← Back to context

Comment by mattmanser

1 day ago

The BBC will have multiple people with differing view points on however.

So while you're factually correct, you lie by omission.

Their attempts at presently a balanced view is almost to the point of absurdity these days as they were accused so often, and usually quite falsely, of bias.

I said BBC because as the other poster added, this was a BBC reporter rather than Carlson

Chomsky's entire argument is, that the reporter opinions are meaningless as he is part of some imaginary establishment and therefore he had to think that way.

That game goes both ways, Chomsky's opinions are only being given TV time as they are unusual.

I would venture more and say the only reason Chomsky holds these opinions is because of the academics preference for original thought rather than mainstream thought. As any repeat of an existing theory is worthless.

The problem is that in the social sciences that are not grounded in experiments, too much ungrounded original thought leads to academic conspiracy theories

How often does the BBC have a communist on? Almost never?

>>The BBC will have multiple people with differing view points on however.

Not for climate change, as that debate is "settled". Where they do need to pretend to show balance they will pick the most reasonable talking head for their preferred position, and the most unhinged or extreme for the contra-position.

>> they were accused so often, and usually quite falsely, of bias.

Yes, really hard to determine the BBC house position on Brexit, mass immigration, the Iraq War, Israel/Palestine, Trump etc