Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

matrixislife t1_ix5u7z0 wrote

Reply to comment by taversham in BBC ignores World Cup opening ceremony in favour of Qatar criticism by AcknowledgeableReal

>The BBC declined to explain why it had shunted coverage of the opening ceremony – traditionally an opportunity for host countries to project soft power around the world – to an online-only stream.

>Even the former footballers brought in to analyse the actual sport for the BBC broke down any pretence that politics should be kept out of football.

>Back on the BBC, there was no such niceties,

>And then, after half an hour, the programme rapidly shifted towards discussion of football –......– and, eventually, 22 people kicking a ball around a pitch.

And it continues. This is not the Guardian getting firmly behind the Beeb. I was expecting them to be fully in lockstep, but apparently not.

−34

taversham t1_ix5wa87 wrote

I think perhaps you're misinterpreting the tone of the article, saying the BBC had "no such niceties" in comparison to Al Jazeera's coverage is a a criticism of the latter not the former.

They go over every point that BBC brought up so that their readers will know about it, and only briefly touch on any "counterpoints" (which they dismiss as mere "niceties") - compare it to their article about the Fox coverage, which briefly summarises that the Fox coverage of Qatar was positive and then goes into detail about the criticisms thereof.

21

matrixislife t1_ix5wvzg wrote

I'm fine with the tone, if it were being positive about the BBC then they would have chosen a positive way to phrase it, "Back on the beeb, they were focussing on the important things instead" or somesuch, not "they were being gits"

−29

nykgg t1_ix81dr6 wrote

Dude, you are really misreading the tone here. Every quote you list is supportive of the BBC actions.

The Guardian disapproves of Qatar getting to project soft power through this event.

The Guardian doesn’t like the idea that ‘politics should be kept out of football’.

The Guardian does not have any interest in presenting this event with niceties either.

This is all relatively in-line with the Guardian’s own mission.

Maybe in a tabloid paper like the Sun they’d be using super positive approving language, but in a paper like the Guardian, Independent or Times they try to keep a more detached tone, even if their own politics are being highlighted.

IT WOZ THE SUN WOT SPORTS-WASHED IT!

4

matrixislife t1_ix82idh wrote

I disagree. And let's not try to put the Grauniad too far ahead of other papers, they have their own issues.

0

nykgg t1_ix82z1l wrote

That’s why I distinguished it into the same group as other non-tabloid papers…

3

matrixislife t1_ix83e90 wrote

That's what I meant. Some of the stuff they publish under "opinion" pieces is much worse than the redtops.

1

nykgg t1_ix87d4t wrote

Perhaps, but you must agree they are on average far less brash with their language choice than those papers

2

matrixislife t1_ix8ec6t wrote

Language choice takes second place when it comes to subject choice and manifestation of inherent biases. They are all papers that promote an ideology, they are the same imo.

1

nykgg t1_ix8vvyx wrote

Okay, but you think that the Guardian is against the BBCs choice to present Qatar critically even though it’s clearly the opposite? So where does that leave your assessment of their use of language?

2

matrixislife t1_ix97k0u wrote

>it’s clearly the opposite

In your opinion. My assessment of their use of language is fine, in my opinion.

1