General News Thread

[StanSP]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

BBC in trouble again. 
 

not very clever 

What's happened? 

[RonnieTodger]

 

Why do they ruin everything?

[st albans fox]

24 minutes ago, StanSP said:

What's happened? 

 

[Bellend Sebastian]

An exclusive as reported by the ever reliable Telegraph, which proudly boasts the most breaches of the editorial code as judged by press regulator IPSO for both 2022 and 2023 (this accolade being snatched from them by The Daily Express in 2024) which they went on about less for some reason

[Trav Le Bleu]

2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

 

So... are we saying that Donald Trump is a nice person now?

[Jon the Hat]

4 hours ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

An exclusive as reported by the ever reliable Telegraph, which proudly boasts the most breaches of the editorial code as judged by press regulator IPSO for both 2022 and 2023 (this accolade being snatched from them by The Daily Express in 2024) which they went on about less for some reason

Have you been on whataboutery course?  That's a classic of the genre.  

 

BBC should indeed be ashamed of themselves.

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, st albans fox said:

 

 

5 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

So... are we saying that Donald Trump is a nice person now?

 

3 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Have you been on whataboutery course?  That's a classic of the genre.  

 

BBC should indeed be ashamed of themselves.

Well, assuming all of this is on the level...

 

His actions during and after make it absolutely, unequivocally clear that Trump had no issue with the insurrection attempt (not riot, these people wanted to overthrow the results of a free and fair election that Trump still falsely maintains was neither), and the only thing he was sorry about was that it failed. 

 

The only thing that the Beeb have perhaps done wrong here is an element of framing the guilty party to make them appear exactly as despicable as they really are. Now, as an organisation bound to the idea of "going high when all others go low" that's not really cricket from them, but then fighting the cesspool of death-worshipping falsehood-driven fascism that man has tapped into, enabled and driven into a position where it is affecting an awful lot of innocent people, with 100% honesty hasn't really gone that well so far, has it?

 

 

Edited 4 November 2025 by leicsmac

[Bellend Sebastian]

3 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Have you been on whataboutery course?  That's a classic of the genre.  

 

BBC should indeed be ashamed of themselves.

Yes, I went on the Whataboutery Course when everyone else went on the 'Weird Gloating over a possible Isolated Gotcha Whilst Letting a Tsunami of Normalised Disinformation from the Usual Sources Wash over You' course, I'll be honest, it felt like it would be the easier option.

 

I mean it could be true, but the Telegraph article is behind a pay wall but we've got our headline and a reference to an 'internal memo' that I suppose is a step up from 'according to our insider' and is enough for the story to be widely circulated by the parts of the press that consider the BBC its enemy, be seen by a lot of folk and will serve its purpose whether it's true or not.

 

If it turns out to be completely true then the BBC should be ashamed, at being dragged down to the level of the far too large section of our media who increasingly seem to be following the mantra of sentient infected cyst Steve Bannon to 'flood the zone with shit' but I expect that's the point you were making, Jon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[st albans fox]

55 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

 

Well, assuming all of this is on the level...

 

His actions during and after make it absolutely, unequivocally clear that Trump had no issue with the insurrection attempt (not riot, these people wanted to overthrow the results of a free and fair election that Trump still falsely maintains was neither), and the only thing he was sorry about was that it failed. 

 

The only thing that the Beeb have perhaps done wrong here is an element of framing the guilty party to make them appear exactly as despicable as they really are. Now, as an organisation bound to the idea of "going high when all others go low" that's not really cricket from them, but then fighting the cesspool of death-worshipping falsehood-driven fascism that man has tapped into, enabled and driven into a position where it is affecting an awful lot of innocent people, with 100% honesty hasn't really gone that well so far, has it?

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Yes, I went on the Whataboutery Course when everyone else went on the 'Weird Gloating over a possible Isolated Gotcha Whilst Letting a Tsunami of Normalised Disinformation from the Usual Sources Wash over You' course, I'll be honest, it felt like it would be the easier option.

 

I mean it could be true, but the Telegraph article is behind a pay wall but we've got our headline and a reference to an 'internal memo' that I suppose is a step up from 'according to our insider' and is enough for the story to be widely circulated by the parts of the press that consider the BBC its enemy, be seen by a lot of folk and will serve its purpose whether it's true or not.

 

If it turns out to be completely true then the BBC should be ashamed, at being dragged down to the level of the far too large section of our media who increasingly seem to be following the mantra of sentient infected cyst Steve Bannon to 'flood the zone with shit' but I expect that's the point you were making, Jon.

 

More digging reveals that it was broadcast on panorama a week before the US election 

 

it was also in reported in the guardian so we should accept its veracity 

 

I’m no fan of trump or his politics but if people don’t see that stuff like this makes the nonsense on SM acceptable to the masses then you’re living in cloud cuckoo land. 

If there is little trust in the bbc then people will accept any old shite they read on SM to be just as reliable.  The majority who still believe that the MSM is the ‘gold standard’ for accuracy of news  can’t afford things like this to occur.  
 

Yes BES makes a good point about the telegraph and the express and their editorial lapses - these should be called out too. No doubt they appealed to the political leanings of their readership.  The bbc shouldn’t have any political leanings. 

 

[Free Falling Foxes]

8 hours ago, st albans fox said:

 

I'll watch Panorama.

What channel is it on?

[Bellend Sebastian]

Being less pithy and obtuse for a moment, I'd hope that something we all have in common regardless of our leanings, values or whatever, is we'd still rather make our judgements based on some sort of objective reality? Basically, we'd rather not be lied to, even if the lies fed to us are appealing in that they fit in with our world view. 

 

It's probably social media driven but it feels increasingly difficult to access that objective reality, or at least, you have to sift through a lot of distracting guff to get to it. At times I've found myself looking at research papers and government statistics in an effort to get some insight into the issues of the day and frankly it's absurd to live your life like that but you shouldn't have to

[st albans fox]

2 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Being less pithy and obtuse for a moment, I'd hope that something we all have in common regardless of our leanings, values or whatever, is we'd still rather make our judgements based on some sort of objective reality? Basically, we'd rather not be lied to, even if the lies fed to us are appealing in that they fit in with our world view. 

 

It's probably social media driven but it feels increasingly difficult to access that objective reality, or at least, you have to sift through a lot of distracting guff to get to it. At times I've found myself looking at research papers and government statistics in an effort to get some insight into the issues of the day and frankly it's absurd to live your life like that but you shouldn't have to

You’re clearly educated 

 

many illustrations from the last decade show that too many of the electorate aren’t. (Or at best they’re too lazy to think) 

[leicsmac]

Just now, st albans fox said:

 

More digging reveals that it was broadcast on panorama a week before the US election 

 

it was also in reported in the guardian so we should accept its veracity 

 

I’m no fan of trump or his politics but if people don’t see that stuff like this makes the nonsense on SM acceptable to the masses then you’re living in cloud cuckoo land. 

If there is little trust in the bbc then people will accept any old shite they read on SM to be just as reliable.  The majority who still believe that the MSM is the ‘gold standard’ for accuracy of news  can’t afford things like this to occur.  
 

Yes BES makes a good point about the telegraph and the express and their editorial lapses - these should be called out too. No doubt they appealed to the political leanings of their readership.  The bbc shouldn’t have any political leanings. 

 

That lack of trust is happening anyway and I'm not sure it's a majority anymore, in that order. 

 

Far too many people are already getting their "truth" from entirely untruthful sources; the genie has long since left that bottle. So while I get the argument being made here, I can't bring myself to clutch my pearls too much at this one and I'm certainly not going to blame the Beeb for "making" people seek convenient untruths that they're seeking already due to their own self interest. 

 

The sentiment that Trump drives needs to be stopped. By whatever means short of actual blatant illegality necessary. The stakes for the world are too high for anything else. Fighting honestly is fine and the best way - but it doesn't help you at all if you lose.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Being less pithy and obtuse for a moment, I'd hope that something we all have in common regardless of our leanings, values or whatever, is we'd still rather make our judgements based on some sort of objective reality? Basically, we'd rather not be lied to, even if the lies fed to us are appealing in that they fit in with our world view. 

 

It's probably social media driven but it feels increasingly difficult to access that objective reality, or at least, you have to sift through a lot of distracting guff to get to it. At times I've found myself looking at research papers and government statistics in an effort to get some insight into the issues of the day and frankly it's absurd to live your life like that but you shouldn't have to

*plays MGS2 Colonel speech again*

 

"The different cardinal truths neither clash nor mesh, no one is invalidated but no one is right. Not even natural selection can take place here. The world is being engulfed in "Truth".

 

....And this is the way the world ends. Not with a BANG, but with a whimper."

 

[Jon the Hat]

28 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Yes, I went on the Whataboutery Course when everyone else went on the 'Weird Gloating over a possible Isolated Gotcha Whilst Letting a Tsunami of Normalised Disinformation from the Usual Sources Wash over You' course, I'll be honest, it felt like it would be the easier option.

 

I mean it could be true, but the Telegraph article is behind a pay wall but we've got our headline and a reference to an 'internal memo' that I suppose is a step up from 'according to our insider' and is enough for the story to be widely circulated by the parts of the press that consider the BBC its enemy, be seen by a lot of folk and will serve its purpose whether it's true or not.

 

If it turns out to be completely true then the BBC should be ashamed, at being dragged down to the level of the far too large section of our media who increasingly seem to be following the mantra of sentient infected cyst Steve Bannon to 'flood the zone with shit' but I expect that's the point you were making, Jon.

I hold the BBC to a high standard, because it is THE standard, which makes this very disappointing.  They are not perfect but they are much much better that this shit.

 

Trump is a nightmare, but I seriously doubt he expected - when he wittered on for what seemed like hours - that his followers would do what they did, that the police would be so useless, or that it would result in the actual storming of the capital building.  Does he bear some responsibility?  Yes.  Was Democracy seriously at risk?  Not then.  Most of them got inside took photos and prayed. 

[Jon the Hat]

12 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Being less pithy and obtuse for a moment, I'd hope that something we all have in common regardless of our leanings, values or whatever, is we'd still rather make our judgements based on some sort of objective reality? Basically, we'd rather not be lied to, even if the lies fed to us are appealing in that they fit in with our world view. 

 

It's probably social media driven but it feels increasingly difficult to access that objective reality, or at least, you have to sift through a lot of distracting guff to get to it. At times I've found myself looking at research papers and government statistics in an effort to get some insight into the issues of the day and frankly it's absurd to live your life like that but you shouldn't have to

Yes agreed.  I worry a lot about the kids with no idea what reality looks like.  Some of us will happily pay for real things, news, insights, art, music, but the kids don't know what it is.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I hold the BBC to a high standard, because it is THE standard, which makes this very disappointing.  They are not perfect but they are much much better that this shit.

 

Trump is a nightmare, but I seriously doubt he expected - when he wittered on for what seemed like hours - that his followers would do what they did, that the police would be so useless, or that it would result in the actual storming of the capital building.  Does he bear some responsibility?  Yes.  Was Democracy seriously at risk?  Not then.  Most of them got inside took photos and prayed. 

... and then there were those who were specifically looking for the chamber where the election results were being confirmed by members of Congress. With zipties and weapons. 

[ClaphamFox]

1 hour ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Yes, I went on the Whataboutery Course when everyone else went on the 'Weird Gloating over a possible Isolated Gotcha Whilst Letting a Tsunami of Normalised Disinformation from the Usual Sources Wash over You' course, I'll be honest, it felt like it would be the easier option.

 

I mean it could be true, but the Telegraph article is behind a pay wall but we've got our headline and a reference to an 'internal memo' that I suppose is a step up from 'according to our insider' and is enough for the story to be widely circulated by the parts of the press that consider the BBC its enemy, be seen by a lot of folk and will serve its purpose whether it's true or not.

 

If it turns out to be completely true then the BBC should be ashamed, at being dragged down to the level of the far too large section of our media who increasingly seem to be following the mantra of sentient infected cyst Steve Bannon to 'flood the zone with shit' but I expect that's the point you were making, Jon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Telegraph article states they will begin quoting from the internal memo soon, so this is clearly a story they intend to string out. Regardless of whether any of us believe that Trump encouraged the rioters (personally I believe he did), this story is incredibly damaging to the BBC. It suggests  that its journalists have grossly and deliberately misled the viewers of its flagship documentary programme. If the story is untrue, you’d expect the BBC to issue a robust denial imminently, but for some reason it hasn’t done so yet.

[st albans fox]

43 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I hold the BBC to a high standard, because it is THE standard, which makes this very disappointing.  They are not perfect but they are much much better that this shit.

 

Trump is a nightmare, but I seriously doubt he expected - when he wittered on for what seemed like hours - that his followers would do what they did, that the police would be so useless, or that it would result in the actual storming of the capital building.  Does he bear some responsibility?  Yes.  Was Democracy seriously at risk?  Not then.  Most of them got inside took photos and prayed. 

I can’t give trump any kind of pass for Jan 6th

 

[leicsmac]

17 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

The Telegraph article states they will begin quoting from the internal memo soon, so this is clearly a story they intend to string out. Regardless of whether any of us believe that Trump encouraged the rioters (personally I believe he did), this story is incredibly damaging to the BBC. It suggests  that its journalists have grossly and deliberately misled the viewers of its flagship documentary programme. If the story is untrue, you’d expect the BBC to issue a robust denial imminently, but for some reason it hasn’t done so yet.

You can't really separate this individual matter from the wider context in this case, though. See above. 

 

10 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

I can’t give trump any kind of pass for Jan 6th

 

Which is a major reason why this isn't a big an issue as the Telegraph will no doubt try to make it out to be. 

[ClaphamFox]

35 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

You can't really separate this individual matter from the wider context in this case, though. See above. 

 

Which is a major reason why this isn't a big an issue as the Telegraph will no doubt try to make it out to be. 

I simply don't agree with this. There are two separate questions here: 1) Did Trump encourage the Jan 6 riots?; and 2) Did the BBC deliberately falsify evidence to support its case that Trump encouraged the riots?

I think these questions can and must be separated. In a world in which—as @Bellend Sebastian says— it is increasingly difficult to obtain the truth from mainstream media sources, the BBC has, rightly or wrongly, retained a reputation for being more reliable and trustworthy than most. If this story turns out to be true, this reputation will take a major hit. It will mean that the next time the BBC uncovers a genuine scoop about some previously unreported criminal activity by Trump (say, related to Epstein), it will be much easier for Trump's defenders to dismiss the story by saying, "You can't believe these guys—look how they faked the Panorama footage". 

Surely you can see that this matters? If the one media outlet that we believed—well, hoped—was above the fray of partisan bullshit turns out to be just as prone to lying as everybody else, then we'll just slip further into a world in which objective reality becomes practically impossible to determine. The tragic thing about all this is that you could easily make a very strong case that Trump encouraged the riots without faking the evidence—it would have required more work to put together a carefully constructed argument, but at least it would have been true. Unfortunately it seems this was too much effort for the Panorama producers. I think that's a great shame.

 

 

Edited 4 November 2025 by ClaphamFox

[Trav Le Bleu]

2 hours ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Being less pithy and obtuse for a moment, I'd hope that something we all have in common regardless of our leanings, values or whatever, is we'd still rather make our judgements based on some sort of objective reality? Basically, we'd rather not be lied to, even if the lies fed to us are appealing in that they fit in with our world view. 

 

It's probably social media driven but it feels increasingly difficult to access that objective reality, or at least, you have to sift through a lot of distracting guff to get to it. At times I've found myself looking at research papers and government statistics in an effort to get some insight into the issues of the day and frankly it's absurd to live your life like that but you shouldn't have to

What have you done with the real Bellend, who is always pithy and obtuse!?

[st albans fox]

13 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

I simply don't agree with this. There are two separate questions here: 1) Did Trump encourage the Jan 6 riots?; and 2) Did the BBC deliberately falsify evidence to support its case that Trump encouraged the riots?

I think these questions can and must be separated. In a world in which—as @Bellend Sebastian says— it is increasingly difficult to obtain the truth from mainstream media sources, the BBC has, rightly or wrongly, retained a reputation for being more reliable and trustworthy than most. If this story turns out to be true, this reputation will take a major hit. It will mean that the next time the BBC uncovers a genuine scoop about some previously unreported criminal activity by Trump (say, related to Epstein), it will be much easier for Trump's defenders to dismiss the story by saying, "You can't believe these guys—look how they faked the Panorama footage". 

Surely you can see that this matters? If the one media outlet that we believed—well, hoped—was above the fray of partisan bullshit turns out to be just as prone to lying as everybody else, then we'll just slip further into a world in which objective reality becomes practically impossible to determine. The tragic thing about all this is that you could easily make a very strong case that Trump encouraged the riots without faking the evidence—it would have required more work to put together a carefully constructed argument, but at least it would have been true. Unfortunately it seems this was too much effort for the Panorama producers. I think that's a great shame.

 

 

I’d like to give this 3 likes 

 

the biggest issue here is that they spliced together the two clips (when they could have played them separately and narrated that they were said an hour apart and still have made a similar point) - in an increasingly fraught area where seeing is no longer believing due to AI, the BBC have effectively set fire to the fire station! 

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

I simply don't agree with this. There are two separate questions here: 1) Did Trump encourage the Jan 6 riots?; and 2) Did the BBC deliberately falsify evidence to support its case that Trump encouraged the riots?

I think these questions can and must be separated. In a world in which—as @Bellend Sebastian says— it is increasingly difficult to obtain the truth from mainstream media sources, the BBC has, rightly or wrongly, retained a reputation for being more reliable and trustworthy than most. If this story turns out to be true, this reputation will take a major hit. It will mean that the next time the BBC uncovers a genuine scoop about some previously unreported criminal activity by Trump (say, related to Epstein), it will be much easier for Trump's defenders to dismiss the story by saying, "You can't believe these guys—look how they faked the Panorama footage". 

Surely you can see that this matters. If the one media outlet that we believed—well, hoped—was above the fray of partisan bullshit turns out to be just as prone to lying as everybody else, then we'll just slip further into a world in which objective reality becomes practically impossible to determine. The tragic thing about all this is that you could easily make a very strong case that Trump encouraged the riots without faking the evidence—it would have required more work to put together a carefully constructed argument, but at least it would have been true. But obviously this was too much effort for the Panorama producers. I think that's a great shame.

 

 

You know, a year or two ago I would have agreed 100% with this. The Beeb, among others, has the obligation to fight the good fight. 

 

However, and perhaps it's a sign that I'm becoming too jaded, I'm increasingly beginning to believe that it simply doesn't matter if the Beeb or anyone else is telling the truth about people like Trump - they will lie anyway, people will buy and are buying it, and the results are as you see. Events of the past couple of years are a testament to that. 

 

So, what exactly can be done to address the very clear and present threat that the ideology he drives, that controls or is looking to seize control in a number of places (including the UK) with all the consequences that entails? 

 

Genuine question, because like you I believed the truth could be a defence against that ideology, but now I'm not so sure at all. 

[Spudulike]

All news channels have a political bias. Fiona Bruce shakes her disapproving head when it's something she doesnt like. Tom Bradby on ITV is unwatchable and C4 News is about unbiased as the Guardian.

 

Rita Chakrabarti is the best in the business. Clive Myrie is good when he's not being flown around the world to report on Australian bush fires due to climate change.