

          Ha, that name only stuck around because of the BBC Radio 4 comedy podcast. Brexit caused a whole lot of ruckus, but the comedy shows were continuous gold.

        • bpm@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That was the argument I heard a lot of from neolibs leading up to the referendum - “y’know, Norway and Switzerland aren’t in the EU and they’re doing fine”.

          I do wonder if Cameron had stuck it out if that’s what we would have aimed for, rather than leaving it up to the “Brexit means Brexit” crew.

      • eestileib@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        This is an entirely reasonable position. The (narrow) majority of the UK voting public has the relationship inverted; they think the EU needs them far more than they need the EU.

        There’s no way to come to a reasonable lasting outcome in negotiations.

        Much like it makes all the sense in the world for the rest of NATO not to trust the US any more.

    • r00ty@kbin.life
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I have a bit of a weird opinion on this. I was very anti brexit. I make multiple trips to Europe every year, probably 4-5 at least. I benefit nothing from leaving the union. My passport is filling with stamps at an alarming rate.

      But, to rejoin now after it is done. To rejoin with the basic requirements of a new state rejoining? I don’t think it’s as great an idea of remaining when we had the perks of an early joining larger state. Certainly you’ll find a lot more resistance to replacing the pound with the Euro (I actually could care less, but I’m in the minority here) than there was to leaving on the original terms.

      Also, I don’t think Europe should have to put up with us (as a whole, the country I mean) whiners. Our bed has been made by the stupidly defined referendum, and the subsequent disastrous implementation and now, we should just suck it up and lie in it.

      • madnificent@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        The sentiment I hear around me is that you have been lied to.

        We have kept the lights on, like many of you asked, and we are looking forward to welcoming a new humorous generation.

        Sure, it is not going to be under the same conditions. Things have moved around when you left. Empty voids have been filled. Regardless, I’d love for us to see the propaganda of the time for what it was, propaganda and lies, and to bring the actors and platforms responsible for willingly spreading lies to their knees.

        Together we stand stronger in a strong Europe, and reuniting is a sign of Europe’s resilience to external influences.

        • r00ty@kbin.life
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I wasn’t lied to. Actually, the way this stuff was spread on social media was the whole cambridge analytica thing. I never saw ANY of the ads/sponsored posts etc. I was not the demographic, I guess. What I did see was weird opinions and people that never had a problem with the EU suddenly talking about sovereignty etc starting around a month before and getting much louder a week or so before. They targeted the advertising so tightly that those that weren’t close to the middle or on the side of leaving already never ever saw an advert/sponsored post or any other advertising. It was spookily well executed.

          I remember initially I was certain it would be a landslide remain. Around a week before I was very concerned it wouldn’t be any more, just based on the shift of public sentiment.

      • towerful@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Our laws are currently fairly inline with EU laws. It’s less work to fully align them now than in 10 years, when the Tories have fully dismantled workers/privacy/consumer/human rights.

        And I have no issue with the Euro. We still get to do our own artwork on the notes/coins.
        We clearly need immigration to cover the jobs people don’t want to do, despite the fact that the “they took our jobs” group would whine about work they personally don’t want to do being done by others.
        It would simplify and clear up our trade, just-in-time logistics for all manor of things, and likely put the UK in a better position as an “English speaking HQ of Europe” for companies.

        Ultimately tho, theres going to be a decade of shit to wade through before any potential benefits of Brexit actually come around.
        This was a huge talking point about Scottish Independence (“yeh, but you’d be fucked” “oh sure, but after 5-10 years we would be in a better position”). It’s fair to say the same applies to brexit (although the benefits of brexit are a lot less apparent to me)

        • r00ty@kbin.life
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          All of the benefits (so far as I can tell) were always theoretical. We can make our own trade deals. Except, previously trade deals were made on our behalf as part of a trading bloc that included us, Germany, France, Italy, The nordics (mostly via the EEA) and the rest of Europe. How was there ever a serious expectation we’d get a better deal as a fraction of that bargaining power? So, a theoretical benefit that’s extremely unlikely to pan out to our advantage.

          Taking control of our borders? How has that worked out for us? Not too well so far it seems.

          Yeah, it’s crap. But I feel like some more of those brexit supporting business owners need to eat some more humble pie before we ever try to go back.

          • towerful@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t buy tunnocks, dyson, or go to a weatherspoon.
            No doubt there are other companies I don’t realise were pro-brexit.

            I know the whole “ooh look at you and your personal boycott changing the world” bullshit. Fuck it, I’m still doing it. This is my hill of beans to die on.
            It’s like recycling, reducing consumption etc. Yeh, big companies are contributing more to climate change and they really are the ones that need to change. But I can’t hate on them if I’m not trying to help the situation.

      • bpm@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think the point I realised how out of step I am with most brexiters was when someone argued with me that now we’re out of the EU “they can take all their bloody decimalised currency with them!”

        I was completely flabbergasted that someone would still be mad about an objectively better system that’s been the norm for over 50 years at this point.

    • li10@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re right, but needing a catchy slogan and a bit of anger to get us to do something with massive consequences is a stark reminder that at the end of the day we’re just dumb apes.

  • NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    1 year ago

    They’ve been at this for years now tbh. Thousands protested Austerity outside the Tory Conference, and not a peep about it on the Beeb. At least they barely even hide the partisan support for the government now.

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They also did it with anti lockdown protests. You might disagree with the protestors in that case, but the Beeb shouldn’t be deciding what it covers based on whether the issue.

    • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think they’re “supporting” the government - I think they’re cowed by the government.

      The net result is the same, agreed. I’m mostly talking about motivations.

      The tories would gut the BBC like the opening scene of Dune (the film), each employee drained for sacrificial blood and the party faithful smeared in it as rite of indoctrination.

  • TheMadnessKing@lemdro.id
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why is BBC going shit now? I loved their impartial coverage but now this is giving me second thoughts on what they have covered till now has been truly impartial.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Except that’s not how it works.

      They’re not state-owned they’re state-funded, there’s a difference.

      If the state owns a public park like a national park they’re not allowed to just say oh will we own it so we can tear it all down and build a shopping mall on it. Funding it is not the same as owning and controlling it.

      So yeah there is something for them to answer. Because they are violating their mandate.

      • Kbin_space_program@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just because that’s not how it works hasn’t prevented conservatives from trying to control them.

        See Stephen Harper’s efforts to control the CBC in Canada when he was PM, and Pierre Poilievre’s (same party) promise to scrap it entirely.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not legally.

          They are supposed to be impartial if the government do something stupid (I know hard to believe) They’re supposed to report on it.

          There’s a whole thing where the conservatives have put Stooges in place. Trying to turn the BBC into agovernment propaganda platform isn’t actually legal. So yeah it’s a surprise it is happening.

          The original comment seems to suggest that no one should be shocked that the BBC is government controlled but actually it is pretty awful and shocking. It is a surprise, and it isn’t something to be expected as the comment seems to suggest it should be.

  • ned4cyb@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Things do not look good on the inside too. The world is changing dramatically right now and if hypothetically the brits were to rejoin, I doubt that this would have a significant impact. Last five years have been crazy for all people of Europe. I would argue that this has been the case for the last 13 years. Financial policies that led the EU in a downward spiral and the UK out of EU

      • Vashti@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Honestly, the BBC never report on protests, and the people behind the protests always get mad about it. They just aren’t newsworthy unless something happens besides the fact of a protest.

        Essentially, this story is free advertising for the protest.