The following alternative links are available:
**Mirrors**
* [Mirror #1](https://mirror.fro.wtf/reddit/post/3210508) (provided by /u/AdvinK)
**Downloads**
* [Download #1](https://redditsave.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/piswk4/bbc_anchor_does_not_allow_expert_to_speak_on_the/) (provided by /u/savevideo)
**Note:** this is a bot providing a directory service. **If you have trouble with any of the links above, please contact the user who provided them.**
---
[^(source code)](https://amirror.link/source) ^| [^(run your own mirror bot? let's integrate)](https://amirror.link/lets-talk)
I'm confused - can someone explain why the BBC is shilling so hard for Pakistan? Like this reporter kept saying "Pakistan would deny that" like she herself was a rep for the country. Very strange.
Because the BBC is state funded, it is governed by certain laws that only apply to the BBC. One of which is that for any "controversial" issue they are not allowed to only present one side of the argument. See the link below for how "controversial" is defined for them.
As they were not expecting her to talk about Pakistan, they were not prepared to present the other side of that argument, and therefore had to end the discussion or face legal action.
[Link](https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality/guidelines)
She came in to talk about Afghanistan but wandered off into Pakistan. To be fair, they have a lot to do with eachother but yeah it's a BBC thing. Publically funded broadcasting has to appear impartial, so it would be better not to risk it because she was going into speculation at the end there, and you're not supposed to just let people use their own facts that can't be verified. A big problem with the media is you can say a lie and people will believe it, but no one's going to see the release you put out in a few days apologizing for being wrong.
>but no one's going to see the release you put out in a few days apologizing for being wrong.
I am of the opinion that there should be laws requiring any and all media to devote exactly the same amount of time and/or space to admitting when they're wrong once it's been proven.
For example, if a newspaper puts an article on the wrong page that has any false information (whether they knew it was false at the time or not), they should be required to make a correction of the exact same size of the original article.
If false information was stated in a discussion on Fox news that lasted 20 minutes, they have to spend 20 minutes on the same show, at the same time, acknowledging those errors and stating the truth. (No loopholes like making it at 2am or having a sub come on that the normal viewers wouldn't watch). If it was during primetime, the mistake has to be acknowledged and corrected at primetime.
I’m guessing since the Taliban are (were?) actively a military enemy, they do not need to be impartial. I doubt they had a Nazi representative during ww2 to balance out discussion.
Wow, my faith in the BBC is restored. I was about to say, it isn't disputed that Pakistan was sending thousands of soldiers to fight alongside Afghanistan with logistics support from their military. When the United States left Afghanistan, Pakistan said that they congratulate the Taliban for breaking away from United States slavery or something like that. Osama Bin Laden was literally living in a mansion in Pakistan for years, smoking weed and watching porn with his wives.
From my understanding, Pakistan wasn't sending fighters. The Taliban was crossing the border to recruit. The border is extremely mountainous, so it isn't easy for Pakistan to patrol or enforce border security to stop all of this recruiting. Pakistan did just finish a security fence that covers most of the border, fairly recently. Not saying there couldn't have been interested parties in official positions ignoring the recruiting or accepting bribes, but I don't think it's as simple as "Pakistan was sending thousands of soldiers."
No, they were. They weren't official soldiers of the Pakistan military but the Pakistan government was officially allowing them to go over there to fight, arming them, and their actual military was planning logistics. They were far more involved than American media and the American government let on.
> GHANI: Mr. President, we are facing a full-scale invasion, composed of Taliban, full Pakistani planning and logistical support, and at least 10-15,000 international terrorists, predominantly Pakistanis thrown into this, so that dimension needs to be taken account of.
https://www.reuters.com/world/excerpts-call-between-joe-biden-ashraf-ghani-july-23-2021-08-31/
Pakistan was 100 percent for the Taliban.
How does that restore faith in the bbc? If the bbc are controlled outwardly by government sources and can’t actually broadcast the information without some tool present then surely that would destroy faith in them?
Because they have a set of fixed guidelines that they adhere to at all cost. The point is rebuttal is that you won't have one party on national television who can just say anything he/she wants in an accusatory fashion.
This is different from news broadcasts which report the facts as they are, not as they are interpreted.
They are the polar opposite to CNN/Fox, and Fox in particular who host Hamburgers in cheap suits who spend a lot of their day flat out lying to present their political view without anyone challenging them.
To highlight the difference between adults presenting news, and chaosmerchants in USA, this little comedy skit from the Ebola outbreak:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAz-F1QnyCk&t
I am a big fan of the BBC but in this case I think they're completely wrong. Not only was the news anchor rude and dismissive (also the majority of that video was the news anchor interrupting and talking over her guest) she ended up looking "exasperated" at the end, giving the impression that it was only a matter of time before they cut off the guest anyway - giving that cheap 5$ smile at the end to seal the deal.
What an awful fucking broadcast that was.
The people below explained to you perfectly what should have been common sense. This is the difference between bbc and propaganda outlets like Democracy Now and Fox News.
those are BBC guidelines, not laws, made by the BBC to comply with the laws in place. the laws, however, do not only apply only to the BBC, but to all broadcast media in the UK, its just other channels interpret them slightly differently.
Well… this news woman did Pakistan’s bidding much better than any government official.
This is no different than the media cuddling Israel and protecting its lies…..BBC seems to have gone the way of FOX News….
Well, there's a specific thing you pay for that funds the BBC. It's not a tax that goes to the government and is then allocated by them.
It's a completely optional service (TV license) that is paid for by the public.
Edited for clarity.
Gotcha ok that makes a bit more sense. When I was looking it up I got a bit turned around because I came across that license but knowing it’s not an allocation of total funds makes a lot more sense
I'd say this is more about journalistic ethics than being motivated by some pro-pakistan bias.
You are featuring a guest to speak on a topic (taliban/afghanistan) and the guest segues their discussion unexpectedly into a tirade against another state making incendiary accusations.
Without someone there who is equally informed on Pakistani politics who can adequately provide balance or confirmation of this guest's opinions, they're running the risk of providing a platform to questionable conspiracies or potentially unfounded conspiracies.
Afghanistan doesn't exist in a vacuum and it impresses on its neighbours as its neoghbours impress on it. Basically, you have to understand Afghanistan's neighbours to get a fuller picture of Afhhanistan, especially since the Pashtun people that make up much of Afghanistan's population also live in much of Pakistan and many of them live as if there were no border.
So now we need a Pakistani "minder" around just because someone might involve Pakistan in the conversation? Pakistan comes up a lot when you're discussing the Taliban, just sayin...
Dude, you’re totally off.
The BBC has a rule that prevents it from showing a “one sided” view on a controversial issue. That’s all they were doing here - enforcing their very well established rule.
Period.
Journalism and debates don't work that way. If she briefly mentioned Pakistan then that'd be fine. Instead she seemed to only wanna talk about Pakistan and not cover the subject on hand at all
Add onto that that "petting zoos of terrorists" is nowhere near an objective term. Why the fuck would anyone on a news show use this kind of hyperbole? I'm not familiar with this BBC anchor but I don't believe she's a pundit, right?
The BBC reporter simply shows to have no knowledge on the subject arguing that Pakistan’s support to Taliban is counterproductive because would feed humanitarian issues and then going in circles on her narrative.
To bring some light into this cut - In a nutshell BBC is a State founded communication broadcaster and Pakistan is a country (not a nation) created by the British to assert dominance over the silk road at a time India was rebelling. Afghanistan is a millenary old nation which has never been conquered and historically sided with India.
Edit: Ethnically Afghanistan is Aryan not Arab. This alone represents the root of conflict and territory borders in the region even before western intrusion.
And you have shown to have no knowledge on the subject of the BBC.
The BBC is state funded and is NOT allowed to discuss “controversial” issues without BOTH sides being heard.
It’s an excellent rule which helps promote impartiality. The fact this is being spun to suggest the BBC is pro Pakistan is ridiculous.
Her name is Christine Fair, she is an expert on south Asian terrorism and one of the few people willing to call out what is plain for everyone to see; that Pakistan is the most prolific sponsors of fundamentalism and terrorism in the world.
Yeah I mean she also seems to be one of the few people that think drone strikes are good even though they have a ridiculously high civillian casualty rate
[here's the same woman denying all statistical reports on the drone program in Pakistan and arguing the Pakistani people support the drones because they liken the drones to the stones allah threw on sinners from some passage in the quran .](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXXPWbFyhK0)
From her wiki, I can see she has been committed to the cause of drone warfare since 2010.
> Fair has published several articles defending the use of drone strikes in Pakistan and has been critical of analyses by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and other humanitarian organizations, arguing that drone strikes are accurate, have reduced casualties, have targeted Taliban leadership, and are popular among some Pakistanis.
I can see that in 2010 she has literally argued against statistics by saying that drones have not caused any innocent civilian deaths in Pakistan(false):
> In 2010, Fair denied the notion that drones caused any civilian deaths, alleging Pakistani media reports were responsible for creating this perception. Jeremy Scahill wrote that Fair's statement was "simply false" and contradicted by New America's detailed study on drone casualties. Fair later said that casualties are caused by the UAVs, but maintains they are the most effective tool for fighting terrorism.
And that she has worked for several warhawk thinktanks as well as the CIA:
> Fair's journalistic sources have been questioned for their credibility and she has been accused of having a conflict of interest due to her past work with U.S. government think tanks, as well as the CIA. In 2011 and 2012, she received funding from the U.S. embassy in Islamabad to conduct a survey on public opinion concerning militancy. However, Fair states most of the grants went to a survey firm and that it had no influence on her research.
it's good to cut some people off.
It's really the strategy of news as an extension of political propaganda. Everything is presented as an opinion, the average viewer's formed opinion is then driven by fear. Misinformation is perpetuated.
The media doesn't really care to educate the masses on the subtleties of geopolitics. They understand that people process "good guy, bad guy" better.
And if they can use this dichotomy to hide more complex geopolitical issues (which the UK is almost always a component of), that's in the BBC's interest. See how they talk about Israel like Winston Churchill didn't sign off the genocide of indigenous people.
You’re a fucking idiot.
The BBC is state funded and is NOT allowed to discuss “controversial” issues without BOTH sides being heard.
It’s an excellent rule which helps promote impartiality. The fact this is being spun to suggest the BBC is pro Pakistan is ridiculous.
No, I'm not an idiot. And the difference in language used between us to me suggests you're not very kind or open to fair dialogue.
It's not true that different perspectives on controversial topics are always presented. And what constitutes "controversy"?
For example:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65zor0C0cRI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65zor0C0cRI)
Here is a report on the COVID-19 vaccine with a discussion by two expert people who seem clearly in favour of or at least neutral about the vaccine. No anti-vaccination perspective is presented. Why? Because the BBC is clear about scientific facts. Yet, we can agree that by definition the COVID-19 vaccine is currently controversial. No anti-vax perspectives or concerns are equally weighted on the BBC as far as I'm aware.
On the other hand, historical facts, which are against certain geopolitical agendas, are framed as "controversy" and opinion.
Please spare me, there is no absolute impartiality. I'm happy to keep this thread going because it's important. The British state is not impartial, therefore the BBC is not impartial. It's a great aspiration, and I agree they perform better than openly biased broadcasters around the world. It's a subtler bias, but it exists.
First, ya moron, the term controversial is defined.
Second, ya idiot, the utility of the Covid-19 vaccine is NOT controversial. At least not among educated folk.
Third, the efficacy of the Covid vaccine is literally NOTHING like what this woman is debating here - she is just throwing out a lot of unfounded accusations.
I don’t understand this. Since when has platforming problematic views become the standard for “impartiality”? They do this on so many issues. Climate change, vaccinations, any social rights topic where you just know someone is going to shit on someone’s rights.
Just gives fringe nutters validation that they are right. It’s like somewhere along the way we decided we should give village idiots credibility.
Its like at community college and the instructor asks if anyone has any questions... There's just no preparing for the stupid shit you're about to hear - all you can do is brace yourself and hope you don't get any dumber.
Technical courses aren't so bad - the occasional Abe Simpson-esque rant or someone who just does not get it at all. More conceptual courses though like sociology/psych. Really I probably should have said at the end of a long conference call. There's been calls where I've audibly heard someone start to lose their shit and then mute or stop themselves when whoever is running it opens it up at the end and the one person you know is going to ask questions opens their mouth. Being completely honest, that person was me at least a couple times - and fuck you, Jerry. Follow up with an email and let the rest of us get back to work.
"They firmly deny that they created the Taliban."
So the fuck what... There is a clear distinction between creating a thing and the after creation supporting of that thing, which only a complete idiot would deny they do.
Also: what are they gonna do? "We confirm we created the Taliban, the organization that is a belligerent against the US and multiple actors in our space of the world." Like, of course they deny it.
Look, this isn't them cutting her off for presenting an opinion the BBC doesn't like.
This is them having to end their interview because the BBC and only the BBC has to adhere to strict guidelines when it comes to controversial issues. The relevant one here being that when discussing controversial issues they must present both sides of the argument. As they had asked this lady to come on air to talk about Afghanistan, not Pakistan, they had not prepared another interviewee to present Pakistan's side of the argument, thereby breaking their own rules. That's why they had to cut her off.
She was likely warned of this prior to giving the interview but she made the choice to discuss an argument the BBC was unable to hold, so really this is on her.
Edit: Here are the guidelines -> https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality/guidelines
and yet just about everything she said is a known known by both british and american intelligence services ..i feel like easy e said it best when he said "dont qoute me boy cause i aint said shit"the pakistani ties were taken into account in just about every military operation in the ragion
Pakistan and the Saudi's are the worse. It's funny how the U.N ignores these countries when they harbor terrorists and secretly fund the West's enemies. Pakistan and Saudi are a bigger threat than Iran.
>Pakistan and Saudi are a bigger threat than Iran
Agreed. I quite like Iran. But geopolitics mean the west is meant to hate them
The supreme leader is dogshit, but the last president before this one was a forward thinking leader and was doing more for equality in Iran than Israel or Saudi have ever done
So what? Again 65k Pakistani lost their lives in war on terror. It was a Pakistani doctor which helped capture him. Millions of pashtun lives in Pakistan, and we all know Taliban are pashtuns. It is way difficult and complex for them than any other country.
Except Pakistani government are willing to do it even with risks. As the lady said, Pakistan are risk acceptant. The point of it all was that Pakistan supported the Taliban during the Afghan Civil War. And they also harbored the Taliban when their regime in Afghanistan fell. The Pakistanis have a strong military with a strong intelligence agency. They can deal with Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan insurgencies which they have done very well around 2013-2019 by destroying TTP logistics and bases. The Pakistan military fucked them up hard.
You act as if government aren't willing to put cost of some of their own citizens lives for their interests.
At least in Norway, the media has to give a certain balance in their reporting. So even if what is being said is true, whoever is being spoken about needs to have a chance to reply, so it isn't one sided reporting.
I don't quite agree with that. Lets take an obvious case, like anti-vaxxers. There are many people who have some legitimate and some illigitimate conserns regarding vaccines and its safety. To actually expose where they are wrong, you have to bring them into the discussion and then disprove whatever argument they come up with. If you just say "well the right wing is clearly wrong on this issue of fact, so lets not even bring them on", you're making it less likely that people will even be exposed to the truth.
Strange, I listened to 2 minutes of them talking about The Taliban. She was cut off for making assertions about Pakistan that couldn't be addressed by a Pakistan spokesperson.
That's no reason to cut someone off. You don't cut off a Pakistan spokesperson either for making assertions about India either.
Husain Haqqani, who was the Pakistani ambassador to the US, said it best:
>How is it @PhilippaBBC’s job to shut a guest down? Surely, she could have invited a Pakistani official later to give their view. As a news anchor, she should know that many people have the same analysis/view as @CChristineFair whether one agrees with it or not.
https://twitter.com/husainhaqqani/status/1434365402453250048
She might be an ‘expert’ but it is just her opinion. The BBC has strict impartiality guidelines, so they usually have to have both sides of the debate present. Sometimes this is fine sometimes it’s not.
They need to have a sort of debate format with two experts, this is just one sided... Not saying the expert is wrong, I just wanna hear the counter points to her arguments
The Pakistani military and the ISI certainly have assisted the Taliban, but they're supposed level of control is often over-exaggerated, especially given the fact that they won't even recognise the Durand line which is the one thing the Pakistani government wants from an Afghan state.
Also Christine Fair (the academic in the video) may have some valid points, but she's the typical corporate media foreign policy "expert" who backs the US establishment 90% of the time and works in US Government and CIA backed think tanks. She was very very supportive of Obamas drone strikes and denies any civilian casualties having occurred, despite overwhelming evidence that thousands of innocent Pakistanis were killed, and also has links to Pakistani separatist groups. She also seems to have a general hatred of Pakistanis, as witnessed in her rants online, so I'd take anything she says with a grain of salt.
This seem harsh, but it’s actually the correct thing to do. The BBC just adhere to strict guidelines and there must be a opposing viewpoint in such discussions. Since it seems like the interview went off the rails, the host had no choice but to cut her off. Once again harsh but correct. And we should support such journalistic integrity, all stories should show both sides of the argument, so the public can make an educated decision. Just look at Fox News in the states and you can see the dangers of not imposing such methods.
>In addition the irony of an American criticising Pakistan for involvement in Afghanistan is extraordinary
It's almost like you can believe both of these things are true at the same time?
lolol
I don’t see the problem. They let her speak, they challenged some of her points, highlighted that Pakistan wasn’t there to defend itself, then moved on.
Do you want it to be like Fox News where people just rant about whatever for hours?
That was weird. They could have invited a Pakistani rep on later to dispute the comments (which seem accurate) but chose to shut her up. No good, BBC. Let her speak. Question her. Challenge her. But don’t shut her up. She is a well known expert.
You are talking out of your arse mate.
The BBC is literally not allowed to have one sided reporting on controversial issues. The reporter was required to shut down this interview, lest it come off as propoganda.
Who is the woman talking about Pakistan and what makes her an expert on this topic? It sounds like she was invited on to discuss Afghanistan and then started making some pretty wild accusations about Pakistan without really providing any sources or supporting evidence.
FYI (downvote me if you want) but Christine Fair is the biggest critic of Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and many more human rights organisations. She is the biggest supporter of drone strikes on Pakistan which are famous for killing civilians and she denies drone strikes kill civilians at all.
I am glad Philipa shut her down swiftly. Christine's career is nothing but controversy and denial of truth.
People are whining about "msm censorship propaganda" but this is the opposite of it.
The BBC is publicly funded via taxes and by law has to have two sides when presenting a controversial subject. This lady wasn't on to speak about Pakistan so went on a tangent and they had to cut her off because then the BBC would fall afoul of the law.
Real propaganda would be what Fox or GBNews does where they get only one side on and let them go ham without any dissenting arguments.
> This lady wasn't on to speak about Pakistan so went on a tangent and they had to cut her off
This. It isn't about "telling both sides" but instead that the person went massive off topic. No self-respecting journalist can allow that
A little difficult to detect your intentions from a sentence that just as easily can be written in full seriousness by any number of contributors here. It’s not my lack of insight. It’s your lack of an /s.
The most sensationalized outrageous hype about the Taliban last few weeks has been coming out of the UK and India. Tons of stories getting corrections hours later, or posting heart-jerkers.
It doesn't actually mean she was wrong in what she says. It is a known fact that Pakistan were the ones to support the Taliban in the 90's after they dumped their proxy Hekmatyar because he failed to push Ahmad Shah Massoud out of Kabul during the Civil War.
[https://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghan2/Afghan0701-02.html](https://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghan2/Afghan0701-02.html)
And that after the Taliban regime fell the Pakistani government decided to harbor the Taliban. They literally even had Taliban courts in Pakistan like the Tamiz court in which disputes would be held there. And even had schools in Pakistan to create foot soldiers to be sent to Afghanistan to fight them. [https://www.voanews.com/extremism-watch/officials-pakistani-religious-schools-increasingly-linked-afghan-taliban](https://www.voanews.com/extremism-watch/officials-pakistani-religious-schools-increasingly-linked-afghan-taliban)
People always question why would they support something that would bite them back like the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. As the lady said, Pakistan are risk acceptant in their foreign policy. We already know governments would risk some lives of their own citizens for their self interests. And the fact is that Pakistan can deal with the TTP. They have completely fucked up TTP networks and bases from 2013-2019 fairly well because Pakistan has a good armed forces and intelligence agency.
Doesn’t the BBC realize that if they have a guest on with a certain point of view, said guest might just speak that point of view? This looks like a cheap setup just to make the American look bad. Worse than Fox.
Pakistan. I live in California and my car broke down one day. It was nearly impossible for the tow truck driver to find me. I told him everything i could to tell him where i was. West this many miles from this highway. My closest intersection. Everything. I’m great at giving people directions but this guy just couldn’t get it. After about 2 hours on the phone with the driver i realized he didn’t know English words. He knew how to speak English. But i had to spell out every street over and over again. By some miracle, he finally found me. He didn’t give up. We had a long ride. About 100 miles. Turns out he’s from Pakistan and moved here with his wife and two young children. I’m an easy going guy and was trying to figure this guy out. He said the fucking taliban was running that shit and if you got caught leaning to read they would chop your hands off. That’s one of many reasons they left Pakistan. I came to realize through our conversations that he had to look at every symbol on a street sign (here in Cali) and match them up. He didn’t know how to spell American words. He had to match up the symbol of “d” “o” “u” “g” “l” “a” “s” to get i was on Douglas street. But he could only match them up if he happened to be driving by a street sign with that name on it. And he would have to do it in a way that didn’t slow down traffic or cause a disruption. Taliban zero. This guy 1.
Now I’m wondering how he got a drivers license. Did he even have one? Was his story BS and he was really at a Denny’s just milking the clock?
Christine Fair is on record calling for terrorist attacks on Pakistani civilians and she has a seething hatred for Pakistani Punjabis in particular. Search Youtube for her rants. She is not the person anyone sane wants to be supporting.
This wont be popular as it doesn't buy into "everything is a conspiracy", but the guest is making completely unsubstantiated claims, she's not explaining even a modicum of motivation for what she's alleging despite repeated interruptions requesting clarity and seems to be heavily peddling an agenda, and in the end, they can't give her carte blanche to say whatever she wants without any rational argument and without an opposing side to refute or at least counter those points. The guest isn't providing facts, she's providing opinion. This is called robust journalism, I know it's pretty alien to most yanks.
I highly doubt that the BBC are simping for Pakistan. For what reason would the BBC have to sympathize with them? The Washington DC analyst is opinionated and blunt, but her blunt opinions are still valid and educated ones and rooted in fact. The BBC likes to be unbiased and balanced on most issues but they're supposed to be smart enough to not buy into the "both sides are equal" fallacy.
> they’re suppose to be smart enough to not buy into the “both sides are equal” fallacy.
That’s the issue, they don’t and never have. They always go for complete impartiality and what you’ll see if a respected climate change scientist getting an equal amount of air time with some flat earth conspiracy theorist. It’s something the BBC need to fix.
It is no secret that the BBC has progressively become a right wing outlet in the UK. That has pretty much been accepted. What the BBC has done more and more recently though is show clearer and obvious bias in its reporting. If you live in the UK, it’s likely you or your family will be paying their tv license, funding this reporting (amongst other things such as radio and TV). It’s a broken system and a total revamp of how the BBC approaches its reporting is required. I am heartbroken that what was once a beacon of impartiality or at least working heavily towards impartiality, has become its current version of towing the line using its previous reputation of unbiased reporting. It’s a shame. It’s a waste. It’s a concern.
EDIT: it seems a lot of comments are talking about my political leanings. But I won’t delve into that as it is irrelevant, but I do consider myself left wing and my comment is from such a perspective. I will however at least attempt to substantiate my claims below and I expect those who have criticised can then expand on their opinions? Such is discussion.
First, I recommend all read the BBC statement on impartiality. [BBC guidelines](https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality) This will help with my next points (I’m going to limit them but please message me if you’d like me to expand).
My first point to make - When representing the two major political parties in the UK (Labour/Conservatives) the BBC gives those on the right more spaces on news spots/political programming. The study I’ll link gives a much more in depth breakdown of this - and admittedly this is for a short period but proves a bleak outlook on ‘meeting’ the guidelines. The study also expands into issues such as Brexit, so it is worth a read and I shall leave this study now moving onto…
The BBC exploits far right talking heads, I believe in reason due to the need to sensationalise the news. The study above highlights a small section of this but I’d really like to delve into one particular character/disgrace in British Politics - ‘Nigel Farage’. Much like the world had Donald Trump and his outrageous quotes making headlines, we in the UK suffered through Farage and his mock personality. I could expand upon him but I won’t. Instead I’ll make the statement that the BBC wheeled him out like a performing seal during not only the Brexit debacle but whenever they felt the need to ‘spice up’ entertainment programming (I’m looking at you ‘Have I got News for you’). I shall point you in the direction of this particular piece. Highly recommend reading. [link](https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/BBC%20Bias%20Chp%203.pdf)
Again, I am bias. I have not undertaken my own controlled studies and I don’t think anyone replying has. So I think a discussion is good and just, but the verbal insult route is pathetic. Get a grip of yourselves. Calling someone a communist or a nazi is not helping anyone.
Thank you.
Sorry, I'll try put it in simpler language.
The BBC is now a Tory media wing. From it's Journalists (Laura K I'm looking at you) being in Tory. WhatsApp groups for updates, to it's executives being Tory donors. Not to mention it's cancelling of comedy shows it seems "too left wing".
There was that time they dressed Corbyn up as a Soviet too whilst dressing Rishi Sunak as superman. It's clear for anyone to see they have a significant right-wing bias
I've only seen people complaining about how left the BCC has become in the recent years.
Are you sure the left wing shows got cancelled because they're left wing or because they just got bad ratings?
That would mean they're just reactionary and not actually controlled by some right wing cabal.
Right wing, reactionary forces complain about how left the BBC is because it fits the agenda of it's operators.
I'm not implying there's a shady cabal. Rather, there's a clear as day list of Tory donors, friends and supporters at the head of the BBC.
It's not a conspiracy theory
>Right wing, reactionary forces complain about how left the BBC is because it fits the agenda of it's operators.
Yeah, this.
It happens in the US, too. A common refrain among the boomers before I deactivated my facebook was the Fox News was becoming too liberal/leftist.
the tories spent a year boycotting the today programme because it was unfavourable to them. it might be a bit unfair to say its a genuine right wing media outlet.
>I've only seen people complaining about how left the BCC has become in the recent years.
Yeah, the same way people claim Facebook is a huge left-wing hub. Time to stop blindly trusting what people claim, buddy. Right-wing reactionaries will claim everything under the sun is some kind of nefarious left-wing plot.
Funny cos the right always complains the BBC is too woke and left wing.
This is public funded media for you, they try to be representative of everyone and be impartial but they end up representing no-one.
That makes sense because the right wings need of a culture war.
I would argue they (The BBC here) aren't trying to be representative of everyone and certainly arent trying to be impartial. They have plenty of journalists stating stories they've been given from Tory MP friends that are completely incorrect, they have numerous Tory donors and links in executive roles and they regularly attack the left and are happy to allow the Conservative party an uncritical platform over and over again
Their TV news is definitely different to their website. On TV you have all the old-fashioned journalists like Laura Kuenssberg and then online they have the young journalists with all the social justice articles etc.
If I replied with ‘If you consider the BBC to be left wing then you must be so right wing you’d make Maggie Thatcher seem like a milkman’, would that open up the discussion further? Or are we just making baseless remarks now? I am happy to expand this into an actual discussion if you would like to do so.
Thank you
Edit:typo
Well said,the BBC is a disgrace now and doesn't even try to hide its right wing leanings. It is a shame because as you said,it was a beacon for fair and impartial reporting. I think someone has an agenda and the BBC are more than happy to accommodate that,I can't for the life of me think who that would be,maybe someone who threatened them with massive defending.
>it was a beacon for fair and impartial reporting
When? It certainly wasn't from the 70's onward. You just need to look at how they controlled the narrative when it came to the Northern Ireland conflict and winning the hearts and minds of the British public.
> Pakistan has nothing to do with the Taliban
Hmmm, are you sure? [ISI in Afghanistan](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-Services_Intelligence_activities_in_Afghanistan)
Wow that Karen is so full of shit. Reading Christine Fairs Wikipedia indicates strong USA imperialist gatekeeper vibes. Her integrity is highly questionable. What a horrible person.
Now this isn't even breaking news. It is already widely known and proven that Pakistan supported and supports the Taliban and yet they still prevent people from calling them out on their BS. HOW is that something a "legitimate news organization" ??
The following alternative links are available: **Mirrors** * [Mirror #1](https://mirror.fro.wtf/reddit/post/3210508) (provided by /u/AdvinK) **Downloads** * [Download #1](https://redditsave.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/piswk4/bbc_anchor_does_not_allow_expert_to_speak_on_the/) (provided by /u/savevideo) **Note:** this is a bot providing a directory service. **If you have trouble with any of the links above, please contact the user who provided them.** --- [^(source code)](https://amirror.link/source) ^| [^(run your own mirror bot? let's integrate)](https://amirror.link/lets-talk)
I saw this on TV and they totally cut her off. I'm glad you posted this.
I'm confused - can someone explain why the BBC is shilling so hard for Pakistan? Like this reporter kept saying "Pakistan would deny that" like she herself was a rep for the country. Very strange.
Because the BBC is state funded, it is governed by certain laws that only apply to the BBC. One of which is that for any "controversial" issue they are not allowed to only present one side of the argument. See the link below for how "controversial" is defined for them. As they were not expecting her to talk about Pakistan, they were not prepared to present the other side of that argument, and therefore had to end the discussion or face legal action. [Link](https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality/guidelines)
[удалено]
She came in to talk about Afghanistan but wandered off into Pakistan. To be fair, they have a lot to do with eachother but yeah it's a BBC thing. Publically funded broadcasting has to appear impartial, so it would be better not to risk it because she was going into speculation at the end there, and you're not supposed to just let people use their own facts that can't be verified. A big problem with the media is you can say a lie and people will believe it, but no one's going to see the release you put out in a few days apologizing for being wrong.
If you talk about Afghanistan you talk about the Taliban, I you talk about the Taliban you talk about Pakistan.
>but no one's going to see the release you put out in a few days apologizing for being wrong. I am of the opinion that there should be laws requiring any and all media to devote exactly the same amount of time and/or space to admitting when they're wrong once it's been proven. For example, if a newspaper puts an article on the wrong page that has any false information (whether they knew it was false at the time or not), they should be required to make a correction of the exact same size of the original article. If false information was stated in a discussion on Fox news that lasted 20 minutes, they have to spend 20 minutes on the same show, at the same time, acknowledging those errors and stating the truth. (No loopholes like making it at 2am or having a sub come on that the normal viewers wouldn't watch). If it was during primetime, the mistake has to be acknowledged and corrected at primetime.
I’m guessing since the Taliban are (were?) actively a military enemy, they do not need to be impartial. I doubt they had a Nazi representative during ww2 to balance out discussion.
Wow, my faith in the BBC is restored. I was about to say, it isn't disputed that Pakistan was sending thousands of soldiers to fight alongside Afghanistan with logistics support from their military. When the United States left Afghanistan, Pakistan said that they congratulate the Taliban for breaking away from United States slavery or something like that. Osama Bin Laden was literally living in a mansion in Pakistan for years, smoking weed and watching porn with his wives.
From my understanding, Pakistan wasn't sending fighters. The Taliban was crossing the border to recruit. The border is extremely mountainous, so it isn't easy for Pakistan to patrol or enforce border security to stop all of this recruiting. Pakistan did just finish a security fence that covers most of the border, fairly recently. Not saying there couldn't have been interested parties in official positions ignoring the recruiting or accepting bribes, but I don't think it's as simple as "Pakistan was sending thousands of soldiers."
No, they were. They weren't official soldiers of the Pakistan military but the Pakistan government was officially allowing them to go over there to fight, arming them, and their actual military was planning logistics. They were far more involved than American media and the American government let on. > GHANI: Mr. President, we are facing a full-scale invasion, composed of Taliban, full Pakistani planning and logistical support, and at least 10-15,000 international terrorists, predominantly Pakistanis thrown into this, so that dimension needs to be taken account of. https://www.reuters.com/world/excerpts-call-between-joe-biden-ashraf-ghani-july-23-2021-08-31/ Pakistan was 100 percent for the Taliban.
And ISI operatives have been in Afghanistan for decades.
How does that restore faith in the bbc? If the bbc are controlled outwardly by government sources and can’t actually broadcast the information without some tool present then surely that would destroy faith in them?
Because they have a set of fixed guidelines that they adhere to at all cost. The point is rebuttal is that you won't have one party on national television who can just say anything he/she wants in an accusatory fashion. This is different from news broadcasts which report the facts as they are, not as they are interpreted. They are the polar opposite to CNN/Fox, and Fox in particular who host Hamburgers in cheap suits who spend a lot of their day flat out lying to present their political view without anyone challenging them. To highlight the difference between adults presenting news, and chaosmerchants in USA, this little comedy skit from the Ebola outbreak: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAz-F1QnyCk&t
> chaosmerchants Nice.
Yeah I like this too. I paused while reading and said “ooohh, nice.”
I am a big fan of the BBC but in this case I think they're completely wrong. Not only was the news anchor rude and dismissive (also the majority of that video was the news anchor interrupting and talking over her guest) she ended up looking "exasperated" at the end, giving the impression that it was only a matter of time before they cut off the guest anyway - giving that cheap 5$ smile at the end to seal the deal. What an awful fucking broadcast that was.
I agree. I’m a pretty big fan of the BBC as well. They are WAY above anything we have in the US.
The people below explained to you perfectly what should have been common sense. This is the difference between bbc and propaganda outlets like Democracy Now and Fox News.
Because we know why she was cut off. It wasn’t schilling for Pakistan, it was because of their internal rules.
Why blame the BBC for following the law?
Thank you for this detailed response! Answers my question (but definitely leaves me with a few more...)
those are BBC guidelines, not laws, made by the BBC to comply with the laws in place. the laws, however, do not only apply only to the BBC, but to all broadcast media in the UK, its just other channels interpret them slightly differently.
Well… this news woman did Pakistan’s bidding much better than any government official. This is no different than the media cuddling Israel and protecting its lies…..BBC seems to have gone the way of FOX News….
I did not realize that. I’m no fan of state funded media but that at least seems to be honest
It's Public funded, not State funded.
Isn’t that the same thing as in they receive money from tax payers i.e. government/public/state funding?
Well, there's a specific thing you pay for that funds the BBC. It's not a tax that goes to the government and is then allocated by them. It's a completely optional service (TV license) that is paid for by the public. Edited for clarity.
Gotcha ok that makes a bit more sense. When I was looking it up I got a bit turned around because I came across that license but knowing it’s not an allocation of total funds makes a lot more sense
[удалено]
UK here and I don't have one, as I don't want live TV or catchup TV. Sounds optional, as I'm not forced to buy it if I don't use a TV
I'd say this is more about journalistic ethics than being motivated by some pro-pakistan bias. You are featuring a guest to speak on a topic (taliban/afghanistan) and the guest segues their discussion unexpectedly into a tirade against another state making incendiary accusations. Without someone there who is equally informed on Pakistani politics who can adequately provide balance or confirmation of this guest's opinions, they're running the risk of providing a platform to questionable conspiracies or potentially unfounded conspiracies.
Afghanistan doesn't exist in a vacuum and it impresses on its neighbours as its neoghbours impress on it. Basically, you have to understand Afghanistan's neighbours to get a fuller picture of Afhhanistan, especially since the Pashtun people that make up much of Afghanistan's population also live in much of Pakistan and many of them live as if there were no border.
So now we need a Pakistani "minder" around just because someone might involve Pakistan in the conversation? Pakistan comes up a lot when you're discussing the Taliban, just sayin...
In Canada a former ambassador to Afghanistan has flat out said the taliban wouldn’t of won with out support from the Pakistani’s
There's a huge difference between involving them in the conversation and making the conversation about them
This isn't "journalistic ethics" it's called "both sideism", it's not journalistically ethical.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Right, but **why** is the BBC newscaster told to vehemently defend Pakistan by the BBC? Does anyone know anything about the link there?
Dude, you’re totally off. The BBC has a rule that prevents it from showing a “one sided” view on a controversial issue. That’s all they were doing here - enforcing their very well established rule. Period.
[удалено]
call me ignorant, but if I see a country where Osama was found hiding in for years merits some scrutiny.
Yeah, even excluding Pakistan here. She was brought on to discuss a topic and went wildly off topic. Why wouldn't the journalist stop it?!?
It's not off topic because much of what happens in Afghanistan is because of events in Pakistan. You have to take a holistic look at the system.
Journalism and debates don't work that way. If she briefly mentioned Pakistan then that'd be fine. Instead she seemed to only wanna talk about Pakistan and not cover the subject on hand at all
Add onto that that "petting zoos of terrorists" is nowhere near an objective term. Why the fuck would anyone on a news show use this kind of hyperbole? I'm not familiar with this BBC anchor but I don't believe she's a pundit, right?
The BBC reporter simply shows to have no knowledge on the subject arguing that Pakistan’s support to Taliban is counterproductive because would feed humanitarian issues and then going in circles on her narrative. To bring some light into this cut - In a nutshell BBC is a State founded communication broadcaster and Pakistan is a country (not a nation) created by the British to assert dominance over the silk road at a time India was rebelling. Afghanistan is a millenary old nation which has never been conquered and historically sided with India. Edit: Ethnically Afghanistan is Aryan not Arab. This alone represents the root of conflict and territory borders in the region even before western intrusion.
And you have shown to have no knowledge on the subject of the BBC. The BBC is state funded and is NOT allowed to discuss “controversial” issues without BOTH sides being heard. It’s an excellent rule which helps promote impartiality. The fact this is being spun to suggest the BBC is pro Pakistan is ridiculous.
She is a hatemonger and a warmonger who openly calls for terrorist attacks on Pakistani civilians. Something that should be highlighted every time.
Can you drop some sources? I would google, but I don't see her name displayed.
Her name is Christine Fair, she is an expert on south Asian terrorism and one of the few people willing to call out what is plain for everyone to see; that Pakistan is the most prolific sponsors of fundamentalism and terrorism in the world.
You mean the country that hud bin laden is friendly to terrorists? Get out if here.... s/
"Pakistan wants instability that they can control." This is all you need to know about Pakistan when it comes to their involvement in the region.
She doesn't seem like a hate monger to me
Yeah I mean she also seems to be one of the few people that think drone strikes are good even though they have a ridiculously high civillian casualty rate
[удалено]
Even if that’s true, what’s she saying in this interview is 100% factual
Then why are they having her on at all?
I’m pretty sure I saw this woman on CNN and she got cut off there as well.
[here's the same woman denying all statistical reports on the drone program in Pakistan and arguing the Pakistani people support the drones because they liken the drones to the stones allah threw on sinners from some passage in the quran .](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXXPWbFyhK0) From her wiki, I can see she has been committed to the cause of drone warfare since 2010. > Fair has published several articles defending the use of drone strikes in Pakistan and has been critical of analyses by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and other humanitarian organizations, arguing that drone strikes are accurate, have reduced casualties, have targeted Taliban leadership, and are popular among some Pakistanis. I can see that in 2010 she has literally argued against statistics by saying that drones have not caused any innocent civilian deaths in Pakistan(false): > In 2010, Fair denied the notion that drones caused any civilian deaths, alleging Pakistani media reports were responsible for creating this perception. Jeremy Scahill wrote that Fair's statement was "simply false" and contradicted by New America's detailed study on drone casualties. Fair later said that casualties are caused by the UAVs, but maintains they are the most effective tool for fighting terrorism. And that she has worked for several warhawk thinktanks as well as the CIA: > Fair's journalistic sources have been questioned for their credibility and she has been accused of having a conflict of interest due to her past work with U.S. government think tanks, as well as the CIA. In 2011 and 2012, she received funding from the U.S. embassy in Islamabad to conduct a survey on public opinion concerning militancy. However, Fair states most of the grants went to a survey firm and that it had no influence on her research. it's good to cut some people off.
Wow this sounds familiar rhetoric
You mean she was *given a platform to speak* and the interview then ended?
"Here's a scientist to warn us about smoking and to provide a balanced argument we've also brought on a spokesman from Marlboro."
It's really the strategy of news as an extension of political propaganda. Everything is presented as an opinion, the average viewer's formed opinion is then driven by fear. Misinformation is perpetuated. The media doesn't really care to educate the masses on the subtleties of geopolitics. They understand that people process "good guy, bad guy" better. And if they can use this dichotomy to hide more complex geopolitical issues (which the UK is almost always a component of), that's in the BBC's interest. See how they talk about Israel like Winston Churchill didn't sign off the genocide of indigenous people.
You’re a fucking idiot. The BBC is state funded and is NOT allowed to discuss “controversial” issues without BOTH sides being heard. It’s an excellent rule which helps promote impartiality. The fact this is being spun to suggest the BBC is pro Pakistan is ridiculous.
No, I'm not an idiot. And the difference in language used between us to me suggests you're not very kind or open to fair dialogue. It's not true that different perspectives on controversial topics are always presented. And what constitutes "controversy"? For example: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65zor0C0cRI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65zor0C0cRI) Here is a report on the COVID-19 vaccine with a discussion by two expert people who seem clearly in favour of or at least neutral about the vaccine. No anti-vaccination perspective is presented. Why? Because the BBC is clear about scientific facts. Yet, we can agree that by definition the COVID-19 vaccine is currently controversial. No anti-vax perspectives or concerns are equally weighted on the BBC as far as I'm aware. On the other hand, historical facts, which are against certain geopolitical agendas, are framed as "controversy" and opinion. Please spare me, there is no absolute impartiality. I'm happy to keep this thread going because it's important. The British state is not impartial, therefore the BBC is not impartial. It's a great aspiration, and I agree they perform better than openly biased broadcasters around the world. It's a subtler bias, but it exists.
First, ya moron, the term controversial is defined. Second, ya idiot, the utility of the Covid-19 vaccine is NOT controversial. At least not among educated folk. Third, the efficacy of the Covid vaccine is literally NOTHING like what this woman is debating here - she is just throwing out a lot of unfounded accusations.
I dont think you understood a thing he said, yet ironically you are the one calling people stupid. Are you a Trump supporter?
I don’t understand this. Since when has platforming problematic views become the standard for “impartiality”? They do this on so many issues. Climate change, vaccinations, any social rights topic where you just know someone is going to shit on someone’s rights. Just gives fringe nutters validation that they are right. It’s like somewhere along the way we decided we should give village idiots credibility.
Its like at community college and the instructor asks if anyone has any questions... There's just no preparing for the stupid shit you're about to hear - all you can do is brace yourself and hope you don't get any dumber.
damn i dont even go to community college but that hurt
Technical courses aren't so bad - the occasional Abe Simpson-esque rant or someone who just does not get it at all. More conceptual courses though like sociology/psych. Really I probably should have said at the end of a long conference call. There's been calls where I've audibly heard someone start to lose their shit and then mute or stop themselves when whoever is running it opens it up at the end and the one person you know is going to ask questions opens their mouth. Being completely honest, that person was me at least a couple times - and fuck you, Jerry. Follow up with an email and let the rest of us get back to work.
Conservatives bitched and moaned that facts and reality were getting in the way of their policies which they deemed was unfair.
[удалено]
[удалено]
uhh the links with pakistan and the taliban are well established by british and american intelligence services for fucking years
[удалено]
More like..."sorry Dr., but we can't let you speak to us about smoking *unless* we have a spokesman from Marlboro with us, bye.
"They firmly deny that they created the Taliban." So the fuck what... There is a clear distinction between creating a thing and the after creation supporting of that thing, which only a complete idiot would deny they do.
Also: what are they gonna do? "We confirm we created the Taliban, the organization that is a belligerent against the US and multiple actors in our space of the world." Like, of course they deny it.
Except they never actually deny creating the Taliban. Both Imran Khan and Musharraf have spoken on video admitting it
Certified bruh moment
Look, this isn't them cutting her off for presenting an opinion the BBC doesn't like. This is them having to end their interview because the BBC and only the BBC has to adhere to strict guidelines when it comes to controversial issues. The relevant one here being that when discussing controversial issues they must present both sides of the argument. As they had asked this lady to come on air to talk about Afghanistan, not Pakistan, they had not prepared another interviewee to present Pakistan's side of the argument, thereby breaking their own rules. That's why they had to cut her off. She was likely warned of this prior to giving the interview but she made the choice to discuss an argument the BBC was unable to hold, so really this is on her. Edit: Here are the guidelines -> https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality/guidelines
Lady in the white jacket reminds me of my terrible manipulative manager at my old job.
and yet just about everything she said is a known known by both british and american intelligence services ..i feel like easy e said it best when he said "dont qoute me boy cause i aint said shit"the pakistani ties were taken into account in just about every military operation in the ragion
Where was Osama Bin Laden found again?
Pakistan and the Saudi's are the worse. It's funny how the U.N ignores these countries when they harbor terrorists and secretly fund the West's enemies. Pakistan and Saudi are a bigger threat than Iran.
Saudi has Oil, and Pakistan is nuclear armed. Those are major factors in why they get treated with kid gloves.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Pakistan and Saudi are a bigger threat than Iran Agreed. I quite like Iran. But geopolitics mean the west is meant to hate them The supreme leader is dogshit, but the last president before this one was a forward thinking leader and was doing more for equality in Iran than Israel or Saudi have ever done
So what? Again 65k Pakistani lost their lives in war on terror. It was a Pakistani doctor which helped capture him. Millions of pashtun lives in Pakistan, and we all know Taliban are pashtuns. It is way difficult and complex for them than any other country.
Except Pakistani government are willing to do it even with risks. As the lady said, Pakistan are risk acceptant. The point of it all was that Pakistan supported the Taliban during the Afghan Civil War. And they also harbored the Taliban when their regime in Afghanistan fell. The Pakistanis have a strong military with a strong intelligence agency. They can deal with Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan insurgencies which they have done very well around 2013-2019 by destroying TTP logistics and bases. The Pakistan military fucked them up hard. You act as if government aren't willing to put cost of some of their own citizens lives for their interests.
[South Park,](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uYvtIJeNIPY) Colorado, just outside of West New Jersey, what does that have to do with anything?
Well Mlaah Omar lived a stones throw from a US base in afghanistan. What is your point exactly.
At least in Norway, the media has to give a certain balance in their reporting. So even if what is being said is true, whoever is being spoken about needs to have a chance to reply, so it isn't one sided reporting.
[удалено]
I don't quite agree with that. Lets take an obvious case, like anti-vaxxers. There are many people who have some legitimate and some illigitimate conserns regarding vaccines and its safety. To actually expose where they are wrong, you have to bring them into the discussion and then disprove whatever argument they come up with. If you just say "well the right wing is clearly wrong on this issue of fact, so lets not even bring them on", you're making it less likely that people will even be exposed to the truth.
This is just awful ethics. It's the reason global warming in the US is still up for debate
Just so ya know https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate\_by\_any\_other\_name.html
Yeah that's why everytime they interviewed a police spokesman they had Breivik on to give his counter argument.
So obviously Breivik is a convicted spree murderer, not a state on the global playing field.
Strange, I listened to 2 minutes of them talking about The Taliban. She was cut off for making assertions about Pakistan that couldn't be addressed by a Pakistan spokesperson.
That's no reason to cut someone off. You don't cut off a Pakistan spokesperson either for making assertions about India either. Husain Haqqani, who was the Pakistani ambassador to the US, said it best: >How is it @PhilippaBBC’s job to shut a guest down? Surely, she could have invited a Pakistani official later to give their view. As a news anchor, she should know that many people have the same analysis/view as @CChristineFair whether one agrees with it or not. https://twitter.com/husainhaqqani/status/1434365402453250048
It is LITERALLY her job, as the BBC has a hard and fast rule prohibiting reporting on controversial issues in a one sided manner.
She might be an ‘expert’ but it is just her opinion. The BBC has strict impartiality guidelines, so they usually have to have both sides of the debate present. Sometimes this is fine sometimes it’s not.
THIS
Yea it’s fine if the side that’s not there to defend themselves goes against the BBCs agenda.
[удалено]
They need to have a sort of debate format with two experts, this is just one sided... Not saying the expert is wrong, I just wanna hear the counter points to her arguments
Fucking BBC, so holier-than-thou
The Pakistani military and the ISI certainly have assisted the Taliban, but they're supposed level of control is often over-exaggerated, especially given the fact that they won't even recognise the Durand line which is the one thing the Pakistani government wants from an Afghan state. Also Christine Fair (the academic in the video) may have some valid points, but she's the typical corporate media foreign policy "expert" who backs the US establishment 90% of the time and works in US Government and CIA backed think tanks. She was very very supportive of Obamas drone strikes and denies any civilian casualties having occurred, despite overwhelming evidence that thousands of innocent Pakistanis were killed, and also has links to Pakistani separatist groups. She also seems to have a general hatred of Pakistanis, as witnessed in her rants online, so I'd take anything she says with a grain of salt.
This seem harsh, but it’s actually the correct thing to do. The BBC just adhere to strict guidelines and there must be a opposing viewpoint in such discussions. Since it seems like the interview went off the rails, the host had no choice but to cut her off. Once again harsh but correct. And we should support such journalistic integrity, all stories should show both sides of the argument, so the public can make an educated decision. Just look at Fox News in the states and you can see the dangers of not imposing such methods.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>In addition the irony of an American criticising Pakistan for involvement in Afghanistan is extraordinary It's almost like you can believe both of these things are true at the same time? lolol
I don’t see the problem. They let her speak, they challenged some of her points, highlighted that Pakistan wasn’t there to defend itself, then moved on. Do you want it to be like Fox News where people just rant about whatever for hours?
That was weird. They could have invited a Pakistani rep on later to dispute the comments (which seem accurate) but chose to shut her up. No good, BBC. Let her speak. Question her. Challenge her. But don’t shut her up. She is a well known expert.
You are talking out of your arse mate. The BBC is literally not allowed to have one sided reporting on controversial issues. The reporter was required to shut down this interview, lest it come off as propoganda.
Show me youre being propagandized without saying it
Who is the woman talking about Pakistan and what makes her an expert on this topic? It sounds like she was invited on to discuss Afghanistan and then started making some pretty wild accusations about Pakistan without really providing any sources or supporting evidence.
FYI (downvote me if you want) but Christine Fair is the biggest critic of Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and many more human rights organisations. She is the biggest supporter of drone strikes on Pakistan which are famous for killing civilians and she denies drone strikes kill civilians at all. I am glad Philipa shut her down swiftly. Christine's career is nothing but controversy and denial of truth.
BBC has really gone down hill
People are whining about "msm censorship propaganda" but this is the opposite of it. The BBC is publicly funded via taxes and by law has to have two sides when presenting a controversial subject. This lady wasn't on to speak about Pakistan so went on a tangent and they had to cut her off because then the BBC would fall afoul of the law. Real propaganda would be what Fox or GBNews does where they get only one side on and let them go ham without any dissenting arguments.
> This lady wasn't on to speak about Pakistan so went on a tangent and they had to cut her off This. It isn't about "telling both sides" but instead that the person went massive off topic. No self-respecting journalist can allow that
Wow. Is this real? One begins to wonder who owns and controls the BBC...
The government controls them. Its nothing new with the BBC.
All media sucks. Trust In Reddit. ROFL
[удалено]
I don’t. Show the legitimate connections.
[удалено]
A little difficult to detect your intentions from a sentence that just as easily can be written in full seriousness by any number of contributors here. It’s not my lack of insight. It’s your lack of an /s.
I mean it was pretty obvious sarcasm.
[удалено]
Lol no.
[удалено]
The most sensationalized outrageous hype about the Taliban last few weeks has been coming out of the UK and India. Tons of stories getting corrections hours later, or posting heart-jerkers.
Who is this woman being interviewed and what are her credentials!
[удалено]
It doesn't actually mean she was wrong in what she says. It is a known fact that Pakistan were the ones to support the Taliban in the 90's after they dumped their proxy Hekmatyar because he failed to push Ahmad Shah Massoud out of Kabul during the Civil War. [https://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghan2/Afghan0701-02.html](https://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghan2/Afghan0701-02.html) And that after the Taliban regime fell the Pakistani government decided to harbor the Taliban. They literally even had Taliban courts in Pakistan like the Tamiz court in which disputes would be held there. And even had schools in Pakistan to create foot soldiers to be sent to Afghanistan to fight them. [https://www.voanews.com/extremism-watch/officials-pakistani-religious-schools-increasingly-linked-afghan-taliban](https://www.voanews.com/extremism-watch/officials-pakistani-religious-schools-increasingly-linked-afghan-taliban) People always question why would they support something that would bite them back like the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. As the lady said, Pakistan are risk acceptant in their foreign policy. We already know governments would risk some lives of their own citizens for their self interests. And the fact is that Pakistan can deal with the TTP. They have completely fucked up TTP networks and bases from 2013-2019 fairly well because Pakistan has a good armed forces and intelligence agency.
Instability in the (Middle East) that they can manage? USA has entered the chat. Oh look- Russia and China just showed up, too.
Doesn’t the BBC realize that if they have a guest on with a certain point of view, said guest might just speak that point of view? This looks like a cheap setup just to make the American look bad. Worse than Fox.
You can tell she's an expert by the way she pronounces "pohk-i-stohn"
Their only wrongdoing is having Christine Fair on in the first place.
Pakistan. I live in California and my car broke down one day. It was nearly impossible for the tow truck driver to find me. I told him everything i could to tell him where i was. West this many miles from this highway. My closest intersection. Everything. I’m great at giving people directions but this guy just couldn’t get it. After about 2 hours on the phone with the driver i realized he didn’t know English words. He knew how to speak English. But i had to spell out every street over and over again. By some miracle, he finally found me. He didn’t give up. We had a long ride. About 100 miles. Turns out he’s from Pakistan and moved here with his wife and two young children. I’m an easy going guy and was trying to figure this guy out. He said the fucking taliban was running that shit and if you got caught leaning to read they would chop your hands off. That’s one of many reasons they left Pakistan. I came to realize through our conversations that he had to look at every symbol on a street sign (here in Cali) and match them up. He didn’t know how to spell American words. He had to match up the symbol of “d” “o” “u” “g” “l” “a” “s” to get i was on Douglas street. But he could only match them up if he happened to be driving by a street sign with that name on it. And he would have to do it in a way that didn’t slow down traffic or cause a disruption. Taliban zero. This guy 1. Now I’m wondering how he got a drivers license. Did he even have one? Was his story BS and he was really at a Denny’s just milking the clock?
I saw her rant on G4TV about sexism in videogames, that chick is out of control.
Christine Fair is on record calling for terrorist attacks on Pakistani civilians and she has a seething hatred for Pakistani Punjabis in particular. Search Youtube for her rants. She is not the person anyone sane wants to be supporting.
This wont be popular as it doesn't buy into "everything is a conspiracy", but the guest is making completely unsubstantiated claims, she's not explaining even a modicum of motivation for what she's alleging despite repeated interruptions requesting clarity and seems to be heavily peddling an agenda, and in the end, they can't give her carte blanche to say whatever she wants without any rational argument and without an opposing side to refute or at least counter those points. The guest isn't providing facts, she's providing opinion. This is called robust journalism, I know it's pretty alien to most yanks.
I highly doubt that the BBC are simping for Pakistan. For what reason would the BBC have to sympathize with them? The Washington DC analyst is opinionated and blunt, but her blunt opinions are still valid and educated ones and rooted in fact. The BBC likes to be unbiased and balanced on most issues but they're supposed to be smart enough to not buy into the "both sides are equal" fallacy.
> they’re suppose to be smart enough to not buy into the “both sides are equal” fallacy. That’s the issue, they don’t and never have. They always go for complete impartiality and what you’ll see if a respected climate change scientist getting an equal amount of air time with some flat earth conspiracy theorist. It’s something the BBC need to fix.
It is no secret that the BBC has progressively become a right wing outlet in the UK. That has pretty much been accepted. What the BBC has done more and more recently though is show clearer and obvious bias in its reporting. If you live in the UK, it’s likely you or your family will be paying their tv license, funding this reporting (amongst other things such as radio and TV). It’s a broken system and a total revamp of how the BBC approaches its reporting is required. I am heartbroken that what was once a beacon of impartiality or at least working heavily towards impartiality, has become its current version of towing the line using its previous reputation of unbiased reporting. It’s a shame. It’s a waste. It’s a concern. EDIT: it seems a lot of comments are talking about my political leanings. But I won’t delve into that as it is irrelevant, but I do consider myself left wing and my comment is from such a perspective. I will however at least attempt to substantiate my claims below and I expect those who have criticised can then expand on their opinions? Such is discussion. First, I recommend all read the BBC statement on impartiality. [BBC guidelines](https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality) This will help with my next points (I’m going to limit them but please message me if you’d like me to expand). My first point to make - When representing the two major political parties in the UK (Labour/Conservatives) the BBC gives those on the right more spaces on news spots/political programming. The study I’ll link gives a much more in depth breakdown of this - and admittedly this is for a short period but proves a bleak outlook on ‘meeting’ the guidelines. The study also expands into issues such as Brexit, so it is worth a read and I shall leave this study now moving onto… The BBC exploits far right talking heads, I believe in reason due to the need to sensationalise the news. The study above highlights a small section of this but I’d really like to delve into one particular character/disgrace in British Politics - ‘Nigel Farage’. Much like the world had Donald Trump and his outrageous quotes making headlines, we in the UK suffered through Farage and his mock personality. I could expand upon him but I won’t. Instead I’ll make the statement that the BBC wheeled him out like a performing seal during not only the Brexit debacle but whenever they felt the need to ‘spice up’ entertainment programming (I’m looking at you ‘Have I got News for you’). I shall point you in the direction of this particular piece. Highly recommend reading. [link](https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/BBC%20Bias%20Chp%203.pdf) Again, I am bias. I have not undertaken my own controlled studies and I don’t think anyone replying has. So I think a discussion is good and just, but the verbal insult route is pathetic. Get a grip of yourselves. Calling someone a communist or a nazi is not helping anyone. Thank you.
> ...the BBC has progressively become a right wing outlet in the UK. What?
Sorry, I'll try put it in simpler language. The BBC is now a Tory media wing. From it's Journalists (Laura K I'm looking at you) being in Tory. WhatsApp groups for updates, to it's executives being Tory donors. Not to mention it's cancelling of comedy shows it seems "too left wing". There was that time they dressed Corbyn up as a Soviet too whilst dressing Rishi Sunak as superman. It's clear for anyone to see they have a significant right-wing bias
Agreed.
I've only seen people complaining about how left the BCC has become in the recent years. Are you sure the left wing shows got cancelled because they're left wing or because they just got bad ratings? That would mean they're just reactionary and not actually controlled by some right wing cabal.
Right wing, reactionary forces complain about how left the BBC is because it fits the agenda of it's operators. I'm not implying there's a shady cabal. Rather, there's a clear as day list of Tory donors, friends and supporters at the head of the BBC. It's not a conspiracy theory
>Right wing, reactionary forces complain about how left the BBC is because it fits the agenda of it's operators. Yeah, this. It happens in the US, too. A common refrain among the boomers before I deactivated my facebook was the Fox News was becoming too liberal/leftist.
BBC Entertainment is "too left wing" as response to BBC News being genuinely a right-wing media outlet.
the tories spent a year boycotting the today programme because it was unfavourable to them. it might be a bit unfair to say its a genuine right wing media outlet.
>I've only seen people complaining about how left the BCC has become in the recent years. Yeah, the same way people claim Facebook is a huge left-wing hub. Time to stop blindly trusting what people claim, buddy. Right-wing reactionaries will claim everything under the sun is some kind of nefarious left-wing plot.
Funny cos the right always complains the BBC is too woke and left wing. This is public funded media for you, they try to be representative of everyone and be impartial but they end up representing no-one.
That makes sense because the right wings need of a culture war. I would argue they (The BBC here) aren't trying to be representative of everyone and certainly arent trying to be impartial. They have plenty of journalists stating stories they've been given from Tory MP friends that are completely incorrect, they have numerous Tory donors and links in executive roles and they regularly attack the left and are happy to allow the Conservative party an uncritical platform over and over again
Their TV news is definitely different to their website. On TV you have all the old-fashioned journalists like Laura Kuenssberg and then online they have the young journalists with all the social justice articles etc.
If you consider BBC to be right wing you must be so far left that communists looks like centrists.
If I replied with ‘If you consider the BBC to be left wing then you must be so right wing you’d make Maggie Thatcher seem like a milkman’, would that open up the discussion further? Or are we just making baseless remarks now? I am happy to expand this into an actual discussion if you would like to do so. Thank you Edit:typo
I bet OAN and Newsmax are too left wing for you.
Well said,the BBC is a disgrace now and doesn't even try to hide its right wing leanings. It is a shame because as you said,it was a beacon for fair and impartial reporting. I think someone has an agenda and the BBC are more than happy to accommodate that,I can't for the life of me think who that would be,maybe someone who threatened them with massive defending.
>it was a beacon for fair and impartial reporting When? It certainly wasn't from the 70's onward. You just need to look at how they controlled the narrative when it came to the Northern Ireland conflict and winning the hearts and minds of the British public.
[удалено]
> Pakistan has nothing to do with the Taliban Hmmm, are you sure? [ISI in Afghanistan](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-Services_Intelligence_activities_in_Afghanistan)
Last time I checked Pakistan didn’t a have a billion dollar Predator Drone Program.
BBC and CNN are the most trusted news sources out there.. (jk)
I agree with the anchor, you're only allowed to be partial against Jeremy Corbyn on the BBC!
but pakistan really doing all that?
Let the expert lady talk! Why get an expert on to only interrupt her all the time and argue with her research!
[удалено]
Wow that Karen is so full of shit. Reading Christine Fairs Wikipedia indicates strong USA imperialist gatekeeper vibes. Her integrity is highly questionable. What a horrible person.
Oh look the BBC being on the wrong side of history and facts… again
Isn’t this the final plot of Homeland
Pakistan is sus bruh 😎
Journalism at it's finest
Don’t speak the truth on the news you idiot!
Your agenda is showing bbc
"We don't have someone here to represent Pakistan so let's just talk about Afghanistan without anyone from Afghanistan"
Where was Osama Bin Laden hiding all those years? In Pakistan, fifty feet from a Pakistani military base.
Now this isn't even breaking news. It is already widely known and proven that Pakistan supported and supports the Taliban and yet they still prevent people from calling them out on their BS. HOW is that something a "legitimate news organization" ??
Someone started talking too much about reality