Fake News Watch

z-hog
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#1
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47719166

The BBC has apologised and agreed to pay damages to Ukraine's President Petro Poroshenko.

The apology relates to an incorrect report claiming a payment was made to extend a meeting between Mr Poroshenko and US President Donald Trump.
Buried in the US/Canada page, for some reason.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 weeks ago
#2
(Original post by z-hog)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47719166



Buried in the US/Canada page, for some reason.
It was on the front page yesterday. Not buried, just superceded by other news.
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#3
(Original post by Drewski)
It was on the front page yesterday.
I'll take your word for that, they must have moved it because that's where my search ended up. Very decent of them to own up to the dissemination of fake news in collusion with the Trumpophobes, even if we are the ones who foot the bill.
0
reply
Decahedron
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 weeks ago
#4
(Original post by z-hog)
I'll take your word for that, they must have moved it because that's where my search ended up. Very decent of them to own up to the dissemination of fake news in collusion with the Trumpophobes, even if we are the ones who foot the bill.
Can confirm it was front page yesterday.
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by Decahedron)
Can confirm it was front page yesterday.
That's not the point but alright, we have established that it was front page yesterday. It's good to flag up Fake News every time we see them because we hear about what a scourge they are from all sorts of politicians and how much needs to be done to stamp them out, that's all.

The Guardian had a 'bombshell' on Manaforte visiting Assange, that came and went without a whimper but it could well have been fake too. The point is that they can surface everywhere and at anytime, forearmed is forewarned.

To cap it all, the BBC are spending far too much on compo for a range of people. It could easily be avoided if they cared about it and simply stuck to old fashioned journalistic standards where facts matter more than opinion.
0
reply
DrMikeHuntHertz
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 weeks ago
#6
MSM = Fake news.
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#7
Officials from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) complained of the Corporation’s alleged lack of “objectivity, balance and impartiality” on the subject.

They have also accused it of continually mixing up different schemes.

A series of communications released under Freedom of Information legislation reveal that the dispute dates back to October, when the DWP complained to the BBC about its coverage of the Disability Living Allowance (DLA).

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...artiality.html

The MoS run a good investigative piece on this today but behind a wall, referring to a Panorama production on the subject of Universal Credit. Radio 4 spend a good deal of time on the subject too, one of those bullet points on the agenda pinned to the wall. That's fair enough, even if they seem to spend quite a lot of time on it.

The MoS went to investigate a few people featured on Panorama, those offered as evidence of the alleged hardship the introduction of UC has been causing to some people. They found that a few don't really live the way it was portrayed by the BBC, that their circumstances were misrepresented and they offer solid proof in the form of bank statements and testimony by those involved that there was more to it than on show. Three solid cases at least, why couldn't the BBC find some more genuine cases? Strange.

The BBC appear to be guilty of deliberately misrepresenting the situation in order to make a political case against the Government, that is the nature of the charge levelled at them by the DWP. Fake news can be produced by simply leaving out the full facts and offering the public only what the producers want the public to be aware of, that is the most common form of them. That's what they accuse the BBC of, in plain terms.

When we say 'the BBC', we mean 'a group of people within' the BBC. Grab a copy of the MoS, they cut through it like butter on this one.
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#8
BBC claim: Last month, BBC Look North featured Lisa Dunnington, from York, who told the Corporation that she had nearly lost her home twice in the past two years because she received insufficient income from Universal Credit.

The BBC reported the mother-of-three was debt-free before moving on to Universal Credit.

The truth: The official records show that Ms Dunnington has been receiving UC for only six months.

We have seen correspondence from the DWP which reveals that Ms Rudd's department actually prevented her eviction by paying her rent arrears of £2,000.

A Mail on Sunday reporter who met 41-year-old Ms Dunnington found she struggles with basic arithmetic and relies on her eight-year-old daughter to show her how to use the phone.

BBC claim: Claire Wilkinson, 45, a former NHS worker from Plymouth, was featured on BBC Inside Out South West, last month.

Viewers were told she was being evicted after surviving on just £700 a month in benefits for the six months from April to September 2018, after applying for Universal Credit in March.

Mrs Wilkinson, who said she suffers from vertigo, depression, anxiety and stress, told Inside Out: 'You can't go eight months without food.'

The truth: Mrs Wilkinson showed us her bank statements, which proved she received an average of £940 a month for the period in question – nearly £250 a month more than the BBC reported.

On top of that, she said she received a separate £200 a month disability payment not mentioned by the BBC.

BBC claim: A tearful Hayley Reay, from Hartlepool, said she had been left to struggle when her husband died. Disabled Mrs Reay, 43, said the months since his death in April 2018 had been the 'worst seven months of my life', adding: 'I didn't stop working because I'm lazy. I just need help now, and… it's just too much.'

The BBC simply said Mrs Reay had received a 'package' of benefits from the DWP, without going into detail.

The truth: Within ten days of her husband's death, Mrs Reay received a £2,500 bereavement support payment – followed by an extra payment of £100 a month, in addition to her standard UC payment of £657.43 a month.

She also received a one-off payment of £984.96 – on the grounds that she is too ill to find work – and a further lump sum of £1,599 from the Government's social fund for extra support.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...fake-news.html
0
reply
Doones
  • Volunteer Section Leader
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 weeks ago
#9
Wait! Wut? You are citing the DM as a reliable news source?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...liable_sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...Daily_Mail_RfC
"Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles."
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by Doones)
Wait! Wut? You are citing the DM as a reliable news source?
Spare us the intelligence-insulting guff, if you're one of those who doesn't care about the BBC's political neutrality we can live with that. Plenty more like that about, these days. The minimum you can do is point out what you find fake about the MoS report, if you're man enough for that.
0
reply
999tigger
  • Answer Heroes
Badges: 19
#11
Report 2 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by z-hog)
Spare us the intelligence-insulting guff, if you're one of those who doesn't care about the BBC's political neutrality we can live with that. Plenty more like that about, these days. The minimum you can do is point out what you find fake about the MoS report, if you're man enough for that.
Considering your negativity about the BBC, then do you have a BBC licence?
reply
Doones
  • Volunteer Section Leader
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by z-hog)
Spare us the intelligence-insulting guff, if you're one of those who doesn't care about the BBC's political neutrality we can live with that. Plenty more like that about, these days. The minimum you can do is point out what you find fake about the MoS report, if you're man enough for that.
I'm sure the occasional article in the DM might be somewhat true. And I'm sure the BBC isn't always right (Question Time, for example, is getting ridiculous).
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by z-hog)
Spare us the intelligence-insulting guff, if you're one of those who doesn't care about the BBC's political neutrality we can live with that. Plenty more like that about, these days. The minimum you can do is point out what you find fake about the MoS report, if you're man enough for that.
The difference is, as proven by the BBC article you started this thread about, is when decent sources find out they need to issue a correction, they do.

The Mail rarely does. And on the extremely few occasions they do, it's never given the same precedence.

That's why people have issues with it, and why they'll have issues with you holding them up as an example.
0
reply
999tigger
  • Answer Heroes
Badges: 19
#14
Report 2 weeks ago
#14
Cant believe he prefers the DM.

DM is scandalous in presenting gossip as news and then the following day running the opposite story.
reply
z-hog
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by Drewski)
The difference is, as proven by the BBC article you started this thread about, is when decent sources find out they need to issue a correction, they do.

The Mail rarely does. And on the extremely few occasions they do, it's never given the same precedence.

That's why people have issues with it, and why they'll have issues with you holding them up as an example.
Yeah, sure. What do you think of what they have reported about the Panorama programme?
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by 999tigger)
Cant believe he prefers the DM.

DM is scandalous in presenting gossip as news and then the following day running the opposite story.
Can you please clear off with that childish stuff, if you feel like commenting on the BBC and the alleged lack of political impartiality that's fine. This old game of going for the messenger every time you don't like the message is boring. All I want is for them to be neutral, if you and others are oblivious to that it only shows how far people have gone to sleep over such matters. Even pretending I'm the only person in this country who worries about what's going on at the BBC is silly.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by z-hog)
Can you please clear off with that childish stuff, if you feel like commenting on the BBC and the alleged lack of political impartiality that's fine. This old game of going for the messenger every time you don't like the message is boring. All I want is for them to be neutral, if you and others are oblivious to that it only shows how far people have gone to sleep over such matters. Even pretending I'm the only person in this country who worries about what's going on at the BBC is silly.
You are fundamentally misunderstanding the BBC's position, whether deliberately, or by accident.

The BBC's stated position isn't to be neutral, but balanced. That is a key and significant difference.
1
reply
z-hog
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by Drewski)
The BBC's stated position isn't to be neutral, but balanced. That is a key and significant difference.
Oh, I see. As long as they balance their biases it's alright to be biased. They could be anti-Tory on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays for as long as they are pro on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, that is exactly what their Charter states and you want it to be. Political neutrality, yuk.

So how balanced do you rate the Panorama programme in question? I found it intellectually dishonest and emotionally manipulative, a political propaganda feature, nothing to do with objective and impartial journalism. You found it quite on the mark, what was so good about it?
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by z-hog)
Oh, I see. As long as they balance their biases it's alright to be biased. They could be anti-Tory on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays for as long as they are pro on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, that is exactly what their Charter states and you want it to be. Political neutrality, yuk.

So how balanced do you rate the Panorama programme in question? I found it intellectually dishonest and emotionally manipulative, a political propaganda feature, nothing to do with objective and impartial journalism. You found it quite on the mark, what was so good about it?
Haven't watched it. Couldn't care less. Just find you intensely annoying and pretentious.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by z-hog)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...artiality.html

The MoS run a good investigative piece on this today but behind a wall, referring to a Panorama production on the subject of Universal Credit. Radio 4 spend a good deal of time on the subject too, one of those bullet points on the agenda pinned to the wall. That's fair enough, even if they seem to spend quite a lot of time on it.

The MoS went to investigate a few people featured on Panorama, those offered as evidence of the alleged hardship the introduction of UC has been causing to some people. They found that a few don't really live the way it was portrayed by the BBC, that their circumstances were misrepresented and they offer solid proof in the form of bank statements and testimony by those involved that there was more to it than on show. Three solid cases at least, why couldn't the BBC find some more genuine cases? Strange.

The BBC appear to be guilty of deliberately misrepresenting the situation in order to make a political case against the Government, that is the nature of the charge levelled at them by the DWP. Fake news can be produced by simply leaving out the full facts and offering the public only what the producers want the public to be aware of, that is the most common form of them. That's what they accuse the BBC of, in plain terms.

When we say 'the BBC', we mean 'a group of people within' the BBC. Grab a copy of the MoS, they cut through it like butter on this one.
So basically you are saying that the media reports that we can't trust what the media reports.
Or rather, "I trust any media source that confirms my prejudices and reject any that contradicts them".
T'was always thus!
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (224)
39.23%
No - but I will (40)
7.01%
No - I don't want to (39)
6.83%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (268)
46.94%

Watched Threads

View All