USA news & politics

[Saintjay]

People who use proven scientific research for starters. Let's take his views on the American food industry. At it's simplest, yes he is doing a good thing and the American food industry is atrocious in many aspects. However, having read the article, RFK is targeting issues he believes are the problem, not what science says. One big example is the new vaccines committee banning the use of a vaccine because it contsins a chemical that RFK wrote about in a book in 2015. That's his agenda, not a science based agenda. So yes removing harmful food colourings is good, but it's not the only issue and evidence suggests he will ignore other areas if he doesn't believe they are an issue. I'm all for him promoting a healthy lifestyle, by science should judge what that is, not RFK.

My issue is where is the line.
Do the BBC need to caveat every article on the trans debate with the scientific facts regarding biology at birth for example or do they ignore any view against this.

Half here think they shouldn't report on RFK whilst others think it was balanced and didn't show RFK in a good light.

Not showing it seems like censorship to me, and who is right and gets to decide i don't really know. So ultimately i have to trust the BBC editorial team, policies etc

 

[Welsh Exile]

You mock because you know your wrong lol

To make the case on behalf of lobbying, your more MAGA than me hahahaha

Wrong about what exactly?

 

[ncurd]

My issue is where is the line.
Do the BBC need to caveat every article on the trans debate with the scientific facts regarding biology at birth for example or do they ignore any view against this.

Well the issue is scientifically its a lot more complex than GCSE science taught you. To the extent lots of scientists said and wrote to the Supreme Court claiming biology at birth can never be described as a binary.

 

[dirty harry]

My issue is where is the line.
Do the BBC need to caveat every article on the trans debate with the scientific facts regarding biology at birth for example or do they ignore any view against this.

Half here think they shouldn't report on RFK whilst others think it was balanced and didn't show RFK in a good light.

Not showing it seems like censorship to me, and who is right and gets to decide i don't really know. So ultimately i have to trust the BBC editorial team, policies etc

Put bettter than I could, hence why the thread derail lol

 

[Welsh Exile]

My issue is where is the line.
Do the BBC need to caveat every article on the trans debate with the scientific facts regarding biology at birth for example or do they ignore any view against this.

Half here think they shouldn't report on RFK whilst others think it was balanced and didn't show RFK in a good light.

Not showing it seems like censorship to me, and who is right and gets to decide i don't really know. So ultimately i have to trust the BBC editorial team, policies etc

For the record I don’t think RFK should not be reported on I just prefer not to give non scientists a platform to spout lies about scientific stuff.

 

[ncurd]

For the record I don't think RFK should not be reported on I just prefer not to give non scientists a platform to spout lies about scientific stuff.

I think it about not even showing nuance this a dangerous man with dangerous viewpoints that are not corroborated with any scientific fact.

 

[Saintjay]

Well the issue is scientifically its a lot more complex than GCSE science taught you. To the extent lots of scientists said and wrote to the Supreme Court claiming biology at birth can never be described as a binary.

I think 3/10 British scientists think gender is not binary. A number of other scientists think differently, and the UK Supreme Court agrees with that as well.

So in the context on the arguement of the BBC the only way they could be shown to be impartial is to show both sides of the arguement. Which in the RFK article they did.

 

[dirty harry]

I think it about not even showing nuance this a dangerous man with dangerous viewpoints that are not corroborated with any scientific fact.

But you agree with some of his stances no?

 

[dirty harry]

For the record I don't think RFK should not be reported on I just prefer not to give non scientists a platform to spout lies about scientific stuff.

What about incredibly important people, who decide policies that effect the lives of hundreds of millions, to have his policy, actions and opinions analysed for public awareness?

 

[Welsh Exile]

What about incredibly important people, who decide policies that effect the lives of hundreds of millions, to have his policy, actions and opinions analysed for public awareness?

It depends how it's done I suppose. I don't think there's any merit in analysing the opinions of anti vaxers, flat earthers and religious zealots.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Put bettter than I could

That's because he's not being antagonistic and putting Ha ha ha ha ha ha in his posts to imply someone is stupid.

 

[Deleted member 53362]

I think it about not even showing nuance this a dangerous man with dangerous viewpoints that are not corroborated with any scientific fact.

And I don't think the BBC said anything he said was fact. To be honest everything you could say that was "positive" was countered quite strongly. Any RFK supporters out there will be screaming bais about this. I don't see anyone reading that and thinking "you know what that RFK has some interesting points" ..... apart from Harry I suppose

 

[dirty harry]

That's because he's not being antagonistic and putting Ha ha ha ha ha ha in his posts to imply someone is stupid.

I mean my original comment was:

"I enjoyed reading that over breakfast, and it was a decent BBC peice. Not sure why anyone would question the BBC over a peice like this.

He's been a massive shot in the arm in the fight against health issues in the US unlike anything they've seen for a while, its desperately needed, but he is a flawed human being (which of us isnt).

To be hysterical and lambast the BBC about the headline is non sensical."

Not antagonistic really is it, people just want a reason to be upset, and take up MAGA arguments to counter mine hahahha

Oh OK, i see what you mean lol

 

[Saintjay]

It depends how it's done I suppose. I don't think there's any merit in analysing the opinions of anti vaxers, flat earthers and religious zealots.

You could argue the pope's dangerous. He's head of an organisation known to have caused significant harm. That's beliefs are scientificaly proven not to be possible. That the Catholic church in some places continues to cause harm and views are dangerous.

I'd be quite happy for the BBC to not report on him or any religious head tbh. Yet his views are important to some people and due to his position and audience he gets reported on. Which is probably why the BBC report on RFK

 

[dirty harry]

And I don't think the BBC said anything he said was fact. To be honest everything you could say that was "positive" was countered quite strongly. Any RFK supporters out there will be screaming bais about this. I don't see anyone reading that and thinking "you know what that RFK has some interesting points" ..... apart from Harry I suppose

Except i applauded the article and journalist for being unbiased and critical and analytical lol

We all align with RFK on some points let's be honest, and we dont align on others. It's the idea being promoted here that if you dislike a stance of some person, you can level them and dismiss, maybe even sensor them, to achieve your political aims. That's what Ncurd is promoting here, and Welsh to a slightly lesser degree, that journalists have a responsibility to discredit those disagreeable to them, and dismiss anything else.

Its a tactic battered into the ground over the last 10 years that has failed over and over, dismissive labelling only hurts the argument.

 

[dirty harry]

You could argue the pope's dangerous. He's head of an organisation known to have caused significant harm. That's beliefs are scientificaly proven not to be possible. That the Catholic church in some places continues to cause harm and views are dangerous.

I'd be quite happy for the BBC to not report on him or any religious head tbh. Yet his views are important to some people and due to his position and audience he gets reported on. Which is probably why the BBC report on RFK

Christ your on fire, **** it your getting the emojis

 

[BrokenWing]

You could argue the pope's dangerous.

He’s from Chicago, of course he’s dangerous.

 

[Welsh Exile]

You could argue the pope's dangerous. He's head of an organisation known to have caused significant harm. That's beliefs are scientificaly proven not to be possible. That the Catholic church in some places continues to cause harm and views are dangerous.

I'd be quite happy for the BBC to not report on him or any religious head tbh. Yet his views are important to some people and due to his position and audience he gets reported on. Which is probably why the BBC report on RFK

And this is why I said I’m not against people reporting on RFK. It’s more what specifically they are reporting on. I’d be exactly the same for the pope. If the pope is taking about Jesus rising from the dead, sacrifice, or even what he likes to eat for breakfast that is fine, but I personally would draw the line of what the pope has to say about how old the earth is and basing his knowledge on a book written 1,500 years ago or whatever.

 

[Saintjay]

Christ your on fire, **** it your getting the emojis

Thanks. Just to be clear my views are based on the BBC article, who and what they report, how they do that etc. In a way that is impartial and suits everyone.

The line between censorship or only reporting facts or just scientific fact and possible issues with that. And how the BBC can balance that.

 

[General Melchett]

I really don't understand this idea that for balance you have to acknowledge the good in a political leader.

Boris Johnson condemned Putin's invasion of Ukraine which I think we would all agree with. But at the end of the day he wasn't fit to be PM due to Partygate, the lies, incompetence and not being on top of the detail etc. In the main he fell well short of the standards expected of the office of PM. Nobody is 100% wrong or imperfect but that's not the bar we should be using.