Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 116 posts

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#31

Post by chrisseaton »

johneth wrote: post #28
chrisseaton wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the BBC should give any political opinion on any news story, ever. But if they want to, why don't they report the story and include their opinion straightforwardly? Why do they resort to the mental gymnastics of issuing an opinion and then reporting on that opinion as a new story as if it's a separate thing? Makes me think they know it's wrong so they contort themselves like this to do it.

The BBC (organisation) is giving the opinion. BBC News (an independent division within the organisation) is reporting on it, likely in the interests of full transparency. The BBC has certain obligations, one of which is "sustaining citizenship and civil society"[1], of which freedom of the press falls under. So in this case, I'd argue they're obligated to defend it by giving their opinion, especially when it's happen…

Their charter also requires them to a reflect a diversity of opinion. Literally quoting your own opinion first is the worst approach to diversity of opinion I can imagine.

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#32

Post by xxpor »

elliekelly wrote: post #11
jMyles wrote: post #4

Reminds me of this crazy clusterfuck unfolding in San Francisco: https://reason.com/2019/06/04/san-francisco-police-got-a-war...

Wow. How is this not bigger news? I'm on the East Coast and it's the first I'm hearing of it but perhaps someone nearer to SF can comment on whether it's being widely discussed?

It's been making the rounds on the west coast, especially among reporter types in SF.

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#33

Post by chrisseaton »

johneth wrote: post #29
chrisseaton wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should let other people report on stories that involve themselves, obviously.

The BBC reporting on stories about itself doesn't stop other people from also reporting on stories about the BBC. Isn't that obvious?

I didn't say it stopped them. I know it's possible for them to do it.

I said they should stop doing it. It's completely impossible to be even remotely impartial reporting yourself. Isn't that obvious?

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#34

Post by noir_lord »

lettergram wrote: post #15
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #3

Reminds me of the Guradian being intimidated over the Snowden leaks by being forced to drill through their harddrives: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/31/footage-rele...

To be fair, working at a medical billing company standard practice was zero out drive, then drill. It was far less secret than that too

I work for a company that makes stone products.

We still drill through drives and then bash them till the platters are dust.

It doesn't take long and where our main site is people dumpster dive.

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#35

Post by Angostura »

chrisseaton wrote: post #5

Why are the BBC quoting the BBC's opinion on this? Are the BBC making a political opinion statement about the police in another country? The BBC have always loved to report about themselves and often literally interview themselves. It's not unusual for them to report about their own report of an interview between themselves and one of their own executives. But this is become really bizarre now.

Because the BBC News operation try and maintain an editorial firewall between itself and the rest of the corporation. In this case BBC News reporting that a UK broadcaster (the BBC) feels the attack on ABC is worrying is relevant to the story.

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#36

Post by SuddsMcDuff »

notgonnakeep wrote: post #26
SuddsMcDuff wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a misguided comment. There are no "sides" here. Unless you think that any criticism of journalistic practices puts me on "the other team". Grow up!

So, if journalists catch wind of the government being involved in illegal activity, they should just sit down and shut up because it's not their place to publish it. Don't see bootlickers too often on HN, but here you are.

Journalists should know that if they walk the fine line between legal and illegal then they run the risk of being investigated. If they're confident they're on the right side of the law then they have little to worry about. What I take exception to is their attitude, as if it's some great affront to decency and democracy that they should come under any kind of scrutiny.

I don't see many people hurling childish insults on HN, but here you are.

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#37

Post by r3bl »

chrisseaton wrote: post #22
happytoexplain wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An opinion is not an article. A news organization may report an opinion, factually, as part of an article, if it is relevant, even if the source of the opinion is themselves. It makes perfect sense to me.

I don't think the BBC should give any political opinion on any news story, ever. But if they want to, why don't they report the story and include their opinion straightforwardly? Why do they resort to the mental gymnastics of issuing an opinion and then reporting on that opinion as a new story as if it's a separate thing? Makes me think they know it's wrong so they contort themselves like this to do it.

That's because you don't understand what "opinions" are (at least, in this context).

News stories should be brief and answer "5W" questions (who, what, when, where, why). As such, they're supposed to be based on the facts alone, and others should draw their own conclusions from them.

Opinions, on the other hand, are used to put the news stories into context. Journalists are supposed to have more background to the stories than you could learn from just reading the facts (since they're the ones that wrote them). That background can be used to help you interpret those facts.

In this case, an incident happened. BBC put out an opinion piece to tell you why you should care about that incident before they had enough facts to answer all five of those questions. A news story links to that opinion so that they could help you with placing those answers into context.

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#38

Post by anonymousDan »

sonnyblarney wrote: post #16
SuddsMcDuff wrote: post #8

I'm getting a bit sick of journalists acting like they should be above the law. This comes across as though it's an audacious abuse of authority for any law enforcement official to even think about stepping foot into a media companies office. No, you are subject to criminal investigation just like anyone else is. I'm always amazed how qickly the media closes ranks when one of their own is perceived to be under attack…

Everyone seems to get lost in the nuance. It really does matter what is being published. You can't go ahead and publish for example the locations of US ballistic missile sites and say 'hey, freedom of expression'. The real problem lies where information is considered classified, but at the same time, there's a legit case to be made for whistle blowing. I don't think Manning's leaks actually constitute whistle blowing…

What a load of strawman arguments, whataboutery and general rubbish. Of course it's possible to have untrammelled freedom of speech. It may have downsides in many cases, but perhaps that is a price worth paying. Also, in what way does exposing the murder of innocent civilians by Manning not count as whistleblowing? Finally, why should free speech protections be restricted to journalists?

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#40

Post by anonymousDan »

sonnyblarney wrote: post #23
anarchy8 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty amazed that people on this forum are so quick to jump on the side of an authoritarian right-wing government over press freedom.

Australia, one of the most open, free and fair places in the world, into which millions are trying to migrate because of this ... is now a 'right wing authoritarian state'? I think we need to look at the specific information in question. FYI here's a summary of Australia shield laws [1] (sorry, it's not very good) [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/07/australia-jour...

Uhm, doctors and medical professionals wanting to expose the rape and abuse of child refugees on Nauru might disagree with you.
Post reply on HN