So BBC, while on the cusp of censorship for "defamation of Trump", still sees it necessary to watch his arse?
These bootlickers man
this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2026
807 points (98.8% liked)
World News
51936 readers
3174 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
- Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
Well, kidnapping implies he will be used for ransom and returned. He was abducted.
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?
Your intent to use word to deliberately invoke emotion is exactly what news media should avoid. Note they are also not using the word "arrest" which would give legitimacy to the action.
Why do you think it's important to push an emotion? Are you trying to use emotion to influence people into thinking how you think?
It's fine for people on social media to express their feelings. But news media is supposed to be as factual as possible and should avoid using words to put an emotional spin on a story. Demanding news media to do so is demanding news media to be more propagandist than factual, and that makes it indistinguishable from other propaganda. I don't think the problems we're having is due to there not being enough propaganda. We need there to be some people reporting the facts.
Don't tell me what my intent is. My intent was to point out that using charged language for some people and selecting more neutral language when the influential do parallel acton is itself a bias toward the rich and powerful. I was using the socratic method to highlight the hitch in your reasoning. I was being fairly neutral in that my focus was to inform you that your reasoning had a gaping hole in it.
Now I shall use somewhat more emotional language because I'm now more actively attempting to persuade
"Reserve judgement and let the system work" is only a valid stance if there's reason to believe the system will work. After multiple impeachments and numerous more lawsuits (and we're barely touching on this sleasebag's career before they got into office; a lifetime of profiting on misery and broken promises, getting away with it solely by being rich as fuck and cultivating a persona of playing dumb in court while hiring the most ruthless lawyers in the industry to whitewash his crimes in a legal…) That got away from me - my point is I don't know why we're giving a convicted rapist and suspected pedophile the benefit of the doubt.
Much more to the heart of the matter is Project 2025 by the Heritage Foundation. Within it's pages, it spells out a plan to functionally blitz the landscape with so many regressive policies enacted at once that they effectively cover for each other. With that frame in mind it's entirely unsurprising that the Epstein files issue, the planned military extraction of Maduro, and the ICE shooting in Minneapolis all share airspace within the same week. The media position of 'wait to see what plays out before using judgemental language' is being deliberately exploited as a stalling tactic.
So let me offer an olive branch: If it were anybody but Trump and his cadre of enablers, I normally am all for the media acting with reserve before throwing their influence around before the facts are in, but that norm is being weaponized against us. So, do you believe that the violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and coup of their leadership is justified? Please note - I did not call it a kidnapping or abduction and all parties agree that the President's stated intent is to directly influence Venezuelan policy. Do you believe the President should be conducting similar operations in Columbia and Cuba as stated and Greenland as leaked? And when does it become appropriate for journalism to push back against government overreach?
Don’t tell me what my intent is.
Words carry meaning. Which is why news media is careful of the words they use because some words to avoid showing intent they don't actually have. If someone interprets your intent based on the words you choose, when they get your intent wrong, it may be because you aren't choosing the best words to convey your intent.
So, do you believe that the violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and coup of their leadership is justified?
Maduro was not elected as leader and basically stole his position from the rightful leader of the country according to democratic norms. He's not a legitimate leader so I really don't car about him in terms of any legal terms since his hold on power was dependent on his ability to exert violence on the people of Venezuela. The issue isn't Maduro, it's the ~80 people that US forces killed on their way in to get him. Had it been a bloodless operation, there would then be potential violence caused by the instability created potentially leading to a civil war in the country.
Now I get to ask you a question. If the US conducted similar operations in Israel and/or Russia to arrest Netanyahu and/or Putin, would you consider that a kidnapping? Are we only in disagreement over which world leaders should be arrested or which political body is allowed to call for world leaders to be arrested?
So, do you believe that the violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and coup of their leadership is justified?
The nature by which Maduro has and maintains power does not make him a legitimate leader. Putin is a leader in power by similar means. Netanyahu on the other hand is democratically elected. So do you believe that a violation of Israeli sovereignty and a coup on their leadership is justified? Should the media be reporting that the ICJ wants to "kidnap" Netanyahu?
Personally I think Netanyahu is a bad dude, but arresting a sitting leader of a country is attempting to exert political force, not seeking justice. Same goes for Maduro. But Netanyahu is elected (in a proportional representation system, which sucks but it is a democracy) so has legitimacy as leader of a country while Maduro doesn't have that legitimacy. If the ICJ waited until after he was no longer in power that would be seeking justice, but doing so while a leader is in power is a geopolitical thing, not a justice thing. But Even if there was a world where some country arrested Netanyahu, I still wouldn't be demanding the news media term it a "kidnapping" because that's stupid.
Do you believe the President should be conducting similar operations in Columbia and Cuba as stated and Greenland as leaked?
These operations would be even more stupid than the operation in Venezuela. If they were done on democratic countries, it would be a violation of the will of the people and that would be a true violation of sovereignty. In Canada and Greenland there are free and fair elections. For Cuba, while there are elections, it's a one party system so the elections aren't exactly free and fair. So Cuba's government's legitimacy is in a grey area. For Canada and Geenland it would be attacking allied countries, a massive betrayal and it in time it would result in the end of the USA.
To me, crying crocodile tears over Maduro accomplished nothing other than making people seem like they like Maduro. Like it's not oppressive governments that are the problem it's just personal preference over which particular leader of oppressive governments you like or don't like. Maybe it's not your intention, but at this point you're upset over the media not crying enough crocodile tears over one leader of an oppressive government because maybe you feel like that will make Trump look bad somehow? The reality is that it would be the media pushing propaganda which isn't their job (and obviously doesn't line up with the reality that Maduro was a bad dude) which really only helps Trump's narrative that you shouldn't trust the "fake news" media. A narrative that you're helping push only from a different angle.
It's all a big grey area here. But it seems you want to demand other people to use certain words to make it feel like something is illegal. What do you think that will accomplish? Even if you successfully make out Trump's actions to be illegal, you've already made the case it would be a violation of sovereignty and kidnapping for anyone to do anything about it. And that's only if it were feasible to do anything about it, which it isn't.
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.
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.
It’s the job of media to report the facts
The fact is, he was kidnapped.
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.
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
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.
This was literally the header of the New York times on Sunday...
BBC bans journalists from telling the truth?
It's so unprecedented!
/s
~~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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
load more comments
(8 replies)
"Abducted" it is then.
Abducted, then
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?
load more comments
(7 replies)
Clearly, they should refer to it as "human trafficking" instead!
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...
load more comments
(3 replies)
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
BBC is propaganda for the Empire.
view more: next ›