> It does give information about "former Labour strategist.."
That's what I wrote? From my post: The earlier article has a brief mention of CCDH's Labour links, and none of the other information in my post.
> This event isn't about whatever broken system [..] As I would expect of any reporting, that it not go off on tangents that are unrelated to this event.
When a government complains about something, I would expect of any half-competent journalist to mention that they are guilty of the exact same thing. Just repeating statements of the parties involved is not journalism, but stenography. Naturally I disagree that it is "unrelated".
> They quote UK govt officials making their UK talking points the same as they printed the US govt officials talking points.
You don't notice propaganda when it's right in your face. The first three paragraphs of the BBC article:
The Center for Countering Digital Hate founder was among five people denied US visas - not "he claims he was denied"
after the Trump administration accused them of seeking to "coerce" tech platforms into censoring free speech. - but here it is a mere 'accusation', despite the CCDH's well-documented tactics [1] of deplatforming and going after the finances of media they dislike.
The move brought a backlash from European leaders defending the work of organisations monitoring online content. - they mention the monitoring, but not the deplatforming campaigns. Again, not a he-said she-said, but in the journalistic voice of stating facts.
> As for the "goal" or "tactics" that you found on some substack
The tactics are directly from the wikipedia page for the CCDH, as cited in my post.
> It has no relevance to real-world reporting, it doesn't meet journalistic standards to take every random one-sided internet theory as fact -- nor are they obligated to investigate and verify every substack posting on the internet.
It's not a "theory" but documents leaked by a whistleblower. Maybe it's false, but it's not random, but by Matt Taibbi [2]. Please don't ignore half my post, and misrepresent the other half.
I find it sad that you think stenography is journalism, but investigating or providing context is irrelevant and sub-standard.
[2] In 2021, Ross Barkan of New York wrote, "Taibbi is—or was, depending on your view—one of the most celebrated investigative journalists of his generation." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Taibbi#Assessments
It appears we are talking about two different things.
I am discussing this article as news reporting, which it is, and it meets the journalistic standard for such. You are wanting an investigative report or exposé on a follow-up news event that happened this week. They are simply not the same and I would question anyones ability to publish a reliable investigative feature in that time.
> I would question anyones ability to publish a reliable investigative feature in that time.
The BBC are not naive babes born yesterday. All of the context I gave is more than a year old. They would not create a new investigative feature, but simply reference old ones, by themselves or media they trust. The equivalent of writing "North Korea borders South Korea, and they share a history of hostilities." in an article about Kim's latest missile test.
That's what I wrote? From my post: The earlier article has a brief mention of CCDH's Labour links, and none of the other information in my post.
> This event isn't about whatever broken system [..] As I would expect of any reporting, that it not go off on tangents that are unrelated to this event.
When a government complains about something, I would expect of any half-competent journalist to mention that they are guilty of the exact same thing. Just repeating statements of the parties involved is not journalism, but stenography. Naturally I disagree that it is "unrelated".
> They quote UK govt officials making their UK talking points the same as they printed the US govt officials talking points.
You don't notice propaganda when it's right in your face. The first three paragraphs of the BBC article:
The Center for Countering Digital Hate founder was among five people denied US visas - not "he claims he was denied"
after the Trump administration accused them of seeking to "coerce" tech platforms into censoring free speech. - but here it is a mere 'accusation', despite the CCDH's well-documented tactics [1] of deplatforming and going after the finances of media they dislike.
The move brought a backlash from European leaders defending the work of organisations monitoring online content. - they mention the monitoring, but not the deplatforming campaigns. Again, not a he-said she-said, but in the journalistic voice of stating facts.
> As for the "goal" or "tactics" that you found on some substack
The tactics are directly from the wikipedia page for the CCDH, as cited in my post.
> It has no relevance to real-world reporting, it doesn't meet journalistic standards to take every random one-sided internet theory as fact -- nor are they obligated to investigate and verify every substack posting on the internet.
It's not a "theory" but documents leaked by a whistleblower. Maybe it's false, but it's not random, but by Matt Taibbi [2]. Please don't ignore half my post, and misrepresent the other half.
I find it sad that you think stenography is journalism, but investigating or providing context is irrelevant and sub-standard.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Countering_Digital_...
[2] In 2021, Ross Barkan of New York wrote, "Taibbi is—or was, depending on your view—one of the most celebrated investigative journalists of his generation." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Taibbi#Assessments