Message from @Weez

Discord ID: 621324169254010881

2019-09-11 11:26:41 UTC  

If that was a hit piece they succeeded

2019-09-11 11:26:45 UTC  

In hitting their own reputation

2019-09-11 11:26:54 UTC  


2019-09-11 11:27:00 UTC  

the bbc have no reputation here to begin with

2019-09-11 11:27:18 UTC  

but it's plainly obvious as to why they did it

2019-09-11 11:28:09 UTC  

I mean

2019-09-11 11:28:26 UTC  

They found the absolute worst comedian to represent their side of the argument then

2019-09-11 11:28:36 UTC  

How stupid must they be if they don't get that right

2019-09-11 11:28:51 UTC  

extremely. again, this is known

2019-09-11 11:29:07 UTC  

I know it's usually best to assume incompetence over malice, but that's so many levels of fail

2019-09-11 11:29:38 UTC  

like the only thing these people are actually competent at are being the mafia

2019-09-11 11:29:42 UTC  

that's it

2019-09-11 11:29:52 UTC  

TR also exposed them good a while back

2019-09-11 11:30:45 UTC  

I guess it's a classic example of don't stop your enemy from making a mistake

2019-09-11 11:38:56 UTC  

BBC is 140 % objective what are you talking about <:hyperthink:462282519883284480>

2019-09-11 12:38:41 UTC  

I mean, the BBC is fine <:pot_of_kek:544849795433496586>

2019-09-11 12:38:55 UTC  

OFC when they start talking about things you don't like, then BBC MAN BAD!

2019-09-11 12:40:17 UTC  

How is any of this incorrect?

2019-09-11 12:40:21 UTC  

Or opinion pieces?

2019-09-11 12:40:25 UTC  

It's objective fact.

2019-09-11 12:40:43 UTC  

Even this, isn't written in a negative way

2019-09-11 12:40:52 UTC  

"No-deal Brexit: 10 ways it **could** affect you"

2019-09-11 12:41:01 UTC  

"The contents of your shopping basket **may** change"

2019-09-11 12:41:17 UTC  

"And Bank of England governor Mark Carney has said that, in a worst-case scenario, our shopping bills **could** increase by 10%. "

2019-09-11 12:41:29 UTC  

Nowhere do they say they WILL. They say they COULD.

2019-09-11 12:41:59 UTC  
2019-09-11 12:43:26 UTC  


2019-09-11 12:43:39 UTC  

Can you show me where the BBC isn't objective?

2019-09-11 12:43:48 UTC  

Or posting factual information?

2019-09-11 12:48:32 UTC  

here's a pretty cool example of a non-objective article

see all the slanting and fanciful wording? sure, everything written here is true when you look at it... but it's written fairly disingenuously, don't you think? it's also interesting how all of their quotes are from people opposed to the topic in question. no pro- or even neutral parties

2019-09-11 12:48:40 UTC  

you can still be factual and objective and show insane bias

2019-09-11 12:48:45 UTC  

or are you a stupid retard?

2019-09-11 12:48:53 UTC

2019-09-11 12:49:07 UTC

2019-09-11 12:49:18 UTC  

Sec, let me finish eating

2019-09-11 12:49:23 UTC  

it is a pretty volcano take

2019-09-11 12:50:56 UTC  

factual, objective articles devoid of differing perspective is opinion, isn't it?

2019-09-11 12:52:39 UTC  

and then there's also omission

2019-09-11 12:52:47 UTC  

>not even listed as “opinion”