Dear media outlets, in the future I’ll only be doing live interviews.

Don’t entirely enjoy having four of my sentences truncated into one. Great editing artistry, no doubt, but I’d rather either have what I’ve said reported in its entirely or not reported at all.

@aral What happened? Is this around the BBC World interview you did about the app?

@aral BBC news and anything political on BBC is essentially just a mouthpiece for the British state. It's not a surprise to me that they edited out your criticism of the state's new pet PR project to deflect from the fact we have the highest death toll in Europe due to their incompetence.

@kawaiipunk @aral This doesn't seem true, Aral's broadcasted interview contained his questioning of GCHQ's rejection of partially-decentralized contact tracing apps in favor of a centralized one, and his further point that testing should be prioritized over any contact tracing app.

So either the BBC is doing a bad job at being the British state mouthpiece, or most likely they aren't and just take some editorial decisions that could be adjacent to some British state perceived motives.

@hypolite @aral I haven't listened to the interview yet.

Am mostly basing this on what I have learned from this book

I mean they used to have Mi5 vet and approve every applicant to important positions until the 1990s.

@kawaiipunk @aral Interesting, thanks for the sources. The French public radio occasionally suffers from the same kind of bias, mostly by having anchors overly enthusiastic around members of the government and not asking critical questions or questioning guests' answers on air.

If you include rich people in "British state", then I believe it just is true for every single public broadcasting service, not just in the UK or in France through scheming. Because of their privileged media platform and access, they de facto belong to the nation's elite and will be less likely to question the establishment.

@hypolite @aral obviously it's a complicated picture. Maybe my anaylsis came across too simplistic in my original reply.

It is a sad fact that many of these institutions are lacing in the journalistic integrity on a systemic basis.

@kawaiipunk @aral It was a little simplistic but mostly certain terms needed to be expanded for me to adhere to it, thank you for taking the time to elaborate.

Journalism is indeed threading a fine line between depending on public subsidies and exposing corruption. No news outlet can be truly impartial, if only because the editor-in-chief is a human with their own bias and personal idea about what their publication should look like. Nor independent because making news is expensive and either public or private funding will naturally steer the publication tone towards securing funding sources. I believe this is true across the board from the least reputable outlets to the most prestigious ones, because journalists need income more than integrity, and the latter doesn't directly pay.

@hypolite @aral I think you're right. There are multiple complex problems here.

@kawaiipunk @hypolite @aral The BBC is state media in the UK. It's world service was always primarily about propaganda. So now I expect them to be getting into "install the app" mode. They probably have shows lined up, with celebrity endorsements. Install the app, they'll say, and save lives.

In ancient times the media was thought to be a "fourth estate", speaking "truth to power". [In Adam Curtis voice] But in reality it was only ever just a vehicle for presenting and justifying the official positions set out by politicians, monarchs and the public relations departments of the world's largest corporations.

@aral This is one of the reasons professional PR types are so relentlessly on message. And why less is more. If all you give is your one sound bite, that's all they can use (or not).

@loweel That’s another possibility. Yes. But these things take a good chuck on time as is. I’ve got code to write ;)

@aral always disappointing how they cut it to make you look daft, i figure because they figure anything even slightly nuanced or complicated would go over their audiences' heads... or, worse, wreck the narrative of what they'd already written long before they heard a word you said

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Aral’s Mastodon

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!