BBC deletes documentary on suffering of Gaza kids indefinitely after Israel lobby pressure

skwawkbox.org Breaking: BBC deletes documentary on suffering of Gaza kids indefinitely after Israel lobby pressure

Corporation claims it needs to review programme content and removes it from its iPlayer service The iPlayer programme page this morning. The BBC has removed its documentary ‘Gaza: How to Surv…

DeclineIntoCensorship @lemmy.dbzer0.com

auraithx @lemmy.dbzer0.com

2天前

BBC deletes documentary on suffering of Gaza kids indefinitely after Israel lobby pressure

skwawkbox.org /2025/02/21/breaking-bbc-deletes-documentary-on-suffering-of-gaza-kids-indefinitely-after-israel-lobby-pressure/

44 2

您正在查看单个对话串。

33 评论

Journalism has become spineless
- BBC in particular (who I would expect better from) are particularly anti-Palestinian and propping up Israel's narrative.
- Not sure what the private media/journalism ownership is here, one of the many things I keep meaning to inform myself about. Obviously the BBC is meant to be an independent, unbiased source of information. In Canada the CBC fulfills the same niche. Neither are safe from outside pressure, or lazy reporting.
  The vast majority of private journalism media in Canada is owned by Canadian media holding conglomerate Postmedia(bit too on the nose if you ask me). It's in turn 66% owned by American Media Conglomerate Chatham Asset Management. It's a bit of a piss take, as media in Canada is meant to be majority Canadian ownership. But there it is.
  
  Excellent comment. I try to keep up with who owns what too, but it's kinda like keeping track of food brands. There only so many owners, but the huge amount of brands (news sources) can make it difficult.
  
  It's also a very real problem, especially in rural areas of Canada, and small communities. Small papers are being bought up en masse, and replaced by generic tat "news" with little if any relevance to the communities, and instruction about what is acceptable for print filtering down ultimately from Chatham Assets, which is owned by Anthony Melchiorre, and is closely associated with the GOP. Ergo a Republican vehicle for disseminating approved information. This situation, where local governments of small communities and rural areas that in the past would have a local paper, now are using Meta products and Twitter to communicate with residents and kinda don't have much in the way of options to change that.
  It's not a great situation. And I think we'll see that like with food and alcohol, a very small group of almost entirely American companies owns basically everything if you follow the shells to the top.
  
  They dont expect my pedons to check beyond the first layer
  And it fucking works
  
  Obviously the BBC is meant to be an independent, unbiased source of information
  Where did you get that idea ?
  The BBC is state apparatus.
  
  Their website.
  In a properly functioning Democratic society, a government funded but independent media corps with a mandate for impartiality and ethical journalism, which doesn't feel limited by potential repercussions for reporting unapproved information, is a really healthy, effective and important thing. I'm not saying that the UK is a properly functioning (Democratic) Constitutional Monarchy. One might argue that those words automatically dictate a lack of proper function and health. That's not what I'm saying, or what we're talking about. I bring it up to curb strawman whataboutist diversion.
  What I am saying is that if a "state apparatus" like the BBC (/CBC) is set up properly, and isn't being actively subverted, it is an important part of maintaining a healthy and functional democracy. And not automatically a right-thought, public control, propaganda machine.
  
  That's like claiming that North Korea is a Democracy by pointing out that they're the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
  You want to see how "impartial" and "ethical" the BBC is, go check out their coverage of Jeremy Corbyn during the campaign to oust him as leader of the Labour Party some years ago (curiously done with the help of Israel-linked Jewish groups accusing him of anti-semitism, which is very much consistent with what they did here and their vastly different reporting of what's happening in Palestine depending on the source being Israeli or Palestinian), most notably the news program were they had as background a picture of him doctored to show him wearing a Soviet hat or how they spread the slander that a Jewish Holocaust Survivor was an anti-semite for comparing the actions of Israel with those of the Nazis (specifically, they claimed Corbyn was an anti-semite for sitting in a panel in a conference when somebody compared some actions of Israel with those of the Nazis, said somebody being a Jewish Holocaust Survivor).
  And don't get me started on how they use framing of everything as having only two-sides to silence non-mainstream voices.
  The BBC is a Propaganda outfit same as, say, Fox News, they're just a posher version of it, all about "opinion making", controlling information and uneven presentation (just go check at how they present things differently in the Gaza genocide depending on the source), rather than in-your-face bullshitting.
  
  North Korea is a Democracy
  I'm sorry. Did. Did you not read the thing? You're railing against something that I... Sorta, kinda, maybe had hinted at. Is the BBC Impartial? Fuck no. Is that the point that I was trying to make? Idfk.... Maybe take a bit of time to sober up? Read what I wrote again. Maybe interpret things a bit better?
  Just like....idk....maybe reread what I wrote above if I was you, and was in the UK on a visa, maybe trying to not be deported. Cool. Glad you were being like....chill...and uh stuff. We aren't opposed. Not against each other.
  
  Yeah, you're right - you're saying that it's possible in a properly functioning Democracy to have an independent state funded media, not that the UK is a properly functioning Democracy.
  I just reacted to you posting a link to the BBC's very own bullshit on their impartiality (a link which doesn't make sense in light of the rest).
  
  Not directly, although the ruling party can always threaten to strip their public funding. If anything, maybe it should go to the state (and I mean the state, not the government, the state is above the government) and be protected by the Crown, if anything.
  
  Should be above the state 😅, the BBC is generally more useful than the crown.
  
  Crown the BBC as Emperor

33 评论