Honey Scam

I put the words "News" and "Facts" in quotes so as to highlight what we all know MSM is choppy at best. Using sources like Ground News can be useful (to me) because you get to read the same subject from media outlets at either end, and even central, of the political spectrum.
Fair enough. I misinterpreted your post.
I have no idea why you keep mentioning straw man? I'm highlighting that you are incredibly selective with the news subjects you have chosen to suggest MSM is untrustworthy, whilst almost certainly accepting others as factual.
I picked 4/5 of the most significant topics over the last few years that they've failed to report on accurately. I could find hundreds of examples.
Clearly you've made your mind up about me already, and will probably accuse me further distracting from meaningful "debate" (which I wasn't doing anyway), so I'll step away.
 
Let's check in and see how the BBC reported the arrest of a Labour MP during a pedo sting:


No mention of Labour. No mention of his name. Headline with no detail - "man arrested".

That's what you get from the country's supposed most trusted source for news.
How do you know this person is a Labour MP? The police wouldn't have released that information, and without hard evidence the BBC can't report a social media rumour(?) as fact in case it turns out to be false - like so much else on social media.

I'm not a particular fan of the BBC, but to be fair to them (and the rest of the MSM) they reported that another Labour MP Mike Amesbury had decked a constituent immediately they saw the compelling video evidence that it was definitely him. As I recall, that was several days before the police even interviewed him, let alone charged him.
 
I put the words "News" and "Facts" in quotes so as to highlight what we all know MSM is choppy at best. Using sources like Ground News can be useful (to me) because you get to read the same subject from media outlets at either end, and even central, of the political spectrum.
try and sit back a bit further. Ground news is still spoon feeding you "news" from MSM. A Bias meter doesn't change that. You're still being programmed what to think about. Many many 'independent' new sources gain popularity then they re used to further the agenda by whatever private investors or gov(same thing) are actually behind it.

If anything, ground news is a bit dangerous as if you identify as left or right, you're going to follow the Bias and fail to think for yourself.
 
How do you know this person is a Labour MP? The police wouldn't have released that information, and without hard evidence the BBC can't report a social media rumour(?) as fact in case it turns out to be false - like so much else on social media.
when the police act fast to prosecute those that posted it was him, we can probably assume that it was in fact him. The police only work fast when there is pressure. They certainly wouldnt arrest someone to posting something false about you or I.
 
How do you know this person is a Labour MP?

BBC can't report a social media rumour(?) as fact in case it turns out to be false - like so much else on social media.
Please substantiate the fact that it is false...?

Do you mean because he was a Labour MP, is that the quibble? If so, you are correct.

They will always report things that aren't true or substantiated that they want to report, but they'll add in wording like "allegedly" but ensure that it's loud and clear what they're suspected of and who they are - unless it's one of their own.
 
Please substantiate the fact that it is false...?
I didn't say it was false, and given the links you've posted it's clearly true.

Perhaps the BBC have a blanket policy of not naming those accused of sex crimes until they're charged, but if he's been given special treatment because he's a former Labour MP I agree that's completely unacceptable.
 
I didn't say it was false, and given the links you've posted it's clearly true.
Apologies, I read your message that you were asserting it was false.

I believe that they pretend to be impartial and they adhere to bullshit Ofcom rules, but it is pretty clear watching their operatives are not impartial. They don't cover the things that the public want to cover and when they do they do it in a way that makes it clear that they are far left activists.
 
Back
Top