Sensitive content
This media may contain sensitive content.
Загрузка видео...
Не удалось загрузить видео
Nut 🥜 Number Two #philly #phillyfreaks #phillyteens #phillyDL #NSF #TS #BBC
130,685 просмотров • 7 дней назад •via X (Twitter)
Комментарии: 0
Нет доступных комментариев
Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста
![It’s outrageous that President Donald Trump has threatened to sue the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), say many in the media. “You have to admire the chutzpah,” wrote one columnist. “Donald Trump describing the BBC as ‘corrupt’ while threatening to take legal action….The man has never been known for his self-awareness, so it’s safe to say the irony has almost certainly passed him by.” But there is no question that BBC employees deliberately manipulated Trump’s remarks on January 6, 2021, to make it sound like he had encouraged violence. An independent outside auditor, Michael Prescott, wrote a major report on the BBC’s bias, which concluded that the BBC had “spliced together two clips” to create “the impression that Trump said something he did not and, in doing so, materially misled viewers.” Americans might think this story doesn’t concern them because it’s about a British media company. Few Americans listen to the BBC. But the story is highly relevant to Americans because US news media companies are guilty of manipulating their coverage of Trump, transgenderism, and race in nearly identical ways as the BBC. And given the BBC’s longstanding reputation as one of the most credible news organizations in the world, Prescott’s independent report has rightly sparked a major international media discussion. Over the weekend, the BBC’s CEO and its Director-General both stepped down. “The Future of the BBC is Now in Doubt,” writes Tim Stanley, an influential columnist, in the Daily Telegraph. Prescott’s report should inspire reform-minded owners of US news media companies to clean up their act. For example, CNN falsely claimed that January 6 was an “insurrection” that resulted in the deaths of five people and did a similarly manipulative edit of Trump’s speech, noted an investigator on X, MAZE. “It may not be technically as bad as what the BBC did,” he noted, “because there was a quick flash transition, but the goal was the same. Make the speech sound worse than it was. Take everything out of context and put it together in an order that makes it sound as bad as possible.” Last year, we criticized CNN and other news media for deliberately twisting the meaning of Trump’s remarks about Liz Cheney for being a war hawk, and Prescott makes the same observation. “Mr. Trump was clearly criticising politicians who readily send US troops to war without thinking about the human cost,” he notes. And yet “the BBC repeatedly pushed this inaccurate version of what Trump said.” Readers of Public are aware that we have been critical of the BBC’s fact-checking program, “BBC Verify.” One purpose of BBC Verify appears to be to label stories with which the BBC disagrees as “misinformation” and thus as something that social media platforms should censor. Last year, the BBC’s Director General, Tim Davie, said, “Disinformation, propaganda, and partial news is [sic] weakening our shared understanding of the world, undermining trust in our institutions and our democratic process,” shortly after the BBC had buried a large package of investigative stories on the problems with giving children and adolescents puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. BBC’s first “disinformation” reporter, Mariana Spring, apologized in 2023 after she was caught lying on her resume. Spring remains employed at BBC as its “Social Media Investigations Senior Correspondent.” Prescott described how BBC Verify spread misinformation. “BBC audiences were being encouraged to believe Britain’s major insurers were, intentionally or unintentionally, racist and charging high prices to customers based on their ethnicity,” notes Prescott. “The central claim implied causation, (that being an ethnic minority resulted in you being charged more), but the reporting and commentary did not consider other issues that can affect insurance charges.” Adds Prescott, “the entire report was taken down, which I understand is very rare. It had taken six months for the BBC to take decisive action about a story that was not fit for purpose and spread damaging misinformation. As far as I know, no one has ever been disciplined for this hugely embarrassing episode and worrying questions remain.” Another example of the BBC’s bias concerned a major story about doctors causing serious harm to children, adolescents, and vulnerable adults. Readers of Public will recall that in the Spring of last year, we released documents, The WPATH Files, which a whistleblower had given to us. “In March 2024,” writes Prescott, “there was widespread media coverage of leaked documents from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health [WPATH] which raised concerns about the quality of care given to gender-distressed children. It was picked up by the Mail, Economist, Observer, Washington Post, the Times, and others, but not the BBC.” Prescott points out other examples of the BBC's censorship and bias on transgenderism. It refused to cover detransitioners, people who regretted taking hormones or receiving surgeries in an attempt to change their sex or gender. It didn’t cover a major lawsuit by a group of nurses after their hospital allowed a man to use their changing room. And, beyond WPATH, the BBC gave little to no coverage of the trans medical scandal, even though the UK government has banned puberty blockers. By contrast, the BBC produced “a surprisingly high number of stories about drag queens,” celebrated a male wrestler who competed in the women’s category, and published an article last year headlined, “Transgender woman guilty of rape after night out.” Wrote the reporter, “Lexi Secker, 35, of Lowbourne, near Melksham, was living as a man when she attacked a woman in Blunsdon, Wiltshire, on 23 April 2023.” More information about the scandal may come out. Just today, Cath Leng, BBC’s former chief writer, says she was “forced out” in 2023 after 25 years because she was critical of transgender ideology. Prescott identified other areas of bias, including on race and the war in Gaza, all of which pointed to a single significant underlying problem. “My view is that the Executive repeatedly failed to implement measures to resolve highlighted problems, and in many cases simply refused to acknowledge there was an issue at all,” he writes. “Indeed, I would argue that the Executive’s attitude when confronted with evidence of serious and systemic problems is now a systemic problem in itself - meaning the last recourse for action is the Board.” All of this is deeply damaging to the BBC, regardless of whether Trump decides to sue it. “BBC staff have destroyed their own trump card in future negotiations over the licence fee,” writes Stanley at the Daily Telegraph. “The problem is this: in the modern, post-TV world, the licence fee is entirely unjustifiable. The BBC has to explain why, when there’s so much else available, it should be allowed to compel us to pay for it – just when tastes are diverging, national identity is fractured and the quality of the BBC’s output is in doubt…” What, then, explains the BBC’s fall from grace? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning journalism, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1988024092369580483/amplify_video_thumb/1988021879752585217/img/pOLnED3lYtZKTBP9.jpg)
