Hacker News Reader

Comment by 0xbadf00d | Hacker News Reader

Always interesting reading the same news from different sources - the BBC story does not seem to mention the Almaz-Antey test firing of a newer model of the missile to disprove Russian involvement.

Where does the WP lie on the political Spectrum? As a Euro-bloke I don't know.

View on HN

The AA version of events is extensively debunked here (last paragraph): http://listverse.com/2015/09/07/10-outrageous-ways-russian-m...

In short, AA asserted that the BUK missile was fired from Ukrainian-controlled Zaroschchenske. However, locals have reportedly never seen a BUK there, and Zaroschchenske was under rebel control at that time. Their report also contained manipulated footage from the Russian MoD.

There's a section of the report which answers the Russian claims.

Yes, see here:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34511973

The BBC isn't anywhere on the "political spectrum". If the OP was implying that the BBC was deliberately not including that info for political reasons, he/she doesn't really know anything about the BBC.

The BBC is generally accepted to have a left-wing bias, but I doubt if that would have come into play in this particular story.

"Left-wing bias" is an accusation devoid of content. It is only practiced by those who can make no better argument, or are unwilling/unable to entertain a different viewpoint.

Good journalistic practice prescribes a neutral tone and a willingness to report on all sides. In general, the right wing is more unwilling to hear opposing views than the left wing, so good journalistic practice itself is more left than right.

I'll take self-proclaimed neutral left-wing reporting over the right-wing equivalent any day, thank you.

>> In general, the right wing is more unwilling to hear opposing views than the left wing, so good journalistic practice itself is more left than right.

That's merely your assertion.

If you look at the BBC's reporting on items such as the refugee crisis, the EU, Global Warming, the economy, etc it all pretty much lines up with what The Guardian promotes.

As The Daily Show put it, "The facts have a well-known liberal bias."

Unfortunately, that's a misquote of Margaret Thatcher who said "The facts of life are conservative."

Actually, it is more than an assertion. It has a premise, an assertion, and a deduction, each of which can be supported or refuted. You apparently chose neither, as if my statement carries less weight than yours, and your disparaging remark is enough to change my opinion.

Why do you think my post is worth less than yours? Perhaps you are more unwilling than me to hear opposing views?

I'm perfectly happy to hear opposing views. And I don't think your post is worth less than mine. I just don't agree with it.

"left-wing bias" from some mouths simply means a lack of a right-wing bias. Wikipedia - for example - has a left-wing bias in the eyes of those behind "Conservapedia."

The question was around the Washington Post's political standing not the BBC's.

I wasn't implying anything about the reporting accuracy just commenting on the difference - it turns out less than I originally thought.

Always good to hear the BBC's perceived lack of bias - shame it seems the current political climate in the UK (Conservative) appears to be attempting to cut it's funding:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/bbc-licence-fee http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10901155/B...

One possible sign that the BBC is as neutral as could be expected is that governments of all colours are frequently trying to clip it's wings!

The BBC have had several incidents which included internal investigations regarding reporting bias, and it pretty much managed to squash them all including a government report about BBC reporting bias on middle eastern issues.

There isn't an unbiased new source, even the wire has its own biases, but claiming that the BBC doesn't drive a political agenda is dishonest.

So you're saying they were vindicated in all the bias investigations, yet they have a political agenda?

Every person has their own biases, but as an organization the BBC seems to be pretty unbiased. Certainly if you're comparing it to any Russian news source, there isn't really much of a comparison.

No they weren't vindicated at all they just fought to never have it released. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2101629/BBC-wins-bat...

And more in general https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC

According to that wikipedia article they have been accused of pro-muslim and anti-muslim bias. Also, there isn't any evidence that there was actually any bias found in that report. The BBC's arguments for keeping it secret sound reasonable. The entire thing is based on one journalist crying at Yasser Arafat's death, which seems to be clutching at straws.

Again it's only a single incident, you've claimed that the BBC is completely unbiased which is impossible and it's not being used to drive political agenda's which is untrue.

It's also highly unlikely that a 20,000 page report revolves over a single journalist and again it's the the issue here is that the BBC squashed a government report about it's journalism bias first initially and then appealed an order from the information commissioner 3 times. So sorry when a news agency spends 350,000 GBP of tax money to squash a report about how it reports on critical issues you can't but wonder what was in it.

I never claimed that the BBC is "completely unbiased". I said it appears to be unbiased. I don't see any real evidence of any bias, apart from a lot of specuation.

I think you're giving the BBC's stance on being apolitical a bit too much credence. You only have to study the BBC's coverage of the Scottish Independence Referendum, the Westminster General Election ('15) in Scotland and, well, pretty much everything else from it's news output about Scottish politics.

This is a broadcaster that operates in "defence of the realm" mode with regards to SNP/pro-independence politics and news.

For reference and for example:

http://newsnet.scot/?p=115314

http://wingsoverscotland.com/we-need-to-talk-about-bbc-scotl...

http://wingsoverscotland.com/watch-closely-students/

http://wingsoverscotland.com/out-in-the-open/

Prof. John Robertson carried out an academic study on news output from BBC Scotland. The BBC tried to have him fired:

http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/06/30/i-was-bullied-bbc-...

I used to be staunchly proud of the BBC until I started to pay more attention to its coverage of Scottish politics in more detail, around 2005/6, and then realised that there was something amiss inside Pacific Quay (BBC's Scotland HQ).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com