It's simply not the BBC's job to tell people who to support and who to condemn, writes the BBC's World Affairs editor.

I guess not strictly news - but with all of the vitriol I have seen in discussions on the Israel situation, that have boiled down to arguments over wording, I feel that this take from the BBC is worthy of some discussion.

Mods, feel free to remove if this is not newsy enough.

    • ALQ@lemmy.worldEnglish
      37·
      1 year ago

      I disagree; it’s a loaded, politicized word. Even if you say that the “entire western world” considers Hamas a terrorist organization, that’s a sweeping generalization which, even if it could be called 100% true, does not represent the whole world.

      Tell me the facts without giving me those loaded words. I’m smart enough to draw my own conclusions.

        • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.worldEnglish
          23·
          1 year ago

          You’re not objectively correct, “designated as terrorist by current and former national governments, and inter-governmental organizations” - they’ve expressed an opinion. You’re taking that opinion and presenting it as objective fact.

        • Zoolander@lemmy.worldEnglish
          13·
          1 year ago

          In addition to the word “adjective”, you should also look up the definition of “objective”. Because you keep digging and digging and it’s making you look silly.

          You are wrong. Whether it’s because you don’t understand what is being said or you are intentionally ignoring it, what you are saying is inaccurate and factually incorrect.

    • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.worldEnglish
      23·
      1 year ago

      A man’s called a terrorist or liberator

      A rich man’s a thief or philanthropist

      Is one a crusader or ruthless invader?

      It’s all in which label is able to persist

      There are precious few at ease

      With moral ambiguities

      So we act as though they don’t exist

    • Hyperreality@kbin.social
      14·
      1 year ago

      You misunderstand.

      Proper old-school journalists, like John Simpson, won’t be quick to call someone a terrorist. They will however report on someone who called them a terrorist.

      It is their job to report the facts. That means that they report what they see and what they hear. Nothing more. That is journalism.

      Coming to the conclusion that someone is a terrorist, isn’t news or journalism. It’s analysis or opinion. Often the journalist is in no position to form an opinion either way, and it’s not really his job anyway.

      The reason this sounds weird to many, is because journalism has gone down the shitter. This used to be standard. Reuters for example, is still quite rigorous in this. But most news organisations now mix factual reporting with analysis. Some ‘news’ organisations remove the news/facts entirely. Basically, reading an article written by a good journalist, you should not be able to tell what side of the argument they are.

      Eg.

      Good: According to Mr. X, the apple was red and tasty. -> the journalist is simply reporting on what Mr. X said. The reader can decide if Mr. X was telling the truth.

      Bad: According to Mr. X, the red apple was tasty. -> the journalist wasn’t there to see if the apple was red, Mr. X could be mistaken. The reader doesn’t realise that the colour of the apple was described as being red by Mr. X and can’t form their own opinion on whether to believe Mr. X.

      The journalist doesn’t avoid mentioning the apple is allegedly red. They just make it clear that they themselves aren’t saying what colour it is, as they weren’t there to witness what colour it was and because their opinion doesn’t matter

      And I know this may sound stupid, but it helps avoid (inadvertent) bias or accusations thereof.