leicsmac

Only some think that a lot of peer reviewed scientific output is to be utterly disregarded in terms of policymaking.

And be that as it may (and it's a fair comment), it might still be a good idea not to hamstring one of the best allies that still remain against the loathsome sentiment that people like Trump champion that, if left unchecked, will consume us all.

A viewpoint it appears quite a few people share. I'm not entirely sure that wider context on the matter should be considered totally unimportant, though.

That's true, especially the vital role part - because, again, no one wins if we no longer have at least something approaching a single point of truth from which to draw and act. No one.

Because the left wing want to see it unbiased. The right wing want to see it abolished, or at least consumed by commercial, short-term self interested cause, in the same way a lot of the print media that criticise it are. That's a pretty critical difference. The very idea of truth is being subverted, it has been for some time, and it is not just disconcerting, but also deeply dangerous for any kind of future, that people are selecting the wrong targets - or are being manipulated into doing so.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2y1z70lwlo The US Supreme Court has decided not to revisit its ruling a decade ago legalising same-sex marriage. The justices turned down an appeal from Kim Davis, who was ordered by a lower court to pay compensation to a same-sex couple after refusing to grant them a marriage licence. Ms Davis argued that same-sex marriage conflicted with her beliefs as an Apostolic Christian. The 2015 ruling in the case of Obergefell v Hodges was a historic victory for LGBT rights in the US, but some conservatives argue it dealt a blow to religious liberty. A rare piece of unexpected, but very welcome, news.

Additionally, how is it not obvious that Trump's lies are far more consequential, far more damaging, and therefore far more attention worthy?

This. Fire with fire.

Again, noted and in all likelihood correct, but that is far from the only factor at play here.

No reason to doubt what this guy says whatever. However, it does rather infer that there's only one form or angle of activism that is pertinent here and requires addressing.

Absolutely. It was called by Kojima 25 years ago, too.

No disagreement there, but I'm still looking for the best way forward here that doesn't inevitably end in the very idea of truth becoming more subverted than it already is (with all the consequences that entails), in spite of what the Beeb have done here.

That would be true if it were proven in any way that such trust was actually achievable and good faith reporting would actually sway the minds of enough people. Is it, in this era and in this situation? I'm honestly not sure.

FYP, I hope you don't mind.

Yeah, it does. To elaborate; the deeper problem is the rather obvious imbalance caused by one side pulling itself up for a single lie (if one can even call it that) when the other side engages in multiple far bigger lies (at least two or three in those social media quotes alone) and abuses of power which are far more consequential to us all, with seeming impunity. If that isn't addressed, it doesn't really matter how the BBC chooses to conduct itself.

As much as this is accurate, the problems run rather deeper than that.

The reaction of both the current US administration and their sycophants in the British political system over here pretty much make the point that, while the two resignations were doing the right thing, it has precious little utility with respect to having the Beeb serve its vital part in the purpose of neutralising such people.

No, they aren't. The stereotype of the typical Trump supporter isn't quite accurate. The culture of individualism over there has linked with social media, among other influences, to produce a style of social Darwinism that believes both in the supremacy of the particular individual, and also the particular demographic. These people are very smart, very calculated, and have rather successfully manipulated enough people into buying into those supremacist ideals. They genuinely believe that the future belongs to their "tribe", their "tribe" alone, and every other human being, every other living being come to that, is subordinate to them and to that process. Trump is just the figurehead that embodies that ideal. Of course, the whole thing is both so morally messed up and so practically incompatible with any kind of good future it isn't even funny, but as per above, one day I wouldn't mind hearing a cogent counterargument, because I genuinely want to understand.

You know it, I know it and a lot of people seem to know it. However, there appear to be quite a few people (hence the voting figures for the man) who think that there is justification. Perhaps one day we'll hear an explanation that goes beyond deflection, gaslighting and blame-shifting.

Isn't that the damn truth. It can be tiring, sometimes, to fight the good fight. Given what's happened today, it has to be on the Beeb.

Agreed, though I would like to see that reckoning happen here, for all to see, rather than if and in wherever the Beyond is.

That's fair enough. Just have a couple of questions on the bolded, though: Is there really any reason to suspect we're not already in the gutter? And is there really any reason to suspect that the politics of that man - or at least the damage they will cause - will be temporary? Pardon the questioning and the cynicism.

Oh, I agree that they have to at least appear to take the high road. It's just that (and I'm dying to hear a good argument otherwise) it actually has little to zero effect on the landscape of actually holding those people who need to be neutralised accountable at the present time (if current events and opinions are any judge), so it actually means naff all.

There is perhaps a certain irony there. And also, perhaps, a lesson to be learned.

Pretty much my sentiments exactly. Sticking to the rules is laudable, but unless and until people like most of the current US administration are likewise held by the same rules (or by whatever other rule might be used to guarantee accountability), it doesn't actually mean much.