I’m probably one of those people Donald Trump referred to recently as ‘Obama’s People’. I don’t work for Obama, am not any sort of henchman, don’t know him personally, don’t have anything to do with him except I broadly supported his term in office, and certainly don’t like anything about Trump.
I don’t know what the BBC was thinking when, referring to this comment by Trump, they proudly proclaimed in a headline “…Trump Blames Obama for Protests and Security Leaks“. In fact Trump was blaming ‘Obama’s People’, and probably not Obama himself or his henchmen. Is this a mistake? The BBC’s lack of understanding of Americanisms? Fake news?
In the context of the BBC recently being excluded from a presidential news conference, this almost looks like an attack on Trump. The idea of excluding the BBC or any major news organization in this way is unconscionable, but this headline makes the BBC look very clumsy, even like they are trying to fabricate news.
Over the last month or so, the BBC has launched an attack on fake news. This is not only on it’s headline news service, but for example visiting classrooms and talking with children about things like an old newspaper article proclaiming the arrival of UFOs. The BBC has not only themselves declared something of a war on fake news, they’ve taken it upon themselves to define what exactly fake news is. Their overriding message is trust major news outlets like the BBC, and trust peer reviewed scientific research. Be suspicious of everything else!
As a blogger, I really find all of this, and all of it’s inherent contradictions, completely unacceptable. For all intents and purposes, there are no independent scientists in the world any more. All peer reviewed scientific research has sponsorship, and someone is paying for a particular focus and specific outcomes. If a study doesn’t have a desired outcome, it can be discarded, modified or ignored.
For a few years now, the BBC accepts ’embedded advertising’. In plain and simple terms, this means the BBC accepts payment to write specific items, even what some of us might call ‘fake news’. These are stories no ad blocker can save you from, and usually there’s no disclaimer to warn you. Just like banner advertising, these fake news items are mixed in with real items, to make it as hard as possible for readers to tell the difference.
In many ways this has been a major aspect of this blog, not creating fake news, but rather spotting it in main stream press, and identifying it. One of the main sources of fake news is the food industry, and the BBC has always been one of my favorite places to look for it.
It’s always been a focus of mine, to avoid posting any information I thought was wrong or misleading. Bloggers are sometimes euphemistically referred to as pajama journalists, sometimes in a derogatory way, like we are unprofessional people you can’t trust. I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t have the resources or commitment professional journalists have. At the same time, I think, as a whole, you are less likely to find fake news on blogs than you are on major news sites. You need to of course make use of webs of trust, and pick and choose your blogs carefully.
An interesting thing has also been happening. Since I started blogging, the public has on it’s own become more aware of fake news. Almost so much so, there’s less reason for me to be so active.
So let’s consider a recent article on the BBC, Swedish mum’s battle against sugar goes viral. First, the reason this was supposedly viral was a few thousand likes on Facebook, not really viral in my opinion. Secondly, the core reason why this mother seemed to be against sugar, was in connection with her child’s behavior. The BBC was very quick to point out that no scientific and peer reviewed connection has been made between children’s behavior and sugar. The BBC then went on to make a number of claims themselves, some sort of vaguely citing research, and others making their own assertions.
I think for most people like me, ordinary sugar is a normal part of our diet. It is a minimally refined product, mostly coming pretty directly from sugar cane or sugar beet. It is a hunger suppressant, can help people eat less and avoid weight gain. It’s been around for a long time, longer in fact than many diseases like diabetes and obesity have been major health concerns.
On the other hand, many of us find reason to be suspicious of newer formulated sugars like those found in processed foods, or sugar substitutes like aspartame. Many of these have a different effect on hunger, some seemingly stimulate hunger and cause us to gain weight. The introduction of some of these on the market, notably aspartame and high fructose corn syrup, seem to coincide with the obesity and diabetes epidemics we have now. Many of us also do not feel scientific research on these products have been taken seriously, often being incomplete or ignored.
There also seem to be strong commercial issues behind this topic. Sugar has been around a long time now, and is no longer covered by patents. It’s not commercially interesting any more. The food industry would like to sell us more profitable alternatives.
Is there some reason the BBC is suddenly so concerned with our health? Could it be the BBC is generating their own news? Was the BBC paid to write articles like this? Is this fake news?
I think the BBC needs to get it’s act together, and address it’s own contradictions.
