Read on Twitter
I& #39;m a BBC person, and there was some good reporting over the election period, but I& #39;ve been very disappointed overall, and found @CNNPolitics much better. The reason can be summed up by & #39;Balance& #39;.
I& #39;ve written about this before, but the BBC is confusing impartiality with the need to always & #39;balance& #39; everything. It should be just telling the truth... and the truth is not the midpoint between a fact and a lie...
It also has an obsession with vox pops. Yesterday Jane O& #39;Brien spoke to "Monica from Maryland" at a pro Trump demo in D.C. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/election-us-2020-54860940">https://www.bbc.com/news/av/e... . The exchange went like this:
Q: "Do you accept the result?"
M from M: "I don’t. There’s been a tremendous amount of fraud [untrue, unchallenged], based on what we’ve actually heard [untrue, unchallenged], and what we’ve learned from reputable sources [untrue, unchallenged]....
M from M: "I don’t. There’s been a tremendous amount of fraud [untrue, unchallenged], based on what we’ve actually heard [untrue, unchallenged], and what we’ve learned from reputable sources [untrue, unchallenged]....
"There was no Republican oversight in a lot of the counting [lie, unchallenged], and there was no way possible some of those numbers could have gone up in the time frame that they did [untrue, unchallenged], so I’m very concerned about fraud."
Instead of challenging these lies and untruths, they were all just accepted at face value - treated as a legitimate opinions. They were not and are not - they are demonstrably wrong. Now, the BBC will say that over the course of their whole output it was made clear...
