‘Most people in the country have obediently had the jabs when offered’ weird language to be using
> The government pursued its lockdown strategy with a campaign specifically designed to frighten the public.
Yet, for some reason, it’s the BBC that this windbag is complaining about. The government, and the peddlers of anti-vaxx misinformation, get no criticism from the Spectator here or elsewhere.
Balance doesn’t mean giving equal time to every opinion. Crackpot anti-vaxxers – even potentially sincere victims of deceit – are still crackpots, and they should be treated like flat-Earthers, because the two positions both rely on similar types of scientific ignorance.
Take the story of Michael, presented as some kind of victim of BBC News, despite being on a call-in show on Five Live. Was he some innocent but misguided person with genuine concerns, who should have had his delusions pandered to? Or was he someone who called in a national radio show to spread misinformation (albeit possibly not knowing it was) and got a robust, and entirely appropriate, response? Yeah, it’s the second.
This ticks a lot of Spectator boxes. It’s a rant about the BBC, based on half-truths and insinuation. It’s an anti-lockdown campaign piece, complete with pretence that decisions we make today are permanent. It even claims to speak for “most people”, despite “most people” currently being in favour of a lockdown to help us deal with omicron.
BBC are currently under section something or other of some old wartime emergency law requiring them to parrot propaganda.
4 comments
[Non-paywall](https://archive.md/MINkh) version
An interesting perspective
Downvoted by children
‘Most people in the country have obediently had the jabs when offered’ weird language to be using
> The government pursued its lockdown strategy with a campaign specifically designed to frighten the public.
Yet, for some reason, it’s the BBC that this windbag is complaining about. The government, and the peddlers of anti-vaxx misinformation, get no criticism from the Spectator here or elsewhere.
Balance doesn’t mean giving equal time to every opinion. Crackpot anti-vaxxers – even potentially sincere victims of deceit – are still crackpots, and they should be treated like flat-Earthers, because the two positions both rely on similar types of scientific ignorance.
Take the story of Michael, presented as some kind of victim of BBC News, despite being on a call-in show on Five Live. Was he some innocent but misguided person with genuine concerns, who should have had his delusions pandered to? Or was he someone who called in a national radio show to spread misinformation (albeit possibly not knowing it was) and got a robust, and entirely appropriate, response? Yeah, it’s the second.
This ticks a lot of Spectator boxes. It’s a rant about the BBC, based on half-truths and insinuation. It’s an anti-lockdown campaign piece, complete with pretence that decisions we make today are permanent. It even claims to speak for “most people”, despite “most people” currently being in favour of a lockdown to help us deal with omicron.
BBC are currently under section something or other of some old wartime emergency law requiring them to parrot propaganda.