Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Terry Raby's avatar

I am dumbfounded by the Sumption reply.

Here's the right answer: "I'm not aware that there is any dissension about very significant differences in intelligence and criminality by ethnicity, certainly in the USA. That is irrelevant in judging any particular case. I am not competent to comment on causation being neither a sociologist nor a biologist ."

There seems to be a confusion beween rationality and racism. Jesse Jackson once reported that walking down the street, he turned and was relieved to see a white person behind.

Expand full comment
Graham Cunningham's avatar

To set up a debate as to the possiblity of any news media organisation being 'impartial' is itself a huge piece of manipulative mendacity. Of course it can't....it's an open-and-shut case. Why? For various reasons but principally EDITORIAL SELECTION......choosing which bits of 'news' matter and which don't....which murders matter and which don't (to take just one example). Choosing which people to interview and which to ignore etc etc etc.

For the BBC - of all media organisations - to presume to do this is especially hard to take. To ask whether an organisation comprising an overwhelmingly left wing 25+K workforce plus tens more thousands of news and drama satellites can possibly be impartial is a gross insult to the intelligence.

The BBC has never in its entire history had a 'mission to be impartial'.....only a mission to pretend to be (including to itself). The BBC's 'impartiality' grift has caused more information-manipulation and tendentiousness in British society than all the politicians and political party politics put together.

So Please, Please let's not pussy-foot around the patently absurd idea of 'news' 'impartiality'. And then there's the DRAMA output of mass media.....but this comment has gone on long enough so my thoughts on that are here: https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/non-binary-sibling-is-entertaining

Expand full comment
4 more comments...

No posts