Tate Brothers - Round 2

Ayahuasca said:
I made it clear in my post that I didn't have a problem with it personally.

I just find it odd that in another thread you wanted anonymity for those who have even been found guilty, yet you're quite happy to use media articles about people who have not yet been tried and draw conclusions about them. Do Tate's friends and family not matter?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here and challenging your position on anonymity, I personally don't think it should be granted to him.
Click to expand...

I will leave the thread then. Good day.
 
I don’t doubt that the BBC interview with Tate was deliberately challenging (in the way that interviews of controversial figures often are), but I think the recent criticisms set out against the BBC in this thread both in respect of (i) translations and (ii) one-sided reporting (‘no publication of defence’), are somewhat unwarranted and (if I’m honest) feel a bit silly, IMO.

The BBC is being fully transparent that content may have been translated more than once, but if the comments weren’t actually something that sounded bad, they wouldn’t be making the prosecution’s evidence. As they are in the prosecution’s evidence, then it’s pretty safe to assume that the comments were alluding to unlawful activity. Otherwise why would the prosecution be relying on these comments :confused:

As for “why isn’t the bbc publishing the defence” - the defence is always ‘I didn’t do it / I deny this’. All reporting from all sources in respect of ongoing investigations / trials is based on allegations and always has been.

It’s good to be aware of the possibility of biases etc. but yeah taking the recent article and saying it has an ‘Anti-Tate’ focus, or saying it’s bad journalism for those reasons, is a bit much IMO.

That’s not to say that the interview couldn’t have been better.
 
Last edited:
Nitefly said:
I don’t doubt that the BBC interview with Tate was deliberately challenging (in the way that interviews of controversial figures often are), but I think the recent criticisms set out against the BBC in this thread both in respect of (i) translations and (ii) one-sided reporting (‘no publication of defence’), are somewhat unwarranted and (if I’m honest) feel a bit silly, IMO.

The BBC is being fully transparent that content may have been translated more than once, but if the comments weren’t actually something that sounded bad, they wouldn’t be making the prosecution’s evidence. As they are in the prosecution’s evidence, then it’s pretty safe to assume that the comments were alluding to unlawful activity. Otherwise why would the prosecution be relying on these comments :confused:

As for “why isn’t the bbc publishing the defence” - the defence is always ‘I didn’t do it / I deny this’. All reporting from all sources in respect of ongoing investigations / trials is based on allegations and always has been.

It’s good to be aware of the possibility of biases etc. but yeah taking the recent article and saying it has an ‘Anti-Tate’ focus, or saying it’s bad journalism for those reasons, is a bit much IMO.

That’s not to say that the interview couldn’t have been better.
Click to expand...
I always remember an argument with an American on one of the gaming boards, the American was convinced after watching a few clips of episodes of Hard Talk that the BBC was really heavily biased against Israel and the US, he could not grasp the idea that an interview with a politician could be "hard" and not just involve quietly accepting whatever the standard party line was. Nor could he understand that the same interviewer could be just as tough the other way the next week with someone who supported Palestine, or was against the war in Iraq.
 
Last edited:
Nitefly said:
I don’t doubt that the BBC interview with Tate was deliberately challenging (in the way that interviews of controversial figures often are), but I think the recent criticisms set out against the BBC in this thread both in respect of (i) translations and (ii) one-sided reporting (‘no publication of defence’), are somewhat unwarranted and (if I’m honest) feel a bit silly, IMO.

The BBC is being fully transparent that content may have been translated more than once, but if the comments weren’t actually something that sounded bad, they wouldn’t be making the prosecution’s evidence. As they are in the prosecution’s evidence, then it’s pretty safe to assume that the comments were alluding to unlawful activity. Otherwise why would the prosecution be relying on these comments :confused:

As for “why isn’t the bbc publishing the defence” - the defence is always ‘I didn’t do it / I deny this’. All reporting from all sources in respect of ongoing investigations / trials is based on allegations and always has been.

It’s good to be aware of the possibility of biases etc. but yeah taking the recent article and saying it has an ‘Anti-Tate’ focus, or saying it’s bad journalism for those reasons, is a bit much IMO.

That’s not to say that the interview couldn’t have been better.
Click to expand...

I think a big chunk of what you have done is to call out the cope that some are having to present basically.
 
Werewolf said:
I always remember an argument with an American on one of the gaming boards, the American was convinced after watching a few clips of episodes of Hard Talk that the BBC was really heavily biased against Israel and the US, he could not grasp the idea that an interview with a politician could be "hard" and not just involve quietly accepting whatever the standard party line was. Nor could he understand that the same interviewer could be just as tough the other way the next week with someone who supported Palestine, or was against the war in Iraq.
Click to expand...

I find that to be the general mentally. Considering political issues from multiple points view or outside what has become the general consensus of a party is a no no. To be X you have to believe in Y and Z too.
 
Nitefly said:
I don’t doubt that the BBC interview with Tate was deliberately challenging (in the way that interviews of controversial figures often are), but I think the recent criticisms set out against the BBC in this thread both in respect of (i) translations and (ii) one-sided reporting (‘no publication of defence’), are somewhat unwarranted and (if I’m honest) feel a bit silly, IMO.

The BBC is being fully transparent that content may have been translated more than once, but if the comments weren’t actually something that sounded bad, they wouldn’t be making the prosecution’s evidence. As they are in the prosecution’s evidence, then it’s pretty safe to assume that the comments were alluding to unlawful activity. Otherwise why would the prosecution be relying on these comments :confused:

As for “why isn’t the bbc publishing the defence” - the defence is always ‘I didn’t do it / I deny this’. All reporting from all sources in respect of ongoing investigations / trials is based on allegations and always has been.

It’s good to be aware of the possibility of biases etc. but yeah taking the recent article and saying it has an ‘Anti-Tate’ focus, or saying it’s bad journalism for those reasons, is a bit much IMO.

That’s not to say that the interview couldn’t have been better.
Click to expand...

Spot on.
 
Dialup said:
@Nitefly not really sure what you expected from gd though to be fair. It's full of absolute nutcases and fruit-cakes taking weird sides, always has been and probably always will.
Click to expand...

WTF :cry:
Dialup said:
Takes one to know one. Let’s hope you’re never allowed to leave home again
Click to expand...

Dialup said:
Oh another stalker. You should be on house arrest and all
Click to expand...

Dialup said:
You would know best. You should be on house arrest.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom