all 9 comments

[–]Chipit[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

  1. Follow this link to declare you no longer need a license. https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/cs/no-licence-needed/about.app

  2. Cancel your direct debit.

  3. Defund the BBC. Don't fund pedophiles.

  4. Send these instructions to all your friends.

[–]raven9 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

What a bunch of horseshit. What difference does it make if he is formally introduced as a labour party activist or not.

[–]Chipit[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

It's rather a large difference indeed. The BBC violated its own ethical standards to deceive viewers. But yeah, I understand if you think it's not a big deal - the BBC does it all the time.

We should not automatically assume that contributors from other organisations (such as academics, journalists, researchers and representatives of charities and think-tanks) are unbiased. Appropriate information about their affiliations, funding and particular viewpoints should be made available to the audience, when relevant to the context.

https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality/guidelines

[–]raven9 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I mean from a viewers point of view, it is to say, Syrian refugee opposes government immigration policy but pay no mind to that because he is also a labour activist?

[–]Chipit[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The BBC deliberately deceived its viewers.

[–]raven9 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You dont seem to understand. The viewers would not care if the Syrian refugee joined the labour party or not. It makes no difference.

[–]Chipit[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

THe BBC violated its own ethical guidelines. Why are you trying to defend unethical journalism?

[–]raven9 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Because highlighting insignificant instances such as this one makes the whole issue of ethical guidlines look petty.

[–]Chipit[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Insignificant? It's a big deal. I don't get why you're on the side of the upper class media and against honesty. You must be one of those paid shill accounts.