BBC 'bans' journalists from saying US 'kidnapped' Venezuela's Maduro
2d 10h ago by lemmy.dbzer0.com/u/themachinestops in world from www.thenational.scot
Newspeak: "In the 1949 dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (also published as 1984), by George Orwell, Newspeak is the fictional language of Oceania, a totalitarian superstate. To meet the ideological requirements of Ingsoc (English Socialism) in Oceania, the Party created Newspeak, which is a controlled language of simplified grammar and limited vocabulary designed to reduce a person's ability to think critically."
See also: "the officer's gun discharged" instead of "police shot the man"
I remember thinking this aspect of the book was far fetched, but holy shit was he spot on. Language really does inform how we think, and controlling that can be very powerful
Oh boy… are you opening the door to concept philosophy? Because that’s a fucking mind bender. First big assumption you need to let go of in this domain: mankind is not on some path of iterative progress where we find ourselves at the most knowledgeable and capable in the present. Rather, we’ve conveniently redefined what progress is in the first place.
I always thought Winston's job, of literally rewriting history, would be an impossible task.
Nowadays? I'm not so sure. When we look at where most of the news comes from in America and follow the money up, you've got like 90% of it coming from about a couple dozen people.
Some of those people control LLMs along the way. They control our social media and search engine and what posts and answers and advertisers we see. They control the servers through which most of the internet routes their traffic. They control the certificate authorities that all of our web browsers intrinsically trust. And most of them are friends with each other...or at least keep it cordial.
And they're patient. They play a long game. Half of them aren't even middle-aged and are in peak physical health.
Shit even that sounded like a crazy conspiracy theory like 15 years ago, and while I'm being hyperbolic...I'm really not being that hyperbolic.
I always thought Winston's job, of literally rewriting history, would be an impossible task.
They already are getting rid of the history of slavery. Banning it from schools, museums, etc.
Exactly. It's not so much that they even have to rewrite history, just bury it good enough. Make the real stories difficult to find and suck the desire to learn out of kids so they grow up ignorant and easy to control.
Guaranteed there are tons of AI autobiographies being written by "slaves" who miss their mastuh and want to go back to the good life on the plantations, where everything was provided for them. As one example. And definitely tons more in the erotic category.
Not closely related, but back when I was first reading the book, the idea of computer generated songs sounded like "flying future car" delusions, and learning AI in the early 2000's even confirmed not the impossibility but the crazy limitations of all this.
I have just listened to a podcast last month that mentions how there are songs on Spotify made entirely by AI, and 97% of the people they asked couldn't tell apart regular songs from the AI generated ones.
On one hand, it's remarkable. On the other hand, we're cooked. What's even more depressing is that many-many, even more worrying things are getting pretty accurate in the book. Maybe not back in 1984, but we're witnessing the convergence.
Music makes sense though. There is a formula that gets followed to make 99% of the pop songs out there. Pop music is math, and computers are good at that.
Like, I can see AI replacing Ed Sheeran...but Thom Yorke? Completely different product.
Well, I didn't necessary mean the structure of a song (that doesn't have the complexity that would challenge an AI agent... in the early 2000's, even), but more like coming up with their own lyrics that even make sense, and producing human speech with rhythm and musical tones.
The gun discharged, unprovoked
They also murdered about 80 people when they kidnapped and trafficked them.
It's not a "war", it's a "special operation". Anyone who says it's a war is committing treason.
This was literally the header of the New York times on Sunday...
Since only Congress has the power to declare war, people who care about accurate language (especially journalists!) use other terms to describe troop deployments outside officially declared wars.
The US military has had names for nearly all of their operations since the mid-1960s, and these traditionally have been used by the press. Operation Power Pack in 1965 (invasion of the Dominican Republic) was the first one I found in my cursory search.
Major ones I remember from my life include Operation Desert Shield/Storm/Strike (1990s), Operation Enduring Freedom ("war on terror" in Afghanistan after 9/11), and Operation Iraqi Freedom ("war on terror" expands inexplicably to Iraq).
This type of framing is not new, and it's not a conspiracy. It's a bunch of language nerds making sure that they use accurate terminology.
Kidnapping is an emotionally loaded term which isn't used in journalism. Makes sense. Edit: nah I'm wrong. They'd use it for the actual crime of kidnapping.
I hate this shit. We need media to call a spoon a spoon.
Call lies, lies. "Misinformation", "inaccuracies" "incorrectly said..." Nah fuck that. Trump lied.
Spoon? Is that like a symmetrical, dull, parabolic knife?
Someone's never seen a grapefruit spoon
In truth, I haven't, but I'm sincerely looking forward to having the nuances of esoteric cutlery and their proscribed use in polite society explained to me, as if in a cotillion class, by someone with the username "prole."
Nah, they're just cool looking, sharp spoons
That makes sense. I hope my tone came across as more playful than accusatory.
they're not sharp, they're serrated
Your MOM's dull and parabolic, but not symmetrical!
Duh. Her boobs are not the same size.
Alright, Sunflower Eriksen, just calm your tits.
I'll have you know that my decreasingly ample bosom is in a state of complete relaxation 😁
No, that's a putty knife. Spoons are elliptical and concave.
Yeah unfortunately while law should mostly exist to protect the vulnerable from the powerful, instead many US laws such as libel exist mostly to allow the powerful to muzzle the vulnerable
Trump's a litigious piece of shit. If he can prove libel, he'll prove libel. BBC (and all news networks, really) need to tread lightly and keep him happy or they will get kneecapped with legal actions. Which, even if they win, and have every reason to win...it's still an expensive and time consuming process, and they still have to tread lightly.
Meanwhile, advertisers and shareholders get very nervous. Granted, this doesn't apply so much to BBC.
This is what civil justice has come down to. What's "right" is decided by who can pay lawyers long enough to prove it. Stab each other with plastic forks and see who leaks to death first.
BBC bans journalists from telling the truth?
It's so unprecedented!
/s
BBC is appeasing Trump. The UK is a lost cause. An Irrelevant ex-empire. Just like the US is going to be, once it finally implodes.
Can it please implode faster?
One part of me hopes so but if/when it does, I doubt something better will emerge - which is terrifying.
Kinda seems stupid to want it to implode then, no?
I want it to implode enough that the federal government can't keep hurting its citizens, but not so much that the citizens are worse off than when they were being repressed.
Still has the largest navy in Europe so not irrelevant. More relevant if anything with US withdrawal.
Too bad the UK fluffs the US so hard 🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️
We know all their secrets. Who do you think they get to spy on their citizens?
As they say, keep your friends close...
"Abducted" it is then.
Abducted, then
The BBC is no longer reputable
It stopped being reputable after the Iraq invasion in 2003. The Blair government stuffed it with loyalist apparatchiks to make sure the government line was never seriously questioned. This has been the case ever since.
September Dossier - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Dossier
The 45 minute claim lay at the centre of a dispute between Downing Street and the BBC. On 29 May 2003, BBC defence correspondent Andrew Gilligan filed a report for BBC Radio 4's Today programme in which he stated that an unnamed source – a senior British official – had told him that the September Dossier had been "sexed up", and that the intelligence agencies were concerned about some "dubious" information contained within it – specifically the claim that Saddam Hussein could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes of an order to use them.
Clearly, they should refer to it as "human trafficking" instead!
Question : I break into someones home and take them to my home (from their bed) and lock them up. What's that called?
It depends. What’s your net worth?
Depends on who's writing history.
honestly, if the police does it with a warrant in their own country it's certainly not called a kidnapping.
Hell, in the us right now they’re doing it without warrants
Police action.
¿how many countries have you or the homeowners been el/la presidente of?
So if it’s a president, it’s not kidnapping, but just a surprise trip?
sparkling vacation
Halfway down was a quote from the working-class-LARPer fascist, Stephen yaxley-lennon, that he's called for trump to invade the UK.
Unrelated, I'm pretty sure treason is the only thing we still have the death penalty for...
Thank you for using that dickheads proper name
He’s half Irish, of course, so he’d have to deport himself under a Trumpist regime.
Judas, Brutus, Quisling, Yaxley-lennon
Names of traitors to their own people throughout history
I'll allow it, as long as they call it a war crime.
so much for that alleged freedom of the press
Hardly surprising considering the BBC is a british establishment mouthpiece and said establishment is subordinate to the americans.
its basically the cnn VERSION OF THE uk.
BBC is propaganda for the Empire.
Perhaps "unfreed" could be used instead?
Adultnapped
Rehomed
Wouldn't it be "unhomed"? ;)
So BBC, while on the cusp of censorship for "defamation of Trump", still sees it necessary to watch his arse?
These bootlickers man
They all have the same owners. Mainstream media is a compromised asset. Don't go there for "news" they are all no better than fox these days.
Isn't BBC a British company? Why do they fear lawsuits in the USA?
That dickhead in the Oval Office and his cronies have buildings full of lawyers who'll then launch trucks full of SLAPP suits. Couple with their usual OANN attack dogs.
I have no idea what these acronyms mean but I agree with this guy
SLAPP are nuisance lawsuits without merit filed solely to bully the recipient into submission and OANN is One American News Network, a hive of fascist Trump loving propagandists pretending to be news.
Because capitalists control everything and they don’t give a shit about national borders.
i think disney bought BBC.
Probably a combination of the leadership being a bunch of paleoconservatives and fascists installed by the previous government so they want to protect their ideological ally Trump, and British libel laws being a backwards mess where the defendant has to prove the absence of malice to the satisfaction of some weirdo in a wig 🤷
Change "BBC" to "Global Media" and you are closer to the truth.
British Biased Corporation
Can they say they abducted him?
Well, kidnapping implies he will be used for ransom and returned. He was abducted.
More billionaire media control. It's everywhere I tell 'ya!
In what way is this not control? He has succeeded in changing the editorial position of the BBC.
Why didn't they take him to court over it? tRump has lost all the cases that companies actually took to court. The only ones who "lost" were the ones who capitulated, paid a settlement, fired the people trump didn't like, then changed their editorial positions to comply with the party line as dictated.
Why didn’t they take him to court over it?
Because they took two half sentences from different parts of a speech, put them together and made him say something he hadn't said. (if I remember correctly)
I thought BBC was supposed to be better than that...
Control through legal threats is still control. The BBC is afraid of getting sued again, which means Trump has some impactful control over them.
BBC Has Fallen is Gerard Butlers next movie
Maduro was kidnapped expropriated
I'm more a fan of "reverse ICEd"
"free speech"
they're probably worried about being blocked in more countries
BBC already got spooked for shilling for israel.
Censorship works.
Yes, words have meaning. Using the word "kidnapped" injects opinion and emotion into a story.
It's the job of media to report the facts, not to influence people's feelings on a story.
News organizations have people's whose job is to maintain journalistic standards to ensure it's facts that are reported, not emotional manipulation.
Emotional manipulation is the domain of social media, not something journalists are supposed to do. Don't worry, social media has algorithms that ensure you'll get constant emotional manipulation. News media doesn't need to be doing this if that's what you're looking for.
How do you feel about 'abducted'? I know that journalists use that term frequently when discussing domestic kidnappings, but it has a negative associations. When a pedophilac predator forces a victim to go with them, that appears to be acceptable language - would you say the term can apply to the President's actions?
I know right? The headlines should read something more like “Maduro vacationing in USA for extended holiday”
"US Strike team legally ventured to sovereign country to invite its leader on an all expenses luxury vacation while laying at least 80 known victims down for naps"
Because we have to speak softly, and avoid mentioning anything factually accurate, so the perpetually offended don't get their precious feefees hurt
Or maybe they could say Maduro was 'captured' or 'seized' as it was suggested they should do, which is factual.
Someone not conforming to your emotions doesn't mean they aren't being factual.
Someone not conforming to your emotions doesn't mean they aren't being factual.
So kidnapping it is.
I mean, it seems like a reasonable word to use ?
kidnapping noun The unlawful act of capturing and carrying away a person against their will and holding them in false imprisonment.
It’s the job of media to report the facts
The fact is, he was kidnapped.
Kidnapping is a form of extortion. The point is to give the victim back once demands are met. That is not what is happening here. This is not a kidnapping.
When I man snatches a child off the street with no intention of giving it back, everyone calls that kidnapping.
Okay but journalists are not "everyone". They don't say "not gonna lie" in the headlines and they don't use the name of a specific crime (ie "kidnapping") to refer to things that are not that specific crime.
You're absolutely right. It may seem like semantics to some, however it is an important distinction for journalists. Using colloquial language contributes to ambiguity when readers expect accuracy.
Nothing has been "banned" they just issued editorial guidelines on what term to use. As they (and all other media organizations) do with everything, it's just how journalism works.
Oh cool, I thought they weren't allowed to use the term "kidnapped".
Media tries to whitewash way too much. As another comment pointed out, "the gun discharged" instead of "police shot someone" is a common one.
Call a spade a spade.
That's definitely how it reads when the beeb says "don't use this word that the perpatrator is dropping like a box of hammers."
It comes despite US president Donald Trump explicitly saying that the word “kidnapping” could be used to describe the military operation. Asked about Venezuelan interim president Delcy Rodriguez saying Maduro had been "kidnapped", Trump said: “It’s alright. It’s not a bad term.”
Nothing has been "banned" they just issued editorial guidelines
Tomato, potato.
If you're not following the editorial guidelines, your editor is more likely to censor or outright reject your submitted work.
it's just how journalism works.
Yes, and that's a problem. The Conservative leadership of one of the most influential media organizations in the world "recommending" not to be accurate about the crime committed by their ideological ally is awful for journalism.
they didn't ban it, they just told everyone that they can't use it