[flagged]
And on this specific case internally within the BBC this man is loathed precisely because it has hurt the reputation of the BBC and he is very likely to resign soon. There is basically zero insitutional support within the BBC for their chair.
The leader of the BBC is quite obviously corrupt and placed in his position in a highly corrupt process.
Which has absolutely no bearing on the Indian government’s response to what was a fairly ordinary piece of media.
Come on.
https://www.medialens.org/2019/the-arrogance-of-bbc-news/
Of course "most corrupt organization in the world" is hyperbole, and I wouldn't discount this specific investigation on BJP (but I have limited interest in that, since I haven't been to India in years)
But blaming others of whataboutism is harmful, since it stifles deserved criticism.
Especially because no one here is really defending the Indian government corruption (for now), so it's not even truly whataboutism.
Example:
"And here we arrive at a truly awesome, structural bias that is barely guessed at by journalists themselves. The fact is that it is simply understood by ‘mainstream’ media at election time that foreign policy – especially our leaders’ high crimes – is somehow unaccountably, inexplicably, irrationally, not an issue the electorate need trouble its pretty little head about. Even after the devastating, illegal 2003 invasion-occupation of Iraq, with the crime still fully underway, foreign policy barely featured as an election issue in 2005.
Corbyn was presented, relentlessly, as a moral monster, as a threat to humanity on the basis of miniscule, in fact non-existent, evidence. But Johnson and the Tories, and Corbyn’s Blairite enemies, escaped all scrutiny – for the simple reason that their very real crimes have been declared a non-issue by an awesomely corrupt system of media corporations serving the power of which they are an integral part."
True, but what we're witnessing now is a middle, not that middle...
(moreover, if both Labour and Tories feel offended, that doesn't mean that the BBC is actually being fair in doing its job, https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-offensive-truth )
Anyhow, thinking that the centrist position is also somehow more representative and enlightned is a fallacy that has been already expounded: https://nick-barlow.medium.com/the-centrist-fallacy-43434642...
Whataboutism isn't a catch all term that can be used to get rid of every opposing argument.
No, but it certainly applies to this comment and a whole load of other comments in the thread where people are trying to draw false equivalence by pointing out isolated incidents of corruption or police violence in Europe and thereby implying that we shouldn't be looking too harshly on other countries. False/shaky equivalence as a distraction, AKA whataboutism.
I don't think they said this. Certainly if they made this argument it would be whataboutism.