To ask how you know what to believe

[Annabella92]

Aibu to really be unsure what is believable

There is quite a chasm between what is being said on X about the German Christmas Market attack and what the BBC are saying. I've already seen enough examples of the BBC trying to persuade me of things I know with my very own eyes are not true. So I don't trust them. But I don't trust everything I read on X either. How do you triangulate

It seems his social media posts have a lot of conflicting information

It's a very strange case and it's possible we will never know his motivation. I am not making any assumptions.

Go to a german news sight and translate it.

🤣🤣🤣
They used to

Be sceptical of all sources. X has a number on contributors, some of whom are lunatic and have all the authority of a "bloke down the club said". Regretably, the BBC is no longer an impartial, unbiased source of information and whilst they get a lot right it js filtered through a prism of beliefs. Hence them blaming Israel for an attack on a Palestinian hospital killing 100s, when it was a Hamas rocket which killed less than a 20.

If they'll lie about something so blatantly false, they'll lie about anything.

Like when the BBC said the Southport attacks were not being treated as terror related (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy68z9dw9e7o) when they would have known at that stage that it was. If it was about journalistic standards they wouldn't have said anything but it was deliberately sown misinformation by state media to quell inevitable social unrest

Read the BBC, The Guardian and The Daily Mail and the truth will be in the middle of the 3.

Here is a detailed report from the Financial Times if you want a different source.

https://www.ft.com/content/5e2f3cd2-0a8f-4ac8-9afa-ca3d892d55f7

It seems thar way - rather than the truth. That is why people look to other sources. Main stream media try to minimise what they don't want to report on.

It would be a good thing if the majority of readers were discerning, but sadly they're not. Far too many lack that critical discernment and are happy to jump on any of the latest conspiracy theory bandwagons, so long as they don't have to think too hard about anything.

The BBC has been careful with its language and say that Hamas is designated a terrorist organisation by a number of countries including the UK. That is because the site is read worldwide.

In what way?

I certainly wouldn’t believe X or the BBC.

However if I somehow only had the two to choose from I would assume almost everything on X was wildly inflated, and that the BBC was 70% based in fact but reported through a lens of bias. At least with the latter it allows you to sort of squint at the truth.

Best to go to a variety of more reputable news sources and find the middle ground.

It is a real shame about the BBC. I used to trust them, but have made complaints about enough inaccurate reporting in the last couple of years to have lost faith.

The current UK definition is set out in the Terrorism Act 2000 (TACT 2000). In summary this defines terrorism as ‘The use or threat of serious violence against a person or serious damage to property where that action is:

• designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public; and
• for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.’

(From UK government website)

Unless the perpetrator declares that their intention is to advance a particular doctrine or ideology then it can't be assumed to be terrorism as opposed to, for example, the actions of a single person with serious mental illness. You can't assume that because the murderer is of a certain racial or religious heritage that you know what their motives are.

The pilot (Austrian?) who flew a plane into a mountain wasn't a terrorist. The man who murdered three people in Nottingham wasn't a terrorist. It doesn't make very much difference to the victims.

What things has the BBC tried to persuade you of that you know aren't true?

And this piece of information was first revealed on...X

You really used the r word and think you are an enlightened person, huh?

That is not true. They reported Blake was a woman. Here they are admitting it:

https://pressgazette.co.uk/the-wire/newspaper-corrections-media-mistakes-errors-legal/bbc-trans-pronouns-scarlet-blake/

And this has not an isolated instance either.

Who said I thought I was enlightened? Grabbing the pearls about the "r word" is silly unless you never say "stupid", "crazy", "moron", "dumb" or any such.

It really isn't .

Moron isn't a good word to use either. Not covering yourself in glory here

@GoldsolesLugs

one of those things is a comic read by retarded clapping seals and the other two are news organisations.

You are giving a masterclass in tribal bias yourself.

The BBC (for its many strengths) lurches from one scandal to the next. The Guardian (still my main paper) has had a string of resignations of longtime staff complaining of racist and ideological bullying. The Mail I don’t read much, but the last big thing I remember was their long-running and tenaciously reported campaign to bring Stephen Lawrence’s killers to justice.

Cross reference a few reputable (free) news sources -

Reuters - https://www.reuters.com/
The Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/uk
LBC - https://www.lbc.co.uk/
Washington Post - https://www.washingtonpost.com/
Irish Times - https://www.irishtimes.com/

See what they are all reporting in common; that's likely to be the truth, rather than speculation (for example, the Times was reporting 11 dead late last night. Untrue).

Sky, France 24 (in English) and CNN are relatively good in terms of straight factual reporting.