leicsmac

And he was spot on with that, too. As were the Greeks (Plato in particular) on the matter. That we're still struggling with it millenia later just shows how tough a problem it is, and the stakes keep rising with all our development as a species.

.... that discovery about the universe which is arrived at through repeated empirical observation and recording, producing a consensus of data that proves a hypothesis.

As much as this may or may not be so, as per above this should really go beyond politics so I'd be leery of going there. Unless the idea of truth and a lot about where it points us in the future is a political discussion.

Well, this could be accurate, but we shall wait and see.

Interesting find that gives some of that wider context: "The BBC made a mistake when it edited Trump’s January 6 speech. The Panorama segment was careless and misleading, and it should not have aired as it did. Yet the hysteria since then ignores a more serious truth, that Trump’s own words in the weeks before that day made violence almost certain. In the month leading up to the attack, he told supporters to “be there, it will be wild,” insisted that they would “never concede,” and urged them to “fight like hell.” He used the word “fight” more than twenty times on the day itself and told the Justice Department to “just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me.” Through repetition and rage, he convinced people that their country had been stolen and that only strength could reclaim it. The result was a mob in Washington, five dead, and the desecration of the Capitol. When he returned to power, Trump pardoned more than a thousand people, among them allies and convicted criminals, sending the same message that loyalty to him stands above the law. That was the true legacy of January 6, not the brief edit that has dominated the headlines. The BBC compressed his words and made a poor editorial choice, but it did not create the hostility that consumed that day. Trump’s rhetoric built the tension, channelled the fury and carried it into the heart of American democracy. To claim this proves a conspiracy against him is dishonest. To threaten the BBC with financial ruin over it is dangerous. Trump’s story remains a lie, yet his allies have forced the broadcaster to act as if he were the injured party. That distortion of truth is the real scandal. Davie’s leadership has been weak and politically timid, but the fury over this story bears no relation to the facts. The BBC deserves scrutiny but not surrender. It should acknowledge its errors, hold to the truth and refuse to let bullies decide what Britain is allowed to hear."

The wider context is vital to the discussion. This incident didn't happen in a vacuum and I'm not sure why it should be considered as such. I'm going to ask this again, for the answer or benefit of anyone (as opposed to just the OP), because, again, I think it a vital question. NB. And, I hasten to add, I haven't mentioned either wing either. This is about, truth, lies, the amount of them and the damage they cause - that goes beyond the political sometimes.

Definitely a problem from that perspective, yes. That being said, the stakes are much higher than this one incident and so there should be an expectation on people to look at more than it alone. The "invisible hand" does a lot of striking down of minority/vulnerable groups. Thus it's the choice of the social Darwinists.

And then you have Trotsky and the icepick incident as a third party. So it does all get a bit messy.

A valid argument (particularly the bolded) which has been made here a few times now and hasn't been responded to. It would be nice to see such a response.

All of which were present with the Tsar, too. The critical factor here is Putin himself; IMO he carries himself like a monarch, not a Stalin. Of course, that's entirely subjective though.

The fact that the old Leninist regime and today's Russia being incredibly far apart from each other in terms of ideology notwithstanding. Putin is a Tsar, not a Communist.

Agreed. I do think, however, that scientific and nature based programming that is educational in origin really shouldn't be subject to market forces, as it is of critical importance to our future.

Fair enough, no horse in that particular race either way.

Right about the ushanka then

I think that's 100% accurate, funnily enough. But it's problematic that enough people with voting power appear to align with their viewpoint.

As per above, I really want an answer regarding this from those decrying to Beeb right now. The dichotomy appears to be between them and Trump-style media. Which do you prefer and why? And if that dichotomy is false, why exactly is it? There's far too little explanation of position in the bigger picture going on here.

To add to this, their nature/science coverage is absolutely vital and should be treated as such.

No disagreement there (though I wouldn't be certain about it), but I was referring more to what people calling for its abolition (or radical change) actually want from their future on this and other matters. IMO it's good to have people consider the long game critically more.

I'm hoping that I will because I genuinely want to understand the train of thought here rather than drawing my own conclusions about it, because in recent times I have had to have a rather large pencil.

Naturally I agree, and then the issue becomes that other sources are getting things wrong on those matters, that is causing damage, and yet it's causing much less brouhaha than this. As much as the Beeb has to set an example regarding journalism and truth, examining them for that integrity while focusing precious little attention on those supposed to be following that example, especially when enough people believe those sources for it to become a matter of policy, is a problem rather bigger than this one imo.

OK, so let's say this does occur, and as a result media championed by Trump and his ilk have the freedom to shape and broadcast the "truth" as they see fit, with all the consequences that entails. Is that a desirious outcome, and if so, might I ask why? I've asked variations of this question a few times now but I'm still looking for an answer, because people appear to want the Beeb to suffer punishment for this lapse (which, I hasten to add, I don't disagree with), but don't seem to have much of a vision of the future after that occurs. I believe that showing such foresight is rather important to a good cover of the discussion.

Get back to me when the debate about gender is more damaging in terms of policy than climate change denial or anti-vaccine sentiment, among other ideas. No disagreement whatsoever about muddying the water, and I think we've talked about this before - when it comes to truth, that cannot be subject just to the highest bidder as then you're just telling people what they want to hear rather than what really is. Fair point on more bravery being required, too - though lest we forget, Trump was and is categorically lying about the 2020 election and he did incite what was functionally a coup attempt on January 6th 2021. That is a matter of record from various other sources, regardless of what the Beeb have done.

Lot of that going around in a lot of different areas. With consequences.

And thus we circle back around to the entire idea of truth being subverted, as discussed earlier. There are people who simply believe as they wish, and not even the most exacting scientific peer-reviewed research will convince them otherwise - in fact, they consider that entire process to also be corrupt. That entire disregard of the best method of divining truth (by far) in the name of "freedom of thought/opinion" when applied to action, particularly policy action, has never ended well before and will end worse in the future.

This answer stands.