Random Arsenal Shit (When it's not worth starting a thread)

The only thing one could argue they’ve done wrong is a headline that, while factually accurate, was a bit misleading in that it made it sound like this had been officially announced when it hadn't. Ultimately their sources were good though, it wasn’t fake news it was just news.

Misleading headlines or ones which misrepresent the article they headline do annoy me but the BBC are nowhere near the worst when it comes to that sort of thing. I’m stupid enough to read The Metro while I commute and they are awful for this sort of thing. Next time I’m allowed to get on a train I’ll find some examples if you like.

They all do it, tbh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Letters

The only thing one could argue they’ve done wrong is a headline that, while factually accurate, was a bit misleading in that it made it sound like this had been officially announced when it hadn't. Ultimately their sources were good though, it wasn’t fake news it was just news.

Misleading headlines or ones which misrepresent the article they headline do annoy me but the BBC are nowhere near the worst when it comes to that sort of thing. I’m stupid enough to read The Metro while I commute and they are awful for this sort of thing. Next time I’m allowed to get on a train I’ll find some examples if you like.

They all do it, tbh

---

And then overwrote the clickbait piece with a replacement article that relies on an entirely different source. All without any mention it had been edited with key information removed and replaced. Essentially it's a different article. This is far more egregious than their unprofessional clickbait. A total lack of accountability completely unacceptable from any news agency, let alone the national broadcaster. But, it's the BBC and to be expected.

And, of course, the initial headline was 100% inaccurate, despite you claiming the opposite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn

And, of course, the initial headline was 100% inaccurate, despite you claiming the opposite.

---

The headline that said "Coronavirus: Australian Grand Prix called off", which is exactly what has happened?
They had a source which told them the info. They made it clear in the article that it hadn't been announced. It was then announced.
:shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Letters

The headline that said "Coronavirus: Australian Grand Prix called off", which is exactly what has happened?
They had a source which told them the info. They made it clear in the article that it hadn't been announced. It was then announced.
:shrug:

---

The two pertinent points avoided and the arse covering regurgitated directly.

Here's one:

"BREAKING! 70% of UK Population Infected by Virus!"
[Image of dead babies][Click here for full story]

Leading to:

"70% of UK population could be infected by virus in the worst case scenario, says unnamed science bod."

But, you know, they did qualify once you click through, so definitely not a flat out lie in the context presented, definitely not clickbait and certainly the behaviour of a responsible news organisation. And it could even turn out to be true at some point in the future. So what's the harm if it gets a few clicks and misleads people? They all do it tbf. So it's fine.

BBC :bow:

Except that's a complete straw man. Your "example" is a headline which IS factually inaccurate, deliberately sensationalist and doesn't match the story at all. A lot of media outlets do that sort of thing, the BBC are occasionally guilty but not in as extreme a way, unlike some other rags.
They simply reported something about a decision which had been made - and it wasn't like some bloke down the pub told them, they had 2 senior sources telling them who I guess they trusted. And rightly so, their intel was correct.
Clickbait - yes, OK. I'll give you that. But no, it wasn't a flat out lie and didn't mislead anyone. The second line of the article made it clear that while they'd heard this decision had been made it hadn't been announced. They weren't baselessly speculating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Letters

Except that's a complete straw man. Your "example" is a headline which IS factually inaccurate, deliberately sensationalist and doesn't match the story at all. A lot of media outlets do that sort of thing, the BBC are occasionally guilty but not in as extreme a way, unlike some other rags.
They simply reported something about a decision which had been made - and it wasn't like some bloke down the pub told them, they had 2 senior sources telling them who I guess they trusted. And rightly so, their intel was correct.
Clickbait - yes, OK. I'll give you that. But no, it wasn't a flat out lie and didn't mislead anyone. The second line of the article made it clear that while they'd heard this decision had been made it hadn't been announced. They weren't baselessly speculating.

---

Every piece of evidence put down in front of you is rejected and replaced by a restatement of what has already been disproved. You need their bullshit to be true, don't you?

Hmm. You’re either playing dumb or you are dumb.
Honestly can’t decide which :shrug:

:popcorn:

The state of debate in this thread :rose:

Letters & NQ, get a room

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Letters

Hmm. You’re either playing dumb or you are dumb.
Honestly can’t decide which :shrug:

---

Says the guy who plays dumb by ignoring the two key points that were raised. Your default formula. But it's not just that. You have no capacity to detect the principle of a thing. That's why you are satisfied with conclusions like, "Everyone does it", or, "It's not as bad as others". That's how people end up "only following orders".

Do you know which media outlet has never had to issue a correction because their accuracy rate is 100%? The same organisation the BBC has relentlessly attacked, once run by a guy now in jail for reporting the truth, a guy the BBC has shamelessly smeared with lies. The BBC that spread lies about Iraq that assisted in the slaughter of maybe a million people, lies about Syria that could have seen them suffer the same fate. The same BBC that wrapped itself around Saville until he became too toxic to protect. Yeah, they're right up there the very worst of the worst. NYT, WaPo and the BBC. The "respectable" ones.