[ SECRET POST #5512 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5512 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.



__________________________________________________



09.



__________________________________________________



10.
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 42 secrets from Secret Submission Post #789.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT It's needed because it's impartial. Most MSM isn't, it's owned by billionaires who are also Tory party donors. The BBC isn't a fundamental human right but it is one of the last bastions of an independent press in the UK, and an independent press is a key cornerstone of democracy. And as far as I'm concerned, democracy is near enough a basic human right. So yes, the BBC is needed.

[(Anonymous)]

The BBC as a whole isn’t impartial, no matter what the people who run the whole thing claim. They’re responsible for that recent ridiculously transphobic article, that used Lily Cade as an interviewee, and only struck her part out when she later made a genocidal manifesto. They never thought to rethink interviewing her before that, despite her well known transphobic views, and admitted history of sexuall assault against women. The very thing that vile article claims trans women are uniformly prone to, while not applying that inhumane generalization to any other group.

Is it fair to judge the entirety of the BBC for this one article? Perhaps not. But that article alone is a huge mark against the credibility of the BBC, and their claims of impartiality. It also calls into question the ethics of being so “impartial” that every voice is considered deserving of a platform. No matter how hateful and dangerous that voice is, and how bad the consequences are for the people who are already treated oppressively by the hateful people given a platform. The climate is already so bad for trans people, and LGBTQ+ people in the Western world still, that the BBC’s actions in this instance are irresponsible and indefensible.

[(Anonymous)]

SA

And also, the BBC’s cut funding doesn’t automatically indicate censorship or silencing of the press. So it’s a bit extreme and unwarranted to use the BBC as a symbol of democracy as a whole. I agree that democracy is a basic human right, but it’s such a leap to go from “BBC’s funding is being cut, for possibly political reasons” to “BBC is an independent press >> Independent press is a cornerstone of democracy >> BBC represents democracy, and it’s cut funding is maybe a political attempt to silence the press!”. Admittedly, you didn’t say or really imply that last part(although I feel like the original anon I replied who said the secret was “too political” did) to did, but it seems like where this line of thinking might eventually go, as much of a reach as it is.